What's your alignment? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Devils_Advocate

2010-09-04, 09:36 PM

False Neutral.

To those who identify as "Good": What do you do that's so helpful to strangers? Do you perceive yourself as indirectly exploiting and endangering many sentient beings simply by functioning as a worker or consumer in a modern first-world nation, and if so, what do you do in order to mitigate this?

To those who identify as "Evil": What do you do, or try to do, or want to do, that's so bad for others? Are you really markedly more exploitative than cooperative, rather than merely selfish?

To those who identify as "Chaotic": How many more rules do you follow than you personally agree with? If the answer is greater than zero, what are you doing to attempt to change this situation?

To those who identify as "Lawful": When was the last time that you lied? How frequently do you do things that you wouldn't want others to find out about?

Inquiring minds want to know.

To borrow from Frank Trollman (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=23521#23521),

I'm sorry, but you are not a Good person. You go through your life, you don't stab anyone in the face, you don't break any laws, you don't take pictures of naked children, and… so what? You want a medal for that? Shut up.

The sad fact of the matter is that if you aren't exerting yourself for a cause, if you aren't exerting yourself for something, you aren't Good. You probably aren't Evil, but seriously: get over yourself. Before you can really get into the mind of a Good character you honestly have to come to terms with the fact that you, as a person, are probably Neutral. Your character is a much better person than you are.

The reverse is also true for villains, and should come as no surprise to people who play Evil characters, since most people don't consider themselves Evil. Characters are generally much more than the players who play them. Villains are blacker, heroes are nobler, and when you play one of those characters you should come to terms with that. Even though it probably hurts you a little bit to contemplate it, if you're going to even try to play a Good character you need to play them as a much better person than you personally are.

BladeofOblivion

2010-09-04, 09:49 PM

Chaotic Good. May slip down into chaotic neutral when my sanity gives out.

For the "good" part, I donate to the poor, go out of my way to help other people, and actively volunteer my time and effort to aid my community.
As for the chaotic side, one of the nice things about America is that most of the laws are perfectly reasonable. If someone proposes something severely limiting freedom or is otherwise jarring to reason, however, I vehemently and vocally oppose it. When it comes to rules of organizations or institutions, I will gladly argue about something I disagree with, sometimes even resorting to boycotts. I'm still boycotting Wal-Mart over the way employees are treated.

Snares

2010-09-04, 09:51 PM

I took a quiz once. Came out chaotic neutral, leaning more towards chaotic good.

As for what I think I am, I don't think I lean towards any particular alignment very much, other than avoiding evil as much as I can. I can be any of the other six depending on my mood, the situation, and suchlike.

Knaight

2010-09-04, 09:53 PM

I can argue any of the nine alignments easily enough, though Exalted and Vile fall beyond reasonable argument. Strongly chaotic in some ways, strongly lawful in others, etc.

Shas aia Toriia

2010-09-04, 09:55 PM

Neutral, for sure. I'm just a little bit of everything, and then they meet up in the middle.

EDIT: Oh, and to the Devil's Advocate (its cool becuase the name can be used literally here too), ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

druid91

2010-09-04, 10:07 PM

I would like to say Neutral good, if just for the plot armor, but I am way to much of a negative person.

Cealocanth

2010-09-04, 10:08 PM

Neutral good. I've done some lawfull evil things from time to time though. :smallfrown:

waterpenguin43

2010-09-04, 10:12 PM

I've heard people call me True Neutral, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good.

snoopy13a

2010-09-04, 10:17 PM

.

EDIT: Oh, and to the Devil's Advocate (its cool becuase the name can be used literally here too), ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

It actually does in some respects. From the D20 SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. (emphasis added)

People with good intentions who do not help others are neutral. Granted, many people do make personal sacrifices that help others such as volunteering in the community or donating to charity, and thus are good.

Evil people hurt others. There are also some evil people such as violent criminals, spousal abusers, slum lords, thieves who prey on poorer people, etc. Those who self-identify as evil but don't actually hurt others probably aren't evil (at least not yet :smalltongue: )

Law and chaos is even more complex. Here's the SRD d20 definition and I'll leave it at that:

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.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

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.

Jack Squat

2010-09-04, 10:22 PM

I tend to shift between chaotic good and neutral good.

ForzaFiori

2010-09-04, 10:26 PM

I would like to think I'm Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. I regularly volunteer, and I try to help those who I see that need it. While I follow all the laws of my city, country, state, and country, I am outspoken against those that I do not agree with, and attempt to help organizations and others who are working towards getting rid of them. Nothing illegal mind you, but like donating to a political party, or signing a petition, going to marches (well, I would if any where around here), etc

Xyk

2010-09-04, 10:26 PM

As I grow up, I'm leaning more and more towards chaotic good. I've recently decided that the most important rules are those that are made by me. And I try my best to buy everything local and avoid major corporations. I volunteer for an animal shelter and refuse to accept intolerance or general mean-spiritedness wherever I go. I'm trying really hard, i think that counts.

Marillion

2010-09-04, 10:36 PM

I used to think of myself as Neutral Good, but as the years passed, I've become Lawful Neutral.

To those who identify as "Lawful": When was the last time that you lied? How frequently do you do things that you wouldn't want others to find out about?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Last time I lied...hmm...Do exaggerations for the purpose of humor count?

As for doing things I don't want others to find out about, well, I do things that people have no business knowing about. And there is a difference. For example, I have been intimate with a woman. Do you have any business knowing that? No. Will I go out of my way to inform you? No. (Well, for the purposes of this conversation, no :smalltongue:) Will I be embarrassed if that gets brought up? A little. Will I get annoyed if it gets made a topic of conversation? Very. Will I be ashamed? Why should I be?

I detest liars, am very "old fashioned" (so I'm told), take a dim view of being different for the sake of being different (and ONLY to be different), and my favorite phrases include "Yes that WOULD be nice, but THIS is how things ARE. Deal with it."

And I abhor thieves:smallfurious::smallfurious:

Xyk

2010-09-04, 10:43 PM

Now, when I said "I make my own rules" (paraphrased), one of those rules is honesty. If you feel you have to lie, you shouldn't have done it and should own up. That's a lawful quality. :smallconfused:

averagejoe

2010-09-04, 10:54 PM

My alignment is Lawful Joe.

Lioness

2010-09-04, 11:09 PM

Probably LN.

No helping the poor and all that, because I'm too poor to. I don't usually break laws - I may occasionally have an underaged drink or drive a couple of ks above the speed limit, but I tend much more towards being lawful then being chaotic.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-04, 11:10 PM

chaotic neutral, all the way.

edit: also alignment does not work that way, it is only exaggerated in the game world cause its fantasy, and fantasy exaggerates EVERYTHING, pollute the environment in the real world? something bad will happen in a few decades that we can prevent if we become more responsible about it.

pollute in the fantasy world? the over-goddess of nature, life and the ocean stomps down from the heavens and beats you to a pulp in a fit of rage and you die, unable to do anything about it.

Sinfonian

2010-09-04, 11:23 PM

Put me on the point of the top left corner of True Neutral on the alignment grid, touching the four alignments there (depending on how I feel that day).

Zevox

2010-09-04, 11:24 PM

As much as I think the D&D alignment system is rather useless due to how no one seems to have a clear idea how it works (case in point: Devil's Advocate's post), I suppose I do have an idea where I'd fall within its broad categories as I understand them.

Chaotic neutral or chaotic good, depending on how broadly you define the "good" portion of the alignments.

Zevox

Gensh

2010-09-04, 11:28 PM

Lawful Neutral but with a tendency to favor common sense over the actual rules to the point that I've been called Chaotic Good, though that's really more because the rules in question were arbitrary and unfair. Overthrowing one set of rules in favor of another is a Lawful action, after all.

Zeofar

2010-09-04, 11:29 PM

Oh, I think I hang out somewhere in Lawful Good - Lawful Neutral - Neutral Good.

False Neutral.
-snip-

I find your definitions of the "aligned acts" a bit wonky (To be fair, that issue is pretty much personal, but some just seem off to me, especially Chaotic.) The quote is interesting but a bit overzealous (Is someone who identifies themselves as "good" really trying to say they deserve a medal?). Ultimately, alignments are ideals (Though actions, the intended results of actions, and the understanding of consequences plays a very large role in it all). They are what people strive for; though having a ideal that you don't actually act upon is the same as not having it, to suggest the the struggle for an ideal, as unapparent as it may be, is worthless is laughable.

Truth be told, many, many people do not actually register off of the true neutral scale. But Dungeons and Dragons characters are larger than life. Inaction is not always a sign of insincerity, and it is far more often a sign of weakness. It takes saints (and I mean this in the literal definition) to truly register on the same level as a paladin; it takes Stalin, Hitler, or Pol pot to truly be evil. By the same measure, most NPC's in Dungeons and Dragons would be true neutral; even most low-level PC's could not claim that they were good like an Archon is good, or reached the same depths of depravity as some demon from the bottom of the Nine Hells. Much of what plays role in alignment is anticipation and intent.

That is not to say, someone who extols some grand virtues but shirks away whenever they are tested can be said to be of an alignment. Ignoring the poor, the homeless, the needy does lead you towards neutrality, but not in the same way that ignoring a murder or robbery does. It is not the small acts that you may fall away from that make you neutral, though accumulation of many, when done in the spirit of good, does make you good. It is the refusal to act when something large, not on a grand, but a moral scale, presents itself. It is when you ignore the ultimate expression of your virtues that you fall away from them.

It actually does in some respects. From the D20 SRD:

Well, the fact is, Wizards of the Coast doesn't seem to understand how their alignment system works, or should work most of the time. Their definition of good, evil, chaos, and law do not really fit into the broad alignment system that they created, anyways; at the very least, they stupidly avoid giving the broad definitions if they do understand them. While I'll agree that having certain "beliefs" that one never acts on does not make for an alignment, it can play a role. I think I mentioned most of my shtick up above, anyhow, though, so a repeat would be stupid.

{Scrubbed}

mucat

2010-09-04, 11:48 PM

Used to be Chaotic Good, and I wish I still was.

These days, Neutral Good; I follow far too many rules. I still ignore rules I disagree with if the consequences will only hurt me...but often these days, rocking the boat would cause trouble for others as well as myself, so I don't rock it as much. I think this is a bad thing.

And you know, possibly just Neutral rather than Neutral Good. My life is still shaped by choices I made long ago for Good reasons, but sometimes I think I live this way more out of habit than because I still believe in it as passionately as I once did.

Damn, for a trite stat-yourself-with-RPG-rules question, this one hit home.

Haruki-kun

2010-09-04, 11:52 PM

In GITP? I'm officially Chaotic Good.

IRL? I dunno. Lawful Neutral leaning towards good, I think. I wish I were CG....

Moff Chumley

2010-09-05, 12:02 AM

True neutral. I do, however, follow the philosophy "let's see what I can get away with...", so maybe leaning a little closer to Chaotic.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-05, 12:05 AM

{Scrubbed}

I agree with all that was snipped. the unsnipped part is the part I don't agree with.

is to believe in freedom is to look stupid? is to believe that there is no certainty, no truth, and only freedom and the belief and the knowledge to use it, stupid? is treasuring a world of change, variety, randomness and messiness, stupid? to acknowledge that the world can't truly be controlled, that we are imperfect beings trying our best to adapt to each new challenge thrown at us, stupid?
I ask you, is it stupid to both like and hate the world? to know that the best thing we can do is keep improving and changing ourselves to better, but never become perfect? is any of that stupid? huh?

to me, that absurd kind of world is the one that makes the most sense, and its not stupid to acknowledge it sir, I am Chaotic Neutral and proud of it. :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

Froogleyboy

2010-09-05, 12:07 AM

Chaotic Neutral, Totally. With an emphasis on Chaotic

TechnOkami

2010-09-05, 12:09 AM

Probably true neutral, though others say I'm chaotic neutral.

Actually no, I'm pure neutral with chaotic tendencies.

2010-09-05, 12:15 AM

{Scrubbed}

Whaaaat? Lame! Basically what you're saying is no one is allowed to go their own way without looking stupid?

Fail dude.

Moff Chumley

2010-09-05, 12:18 AM

Dunno about you guys but looking stupid has never stopped me from doing anything, and that is not hyperbole. Ask anyone.

Kneenibble

2010-09-05, 12:20 AM

You D&D people and your obsession with this alignment thing as if it has any referential bearing on reality never ceases to confuse me.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-05, 12:24 AM

its more of "semi for-fun" thing than full on serious.

if we were being full on silly, we'd be making up alignments like "I'm Chaotic Awesome AND Chaotic Genius, but I'm also True Creative"

Kneenibble

2010-09-05, 12:33 AM

Yes yes, I'll appropriate all three of those for myself, then. Thank you. Please accept a dish of crumble made with rhubarb from my garden for your words.

