Wow, is there a way the maker of the test could have posted it without injecting his condescending, bullshit opinion about other editions? I didn't show up at his gaming table and slap the dice out of his hand. Sigh...
The creator does sound like a hardcore old-schooler, although I agree that Gygax did get shafted.
I think he/she assumes that the other tests were created to test players' "real world" alignments. It's my understanding that some of the tests, like WotC's 3rd edition version, were intended to be taken with your PC in mind, not your own views. That would explain the fantasy scenarios in those tests.
My PC is a Paladin, so there is only one choice. On that test however, I scored Lawful Neutral. This makes my PC more of a knight/squire who still has a long road ahead in becoming a true Paladin. This fits the description of a 20 year old* level 1 Candlekeep 'Paladin' nicely.
*Did you know that in order to become a member of the Most Noble Order of the Radiant Heart you have to have seen at least 40 winters?
I nearly always play a paladin. I've tried being evil but I just can't bring myself to do bad stuff.
That brings up an interesting question. Are you your PC?
I know that your question was directed towards Permidion_Stark, but I feel I should answer for myself as well.
I too have a difficult time playing evil in video games where actions seem to mean something. I am not my character, as much as I sometimes desperately wish I were.
I too have a difficult time playing evil in video games where actions seem to mean something. I am not my character, as much as I sometimes desperately wish I were.
I think the idea of being transported into a fantasy world (remember the old D&D cartoon?) where we become the PC has appealed at one time or another to all RPGers.
I got a lawful good result on the test. I play neutral good when I play a character that I feel really reflects my own personality but it makes sense. I wouldn't hesitate to break a law if necessary but generally think laws promote the general welfare in society. -9 on chaos, -23 evil, 9 balance
True Neutral with slight tendency to Neutral Good.
I found this test very accurate. I usually consider myself, and play, True Neutral. And I do tend more towards good than evil, but not enough to consider myself as good alignment.
I'm not lawful good, I'm NEUTRAL good. If a law is bad, I'm gonna fight it. I'm gonna ignore it. I'm gonna screw the people who made it any way I can. I cannot stand 'lawful good' simply because they bow to the idea of law above all else.
Then again, I am likely to try to work from within the system to fix it if at all possible...
But I think the issue boils down to the fact that it didn't weigh my 'balance' choices in there properly. I scored fairly high (15'ish) on the balance, but that doesn't really count for anything unless you hit 20 at which point it becomes a supervariable that overrides the rest. Bad design, IMO... but then again, I am a programmer.
I'm not lawful good, I'm NEUTRAL good. If a law is bad, I'm gonna fight it. I'm gonna ignore it. I'm gonna screw the people who made it any way I can. I cannot stand 'lawful good' simply because they bow to the idea of law above all else.
Then again, I am likely to try to work from within the system to fix it if at all possible...
But I think the issue boils down to the fact that it didn't weigh my 'balance' choices in there properly. I scored fairly high (15'ish) on the balance, but that doesn't really count for anything unless you hit 20 at which point it becomes a supervariable that overrides the rest. Bad design, IMO... but then again, I am a programmer.
Lawful Good, or any Lawful alignment really, isn't about bowing to laws above all else. People who DO bow to all laws blindly are certainly Lawful, but that's not what being Lawful means. Lawful Good characters can fight laws that are against the common good, Lawful Neutral characters will fight laws that aren't productive or that cause unnecessary unrest or disorder, and Lawful Evil characters will fight laws that they can't manipulate or use to their advantage.
And, as you said, you'd try to first change things from within, which is textbook Lawful-aligned behavior.
Tell that to my foppish Sith Warrior Drace Rethar, a true-blue believer in the benevolence of expansionism, who I would totally make Lawful Good, or at least Lawful Neutral if he were a D&D character. I like being Lawful Good specifically to prove how awesome Lawful Good can be! ;P
"Certainly good madam, let me get up in that tree and get your little kitty down for you!! And no madam, there is no need for thanks, a good deed carries the reward in itself!"
My main character is a skald, and chaotic good wasn't an option. In the end I find her being chaotic neutral a much better alternative. Having a supposedly completely unpredictable and insane character to roleplay is a lot of fun.
When I played Baldur's Gate I never really paid that much attention to the alignment of my character. Generally I consider evil characters (not only in BG, but also in other games, in movies, books etc.) more interesting than good characters. They usually have some crazy ideas, live in their own world and/or have a specific look that distinguishes them from others (Sarevok's armor for example, which looks really great in my opinion).
Don't remember what was the first alignment I picked during character creation when I was playing the game for the first time, but for the second playthrough I took a lawful evil or a neutral evil character, just to fit into a team consisting of Kagain, Viconia and Edwin among others (liked Xzar too and Montaron not as much). I wanted to have all of them in my team due to their hilarious comments and dialogues with other characters. I was overjoyed to see that in Baldur's Gate 2 these characters reappeared and instead of mighty Kagain we got equally powerful and bloodthirsty dwarf Korgan.
