I always play as chaotic good as thats how I am in the real world. Always trying to help others around me and be the true hero of the story. There are so many opinions about the alignments and I have to agree we all have a different view of what alignments are best suited for what characters and real life figures who made impacts on our mother earth.
Im writing my post as to say. Im sure this alignment issue is fixed anwyays in the game so there wont be no more good brigands and evil paladins and neutral demons or insane people acting like theyre sane and vice versa. Everything of th efixpack was pretty much added into the EE. So im sure the alignment issue is adressed and should be proper for each alignment and every NPC is properly coded with ist natural alignment and proper behavoir to represent it.
What I really should have done is include more than just lawful in my arguments. As I understand it Lawful Evil follow the law because they want to avoid getting punished, if there was a law to give beggars money a Lawful Evil person would do it but they would do so reluctantly. A Lawful Good person in the opposite scenario would want to give the beggar money but would not because then they would break the law. A Chaotic Good person would say screw this stupid law and give the beggar money. There is even an encounter like this in BG2 where you can either get the beggar sent to jail or lie to the city guard to keep him safe. A LG character might in the end convince the city council to change the law and make things a whole lot better though this would take allot of times and we'd have plenty of beggars starving to death in the meantime. A CG character might end up fighting the city guard to give a few beggars food for a few more days but short of razing the city to the ground they would likely not change anything.
The lawful person might not be able to give at that moment, but might give food instead, or help the beggar in another way that didn't involve money. And then he would work to change the law because it is unjust. The difference between Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil is- Lawful Good thinks that laws should make things better for people. Lawful Neutral only cares that the laws exist and must be followed, even if they end up hurting people, it doesn't matter, the law is the law (if you are familiar with Les Miserables, Inspector Javert is a Lawful Neutral guy), Lawful Evil also likes the law, but he uses them to his advantage. If he can throw someone out of their house and have them dumped in the street by a law, he will use that law to do so.
Except in the case of some sort of apocalypse which left very few humans alive; in this situation I would pull a "Zombieland" and go live in Bill Murray's house or something.
Why wait til the zombie apocalypse to hang out with Bill Murray?
@Zafiro Yes, he was. And on the name. As for me, I will always remember how, after Les Miserables, the book, was published, he went on vacation. But he wanted to know how the book was selling, so he sent the publisher a telegram that read "?" and got back the reply "!". Shortest telegrams ever, according to the Guinness Book of World Records.
@Moomintroll, thank you for sharing! Terrifying, indeed. I haven't seen any untill now, for I have very poor eyes and no inclination towards visual arts.
@LadyRhian well as I'm incapable of speaking on topic today, I'll assume Zafiro means terrifyingly good and I've not seen any plastic arts by Hugo. A google search for Victor Hugo drawings will come up with the goods. He drew often with brush and found materials, any paper to hand, soot, charcoal and often turning from writing in moments of inspiration to use the feather of his quill to paint.
Typical subjects are abstract forms, brooding castles, luminous landscapes. I think Delacroix said that if he (Hugo) had decided to be a painter rather than a writer, then he would have been the greatest of his generation. If you are into drawing, I couldn't recommend him enough.
Those D&D alignment tests are fun I tried to place myself in the situations they described amusingly enough the final result was: "Neutral Evil"
"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. [...] The common phrase for neutral evil is "true evil." Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation." Of course, they say it themselves, that's just their suggestion.
Just for laughs, I tried to answer honestly to the quiz, and it came out Neutral; this one - Are you kidding me? The government can't even pave roads - was on spot, for where I live they really can't even build roads, the romans were better at it.
@Moomintroll, well, I'm an idealist, some even called me a utopian, where I have to say they get it twisted, I'm allready living in a utopia, but a counter one, an utopia for the wicked, a dystopia is the word I'm looking for. I guess I'm trying to say is, I have my rational law I do my best to follow.
I like to play as True Neutral... although in real life I would probably call myself Lawful Evil. It's very interesting to me though the very first post in this, as what Socrates says is definitely open to interpretation, but for it says that the ends justify the means...
but anyways... back on topic... True Neutral reminds me of the Male protagonist in "Princess Mononoke." Switch sides when one grows too powerful, I definitely play this way, as I prefer to help out the underdog in most situations, I like balance, no one should be wiped out, everyone should have a chance, power should be maintained, and spread out.