Remmirath

2010-09-05, 12:39 AM

Obviously I have to go off of my own interpretation of the alignment system, so I'll try to describe that in brief here.

Evil: Sufficiently amoral or actively desiring to do evil. Somebody who simply does not care about others and will callously do things to hurt them because of this might be evil, and so (obviously) is somebody who goes out of their way to harm others. If you consistently cause harm to others without remorse you're probably evil.

Good: Helping people, selflessness, all that jazz. If you help people at every opportunity you have, or even if you would necessarily do so if the opportunity arose, I would say you are good. Clearly if you spend all your life helping others (because you want to) then you're also good.

Lawful: Someone who will follow laws and rules and such because they are the laws and rules, and who will respect them because of that. A lawful person is also more likely to desire structure and procedure in their life, to have no problem filling out forms and jumping through hoops if that's what the rules are, that sort of thing. If they are being led or taking orders from someone they will do so because that person is the rightful authority and they respect that authority.

Chaotic: Someone who will only follow laws and rules and such if they have a good reason to do so. This reason might be fear of the repercussions (arrest, not being able to continue doing something they like doing, whatever) - or it might be that they simply happen to agree with a particular rule or think it to be common sense. Such people are likely to prefer not to plan things, will probably resent structure and procedure when they encounter it, and likewise will resent filling out forms and jumping through hoops because somebody decided it would be a good idea. Somebody who is actively working to overthrow law and order is clearly chaotic, but so I would say is somebody who just avoids law and order whenever possible and dislikes it when they have to deal with it.
If being led by someone or taking orders from someone they will do so only if they have to for some reason (see fear, above) or if they respect that person or agree with the orders.

Neutral: Neutral on either axis would be falling in between either, leaning not significantly to one side or the other.

Looking at those definitions, I'm going to have to go with chaotic neutral. I would, all things considered, rather be chaotic good or perhaps neutral good (heck, if I was less chaotic I know I'd be less annoyed most days) - but I know I'm not. Leastaways, not by my definitions.

{Scrubbed}

Saying it for that reason would not be the brightest, I agree (I'm generally of the opinion that saying anything because you think it makes you look cool is not the most wonderful idea) - but what makes you think that chaotic people do not exist? And how is it possibly worse than saying you're evil? :smallconfused:

Certainly extreme examples of any alignment are rare, but not all chaotic people are 'hahahhaah! Destroy all government!' types. That would be, y'know, pretty rare. I've always seen the descriptions of the alignments in the books as describing the extreme end so you can grasp the concept.

For example - I've been known to get extremely angry and frustrated doing such fairly simple things as registering for PayPal, filling out a form so people know how to pay me or renewing my driver's license. I'm annoyed constantly by having to fill things out at work or write up evaluations, I do not see the point of many rules (and the ones I do see the point of I usually think to myself 'that's just common sense'), the only thing I hated about highschool was having to fill out the 'hey I learned this thing' forms, things like that. However, I'm not going to do more about it than argue or complain because there's really not much to be (reasonably) done about it other than that. I would think that's not all that uncommon.

Contrast this with some people I know, who have no problem whatsoever doing any of that and would stare at me and tell me that the point of the rules is that they are the rules and they're there for a good reason (even if they can't come up with it just now). I'd say those people are lawful. Most people I've met fall somewhere in between the two, as you would expect.

Gensh

2010-09-05, 12:50 AM

I agree with all that was snipped. the unsnipped part is the part I don't agree with.

is to believe in freedom is to look stupid? is to believe that there is no certainty, no truth, and only freedom and the belief and the knowledge to use it, stupid? is treasuring a world of change, variety, randomness and messiness, stupid? to acknowledge that the world can't truly be controlled, that we are imperfect beings trying our best to adapt to each new challenge thrown at us, stupid?
I ask you, is it stupid to both like and hate the world? to know that the best thing we can do is keep improving and changing ourselves to better, but never become perfect? is any of that stupid? huh?

to me, that absurd kind of world is the one that makes the most sense, and its not stupid to acknowledge it sir, I am Chaotic Neutral and proud of it. :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

Well, there's this little thing called Chaotic Stupid...

Or in other words, a lot of people will say that they're CG/CN ingame to justify any and every ridiculous action when the DM tells them that they're stepping out of line. In real life, it debatably gets worse. Everyone and their uncle Steve says that they're Chaotic because it has the connotation of "fighting the Man," which is automatically cool. I've already said that I'm Lawful Neutral, but have been called Chaotic Good on more than one occasion because the common interpretation of what exactly that means has become distorted. Drinking underage or whatever because "it's not a fair law" or any other reason you can provide does not make you CG/CN because someone who is truly CG would be out on the streets making citizen's arrests or finding loopholes in laws to swindle money from the government to feed the poor or what have you.

Devils_Advocate

2010-09-05, 12:51 AM

It seems like my questions have prompted people to explain their bases for their self-assessments. JUST AS PLANNED. Um, I mean, hooray! :smallsmile:

ALIGNMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

alignment does not work that way
A) In which way, specifically, are you saying that it does not work?

B) Well, of course alignment doesn't work. Ha-ha! ZING!

Last time I lied...hmm...Do exaggerations for the purpose of humor count?
Not really. (Although modron-level Lawful would no doubt disdain "only technical" violations. "Sarcasm and hyperbole are threats to clear communication. This 'humor' must be eliminated." :smalltongue:)

Will I be ashamed?
Ah, yes, that's probably better. "... that you would be ashamed for someone else to find out about."

Well, the fact is, Wizards of the Coast doesn't seem to understand how their alignment system works, or should work most of the time. Their definition of good, evil, chaos, and law do not really fit into the broad alignment system that they created, anyways
Um, the quoted text is the alignment system that they created.

{Scrubbed}
HAIL ERIS! HAIL DISCORDIA!

You D&D people and your obsession with this alignment thing as if it has any referential bearing on reality never ceases to confuse me.
It makes more sense than some things that some actual, seriously-taken moral philosophers have written. Heck, find me two consecutive pages of anything that Kant or Rand wrote that's less dumb than alignment.

I'm not convinced that you can't, mind you. I am convinced that it would be a challenge. Actual academic philosophy seems filled with so much nonsense that a system for describing characters in a roleplaying game can actually work as an above-average starting point for a serious discussion.

Kneenibble

2010-09-05, 12:55 AM

It makes more sense than some things that some actual, seriously-taken moral philosophers have written. Heck, find me two consecutive pages of anything that Kant or Rand wrote that's less dumb than alignment.

I'm not convinced that you can't, mind you. I am convinced that it would be a challenge. Actual academic philosophy seems filled with so much nonsense that a system for describing characters in a roleplaying game can actually work as an above-average starting point for a serious discussion.

You utter Kant and Rand in the same breath? Your credulity fizzles like a fart in the wind.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-05, 12:57 AM

Chaotic: Someone who will only follow laws and rules and such if they have a good reason to do so. This reason might be fear of the repercussions (arrest, not being able to continue doing something they like doing, whatever) - or it might be that they simply happen to agree with a particular rule or think it to be common sense. Such people are likely to prefer not to plan things, will probably resent structure and procedure when they encounter it, and likewise will resent filling out forms and jumping through hoops because somebody decided it would be a good idea. Somebody who is actively working to overthrow law and order is clearly chaotic, but so I would say is somebody who just avoids law and order whenever possible and dislikes it when they have to deal with it.
If being led by someone or taking orders from someone they will do so only if they have to for some reason (see fear, above) or if they respect that person or agree with the orders.

ya, real life chaotics are smart: rampantly breaking the law just means that you are sending yourself to jail and becoming LESS free than you were before, its actually better to just avoid it when you can and do your own thing without ticking off the people in power and while I do like freedom, some of the more basic laws make sense because without them, some guy stronger than me could just come along and oppress everyone just because he is stronger and that ain't being free. so as long as the law makes sense and doesn't arbitrarily intrude on me, I'm ok with it and will do my own thing.

remember: good authority won't tick you off, if you don't tick it off.

Temotei

2010-09-05, 01:05 AM

I'm neutral good with both great lawful and chaotic tendencies, I'd say.

UnChosenOne

2010-09-05, 01:08 AM

Lawful Neutral, formely Lawful Good.

Lord_Gareth

2010-09-05, 01:09 AM

BLACKWhite/Red

Color Wheel for the win.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-05, 01:15 AM

BLACKWhite/Red

Color Wheel for the win.

Red/Blue, color wheel comrade

in fact you could say I'm a Red/Blue, Chaotic Neutral, Gemini Water Rooster.

thats right, I have also consulted chinese zodiac horoscopes of the date of my birth.

Temotei

2010-09-05, 01:26 AM

BladeofOblivion

2010-09-05, 01:37 AM

Blue/Red, with a tiny bit of white thrown in.

averagejoe

2010-09-05, 01:44 AM

its more of "semi for-fun" thing than full on serious.

if we were being full on silly, we'd be making up alignments like "I'm Chaotic Awesome AND Chaotic Genius, but I'm also True Creative"

0.o

Oops. :smallredface:

Gensh

2010-09-05, 01:52 AM

Let's go all out!

Alignment: Lawful Neutral
Color: Blue
Arcana: Hermit
Deathperation Flame: Rain
Smash Bro: Ice Climbers
Western Zodiac: Sagittarius
Eastern Zodiac: Sheep
Temperament: Melancholic
Kingdom: Wei

Serpentine

2010-09-05, 02:17 AM

Gemini Water Rooster.Cusp-Gemini Fire? Tiger.

I think I'm probably lazy Neutral Good or well-meaning True Neutral.

Reasoning: Order-wise, I have a deep distrust for anyone who thinks authority should be obeyed for the sake of authority. Official authority does not confer authority, competence does. The government obeys the will of the people, not the other way round. And other politically-themed stuff.
Law-wise, if I truly disagree with a law, I have no particular theoretical compunctions about breaking it. However, I'm so much of a coward it would rarely happen. I think laws, on the whole, are pretty natural and necessary, but they can and should be changed, adapted and reinterpreted according to new circumstances. Laws are not sacrosanct. They are a tool.
Personally-wise, I'm a weird mix of anarchic and ordered. I like knowing where every item belongs, but I have no problem with items being removed from their place - just as long as, when I eventually do my massive house-clean, I have somewhere specific to put it. I'm slack and late to everything and lazy, but I can also be thingy about things being just so. I like maths and planning and graphs and stuff like that (they seem Lawful to me).

Goodness-wise, I have strong opinions about various things and I have a well-developed social concience. I can't even imagine really hurting anyone even in self-defense - too empathetic, I think. I'm optimistic, I believe people on the whole at least mean well, I think "everything works out eventually" no matter what exactly that means, that sort of thing. I support a variety of causes, and intend to do so monetarily as soon as I'm into a proper career. Some other things I could say on this score are extremely political and almost certainly divisive, so I'll move on to...
Neutrality-wise, I'm extremely lazy, and for all my good intentions and the like I haven't actually done all that much. It's all... potential Good. Also, philosophically, I think nothing is more important than the environment. A number of things come very close behind, maybe even on par, but nothing exceeds it in importance, in my mind. Overall, I have a lot of sympathy for the True Neutral alignment, philosophically, in a variety of ways.

That comprehensive enough for ya? :smalltongue:

golentan

2010-09-05, 02:19 AM

I've been told I'm no longer allowed to refer to myself as anything other than lawful good in these discussions.

druid91

2010-09-05, 02:25 AM

I've been told I'm no longer allowed to refer to myself as anything other than lawful good in these discussions.

What would your neighbor say you are then?

golentan

2010-09-05, 02:31 AM

What would your neighbor say you are then?

My friends agree I'm lawful good. They are wrong, though not on the law axis.

skywalker

2010-09-05, 02:43 AM

Not really. (Although modron-level Lawful would no doubt disdain "only technical" violations. "Sarcasm and hyperbole are threats to clear communication. This 'humor' must be eliminated." :smalltongue:)

I don't really see Modrons using Lucida Console, honestly...

It makes more sense than some things that some actual, seriously-taken moral philosophers have written. Heck, find me two consecutive pages of anything that Kant or Rand wrote that's less dumb than alignment.

I'm not convinced that you can't, mind you. I am convinced that it would be a challenge. Actual academic philosophy seems filled with so much nonsense that a system for describing characters in a roleplaying game can actually work as an above-average starting point for a serious discussion.

I don't know of any such resource for Kant, but this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism?from=Main.UsefulNotesObjectivism) helped me (a pretty serious anarchist) understand Rand better than anything she ever wrote.

You can do it, and it's not really even a challenge. You just have to meet both on their own terms, as you must with most academics.

You utter Kant and Rand in the same breath? Your credulity fizzles like a fart in the wind.

