What's your Alignment?

[DoPo]

I have problems with any system that uses the terms "good" and "evil". Can we just say selfish and unselfish since that's what it ends up translating to anyway?

This better?

Lawful neutral. You respect authority and the regulations of the test

See, the problem with that is, that it leaves no room for neutrality. You either don't break the rules, being Lawful, or you break them and you're Chaotic. How would you define a neutral action here?

No, in fact "not breaking the rules" is the neutral action. The Lawful thing to do is report it - somebody seeks to defy the rules. Or at lest do something else related to them and upholding them.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

I have problems with any system that uses the terms "good" and "evil". Can we just say selfish and unselfish since that's what it ends up translating to anyway?

I took a test that says I'm neutral. Cool, neutral seems like the most interesting.

The problem is that even 'good' people are self interested. I would argue that selfish is the neutral position, neither helping nor hindering your fellow man so long as it doesn't affect you. That's what most people operate at.

I would rank it as;

'Good'= Compassionate, willing to expend time and resources helping others for reasons other than personal gain.
'Neutral'= Selfish, other people 'aren't your problem' but you wont screw them over either.
'Evil'= Ruthless, perfectly willing to make other peoples lives worse if it makes yours better.

Obviously its a sliding scale, which real people move up and down all the time based on their mood and experiences. Which is the main failing of the alignment system, which assumes the opposite.

 

[Olas]

I have problems with any system that uses the terms "good" and "evil". Can we just say selfish and unselfish since that's what it ends up translating to anyway?

I took a test that says I'm neutral. Cool, neutral seems like the most interesting.

The problem is that even 'good' people are self interested. I would argue that selfish is the neutral position, neither helping nor hindering your fellow man so long as it doesn't affect you. That's what most people operate at.

I would rank it as;

'Good'= Compassionate, willing to expend time and resources helping others for reasons other than personal gain.
'Neutral'= Selfish, other people 'aren't your problem' but you wont screw them over either.
'Evil'= Ruthless, perfectly willing to make other peoples lives worse if it makes yours better.

Obviously its a sliding scale, which real people move up and down all the time based on their mood and experiences. Which is the main failing of the alignment system, which assumes the opposite.

There's a difference between self interested and selfish.

All 3 groups are self interested, just to different degrees. 'Evil' is selfish because he's willing to harm others for personal gain. He's the only one who doesn't factor other people's well being into the equation at all.

'Neutral' may be self invested, but he has limits on what he'll do, thus he's less selfish than evil because he respects others enough to leave them alone, even if it means denying himself certain goods he could otherwise obtain.

Then 'good' is also self interested because presumably he'll do what he can to save his own life, and wouldn't kill himself just to make someone else's life slightly better, but he'll make big personal sacrifices to help others when need be.

I don't like the words good and evil because they have no clear moral definition and historically have been used as a blanket term for anyone who agrees or disagrees with your own ideology. Some people don't consider being highly self interested as "evil" at all but rather merely rational.
As much as I enjoy the romantic vision of a dark lord smoldering in pure hatred, that's just not real life, even Hitler wasn't like that, regardless of how he's perceived today.

 

[DoPo]

I don't like the words good and evil because they have no clear moral definition

Except in D&D where they do have clear definitions. They don't in the real world, though, which I addressed in my first post.

 

[God'sFist]

in head: evil ...pure evil

I don't care if you want to be alive you get to die. kill them all then be happy in the fact that I killed them. yes.

Out of head:lawful evil

I will kill you, just not now. your innocence means nothing to me.

 

[DanielBrown]

Did a test to find out and I'm neutral good apparently. Seems to fit pretty well.
The test is here if anyone's intrested: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html

 

[Brown Cap]

In D&D, I'm true neutral, because I make decisions that go every which way.

In real life, I'm probably Lawful Good.
I'm smart and disciplined. I respect authority and people, even when it's inconvenient, so yeah - Lawful Good.

 

[FalloutJack]

I am funky hobo-fresh.

Yes, I deny your logic in trying to align me. I am more than any character in a game, you see.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

So I had this unexpected request yesterday.
A classmate of mine came into my lesson (we take different classes) and asked me to come help me with a math problem. I thought nothing of it and agreed right away. He led me to another classroom where one of his friends, whom I didn't know, was clearly working on an unsupervised exam. The man stood up and greeted me warmly and with a lot of seemingly innocent words asked me to help him on one of his questions. I politely declined and advised him to take some time to study for his next test. He thanked me for hearing him out and said he would find another way.

The thing is, I never reported the guy and feel justified in not doing so. And as the title implies, I am curious as to know what D&D alignment you think this action would represent.

Also, have you had any similar situation?

Well I'd say it not wanting to help a guy cheat and not bothering to rat him out, which if you did would really have been an ass thing to do. Why would you feel the need to rat him out, Going out of your way doing something like that you'd need to be a self-righteous bigot. BTW telling him the obvious that he needs to study better for his next test is half way there.

The guy is writing an unsupervised exam, I'd say it's the teachers fault for not supervising it or yours for being in there in the first place, you don't write unsupervised exams for a reason. I've never really cheated on a test or an exam, but if you're going to leave me in a room by myself &^%$# it why not?

 

[disgruntledgamer]

I guess I would fit best as a Chaotic Good Alignment.

"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."

Yeah that fits me pretty accurately.

This^

Also, just out of curiosity, could that be classified as Anti-Hero as well?

Yup, because Anti-hero's take the law in their own hand and often use violence and murder. As long as they are killing villains and they have some kind of moral compass. An Anti-hero might look at it as purging evil by any means necessary, or maybe they fight evil, with evil.

You don't need to be chaotic good to be an Anti-Hero, the person you're opposing just needs to be worse than you.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

A Chaotic Good can be a pure Hero just as much as a Lawful Good. Lawful Good is not more good than Chaotic.

Also, isn't that Ethical/Moral chart from fucking FATAL?