In real life however... "Lawful Evil," is me, definitely, and I kind of think alot of people are, even though they might not realize it. Lawful Evil, as I read it, is not Evil in the sense of kill whoever you meet, but more along the lines of using lawful practices and loopholes to your own selfish advantage. I'm now thinking I should try playing as lawful evil.... but when I say selfish, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Edwin for example sees everyone as expendable, but doesn't usually go out of his way to cause harm. He just doesn't care if harm happens.
@LadyRhian thx, your explanation makes sense to me.
Doing the survey I got hit with Neutral Good, almost expected evil due to my answers to the family questions. Lack any respect for my own family and really do my best to avoid them.
In real life however... "Lawful Evil," is me, definitely, and I kind of think alot of people are, even though they might not realize it. Lawful Evil, as I read it, is not Evil in the sense of kill whoever you meet, but more along the lines of using lawful practices and loopholes to your own selfish advantage. I'm now thinking I should try playing as lawful evil.... but when I say selfish, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Edwin for example sees everyone as expendable, but doesn't usually go out of his way to cause harm. He just doesn't care if harm happens.
@Xavioria : I agree. I think that it's a mark of today's society that most people are taught that those who are self-serving win. Being a part of a team is only encouraged while the team is successful. Those who give to the poor and needy often get ripped off. Those who put other people's needs before their own get taken advantage of. Greed, selfishness and a callous attitude are often called pretty names and are almost mandatory for leadership positions in many companies. Sure, they say it's 'desire to see to the success of the company' 'being able to make tough calls' 'ability to think past your emotional attachments' but we all know what that means. I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit the DnD standard of Good or even Neutral and that is perhaps influenced by their attitude towards their families not towards society in general.
"Duty! Thou sublime and mighty name that dost embrace nothing charming or insinuating, but requirest submission, and yet seekest not to move the will by threatening aught that would arouse natural aversion or terror, but merely holdest forth a law which of itself finds entrance into the mind, and yet gains reluctant reverence (though not always obedience), a law before which all inclinations are dumb, even though they secretly counter-work it; what origin is there worthy of thee, and where is to be found the root of thy noble descent which proudly rejects all kindred with the inclinations; a root to be derived from which is the indispensable condition of the only worth which men can give themselves?" Immanuel Kant - Critique of Practical Reason
Try to see the laws to be a architectural, you have laws in school, some have their religious laws, you have the city state laws, and yes, we fight to break free if they violate our values, or we just leave the group if possibile; but try to imagine a rational law, above all, not coming from fear of punishment, or by hope of reward but acting on duty as rational beings, you can't fight against that, against your nature as rational beings.
I would consider myself Chaotic Good. I prefer to stay within boundaries of lawfulness but when some rule is so stupid that it actually *prevents* good things from being done, then screw that rule. I am going to do what I am convinced is right and just for everyone in the situation.
I am glad to see that so many people understand "Evil" in alignment better than I expected. Evil in terms of alignment more refers to selfishness; Chaotic Evil is when you mess things up for the sake of messing things up, the other two have to do with caring about your own goals and not so much other peoples'.
I would consider myself Chaotic Good. I prefer to stay within boundaries of lawfulness but when some rule is so stupid that it actually *prevents* good things from being done, then screw that rule. I am going to do what I am convinced is right and just for everyone in the situation.
I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit the DnD standard of Good or even Neutral and that is perhaps influenced by their attitude towards their families not towards society in general.
I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit that DnD standard of Evil, and that is because their antisocial personality disorder makes them incapable of understanding altruistic behavior, and so they assume that everyone else thinks like they do.
I've always wished that a paladin could technically fall under neutral good in BG. It makes sense that some will wish to walk on the edge of their oaths.
I'd say Chaotic Good is more along the lines of trying to bring down the system for the good of all. Occasionally breaking a rule because it's a stupid rule is more Neutral Good.
I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit the DnD standard of Good or even Neutral and that is perhaps influenced by their attitude towards their families not towards society in general.