Why's that? Both are, as mentioned, rather dense and hard to communicate with, and both have a pretty solid epistemological basis for a pretty weird moral philosophy.

ya, real life chaotics are smart: rampantly breaking the law just means that you are sending yourself to jail and becoming LESS free than you were before, its actually better to just avoid it when you can and do your own thing without ticking off the people in power and while I do like freedom, some of the more basic laws make sense because without them, some guy stronger than me could just come along and oppress everyone just because he is stronger and that ain't being free. so as long as the law makes sense and doesn't arbitrarily intrude on me, I'm ok with it and will do my own thing.

Have you considered thinking of yourself as Neutral Good? Being opposed to law and being chaotic are two different things, I think.

I certainly don't think being anarchic makes me Chaotic.

RdMarquis

2010-09-05, 02:47 AM

True Neutral. I could never bring myself to think that other people don't matter, or that they are simply there for me to use. On the other hand, I'm not sure I could care about anyone, beyond my family and friends, to risk my life for them. As for Lawful and Chaotic, they both have their place, but straying too far to either end of the spectrum risks falling into the extremes of Anarchy and Tyranny.

Tonal Architect

2010-09-05, 03:17 AM

I'm probably Chaotic Neutral. I believe too much into personal power to easily acknowledge rules; also, I've gotten in trouble many times for standing up to these beliefs.

An interesting side-point would be that average humans tend to remove themselves far more easily from neutral in the "rules" axis them in the "morale" axis. Not sure why, but people stand for or spurn rules a lot more often, then, say, truly present themselves as good or evil.

Also, someone mentioned that most humans would be true neutral if alignment system were to be applied to them. Well, I think that's correct; most people don't really take a firm stance towards anything, instead doing somewhat as they please though never reaching any of the extremes in a given spectrum of possibilities... I think the word "neutral" rings a bell here. ;)

UnChosenOne

2010-09-05, 03:29 AM

Acording the magic the gathering dual color test I'm white/blue, the "Which Major Arcana tarot card you are" test claims that I'm the Emperor (82%), followed by the Devil (81%) and the Tower (also 81%) and well, my personality type is Rationalist and my temperament is melancholic.

Ichneumon

2010-09-05, 03:31 AM

I'm lawful idealistic. I don't think I have the authority to determine whether or not I'm good or evil.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-05, 03:35 AM

Have you considered thinking of yourself as Neutral Good? Being opposed to law and being chaotic are two different things, I think.

I certainly don't think being anarchic makes me Chaotic.

I'm too uncaring to be neutral good, and in my darker moments I rant about how people are idiots or hating a particular thing, and these occur so frequently I basically hate everything, but at different times, and I'm too realist; everything progresses....but not in a linear or sane manner. My philosophy is based upon subjectivity and individuality and doing what you feel like doing.

either that or I AM neutral good and I just hide it well.

Extra_Crispy

2010-09-05, 03:47 AM

For me I would have to say neutral good with heavy lawful tendencies. When I take those alignment tests they come back with either lawful good or neutral good. Explaination as to why I think I fit those areas:

I try to allways follow the law, many laws are good and I usually do not argue with authority. Though I am not a completely straight arrow either, and will argue if I feel something is wrong.

Good: I am a nurse and take care of all my patients to the best of my ability. I help people when I can and give to homeless when I can. I have stopped (a few times) to help injured people before paramedics arrive. I have also been known to stop and help complete strangers who have had their cars break, or are trying to walk home in the rain, or late at night ect. I truely go out of my way to help others, maybe not on a global scale or even city scale but around locally I will.

Serpentine

2010-09-05, 03:48 AM

An interesting side-point would be that average humans tend to remove themselves far more easily from neutral in the "rules" axis them in the "morale" axis. Not sure why, but people stand for or spurn rules a lot more often, then, say, truly present themselves as good or evil.My theory: People, on the whole, mean well and want the best for themselves and everyone else and would ideally quite like everyone to be happy. What people most disagree with is the best way to achieve these.

Lord Raziere

2010-09-05, 03:58 AM

My theory: People, on the whole, mean well and want the best for themselves and everyone else and would ideally quite like everyone to be happy. What people most disagree with is the best way to achieve these.

which is why I say the Real Life is more like order vs chaos and that the Cold War is a perfect example of this: The US supported capitalism which is chaos, while the USSR used communism which was order, both were systems trying to make everyone happy- capitalism just puts the tools into peoples hands and educates them in how they are used while communism tries to be fair for everyone and make sure they all get the same amount.

both are ways to try and form a good economy but only if handled well.

the conflict still continues today- with capitalism and socialism instead.

aaaaaand that's enough economics, my point is that real life is closer to law vs chaos than good vs evil or even gray vs gray.

Serpentine

2010-09-05, 04:11 AM

which is why I say the Real Life is more like order vs chaos and that the Cold War is a perfect example of this: The US supported capitalism which is chaos, while the USSR used communism which was order, both were systems trying to make everyone happy- capitalism just puts the tools into peoples hands and educates them in how they are used while communism tries to be fair for everyone and make sure they all get the same amount.Interesting... I'd be more likely to consider Communism to be the Chaos end - empowerment of the people, that sort of thing. I see where you're coming from, though. Of course, Capitalism and Communism aren't actually of the same type, so they can't really be compared like that. Like saying that Sophocles is Law while Buddha is Chaos - may or may not be true, but they're not actually on the same coin.
Best leave it at that, though :smallwink:

Altaria87

2010-09-05, 04:26 AM

I'd say I'm Lawful Neutral, the Neutral part stemming from balance more than indifference.
Balance as in I can vary between giving to charities, and helping people for no real reason, to just being a general manipulative ****.

Tonal Architect

2010-09-05, 05:03 AM

My theory: People, on the whole, mean well and want the best for themselves and everyone else and would ideally quite like everyone to be happy. What people most disagree with is the best way to achieve these.

I don't know, but it would make the world look a lot less grim. I think most people are too self-centered to care about others, though. I hope I'm wrong and you're right on this one...

After some deliberation, I think most people never come to leave the neutral part of the spectrum, on the morality axis, because interaction with society is impossible to avoid in human life, and it's also easier to deal with an impersonal construct that while a representation of humans in general, is in fact none... On the other hand, good and evil imply interaction of some level with others, and I think most people tend to be apathetic towards those they're not familiar with, so if good and evil point towards the relation a person maintains with humans in general, I think it makes sense that apathy translates to "neutral"...

Then again, it is a grim outlook on life, so I hope I'm wrong.

ghost_warlock

2010-09-05, 05:34 AM

I'm Lawful neutral with chaotic good tendencies. Anyone who argues obviously doesn't know me that well.

742

2010-09-05, 06:09 AM

in alignment quizzes i come up all over the place, i think ive popped out at every option at least once on those things. probably because the alignment system knows im coming for it, and what im going to do when i get there.

Concrete

2010-09-05, 07:05 AM

Neutral Good, leaning towards Neutral.
What can I say, I'm pretty boring.:)

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-05, 08:15 AM

i am monkey :)

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-05, 08:24 AM

I am most certainly Lawful Neutral. A creature primarily of reason and order, who most often (though not blindly) follows the rule of law and whose moral philosophy, while nominally Good, is not applied or exerted toward any cause beyond those things which directly impact upon him.

Though it must be said that the Law vs. Chaos aspect of the D&D Alignment does not account for Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism in any substantial way.

Lord Loss

2010-09-05, 08:26 AM

Neutral Good, Maybe Chaotic Good.

Dallas-Dakota

2010-09-05, 11:53 AM

I'm too uncaring to be neutral good, and in my darker moments I rant about how people are idiots or hating a particular thing, and these occur so frequently I basically hate everything, but at different times, and I'm too realist; everything progresses....but not in a linear or sane manner. My philosophy is based upon subjectivity and individuality and doing what you feel like doing.

either that or I AM neutral good and I just hide it well.
Chaotic Neutral is what that is.:smallcool:

I'm Chaotic Good though.

AtlanteanTroll

2010-09-05, 12:00 PM

I took some really in-depth D&D quizz, and it said I was Lawful Good. Then again I took some weird religious quizz (IDK why) and it said I would go to the 3 or 4th layer of hell or something. So, yeah.

I'd pace myself at True Neutral leaning towards lawful.

WarKitty

2010-09-05, 12:57 PM

Hmmm...somewhere between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.

The chaotic streak is pretty strong in me. While I recognize the need for certain systems of rules, I think they can be very dangerous if applied indiscriminately, and that many rules are unnecessary. Rules being not just official laws, but social expectations. I think that bigotry and prejudice are inevitable results of indiscriminate applications of expectations. I also think the current legal and economic system unfairly favors those with money and other forms of social power. I will go out of my way to upset people's expectations, especially if I think I can get them to examine and refine their ideas.

As far as the good/neutral thing goes...I'm a vegetarian because I don't believe in killing animals for food. I try to avoid non-cruelty-free animal products such as milk and eggs, although I have a lot of restrictions because of various financial stuff. I'm working to start up an on-campus sexual assault prevention program. Not a huge track record, but then again I'm 22 with a history of disability.

Zaydos

2010-09-05, 01:43 PM

My friends peg me as Lawful Good.

D&D quizzes peg me as Good and almost evenly divided between Law and Chaos (but not at all neutral).

In depth discussions are that I am fundamentally Lawful, with a strong belief in codes of honor, and personal discipline, but that I philosophically more in favor of Chaos.

Honestly I'm not Good aligned, I try my best to help my friends but that is a symbiosis, and I lack the self-discipline I crave. So I'm True Neutral trying to be Lawful Good.

skywalker

2010-09-05, 02:11 PM

Though it must be said that the Law vs. Chaos aspect of the D&D Alignment does not account for Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism in any substantial way.

I call it Authoritarianism vs. Anarchy. If you're going to label 2 extremes, you might as well do it right. :smallwink:

I took some really in-depth D&D quizz, and it said I was Lawful Good. Then again I took some weird religious quizz (IDK why) and it said I would go to the 3 or 4th layer of hell or something. So, yeah.

Those are just designed to see which "sin" most "governs" your life. IE, which one might "define" you. Yeah, those quizzes are stupid...

onthetown

2010-09-05, 02:26 PM

The long-winded alignment and class quiz lists me as Lawful Neutral, which is pretty accurate. My D&D friends agree. It's also the alignment I have the easiest time playing.

Cobalt

2010-09-05, 03:42 PM

Some test told me I'm True Neutral, or something. Now I'm not one to dispute the accuracy of online tests, but...

Comet

2010-09-05, 04:03 PM

Unaligned. I'm not much of a fan of taking sides. Besides, categories and boxes make me feel uncomfortable.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-05, 05:21 PM

Unaligned. I'm not much of a fan of taking sides. Besides, categories and boxes make me feel uncomfortable.

that's the beauty of being neutral. you dont have to take sides

MeatShield#236

2010-09-05, 05:42 PM

Forevernade

2010-09-05, 05:49 PM

I guess I would say that I'm Neutral Good, but heavily leaning towards Chaotic Good. I will always try to help people out, even if they have given me reason not too. Of course, said help probably involves breaking a few 'minor' rules. I also belive that blindly following the rules to the letter is a very bad idea.

All in all, I try to help people as best I can and don't let the rules get in the way.

Pretty much on the money. I am a independant thinker, but I have respect for the laws, and I will always go out of my way to help people if I can. i get a sense of wellbeing if I do Good. :smallsmile:

Ranger Mattos

2010-09-05, 06:12 PM

I would say either Chaotic Good or, as the quiz I took says in my sig, NG.

Krade

2010-09-05, 08:13 PM

I would say either Chaotic Good or, as the quiz I took says in my sig, NG.

I took that quiz and got TN Human Sorcerer. The funny bit is that it gave me a charisma of 12. So not a very effective Sorcerer.

As for what I would label myself?

I think I'm probably lazy Neutral Good or well-meaning True Neutral.

*snip*

That comprehensive enough for ya? :smalltongue:What she said.

However, in a work/business situation, I play by the rules because the rules are how you are evaluated. So Lawful Neutral all the the way.

Temotei

2010-09-05, 08:20 PM

Let's go all out!

Done...sort of.

Alignment: Neutral Good
Color: White (probably White/Blue if I took a test that wasn't completely stupid)
Smash Bro: Ike
Western Zodiac: Gemini
Eastern Zodiac: Monkey
Temperament: Phlegmatic, with leanings toward sanguine

Gensh

2010-09-05, 09:36 PM

Done...sort of.
...
Temperament: Laid back.