Now that Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition comes out I decided to play a spellcasting character (a sorcerer to be precise) for the first time with and alignment that resembles mine. I read quite a lot about the differences between alignments because for me those couple of sentences in the game don't cut it. The reaction to every problem and every situation in life is determined by the person's alignment so the best way to determine the alignment in the Dungeons & Dragons scale would be to take lots of tests.
I took two tests before participating in the one mentioned by @Mortianna. The first one was from the official wizards.com site (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b), my result was neutral evil and that kind of surprised me as I don't consider myself an evil person.
Second test I took was here: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html. This time the result was true neutral and from what I've read about this alignment, it would perfectly describe how I act in the real life.
Now I tried this test and I must say it's the most accurate test of the three, plus it kind of explained why I 'scored' a neutral evil in the first one. The results were:
True neutral (with slight tendencies toward another alignment): 3 chaos, 5 evil and 13 balance.
I quickly looked what the numbers mean and it turned out that 3 chaos and 5 evil describe a tendency towards a neutral evil alignment so now everything would make sense.
It's decided then, my PC is going to be a true neutral sorcerer. Thanks @Mortianna for a link!
I always thought lumping together LN, TN, and CN as well as NG/CG and LE/NE was a sloppy move by the 4th edition designers. If they're going to do that, why not just go back to Basic D&D's three categories: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic? Although that definitely makes LE and CG characters impossible.
I got "Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good". I usually get Chaotic Neutral on these tests, even though I feel like I'm a True Neutral. I prefer playing a True Neutral, so that I can be flexible with my decisions.
Comments
I think he/she assumes that the other tests were created to test players' "real world" alignments. It's my understanding that some of the tests, like WotC's 3rd edition version, were intended to be taken with your PC in mind, not your own views. That would explain the fantasy scenarios in those tests.
Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing (or neither!)
*Did you know that in order to become a member of the Most Noble Order of the Radiant Heart you have to have seen at least 40 winters?
I too have a difficult time playing evil in video games where actions seem to mean something. I am not my character, as much as I sometimes desperately wish I were.
I found this test very accurate. I usually consider myself, and play, True Neutral. And I do tend more towards good than evil, but not enough to consider myself as good alignment.
I'm not lawful good, I'm NEUTRAL good. If a law is bad, I'm gonna fight it. I'm gonna ignore it. I'm gonna screw the people who made it any way I can. I cannot stand 'lawful good' simply because they bow to the idea of law above all else.
Then again, I am likely to try to work from within the system to fix it if at all possible...
But I think the issue boils down to the fact that it didn't weigh my 'balance' choices in there properly. I scored fairly high (15'ish) on the balance, but that doesn't really count for anything unless you hit 20 at which point it becomes a supervariable that overrides the rest. Bad design, IMO... but then again, I am a programmer.
And, as you said, you'd try to first change things from within, which is textbook Lawful-aligned behavior.
Face it, you're Lawful Good. ;P
Don't remember what was the first alignment I picked during character creation when I was playing the game for the first time, but for the second playthrough I took a lawful evil or a neutral evil character, just to fit into a team consisting of Kagain, Viconia and Edwin among others (liked Xzar too and Montaron not as much). I wanted to have all of them in my team due to their hilarious comments and dialogues with other characters. I was overjoyed to see that in Baldur's Gate 2 these characters reappeared and instead of mighty Kagain we got equally powerful and bloodthirsty dwarf Korgan.
Now that Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition comes out I decided to play a spellcasting character (a sorcerer to be precise) for the first time with and alignment that resembles mine. I read quite a lot about the differences between alignments because for me those couple of sentences in the game don't cut it. The reaction to every problem and every situation in life is determined by the person's alignment so the best way to determine the alignment in the Dungeons & Dragons scale would be to take lots of tests.
I took two tests before participating in the one mentioned by @Mortianna. The first one was from the official wizards.com site (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b), my result was neutral evil and that kind of surprised me as I don't consider myself an evil person.
Second test I took was here: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html. This time the result was true neutral and from what I've read about this alignment, it would perfectly describe how I act in the real life.
Now I tried this test and I must say it's the most accurate test of the three, plus it kind of explained why I 'scored' a neutral evil in the first one. The results were:
True neutral (with slight tendencies toward another alignment): 3 chaos, 5 evil and 13 balance.
I quickly looked what the numbers mean and it turned out that 3 chaos and 5 evil describe a tendency towards a neutral evil alignment so now everything would make sense.
It's decided then, my PC is going to be a true neutral sorcerer. Thanks @Mortianna for a link!
*runs away before the 4e haters kill him*