I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit that DnD standard of Evil, and that is because their antisocial personality disorder makes them incapable of understanding altruistic behavior, and so they assume that everyone else thinks like they do.
@lmaoboat it is amusing to see that a person who sees himself as 'good' is so quick to pass judgement and assign mental illnesses like 'antisocial personality disorder' to others who were merely expressing curiosity as opposed to throwing epithets and planting labels.
Tisk tisk. Is throwing careless and perhaps hurtful words a sign of altruism nowadays? I had thought altruism to be concern for the well-being of others, well-being which includes the emotional aspect.
But then again, so many people consider themselves 'good' people and then turn around and walk on more corpses than supposedly selfish ones. :P
Comments
Im writing my post as to say. Im sure this alignment issue is fixed anwyays in the game so there wont be no more good brigands and evil paladins and neutral demons or insane people acting like theyre sane and vice versa. Everything of th efixpack was pretty much added into the EE. So im sure the alignment issue is adressed and should be proper for each alignment and every NPC is properly coded with ist natural alignment and proper behavoir to represent it.
Typical subjects are abstract forms, brooding castles, luminous landscapes. I think Delacroix said that if he (Hugo) had decided to be a painter rather than a writer, then he would have been the greatest of his generation. If you are into drawing, I couldn't recommend him enough.
"A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. [...] The common phrase for neutral evil is "true evil." Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation." Of course, they say it themselves, that's just their suggestion.
Here's the link to the one I used: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b/ I'm curious how many people in this thread will end up with the same alignment as their RP counterparts/characters.
but anyways... back on topic... True Neutral reminds me of the Male protagonist in "Princess Mononoke." Switch sides when one grows too powerful, I definitely play this way, as I prefer to help out the underdog in most situations, I like balance, no one should be wiped out, everyone should have a chance, power should be maintained, and spread out.
In real life however... "Lawful Evil," is me, definitely, and I kind of think alot of people are, even though they might not realize it. Lawful Evil, as I read it, is not Evil in the sense of kill whoever you meet, but more along the lines of using lawful practices and loopholes to your own selfish advantage. I'm now thinking I should try playing as lawful evil.... but when I say selfish, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Edwin for example sees everyone as expendable, but doesn't usually go out of his way to cause harm. He just doesn't care if harm happens.
Doing the survey I got hit with Neutral Good, almost expected evil due to my answers to the family questions. Lack any respect for my own family and really do my best to avoid them.
Greed, selfishness and a callous attitude are often called pretty names and are almost mandatory for leadership positions in many companies. Sure, they say it's 'desire to see to the success of the company' 'being able to make tough calls' 'ability to think past your emotional attachments' but we all know what that means.
I wonder if more than a handful of people would fit the DnD standard of Good or even Neutral and that is perhaps influenced by their attitude towards their families not towards society in general.
"Duty! Thou sublime and mighty name that dost embrace nothing charming or insinuating, but requirest submission, and yet seekest not to move the will by threatening aught that would arouse natural aversion or terror, but merely holdest forth a law which of itself finds entrance into the mind, and yet gains reluctant reverence (though not always obedience), a law before which all inclinations are dumb, even though they secretly counter-work it; what origin is there worthy of thee, and where is to be found the root of thy noble descent which proudly rejects all kindred with the inclinations; a root to be derived from which is the indispensable condition of the only worth which men can give themselves?" Immanuel Kant - Critique of Practical Reason
Try to see the laws to be a architectural, you have laws in school, some have their religious laws, you have the city state laws, and yes, we fight to break free if they violate our values, or we just leave the group if possibile; but try to imagine a rational law, above all, not coming from fear of punishment, or by hope of reward but acting on duty as rational beings, you can't fight against that, against your nature as rational beings.
I am glad to see that so many people understand "Evil" in alignment better than I expected. Evil in terms of alignment more refers to selfishness; Chaotic Evil is when you mess things up for the sake of messing things up, the other two have to do with caring about your own goals and not so much other peoples'.
Tisk tisk. Is throwing careless and perhaps hurtful words a sign of altruism nowadays? I had thought altruism to be concern for the well-being of others, well-being which includes the emotional aspect.
But then again, so many people consider themselves 'good' people and then turn around and walk on more corpses than supposedly selfish ones. :P