Just so you guys know:
Alignment: D&D
Color: MtG
Arcana: Persona
Deathperation Flame: Reborn!
Smash Bro: SSB
Western Zodiac: Greece
Eastern Zodiac: China
Temperament: Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Temperaments)
Kingdom: Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Dynasty Warriors

Temotei

2010-09-05, 09:42 PM

Just so you guys know:
Alignment: D&D
Color: MtG
Arcana: Persona
Deathperation Flame: Reborn!
Smash Bro: SSB
Western Zodiac: Greece
Eastern Zodiac: China
Temperament: Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Temperaments)
Kingdom: Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Dynasty Warriors

I really should have known that. :smallsigh:

Fixed, anyway.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-05, 09:59 PM

I Am A:
Chaotic Neutral Halfling Cleric (2nd Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength-15
Dexterity-15
Constitution-18
Intelligence-14
Wisdom-15
Charisma-12

ummm, score!

wxdruid

2010-09-05, 09:59 PM

Yep, still Neutral! Yay for Neutralest itP! :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

Took the alignment test again and it still gives TN results for me. :smallamused:

Form

2010-09-06, 04:28 AM

I guess I'd pin myself down on Lawful Neutral. I am very rigid in a few things and do not advocate a noble cause of some sort, so Good is probably out of the question. However, I try to avoid harming others and loathe the idea of revenge just for the sake of hurting others, so Evil most likely doesn't apply either.

I'm not sure how Lawful I am as I feel I've become less 'Lawful' as of late, which probably as something to do with the changes I've been trying to make. I can still say that I'm not Chaotic though. I just lack the impulsiveness that seems to go with it.

I took that quiz and got TN Human Sorcerer. The funny bit is that it gave me a charisma of 12. So not a very effective Sorcerer.

As for what I would label myself?

A sorcerer's apprentice/assistant maybe? We all have to start somewhere.

Danne

2010-09-06, 10:34 AM

I'm true neutral. I go both ways. :smallwink:

In actuality, my ideals are neutral good (leaning toward chaotic good) but in practice I'm lawful good. Not lawfull stupid, though.

hamishspence

2010-09-06, 10:51 AM

Mine usually comes out as Lawful Neutral on quizzes.

snoopy13a

2010-09-06, 11:03 AM

I'm chaotic awesome :smalltongue:

Actually, I'm really chaotic lawful :smallsmile:

Seriously, I'm probably boring true neutral.

Sinfonian

2010-09-06, 11:54 AM

that's the beauty of being neutral. you dont have to take sides

Slightly belated but
http://theinfosphere.org/images/e/e9/Zapp_Brannigan.png
"I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me."

I'm aware of some irony, but I still think it's funny.

Moff Chumley

2010-09-06, 12:19 PM

I was gonna referense that episode, but you stole it. From my mind. Before I thought of it. How very... NEUTRAL. :smallannoyed:

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-06, 12:23 PM

Slightly belated but
http://theinfosphere.org/images/e/e9/Zapp_Brannigan.png
"I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me."

I'm aware of some irony, but I still think it's funny.

i read that in Zapp Brannigan's voice ._.

Moff Chumley

2010-09-06, 12:26 PM

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/10662/80460462.jpg

...and we're done. Please return to your regularly scheduled thread.

Ponderthought

2010-09-06, 01:20 PM

Chaotic Neutral. My freedom I hold dear.

Mary Leathert

2010-09-06, 02:19 PM

I'm so Lawful that it is annoying sometimes. I can break rules but I get uncomfortable about it, even if those rules are not that important.

Now, on the Good-Evil aspect, I'm not that sure whether I'm Good or Neutral. Probably Neutral striving to be Good.

Teddy

2010-09-06, 03:14 PM

In thoughts and intentions, I'm Lawful Good. In real life, perhaps not. The lawful part is no question. I (almost always) follow laws and rules, even if they're inconvenient, and if I break one, I'll feel guilty about it, even if it was really minor or pretty nonsensical. I (almost) never lie to people, and I never cheat in games (at least not in games where others are participating).

I would say that I'm good in thoughts and intentions, but I'm not sure wether my actions would qualify that high. I usually go out of my way to help both friends and family whenever they ask for it, and I try to help strangers too. I never ask for any compensation, wether I deserve it or not. I am, however, a pretty good procrastinator, and combined with a mild social initiative phobia, that results in me very rarely doing anything outside of my (pretty small) social sphere, which mostly consists of my home, school class, and this forum.

All in all, I would probably like to do volounteer work and donate money to different charity organisations, but laziness and a slight unexplainable fear of... something stands in my way. I can at least say for my defence that I'm still pretty young, and am still studying most of my time, while I lack any income apart from my student grant, so I can still wait another year. Then again, laziness... :smallsigh:

Delwugor

2010-09-07, 01:11 PM

Delwugor is Aberrant.:smallbiggrin:

Ignition

2010-09-07, 01:26 PM

Can I have the alignment Awesome? I think that fits the best :smallbiggrin:

But ultimately, I would say I'm closest to True Neutral, since I annoy everyone equally :smallbiggrin: It's also because I do what is most pragmatic at the time, and adhere to whatever principles/logic benefit the most people (especially me, naturally, haha) in the long run.

If I really cared about freedom, I wouldn't work in an office environment where everything is monitored. If I really cared about law, I wouldn't speed or withhold information if it would harm someone. Instead, I do what I want regardless of monitoring, within reason and not recklessly.

If I really cared about evil, I would crush all who oppose me! If I really cared about good, I would go out of my way to help people at my own expense. Instead, I help others either because I no longer need the resources/time or because it encourages them to help me in return, and I leave people alone to their idiocy, trusting they will harm themselves rather than risk myself and my livelihood by harming them.

Generally speaking, alignment quiz things tell me I'm Neutral Good, since apparently they weight my "help people who can/will help me" responses simply as "help people", haha.

Teddy

2010-09-07, 03:38 PM

Generally speaking, alignment quiz things tell me I'm Neutral Good, since apparently they weight my "help people who can/will help me" responses simply as "help people", haha.

Heh. The one I've done told me that I'm Lawful Neutral, since apparently you're not good if you aren't willing to risk your life to give others a slightly higher chance of survival (I was weighting between LG and LN). That's actually what I would call Stupid Good: Blindly sacrificing your life without actually thinking through wether it's meaningful or not.

Ignition

2010-09-07, 03:58 PM

Heh. The one I've done told me that I'm Lawful Neutral, since apparently you're not good if you aren't willing to risk your life to give others a slightly higher chance of survival (I was weighting between LG and LN). That's actually what I would call Stupid Good: Blindly sacrificing your life without actually thinking through wether it's meaningful or not.

Dark Helmet ("Spaceballs" the movie) said it best - "Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb". :smallamused:

Ponderthought

2010-09-07, 04:30 PM

Hmm, according to that one quiz, im:
Neutral Good Human Fighter/Sorcerer (2nd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 16
Dexterity- 14
Constitution- 19
Intelligence- 17
Wisdom- 12
Charisma- 15

Neutral Good seems abit far fetched...Ive probably thrown one to many sucker punches to qualify as good..

Gamerlord

2010-09-07, 05:42 PM

As much as I want to call myself chaotic good, all the alignment quizzes I have taken peg me at true neutral.

Gensh

2010-09-07, 06:09 PM

I wouldn't put much faith in that one quiz. After all, it said I was CN and had 15 Con of all things!

nolispe

2010-09-07, 07:50 PM

For me, it really depends on how you rate the various things. While I do my best to act "Good", my moral system is somewhat different from most people's. Really, depending on how you weight things like lying, helping others, intervening in other people's conflicts, fixing up other people's egos and violence to solve problems that I view as otherwise insoluble, and how far you would be willing to allow "The greater good" to justify stuff, I could be anywhere from LG to CE. LN would be the only alignment that I would not xonsider a possibility. Of course, with a Deontological moral system like the one present in D&D, I certainly have an alignment. Given how lying and suchlike are held up, its probably in the neutral/evil (or at least fully chaotic) areas of the spectrum. Of course, I don't consider the things I do to be evil, but then, I wouldn't...

Silly Wizard

2010-09-07, 09:06 PM

Lawful Neutral, in my opinion. Of course, certain other people would pin me as Chaotic Good due to certan beliefs. However, I perfectly match the Lawful descriptions in the Player's Handbook (assuming the "obedience to authority" means legitimate authority, like mentioned in the Chaotic description).

Thajocoth

2010-09-07, 11:44 PM

True Neutral.

I'll dip into each of the other 8 briefly, but not too deeply into any of them.

My theory: People, on the whole, mean well and want the best for themselves and everyone else and would ideally quite like everyone to be happy. What people most disagree with is the best way to achieve these.

I agree very much with this. My reasons for not delving entirely into any of the other 8 alignments come from the fact that I see much folly, waste of time and futility in each one. (As well as with staying within the confines of True Neutral) It works fine in fantasy. A fantasy system is less complex and lets you peg every border case. My morals are almost... Blue/Orange was it called? Which on the 2D alignment grid tosses me all over the place, but mostly keeps me in True Neutral.

A major problem I see in this thread is that the Law/Chaos axis, in the real world, is almost synonymous with Politics, and the Good/Evil axis is almost synonymous with Religion. Real world alignment can't be discussed in any real depth... We can just state things at the very surface. I hate debates anyway, so I don't mind at all, really... I just feel like I have to tread very lightly in this thread.

Starfols

2010-09-08, 01:50 AM

I've got a bit of an issue with the 'sacrifices to help others' bit.
Okay, once I volunteered to build a house for a disadvantaged family. This was during the winter, so the nights were very cold, and I only had a van to sleep in. During the night in between days of construction, my feet froze to the inside of my shoes, making me temporarily unable to walk. Because I 'suffered' during helping those people, does that make it a 'gooder' action?

I think the intentions matter a lot as well. If I'm being helped by someone, doing it because they want to seems more good to me than them wanting something from me.

Also, one must make the distinction between 'good', 'very good', and 'good at being good'. A good person is generally kindhearted, and does what he can to help, when the opportunity arises. A very good person is willing to help on a whim, even in the face of immense personal loss. A person who is good at being good seeks out ways to help, and helps a large quantity of people. It's not a matter of the kindness in one's heart, it's a matter of initiative (no, having a high dex won't help :smallwink:).
I know d&d characters tend to be exaggerated, but most games I've played in have more realistic standards of good and evil than Dudley Do-Right vs. Skeletor. One needn't be an extremest to count.

As for the OP, I consider myself NG/LG. I'm not super good, but I think I'm generally good, and I'd like to be moreso. :smallsmile:

nolispe

2010-09-08, 02:01 AM

hamishspence

2010-09-08, 02:58 AM

Given how lying and suchlike are held up, its probably in the neutral/evil (or at least fully chaotic) areas of the spectrum. Of course, I don't consider the things I do to be evil, but then, I wouldn't...

Interestingly, BoVD explicitly states lying is not always an evil act (even though risky).

Mordokai

2010-09-08, 03:57 AM

Teddy

2010-09-08, 05:06 AM

See, now I might have an objection with that.
Your three states (good, very good, and good at being good) are using emotionally charged words, words that automatically presume all of those are good things. They also presume that the second is better than the first. For the sake of a balanced discussion, can we please refer to them as E1, E2, and F1? (The last is not actully related to the first 2)

Now then, E2 could be argued to be not so much good, as stupid. Acting in such a way as to generate unhappiness (even of yourself) for the sake of a minor reduction in unhappiness of another person cannot be presumed to be good.
To take an admittedly extreme example, imagine our hypothetical person who is E2. They see a pot plant sitting on rail tracks, with a train coming. If the train crushes the pot plant, the owner would be upset. Thus, it is the E2 action for our person to throw themselves in front of the train, pushing the pot plant to safetey, but dying in the process. This by no means would be considered a heroic act of utter good, which your post would have it categorised as. I would argue the E2 is not so much a good state as severe mental ilness. I would even say that E2 is more Evil than Good. It creates unhappiness, doesn't it?

I think you're confusing Very Good and Stupid Good. The Very Good person is willing to make quite significant personal sacrifices (not neccessarily dangerous sacrifices) to help others. This could perhaps be a lot of time or money, or anything other significant but still not stupid.

A Stupid Good person would happily take a bullet to save a potted plant. No wonder the world isn't overcrowded by them. :smallamused:

hamishspence

2010-09-08, 05:25 AM

A major problem I see in this thread is that the Law/Chaos axis, in the real world, is almost synonymous with Politics, and the Good/Evil axis is almost synonymous with Religion. Real world alignment can't be discussed in any real depth... We can just state things at the very surface. I hate debates anyway, so I don't mind at all, really... I just feel like I have to tread very lightly in this thread.

If we're careful, and always speak in terms of Philosophy and Sociology- maybe we can discuss both axes without straying into dangerous waters.

This Planescape essay on the moral philosophies of each Outer Plane is pretty interesting:

http://www.mimir.net/essays/morals.html

Celestia: LG
Bytopia: Between LG and NG
Elysium: NG
Beastlands: Between NG and CG
Arborea: CG
Ysgard: Between CG and CN
Limbo: CN
Pandemonium: Between CN and CE
Abyss: CE
Tarterus: Between CE and NE
Hades: NE
Gehenna: Between NE and LE
Baator: LE
Acheron: Between LE and LN
Mechanus: LN
Arcadia: Between LN and LG
Outlands: N

Quincunx

2010-09-08, 05:35 AM

My current question: does the refusal to believe any fact of which you cannot understand the proof constitute a chaotic act? If that's so, a high INT person who does not understand the proof, but is willing to believe in it until his intelligence advances to the point of understanding, is Lawful; a high INT person who does not understand the proof and does not accept it until he works through the problem himself is Chaotic. (Under such a system, a low INT person with a poor grasp of his own handicap, who does not understand the proof and complains that it must be wrong because he cannot understand it is, of course, Chaotic Stupid.)

You D&D people and your obsession with this alignment thing as if it has any referential bearing on reality never ceases to confuse me.

Duality (making an us vs. them out of any question) is a useful intellectual tool for dealing with unknowns. Here we practice using it upon ourselves to know and define our unknown selves a bit better. It would be much more useful to more people if they kept to a single axis at a time, however, and defined it clearly enough, instead of mistaking good for law, or mistaking beauty for holiness for sanctity for pleasantry for altruism, or mistaking creativity for curiosity for wisdom for knowledge for intelligence. . .

Pika...

2010-09-08, 05:39 AM

I am bipolar, so I shift from Chaotic Neutral (the comical/humorous version) to Lawful Neutral.

I'd say I'm somewhat unique in that I do the two opposites.

Lolzords

2010-09-08, 06:08 AM

I'd like to say I was chaotic good or neutral good, but really I always decide on Chaotic Neutral when I think about it.

littlekKID

2010-09-08, 07:18 AM

I'm moving between True Neutral to Neutral Good

Starfols

2010-09-08, 01:23 PM

See, now I might have an objection with that.
Your three states (good, very good, and good at being good) are using emotionally charged words, words that automatically presume all of those are good things. They also presume that the second is better than the first. For the sake of a balanced discussion, can we please refer to them as E1, E2, and F1? (The last is not actully related to the first 2)
Well, we are talking about goodness. it's hard not to be emotionally charged. :smallwink:

I suppose the d&d terms for E1 and E2 are 'good' and 'exalted', but E1 and E2 will work fine. I didn't mean to imply F1 was related to the first two, but it's still relevant to the conversation.

Now then, E2 could be argued to be not so much good, as stupid. Acting in such a way as to generate unhappiness (even of yourself) for the sake of a minor reduction in unhappiness of another person cannot be presumed to be good.
To take an admittedly extreme example, imagine our hypothetical person who is E2. They see a pot plant sitting on rail tracks, with a train coming. If the train crushes the pot plant, the owner would be upset. Thus, it is the E2 action for our person to throw themselves in front of the train, pushing the pot plant to safetey, but dying in the process. This by no means would be considered a heroic act of utter good, which your post would have it categorised as. I would argue the E2 is not so much a good state as severe mental ilness. I would even say that E2 is more Evil than Good. It creates unhappiness, doesn't it?
I think my foot argument is related to that, and Teddy's covers it. Saying Mr. plant-saver has some screws loose, or is just SG is reasonable. Even without that, I could argue it's not E2 because Mr. Plant-saver is inherently more valuable than the plant, or is valuable to more people than the plant is to the owner.

max-is-working

2010-09-08, 02:11 PM

I'm neutral. It's tough to keep balance, but if balance is achieved (and not, say, rigorously or artificially maintained simply for the sake of being able to say "I have balance"), it's possible to be true neutral. :-)

hamishspence

2010-09-08, 02:12 PM

Even Exalted people aren't required to be that self-sacrificing.

I think one of the WOTC essays on paladins and alignment (possibly the one that also discussed the Law/Chaos axis?) pointed out that respect for life includes respect for one's own life- and the fact that keeping yourself alive if at all reasonably possible, allows you to go on and keep doing altruistic acts.

Exalted guys aren't expected to throw their lives away meaninglessly.

Telonius

2010-09-08, 02:19 PM

Probably true neutral, maybe bordering on NG.

The Vorpal Tribble

2010-09-08, 02:26 PM

Neutral Good for me... though of late have been feeling much more towards simply Neutral :smallannoyed:

Tired of giving a crap more about folk than they care about themselves and getting villified for giving a hoot. More and more wanting to just tell others to fix their own damn problems. Maybe more like 'Discouraged Good'.

Lawful/Chaotic axis... I think most laws are stupid and made for the sake of being a law. However, I find rebelling for the sake of rebelling equally pathetic.

As for those claiming chaotic evil, I still respond thusly: 'BS'.

ghost_warlock

2010-09-08, 02:40 PM

My current question: does the refusal to believe any fact of which you cannot understand the proof constitute a chaotic act? If that's so, a high INT person who does not understand the proof, but is willing to believe in it until his intelligence advances to the point of understanding, is Lawful; a high INT person who does not understand the proof and does not accept it until he works through the problem himself is Chaotic. (Under such a system, a low INT person with a poor grasp of his own handicap, who does not understand the proof and complains that it must be wrong because he cannot understand it is, of course, Chaotic Stupid.)

It seems to me that holding stringent requirements for proof before allowing a change of worldview is an inherently lawful act, rather than chaotic. Chaotic is much more whimsical and given to sudden changes, whereas law resists transmutation except under specific (usually previously-determined) circumstances.

Law: "X must be proven before I'll change my ideas about Y."
Chaos: "Z sounds about right to me, we'll go with that for a while."

max-is-working

2010-09-08, 02:44 PM

Tired of giving a crap more about folk than they care about themselves and getting villified for giving a hoot. More and more wanting to just tell others to fix their own damn problems. Maybe more like 'Discouraged Good'.
"Discouraged Good" is quite accurate. I sympathize.

Lawful/Chaotic axis... I think most laws are stupid and made for the sake of being a law. However, I find rebelling for the sake of rebelling equally pathetic.
Well said! Rebels rebel because they want to create their own laws, so that kind of makes them lawful in their own way. :-)

Gensh

2010-09-08, 03:31 PM

Well said! Rebels rebel because they want to create their own laws, so that kind of makes them lawful in their own way. :-)

Nope. If I'm not mistaken, that's actually considered lawful behavior. It might have just been someone arguing that the situation shouldn't screw over paladins in one of the paladin threads, though.

Quincunx

2010-09-08, 03:44 PM

It seems to me that holding stringent requirements for proof before allowing a change of worldview is an inherently lawful act, rather than chaotic. Chaotic is much more whimsical and given to sudden changes, whereas law resists transmutation except under specific (usually previously-determined) circumstances.

Law: "X must be proven before I'll change my ideas about Y."
Chaos: "Z sounds about right to me, we'll go with that for a while."

You convince me. Change that low-INT guy to Lawful Stupid. :smallamused:

WarKitty

2010-09-08, 03:55 PM

Well said! Rebels rebel because they want to create their own laws, so that kind of makes them lawful in their own way. :-)

It's more than that. I'd say someone who just wants to make their own laws is lawful-to-neutral. A chaotic would consider rules themselves to be inherently dangerous - not necessarily evil dangerous (like an anarchist), but dangerous like a sword is dangerous, where you have to be real careful that you don't accidentally get cut.

The Succubus

2010-09-08, 06:52 PM

Trying to be Lawful Good, probably only getting as far as Neutral Good or on my darker and more jaded days, True Neutral.

A little explanation - while I do what could be considered "good" deeds, I lack that heartwarming and caring side the good people are supposed to have, or if I do have it it's not up to where people think it should be. Perhaps Lawful Cold and Clinical Good or True Neutral With Occasional Warm and Fuzzy Leanings.

hobbitkniver

2010-09-08, 06:58 PM

Well, I geuss some people would call me Lawful evil becuase I believe that people should keep their word even if it was stupid to give. I'm not really mean though unless someone really bugs me again and again with the goal of upsetting or annoying me. I'm pretty good at tuning out people though now.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-08, 07:12 PM

Lawful/Chaotic axis... I think most laws are stupid and made for the sake of being a law. However, I find rebelling for the sake of rebelling equally pathetic.

i dont do rules.... i even break my own :)

As for those claiming chaotic evil, I still respond thusly: 'BS'.

everyone has a heart :smallbiggrin:

nolispe

2010-09-08, 08:13 PM

Well, we are talking about goodness. it's hard not to be emotionally charged. :smallwink:

I suppose the d&d terms for E1 and E2 are 'good' and 'exalted', but E1 and E2 will work fine. I didn't mean to imply F1 was related to the first two, but it's still relevant to the conversation.

I think my foot argument is related to that, and Teddy's covers it. Saying Mr. plant-saver has some screws loose, or is just SG is reasonable. Even without that, I could argue it's not E2 because Mr. Plant-saver is inherently more valuable than the plant, or is valuable to more people than the plant is to the owner.

Exactly. All I am trying to say is that it is not an inherently good act to be sael-sacrificing. If anything, self-sacrifice can move into Evil territory, for the reasons that you jsut stated. My objection was with your unsupported statement that Intention has a bearing on the morality of an action. Why? What the flip does what I wanted to do have on what I did? Remember, there is a difference between intention and reasonably expected outcome. Its reasonably expected outcome that changes the morality, not intention.

WarKitty

2010-09-08, 08:18 PM

Exactly. All I am trying to say is that it is not an inherently good act to be sael-sacrificing. If anything, self-sacrifice can move into Evil territory, for the reasons that you jsut stated. My objection was with your unsupported statement that Intention has a bearing on the morality of an action. Why? What the flip does what I wanted to do have on what I did? Remember, there is a difference between intention and reasonably expected outcome. Its reasonably expected outcome that changes the morality, not intention.

Both reasonably expected outcome and intention are required to make something a good act. A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good. A person who does something with a predictably evil result but good intentions is either self-deluded (and thus not good) or just stupid.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-08, 08:21 PM

I used to think of myself as NG. Lately, the G part seems to be going away, slowly but surely. I still won't do anything evil, even at my own expense, but I am becoming far more jaded and much less willing to help.

Probably something I should be working on.

:smallfrown: Oh, 'Kai, reading this about breaks my heart.

I'd say I'm chaotic neutral, with occasional leanings towards evil.
In the grand scheme of things, I care little for people I don't know, but'd kill for those I actually do care for.
And sometimes I do mean, mean things because it pleases me.

HalfTangible

2010-09-08, 08:27 PM

Hmmmmm... Chaotic neutral.

I enjoy freaking people out (especially groups of females, they always fall on the floor laughing if i do it enough) by doing things extremely creepy, weird or just plain evil, but they are almost always harmless and i do genuinely care about lives (though i'm not really active in it) I absolutely LOATHE the government and most rules people place on me that make little sense. Thus, chaotic.

Example of creepy thing:
*places a hand on a friend's shoulder* You know how serial killers start off as kids? *run it down back, whisper* They whisper and touch people they have no buisness touching-

I never get farther than that :smallbiggrin:

nolispe

2010-09-08, 08:29 PM

Both reasonably expected outcome and intention are required to make something a good act. A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good. A person who does something with a predictably evil result but good intentions is either self-deluded (and thus not good) or just stupid.

Why?
"A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good."
Explain why you think this, please.

WarKitty

2010-09-08, 08:33 PM

Why?
"A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good."
Explain why you think this, please.

An adequate explanation would unfortunately take more time than I have right now, so I will simply say I'm not a utilitarian and try back tomorrow for more information.

Volos

2010-09-08, 08:36 PM

I'm Chaotic Evil. I thought I wasn't, but after hearing all of my players / DMs tell me so, and taking a 130 something question quiz, I have discovered that I am. And not just CE, but the crazy sort of CE that doesn't realize it isn't evil. I could have sworn I was CG, but oh well.

Lady Tialait

2010-09-08, 08:40 PM

I would be considered Chaotic Neutral. You will be hard pressed to make me follow a rule I didn't make up for myself. In the same sentence, while I like people, I won't sacrifice myself for them, or anything of my own. I will on the other hand not try to destroy someone. I'm neutral on the Good/Evil axis. As for Lawful/Chaos axis, well, I don't really like rules, they annoy me.

Darklord Xavez

2010-09-08, 08:40 PM

Lawful Evil, with the occasional act of Chaotic Good, balancing out to True Neutral.
-Xavez

Trog

2010-09-08, 09:40 PM

True Neutral every time I take those quizzes. Too busy just trying to get by on my own to be much bothered with helping/hurting others most of the time I guess. =/

Starfols

2010-09-08, 09:49 PM

Exactly. All I am trying to say is that it is not an inherently good act to be sael-sacrificing. If anything, self-sacrifice can move into Evil territory, for the reasons that you jsut stated.
Glad we agree. Guess I didn't clarify my point. :smallsmile:

My objection was with your unsupported statement that Intention has a bearing on the morality of an action. Why? What the flip does what I wanted to do have on what I did? Remember, there is a difference between intention and reasonably expected outcome. Its reasonably expected outcome that changes the morality, not intention.

Why?
"A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good."
Explain why you think this, please.
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to look like those were related points. :smalleek:

Let me address those with questions.
Say there's a person who is paralyzed or physically impaired in some way. He really wants to help people and everything, but is not able. Would he be neutral, as he hasn't actually done anything good?

Conversely, say someone is being kind and good, specifically to gain the trust of a community, so they can screw all of them over later. Would they be considered good all the way up until the betrayal?

Serpentine

2010-09-08, 10:44 PM

Why?
"A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good."
Explain why you think this, please.:confused:
Please explain why you don't think this. It is too self-evident to me to make explaining it easy.

The_Admiral

2010-09-08, 10:49 PM

Probably CN i got in trouble more than once from lack of planning

max-is-working

2010-09-09, 01:13 AM

I find that when I stop being Neutral, I end up being Chaotic Neutral, and then it's up to Chaotic Good, or up-and-sideways to Neutral Good, or down-and-sideways to Neutral Evil. On really bad days, it's straight down to Chaotic Evil. Then I eventually slide back to Neutral out of habit.

But it seems that as soon as I'm back in Neutral, I keep being drawn to Chaotic Neutral.

And now the more I read the replies in this thread the more I think that Chaotic Neutral may be the default or base alignment for human beings. That is, in general, it's easier for us to be Chaotic Neutral than anything else, and any alignment will (again, in general) tend to be drawn - like a moth to a flame or like galaxies to the Great Attractor. I don't have data to assert this; but I wonder about this now. Also, termites and ants would be Lawful Neutral.

Siberian huskies are Neutral Good, of course. :-)

ghost_warlock

2010-09-09, 01:26 AM

You convince me. Change that low-INT guy to Lawful Stupid. :smallamused:

Yay! I dun did a smrt! :smallbiggrin:

*cough*

Anyway, for a circumstance where the proofs are beyond one's intellectual capabilities, a stance of 'can neither confirm nor deny' would be a more justifiable position than outright denial (or acceptance). After all, simply accepting any claim for which one cannot understand the evidence is gullibility, while denying such claims is closed minded.

Bring this back on-topic, as a (mostly) lawful being in my early 30's, most of my core and peripheral beliefs/preconceptions are crystallized. Some, perhaps even most, are changeable given significant evidence, but since they are (primarily) fixed, I do not typically go out of my way to uncover challenging evidence (and, the rare times when I do, I am more likely to consult sources that re-confirm my beliefs than those that will call them into question). Still, I remain juuuuuust chaotic enough that my beliefs are not impregnable and can be changed - such as a recent upheaval of opinion regarding the possible effects of second hand smoke.

I'd say I'm chaotic neutral, with occasional leanings towards evil.
In the grand scheme of things, I care little for people I don't know, but'd kill for those I actually do care for.
And sometimes I do mean, mean things because it pleases me.

Most of my cruelty is incidental and accidental, though I do occasionally venture into the Shadow and seek to actively cause harm to people who do not number among my clutch (those who I am rabidly loyal to). Perhaps unfortunately, I am somewhat soft-hearted, blunting my efforts, so I probably end up coming across as more annoying than genuinely hurtful in these instances. :smallsigh:

Gadzooks, go-go-gadget meandering sentence structure! :smalltongue:

Thajocoth

2010-09-09, 03:38 AM

Why?
"A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good."
Explain why you think this, please.

This would be a debate of actions vs intent. People can argue that a good deed is good regardless of intent, or that only the intent matters. A blend of both is really what makes a person who they are.

Some scenarios to consider:

A person plans to commit murder (for fun) and buys an expensive gun ($20,000). The gun is stolen by an unknown man who leaves a note ordering the man to donate $10,000 to charity if he wants to see his gun again. The man makes the donation purely to get his gun back. Was the donation good or evil?

A paranoid person believes someone is out to kill their friend. He looks around his friend's house and someone looks at the house at the wrong time. The paranoid individual believes this innocent person will kill his friend, so he kills him first to protect his friend. Was that good or evil?

Two people are stranded with no food. They have no way to hunt or anything either. One kills and eats the other to survive. Was that good or evil?

These things get very complex. I rate them as Evil, Neutral and Good, in that order, but my morality isn't the most common version. That is, of course, ignoring other axes, such as Law/Chaos, Intelligence and Sanity.

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 03:51 AM

You think killing someone else to save yourself it a Good action? :smallconfused: At best I'd rate it Desperate Neutral.

Thajocoth

2010-09-09, 04:02 AM

You think killing someone else to save yourself it a Good action? :smallconfused: At best I'd rate it Desperate Neutral.

They save that person the pain of starving to death. That would've been much worse to go through. Not the intent, sure, but basic survival isn't really aligned in my opinion, so any other factors take a greater weight.

hamishspence

2010-09-09, 04:43 AM

They also violate the other person's right not to be attacked.

The belief that survival justifies robbing others, of their life or their property, is more than a little problematic.

And "he would have died slowly anyway, or attacked me, so by killing him first I'm preventing his suffering" seems a bit like an excuse.

"A person is suffering" does not justify killing them without their consent.

"A person will suffer if they are not killed now, rather than later" seems even less justifiable.

Both reasonably expected outcome and intention are required to make something a good act. A person who does good with selfish or evil intent is not Good.

But the act itself might be, even if the person is not.

An obvious example- a particular person is strongly empathic (if a little self-centred). They take pleasure in other people's happiness, and when they other people hurt (or they think about someone who they expect will be hurting), they feel emotional pain. So, in order to keep themselves as happy as possible- they help others in distress, and do things they know will make others happy. But their primary motive is their own happiness.

Selfish intent- but kind acts are kind even if the intent behind them is selfish.

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 04:48 AM

They save that person the pain of starving to death. That would've been much worse to go through. Not the intent, sure, but basic survival isn't really aligned in my opinion, so any other factors take a greater weight.That's seriously pushing it. At best it's an excuse, at worst a dangerous delusion.
And you say here "basic survival isn't really aligned" - does that mean you made a mistake when you earlier said killing and eating someone else to save yourself is a Good act?

hamishspence

2010-09-09, 05:01 AM

BoVD suggests that "sacrificing people to save yourself is an evil act" but the example given was escaping from monsters via a route that will cause a landslide to flatten a village.

The same logic could be applied to survival cannibalism though- especially when done without the other party's consent.

It mentions eating people for pleasure as an evil act later- but survival cannibalism (when the other party was not murdered) may not count.

That said, in 4E, all cannibalism, even survival cannibalism, risks opening the way to demonic possession by a Wendigo, according to Demonomicon.

Lost Demiurge

2010-09-09, 08:14 AM

After a few decades on this here earth, I'm pretty sure I've been neutral good for most of it.

Leaning more towards neutral the older I get, but there's still some charity in me.

Jergmo

2010-09-09, 01:03 PM

*Continues infiltration of Friendly Banter*

Neutral Good.

To those who identify as "Good": What do you do that's so helpful to strangers? Do you perceive yourself as indirectly exploiting and endangering many sentient beings simply by functioning as a worker or consumer in a modern first-world nation, and if so, what do you do in order to mitigate this?

I am a kind, compassionate and generous soul. I certainly don't expect a medal for it, and I doubt from what's happened thus far that I'll get some kind of karmic payoff for it. I just do it. Thus far, my actions have made a very positive impact on nine lives that I know of. While speaking of it sounds like a contradiction, I am humble about it - perhaps to the point of a fault, but I've been trying to tone it down and accept the gratitude that has been shown to me instead of playing it off like it's no biggie that I helped them. I've taken to blushing like a fool. :S

I'm not a mini-Jesus saint, but there are those who say that I'm saint-like. Personally, I think people just have low standards when it comes to others. I'm trying to save up money right now so that I can become a physical therapist, so my good deeds slow down a bit in the helping those in serious need out of a bind, but once I'm stable financially and have a good career it'll likely go into overdrive. All I want is a reasonably comfortable life and the ability to travel occasionally. Everything else will be devoted towards the betterment of others - I need no luxuries.

It seems like it might be asking for something a bit more specific, so...
I gave an online friend $400 to get a plane ticket back to her home in Tennessee away from her new home in Alaska, where her boyfriend abused her and landed them both in poverty, her in a battered woman's shelter with no way to work at the time.

I gave a woman I work with $250 to help pay a warrant due to some medical insurance thing with her husband, who was diagnosed with severe epilepsy and cannot work (they were not covered at that given time). I would assume there's disability checks involved, but at the time they couldn't scrape up the money and if she couldn't pay the warrant, she would have been arrested, putting herself, her husband and their four children in a rather precarious position.

I won't go into the details, as it's more personal, but my lending of support has prevented two suicides.

nolispe

2010-09-09, 02:39 PM

This would be a debate of actions vs intent. People can argue that a good deed is good regardless of intent, or that only the intent matters. A blend of both is really what makes a person who they are.

Some scenarios to consider:

A person plans to commit murder (for fun) and buys an expensive gun ($20,000). The gun is stolen by an unknown man who leaves a note ordering the man to donate $10,000 to charity if he wants to see his gun again. The man makes the donation purely to get his gun back. Was the donation good or evil?

A paranoid person believes someone is out to kill their friend. He looks around his friend's house and someone looks at the house at the wrong time. The paranoid individual believes this innocent person will kill his friend, so he kills him first to protect his friend. Was that good or evil?

Two people are stranded with no food. They have no way to hunt or anything either. One kills and eats the other to survive. Was that good or evil?

These things get very complex. I rate them as Evil, Neutral and Good, in that order, but my morality isn't the most common version. That is, of course, ignoring other axes, such as Law/Chaos, Intelligence and Sanity.

First, I would tend to suggest that actions must be taken in context with an array of other things, like the actions that will result from them, and the actions taken to generate the circumstances, and possibly other options availible. I will go into more detail when I get back.
The donation itself? Since it permitted

Thajocoth

2010-09-09, 02:47 PM

That's seriously pushing it. At best it's an excuse, at worst a dangerous delusion.
And you say here "basic survival isn't really aligned" - does that mean you made a mistake when you earlier said killing and eating someone else to save yourself is a Good act?

No. It was part of my explanation. Basic survival, in my morality, is not of any alignment. So I ignore that part of the event for determining alignment. The murder was necessary for the survival, so no alignment there either. All that remains is that it saved the other person from intense pain as they slowly starve to death. For the cannibal, it merely delayed this pain. Nothing + Good = Good. Lack of alignment is not the same as Neutral.

Offering oneself as a meal to the other could actually be selfish and deceiving here, depending on the intent. If done to save oneself from the pain of a slow death, it's therefore Neutral. If done to try to help the other survive, hoping they get rescued, it's Good.

But again, I know my version of morality is not the norm.

An action's alignment stems from a mixture of actions and intent, with greater weight to the parts of this that the individual is aware of when making the decision, as well as increased weight to more severe and less reversible actions.

To me, this is the same scenario:
Your friend is tied up. A gun is aimed at you. There's a knife next to your friend. The gunman orders you to kill your friend with the knife, or else they'll boil them alive. Doing so allows you to survive, for at least a little longer and spares them the slower, more painful death of being boiled. This effects the gunman's alignment, but not your own, as you are forced to commit the act to survive.

In the cannibal scenario, Mother Nature is the gunman, starvation is the gun and starvation is the boiling. It's the same thing. Besides, it's entirely possible that in either scenario, the friend who's killed WANTS to die to get out of that situation. Sure, you haven't discussed it with them... But it makes perfect logical sense that they would prefer the situation ended by any means, even if it cost them their own life.

First, I would tend to suggest that actions must be taken in context with an array of other things, like the actions that will result from them, and the actions taken to generate the circumstances, and possibly other options availible.

I agree absolutely.

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 08:09 PM

Thajocoth

2010-09-09, 09:41 PM

...
Yeah, nuh. In fact, I would suggest that that's villain thinking - "I know I'm doing all this horrible horrible stuff, but it's to try to get this one tiny good outcome that I think justifies being a horrible person."

What horrible stuff? Murder's not always an evil act. Murder for sadistic reasons or greed is evil, certainly, but for survival (or self defense, which is really just a sub-case of survival), I just don't see how it's evil.

Isn't more people being alive and less people suffering all part of most other people's version of Good? How's it better for two people to die a slow painful death than for one to kill the other and gain a better chance that at least one of them could live?

EDIT: Please note - I've never killed anyone, nor do I plan to ever kill anyone.

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 11:15 PM

I would like to point out that I am arguing for it to be not-good, not necessarily evil. Have you ever heard the phrase "where there's life there's hope"? The killer is denying his victim any hope of survival, and is taking all that hope for himself. I sincerely doubt that he is giving any thought at all to the potential suffering he is oh-so-selflessly preventing for the victim - if he is, I have very little doubt that it is anything but a way to justify it to himself. Do you honestly expect that claim to be taken seriously? If the person in question genuinely believes it, then I would grant that it's a neutral action on the grounds of insanity.
Self-preservation is neutral. Self-preservation at the expense of other sapient beings, in a situation other than self-defence (and, arguably, war and the like), is evil. Self-preservation at the expense of other sapient beings in a situation other than self-defense accompanied by the reasoning that it is for the good of the other is deluded evil.

Thajocoth

2010-09-09, 11:48 PM

I get the concept of what you're saying now. I don't grant sapience any special treatment in my version of morality when it comes to one's basic survival. I am also not saying that the killer uses the idea that he's ending the other person's suffering. I'm saying that this is a very low weight side effect of the action that would normally have little-to-no effect on the alignment. I don't see the act and intent as Neutral. I see it as No Alignment. These are not the same.

Murder for survival + Eat a dead body + This event just happens to prevent the victim from suffering, by pure chance = ?

(0 x 1,000,000) + (0 x 1,000,000) + (Good * 1) = 0 + 0 + 1 Good = Barely Good. That's my math.

If I saw the actions and intent as Neutral, that'd be so much Neutrality that the drop of Good side effect is irrelevant. It does not make the individual Good. Alignmentwise, on the Good-Evil scale at least, it's almost a non-action.

If I saw the act & intent as Neutral, it would be: (Neutral x 1,000,000) + (Neutral x 1,000,000) + (Good * 1) = 2,000,000 Neutrals + 1 Good = Very Neutral.

Serpentine

2010-09-09, 11:52 PM

Thajocoth

2010-09-09, 11:56 PM

If an Evil (or Neutral) action just happens to have an extremely arguable, circumstantial, coincidental positive outcome, that does not make the action Good - ESPECIALLY not in any way that has any impact on the alignment of the performer of the action. If I throw a rock at a child intending to kill her, and instead it just injures her, and in the process of healing her the doctors discover a brain tumor and so are able to operate in time to save her life, that doesn't make me a Good person. That makes me a very bad person and the child very lucky.

Yes. This is with an evil act though. Lots of Evil + Circumstantial Good = Very Evil.

Intent to Kill + Painful, But Reversible Action + Unintended Lifesaving Side-Effect = ?
(Evil * 1,000,000,000) + (Evil * 1,000) + (Good * 100) = 1,000,000,900 Evil = Very Evil

I've edited my previous post a bit... I tend to do that for the next 10 minutes or so after I post anything... I hope it's a bit clearer. I'm not saying Lots of Neutral + Drop of Good = Good. I'm saying lots of <nothing that effects alignment in any way> + Drop of Good = Barely Good that doesn't really effect overall alignment.

EDIT: I'm also not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you have a different set of morals than I.

Serpentine

2010-09-10, 12:12 AM

Killing and eating someone because otherwise you'll both die is still a very morally questionable act. I'm not entirely willing to call it a truly Evil act, but just because it turns out that you end up dying a slow horrible death that your victim doesn't have to because you killed them doesn't make you more of a good person. It just makes you a bad (not necessarily Evil) person whose last desperate attempt to survive happened to backfire on you.

Anyway, llright then. I throw a rock into the air, just because I feel like throwing a rock. I have no intention of hitting anything. I just toss a rock. It hits a girl in the head, seriously injuring her. In the process of healing the girl, they discover a tumor and are able to operate, saving her life. I'm still not a hero. I'm an idiot who got very, very lucky.

Thajocoth

2010-09-10, 01:26 AM

Killing and eating someone because otherwise you'll both die is still a very morally questionable act.

If a person's options are "Do X or Die", I completely expect them to do X, and don't think them any more or less moral for it. That's why I ignored that part when deciding on how moral an act it is. To me it's not only not questionable, but the expected and probable outcome. That's one of the places we differ in morality, stated far more clearly (I hope) than all my previous attempts to say exactly that.

(Sometimes, it takes me a lot of tries to find the good way to say what I mean...)

nolispe

2010-09-10, 01:58 AM

...
Yeah, nuh. In fact, I would suggest that that's villain thinking - "I know I'm doing all this horrible horrible stuff, but it's to try to get this one tiny good outcome that I think justifies being a horrible person."

I hate to say it, but that's not exactly a counter-argument. Saying something is "Villain" thinking doesn't automatically make them wrong.

Hamishspence, can we please ignore both the BoVD and the BoED. They both have the sophistication of a demented three year old.

To explain what I said earlier:
First, let me state that I am not a believer in absolute morality. Also, the burden of proof rests on someone who was to state that absolute morality exists, so I am going to leave that point untill someone defends it.
Now, can we all accept that none of us truly can "Know" what it is completely like to be another person, with the same alterations in brain structure and same circumstances. Then, the question of how we judge the morality of something presents itself. I would argue that as the only way we can judge wheather something is "good" or "bad" is in the results, in what happens to other people as a result of this. So, I am going to, for my purposes, define "good" as something that should be encouraged, something that acted to increase the amount of happiness in the world or decrease the amount of unhappiness. We should act to increase the number of "good" actions taken in the world. I will also define "bad" as something that should be discouraged, that acted to increase the amount of unhappiness or decrease the amount of happiness. We should act to reduce the amount of "bad" actions. Define neutral as an action which did neither of these things, or both in equal amounts.
Now, it must be understood that there is a difference between "Intention" and "Reasonably expected result". Intention does not make a difference to the morality of an act, and the act should still be prevented if possible. Reasonably expected result, on the other hand, does make a difference, and is in fact the determinant of morality. Remember, judging things in hindsight is not the intention here.
.

Serpentine

2010-09-10, 02:32 AM

I agree with you overall, except in your dismissal of intention. If we are discussing morality in the context of whether a person is "Good" or "Evil", then intention must reflect on the person to a comparable degree to outcome. Obviously, there are limits - to use my earlier analogy, if I go around throwing rocks at kids because some of them might have tumours that will only be picked up through head trauma, that still doesn't really make me a good person, just an idiot or possibly a mental institution escapee. But if I press a big red shiny button because I reasonably believe it will result in children everywhere receiving chocolate and kittens, but it ends up cutting all their legs off instead, then I still fully intended and expected my action to do good, which I think makes me a good person.

hamishspence

2010-09-10, 02:55 AM

If alignment (in a D&D sense) is to be discussed- then the alignment books- even the not so well written ones, are relevant.

BoVD does allow for grey areas, but "murder in order to keep yourself alive" isn't one of them.

Which is not to say that the person who does it will be evil-aligned- but some of the books that discuss alignment (Champions of Ruin, Heroes of Horror) point out that dire survival situations can end up with people committing evil acts, not acts that are "neutral because survival is the motivation". Though also the point is "Even neutral and Good people may be driven to evil acts from time to time"

A person unwilling to do an evil act, will probably be willing to die fighting for survival, rather than murder someone to extend their own life.

If the other person has said "I'm willing to die rather than continue suffering" it might be different- but no-one has the right to take that choice away from them. People's freedom of action in the cause of their own survival ends where other people's bodies begin- except in cases of actual self-defence.

On the subject of survival cannibalism this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

established that "necessity" is not a defense against a charge of murder. However, it might be accepted as a mitigating factor.

In the same way, coercion might be a mitigating factor- but a person coerced into committing murder still bears some legal and moral culpability.

hamishspence

2010-09-10, 06:36 AM

Ultimately, the "evil aligned mindset" could maybe be boiled down to one phrase:

"My need, justifies violating your rights"

(The need can be physical, emotional, financial, etc.)

Thajocoth

2010-09-10, 10:33 AM

Then in D&D terms, I must be evil, as I would choose my survival over another's in most cases. I don't see it as evil... But I can understand a fantasy setting saying it is. After all, you can always roll up another character in a game, so death is not as big a deal. Here on Earth, I'm not going to die until I have to.

I have never had to make such a desperate decision. I just know what I would choose if I had to do so. And which organs need to be boiled to be edible...

While at the same time, I would prefer that people get cured of all sorts of diseases, all war ends, ect... Certainly Good thoughts there, but with no actions I can realistically take towards causing any of it. All I can do is entertain. I get enjoyment when my work gives enjoyment to others. (My medium = video games)

WarKitty

2010-09-10, 10:49 AM

The thing about D&D alignment is that characters are almost always "larger than life." Whatever they do is stronger and more far-reaching than what you average nerd would do. D&D characters are players in a cosmic dance We're just nerdy average people.

hamishspence

2010-09-10, 11:22 AM

Then in D&D terms, I must be evil, as I would choose my survival over another's in most cases.

Of course, there is a difference between choosing not to give somebody else what they need to survive (because it's keeping you alive)

and robbing them of what they possess that's keeping them alive- to keep yourself alive.

Example- you and someone else are the last people on a sinking ship. There's one life jacket left- and it's in the hands of the other guy, who's just putting it on.

You sneak up behind him, snatch the jacket, and leap over the side.

Evil act (though not necessarily evil aligned person)? I'd say yes.

By contrast- you're the guy with the jacket. Other guy says to you "give me the jacket- I deserve to live more than you do."

You ignore him- and jump over- choosing your survival above theirs.

Evil act? I'd say not.

The Vorpal Tribble

2010-09-10, 11:26 AM

We're just nerdy average people.
Speak for yourself :smallamused:

D&D is about my only claim to nerdom, and D&D doesn't make you an auto-nerd any more than watching football makes you a jock.

Octopus Jack

2010-09-10, 11:27 AM

I'm Neutral Evil, Though I do have quite a few lawful tendancies they are balanced by some chaotic ones leaving me as neutral.
Evil is due to the fact that I plot and sucessfully bring other people down while increasing the benefit to me or sometimes I just manipulate people for the fun of it. However I'm not pure evil, if anyone in my close group of friends, or "flock" as I call them, is hurt I will fight very strongly to help them and to remove the thing that hurt them. Anyone outside my group is just either a potential flock candidate or just food for fun.
Even the people who know me more than anyone would put me as True Neutral on a good day and definitly Evil on a bad one.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-10, 11:35 AM

D&D is about my only claim to nerdom, and D&D doesn't make you an auto-nerd any more than watching football makes you a jock.

I call shenanigans, Mr. Tribble :smalltongue: (Btw, your avatar gives me Diabeetus. Just sayin')

But, point mostly agreed. Otherwise, my love of American Football and Hockey would make me a jock, and, lets face it, that would be terrifying.

Still, though, alignment systems are hard to adapt to real life situations, because how often do we get choices to do really awesome heroic things? Sure, it happens to some people on rare occasions, but...
::shrugs::

Jergmo

2010-09-10, 11:43 AM

However I'm not pure evil, if anyone in my close group of friends, or "flock" as I call them, is hurt I will fight very strongly to help them and to remove the thing that hurt them. Anyone outside my group is just either a potential flock candidate or just food for fun.

Evil people can have friends and loved ones, too. They'd just leave everyone else to rot. That...does not diminish evil.

The Vorpal Tribble

2010-09-10, 12:20 PM

I call shenanigans, Mr. Tribble :smalltongue:
Well, I was raised a Trekkie, granted. My Dad was one. I started using Vorpal Tribble when I was 13. I lost interest in trek before I was out of my teens but kept the name in gaming circles out of nostalgia.

D&D just appeals because I'm a writer and a romantic, not from nerdom. I just like writing games :smallwink:

(Btw, your avatar gives me Diabeetus. Just sayin')
I make it a point that every one of my tribble avatars can kill you. Even by fluffiness or insulin, it's all good :smallamused:

Blue Ghost

2010-09-10, 08:05 PM

Evil people can have friends and loved ones, too. They'd just leave everyone else to rot. That...does not diminish evil.

While I completely agree that having friends and loved ones does not automatically make you non-evil, the mere fact that you care about someone other than yourself does mean that you are not pure evil. Just my two cents.

Arachu

2010-09-11, 08:46 AM

Where does "general disdain bordering on hatred for the vast majority of people, yet absolutely loving dogs and cats" fall under?

... I know I'm chaotic, given my immense, irrational resistance of all authority and general callousness regarding rules I disagree with.

Not that I hate people with authority, just that I'd turn on most in an instant, if they made the first move.

... As for morality... Blood, murder, violence, explosions... And cats.

... And man-eating puppies...

Reshbj

2010-09-11, 08:51 AM

I'm Neutral Good, leaning ever so slightly towards Lawful Good.
On the internet though, I like to present myself as Lawful Neutral.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-12, 06:37 PM

While I completely agree that having friends and loved ones does not automatically make you non-evil, the mere fact that you care about someone other than yourself does mean that you are not pure evil. Just my two cents.

so Anakin never was evil?

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-12, 06:42 PM

so Anakin never was evil?
No, he was never completely evil, as shown by the fact he was redeemed right before his death by the love he had for his son.
But he did do a lot of evil, really not nice things.
Like killing children.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-12, 06:52 PM

No, he was never completely evil, as shown by the fact he was redeemed right before his death by the love he had for his son.
But he did do a lot of evil, really not nice things.
Like killing children.

and wiping out an entire tusken raider camp

hamishspence

2010-09-13, 06:58 AM

Even Evil Has Loved Ones is a pretty common rule. It's rare to find an evil character in fiction who doesn't care at all for anyone but themselves- Lord Voldemort was one, but it's not that common.

Skeppio

2010-09-13, 07:11 AM

hamishspence

2010-09-13, 07:24 AM

Setra

2010-09-13, 10:44 AM

Kefka is another, but other than that, I'm hard pressed to find a villain who doesn't care about anyone or anything. I think it's only the universe-destroying maniac types that really go that way. Anything short, and it's a good bet there's a reason he/she doesn't want to destroy it all.
... Luca Blight? I haven't played Suikoden II in a while but that's how I recall him.

More on topic: I'm either Neutral Evil or True Neutral.

I'm generally more ordered and the like, but I'm prone to outbursts of randomness and the like. Not altruistic, so not good, the rest is debatable.

Teddy

2010-09-13, 02:37 PM

Even Evil Has Loved Ones is a pretty common rule. It's rare to find an evil character in fiction who doesn't care at all for anyone but themselves- Lord Voldemort was one, but it's not that common.

Sauron? Sauroman?

hamishspence

2010-09-13, 02:45 PM

True. It seems like Evil Wizards tend to lose caring for others rather quickly, if they ever had it.

Raistlin in Dragonlance cares about his brother a bit before he turns evil- but afterwards, he gets less and less caring.

That said, Lord Soth cared a bit for the villainess of the books- though in a creepy fashion.

Ranger Mattos

2010-09-13, 03:38 PM

It's suggested that Voldemort, despite having no friends and no loved ones- feels a little affection for his snake Nagini.

He may not care about people, but he cares a lot about power.

Spoilered for those of you who haven't read book 7:I doubt Voldemort felt any actual affection. He was just careful about Nagini because she was one of his horcruxes.

Twin Dragons

2010-09-13, 03:41 PM

Pretty sure I'm lawful neutral.

hamishspence

2010-09-13, 03:43 PM

Book 6 has Dumbledore's comment on Voldemort and Nagini:

"I think he is perhaps as fond of her as he can be of anything"

Which is during his explanation as to (spoilered for those who haven't read book 7):
what Voldemort's Horcruxes are likely to be.

Xyk

2010-09-13, 07:04 PM

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-13, 07:58 PM

I donated blood today. I feel kind of dizzy, being only like 4 pounds above the posted weight limit (123 lbs here, I don't know about other places).

I feel like I just shifted three points towards good.

i donated blood once. however instead of feeling dizzy, i stood up, managed to mumble three words and faceplanted onto the gym floor

Katana_Geldar

2010-09-13, 08:00 PM

have a big meal with some milk in it. The best thing to have after a blood donation is a chcolate milkshake, which they give for free at my bloodbank. :smalltongue:

I'm Neutral Good.

The Vorpal Tribble

2010-09-13, 08:04 PM

Hmm... never thought of donating blood as 'good' per se, but guess it could be.

I've never noticed a thing from donating blood, then again I'm a big dude. I probably lose that much each time I go climbing.

WarKitty

2010-09-13, 08:12 PM

:smallsigh: They won't take my blood, apparently I'm too small. Which is really annoying when they have the campus lets-stop-everyone-not-wearing-a-donation-sticker-and-harass-them brigade out.

The Vorpal Tribble

2010-09-13, 08:18 PM

:smallsigh: They won't take my blood, apparently I'm too small. Which is really annoying when they have the campus lets-stop-everyone-not-wearing-a-donation-sticker-and-harass-them brigade out.
That's when you tell them you are collecting some yourself and step towards them aggressively.

Who the crap wears the sticker??

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-13, 08:23 PM

have a big meal with some milk in it. The best thing to have after a blood donation is a chcolate milkshake, which they give for free at my bloodbank. :smalltongue:

I'm Neutral Good.

i didnt eat anything... i forgot my school's blood drive was that day. on the upside, i was out for a good 3 hours so i missed 3rd and 4th period

Partof1

2010-09-13, 09:00 PM

I'd say Neutral Good, for meself. I'm more prone to chaos, but not anti-law, sometimes abusing logic to prove the illogical.

And Good? Well, I wouldn't go out of my way to hurt anybody, would charge down a steep hill to catch a child's stroller, but i might keep the last life jacket if the other guy was particular rude or condescending about it. Wouldn't burn the 2nd last jacket, certainly.

Thajocoth

2010-09-13, 09:02 PM

I tried to donate once. The nurse paid more attention to my squealing than to the needle in my arm... She popped my vein. Then she offered to try the other arm.

I said no. It hurt a lot. I'm not going to repeat that.

I had to leave my car in the lot overnight and have someone come pick me up.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-13, 09:11 PM

Xyk

2010-09-13, 11:56 PM

have a big meal with some milk in it. The best thing to have after a blood donation is a chcolate milkshake, which they give for free at my bloodbank. :smalltongue:

I'm Neutral Good.

It was at my school and they gave us some cookies and orange juice and whatnot. The bad part was that I had afternoon marching band rehearsal in texas heat (roughly 100 Fahrenheit). That was unpleasant and I had to sit out frequently. I'm totally okay now, after I had dinner. I do it about every 2 months whenever the collectors come to my school.

I'd recommend doing it for everyone that can (but eating lots first) but those that can't shouldn't sweat it.

planswalker

2010-09-14, 12:18 AM

LG all the way. Big believer in ethics and morality.

WarKitty

2010-09-14, 06:56 AM

LG all the way. Big believer in ethics and morality.

Would that imply that chaos is opposed to ethics? I know they call it the ethical scale...but that never made sense to me.

hamishspence

2010-09-14, 07:02 AM

Hmm- what would be "Chaotic ethics" as opposed to "Lawful ethics"?

Might be a case of Chaos being focussed on the individual and their rights, and Law being focussed on the group.

Easydamus does suggest Chaos tends to be individualistic.

A CG person might believe in the rights of the individual so much, that they leap to the defense of individuals whose "rights" are being violated by others- especially groups which claim the right to violate other peoples rights to serve their need. What makes them Chaotic is their individualism, what makes them Good their willingness to protect others at their own cost.

http://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html

Which is not to say a LG person doesn't value individual rights as well- just that they might see it through a lens of group cooperation.

Zalgo

2010-09-15, 06:06 PM

I think I am True Neutral becuase I belive in balance more than I belive in good or evil, but a quiz I made a while ago says I'm Chaotic Neutral :smallconfused:

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-15, 06:08 PM

I think I am True Neutral becuase I belive in balance more than I belive in good or evil, but a quiz I made a while ago says I am Chaotic Neutral:smallconfused:

CN isnt a bad place to be :smallsmile:

Knaight

2010-09-15, 08:50 PM

Would that imply that chaos is opposed to ethics? I know they call it the ethical scale...but that never made sense to me.

Well, there is a distinction between ethics and morals, which would make sense.

WarKitty

2010-09-15, 08:54 PM

Well, there is a distinction between ethics and morals, which would make sense.

Right, but the general idea is that good=moral and evil=immoral. I'm not sure you can describe law as ethical and chaos as unethical though. Then again I always thought WoTC had a bit of "well law is really gooder than chaos but we're not gonna come out and say it."

Mando Knight

2010-09-15, 09:11 PM

CN isnt a bad place to be :smallsmile:
I said, Seeeeheee Ehn ...ain't no bad place to beee! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC5FwMg7KY4) :smalltongue:

...But I am, by most metrics, solidly LG. Partly because I know that I'm not good enough.

Drakevarg

2010-09-15, 10:40 PM

I sit somewhere on the border between Lawful Good and True Neutral.

Good vs. Neutral: I generally consider myself a decent, honest person. I don't have any hidden agendas or dishonest motives because they simply don't occur to me. On the other hand, while I won't lie, I have no problem with simply not telling the truth. (Or if the other direction would make more sense, I'm perfectly happy to obscure an event... unless I'm asked about it specifically, then I need to fess up.)

Law vs. Neutral: I have rules that I have, and I stick to them even when they don't make sense. For example, my aforementioned lying vs. obscuring the truth rule. Or my rule that says I never use a sourcebook I don't own in meatspace, or the rule that says I'll only obtain my music in CD form. This isn't a political viewpoint as many have mentioned the Law/Chaos axis to be, it's just a series of arbitrary codes that I live by, perhaps to keep my life under control.

The reason I'm not sure I'm Lawful is that parts of my code are distinctly Chaotic. Like the rule that says I won't steal, but under certain parameters I'll overlook other people stealing. (Namely, as long as I don't care what the store thinks of me, or if the store is so big it wouldn't notice anyway.)

On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain my online persona is Lawful Evil. I still have my set of arbitrary rules, but I'm also a sadist. :smallamused:

hamishspence

2010-09-16, 04:02 AM

While the PHB says "Neutral people, may sacrifice themselves for relatives, friends, or even homeland, but they will not sacrifice themselves for people who don't have a connection to them" I'd say that not all Neutral people fit this, and not all people who fit this are Neutral.

If a person makes sacrifices for others, the fact that they are not willing to sacrifice themselves- that they exempt their own life from the things they will sacrifice for strangers- may not be enough to move them out of Good alignment- as long as they never violate the rights of others.

From my point of view:

"Never violates the rights of others"- Not Evil
"Never violates the rights of the innocent"- could potentially be Evil

"Makes sacrifices for others- including strangers"- could be Good if they don't violate the rights of others, even if they "will not sacrifice their life for a stranger"

"Protects the innocent"- could be Good if they don't violate the rights of others- even if, from their point of view, they never "make sacrifices".

DragonOfUndeath

2010-09-16, 04:18 AM

Chaotic Neutral
or Chaotic Good with Evil leanings?
or Chaotic Evil with Good leanings?
i dont know :smallbiggrin:

raitalin

2010-09-16, 04:24 AM

Depending on how much faith I have in the human race at any given moment, Chaotic Good or True Neutral.

Sadly, True neutral more often as I get older.

Serpentine

2010-09-16, 05:39 AM

Right, but the general idea is that good=moral and evil=immoral. I'm not sure you can describe law as ethical and chaos as unethical though. Then again I always thought WoTC had a bit of "well law is really gooder than chaos but we're not gonna come out and say it."Ugh, I noticed that too. Hate it. But, I must confess, it has some basis in ancient metaphysics.

Also, this reminds me of a bit of a movie I saw once. The, I think, Cont du Sade (sp?) was writing a comprehensive encyclopedia. A running theme was his trying to figure out what to put for "morals". Finally, he asked his assistant, "what did I put for ethics?" "Ethics: see morals." "Hm. Alright, put this: "Morals: see ethics.". It'll make them think."

Veros

2010-09-16, 09:30 AM

I'm True Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil... At the same time. (All of them have the same score, what can I say?)

Eldonauran

2010-09-16, 11:31 AM

Lawful Good for me. Though, society may not be agreeable with me there. :smallamused:

Ignition

2010-09-16, 11:38 AM

Lawful Good for me. Though, society may not be agreeable with me there. :smallamused:

Just because you're Lawful Good doesn't mean you're following the same laws as your current society :smallwink:

mangosta71

2010-09-16, 03:53 PM

Oh, we're doing this again?

Chaotic because I'll break any rule I can get away with, and the only reason I follow most rules is that receiving the punishment would inconvenience me. I don't like to lie because it's more fun to use truths to deceive and manipulate others into drawing incorrect conclusions. Plus, that way, even if I'm caught, I can't be punished for lying.

Evil because I don't like people. I tend to look at them as playthings. As long as I'm having a good time, I couldn't care less about whether or not everyone else is suffering. I'm not about to going around committing murder, but if threatened I would have no compunction against killing in my own defense and then suing the family for "emotional distress". Pretty sure that counts as exploiting and/or harming others.

So, I classify myself as CE all the way.

Xyk

2010-09-16, 09:40 PM