Interesting results so far. I was thinking that the non-evil, free-spirited alignments (Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral) would be the most frequent. I suppose CG is almost there as of now.
The posted test said I was lawful good. I've taken two other tests that I think are better. One pegged me as true neutral, and the other as neutral good. I do have strong leanings toward lawful good, but I'm not rigid or inflexible about it, and I have a *very* strong selfish streak.
I didn't like the test author's unscientific attitude and lack of professional detachment. He has a clear bias against lawful people, and his alignment descriptions of people who make rules and follow them are dripping with sarcasm. He cannot be trusted to create an objective test instrument. If I were teaching a psychology class and he were my student, I would give him at best a C minus on the project, and that only if I thought he had mastered the statistical elements of his test instrument. If I thought his mathematics were weak, I'd give him a D, only avoiding the impulse to give him a flat F because I disagree with his editorial opinion. And he shouldn't be expressing an editorial opinion in a psychological test instrument.
As for the OP's question, I always play myself in D&D games, or an exaggerated or idealized version of myself. So, my PC's always have the same alignment I do. Usually neutral good, but I'll play a true neutral druid or a lawful good pally from time to time.
@belgarathmth I don't think the test was designed to function as a psychometric evaluation, nor was the creator claiming it is unbiased, scientific research. It's a test on Hello Quizzy; anyone can make up a test and upload it to the site. I think these tests are supposed to be for fun, not clinical diagnoses or objective scholarly research.
I actually appreciated the fact that he admitted his own biases--everyone has them, so why not make them known? I didn't get the impression that it made any difference on the test results or the creator's interpretations of them.
@Mortianna, I am admittedly biased myself against the author, because he flat-out insults me and everything I value. Of course I don't like him or his test.
Evil is just better... But for some reason some people find it more difficult to follow evil in a video game or vice versa. The human psyche is very weird...
Just hope BG EE stop the punishment of evil parties, as if evil where a wrong patch in the old games, i always hated that.
Since the AD&D/D&D game was written for good and neutral PCs, it seems that those who want to play evil PCs have to create their own adventures. Isn't Pathfinder the only D&D-based RPG that has canon modules for evil PCs?
Honestly, with all the harassment that TSR got from the Christian Right and fearful parents about the game leading to "devil worship," it kind of explains why they designed the game around the "good fighting evil" narrative. They even renamed the 1st edition Demons and Devils to "Tanar'ri" and "Baatezu" in the 2nd edition to avoid the whole mess.
Ok, but we're in 2012 now, and this is an enhancement, if i have to keep the evil punishment inside an enhanced edition, i would simply stick with the old game. What could be useful in the past, now is a problem.
@kamuizin I don't think 1st edition AD&D excluded the option for players to play evil characters. The Assassin class in 1st edition was restricted to evil alignments only and was meant to be played as a PC. They, of course, removed it in 2nd edition and even stated that DMs should not allow evil (or even Chaotic Neutral) to be played as PCs, reserving those alignments solely for NPCs and monsters.
It sounds like they were playing damage control and attempted to deflect the stigma that was being heaped upon the game. In my view, it was an unfortunate compromise in terms of game design, but I don't think it ever stopped people from playing evil PCs.
Could taking the evil path in BG entail that it will be a more difficult road? I think it depends on one's perspective on what the rewards are for your PC. I can think of a lot of evil options that are more rewarding than good options for a given quest in the game.
I highly doubt that, Most evil choices in BG just crash the quest, making it not avaliable to be finshed. Ex:
Prism the artist, if you kill him for the bounty, you get nothing in terms of XP, lost the graywolf appearance, therefore the best long sword in the game. If you're good the emeralds that you shouldn't have access (after all they were used on the eyes of the statue he did) are on the ground.
Most BG quests are: Do this for me please? Yes = XP + reward, No = Quest still open and nothing, kill the NPC normally get's you nothing besides a free lost reputation (that i don't like to get by killing, only by evil quest ways).
BG doesn't even allow us to make some quests in the evil way, most of them are forced on us to be made in the good way.
Now BG II examples:
4 quests there where made with evil options:
- Firkgaark quest: the only one that's good enough. You get the party XP if you rescue Garren children or if you steal Garren deeds, ok for me this one.
- Druid Grove: make it in the evil way and you lost the 20.000 quest xp reward, the 10.000 money (the halfling lord pays less if i remember well) and lost the following quest (waukeen's mantle of the noble families), The skinner killer if/when you solve(d) this quest in the bridge district will not appear to continue that quest also.
- Umar Hills, you get 167 gold pieces and a -1 reputation (what actually IS good for me), so no big reward.
- Copper Coronet, If you kill Hendark for Lentianl, you get half of the Reward that you got from Hendark, and you lose the following of the quest (free the slaves in the slave compound) that give a 35.000 quest xp after done.
3 events allow a minor evil behavior that aren't a quest itself:
- Trade the eggs of the silver dragon with the lesser demon lord (this one if i'm not wrong was only accessible in games without the latest patch, otherwise this option is removed. Valen mod, if Valen is in the party, automatic follow this route).
- Kill Drizzt's do Urden, when we meet him after Underdark.
- Kill the Swirfn gnome in Underdark when he reveal that he has the light jewel in his pocket (and therefore lose a 35.000 quest xp reward for kill the Balor for him, if i'm not wrong).
Those are the major evil acts you can take, and half of them harm you in money or xp terms, besides those, with a few exceptions there are no other evil routes to choose, you're forced in the goody two shoes patch.
@kamuizin Good points all around. The quests are biased toward "good" paths and it is difficult to not follow them if you have an evil PC/party, since you know that the XP and item rewards are generally better.
Still, there are ways to compensate for the "good bias" through role playing and being mindful of the other, non-quest related evil paths you can take. For example: In BG, you can give Unshey back his Belt of Piercing, receive the XP, and then kill him afterwards for even more XP and the belt. In BG2, you can explode a few slaves in the Ust Natha tavern as a good way to lower your reputation if it has gotten too high. It does take some planning ahead and prior knowledge of the consequences of your actions, so it's not exactly something you might do in your first playthrough.
My test results were True Neutral .. but enjoy the LE alignment ingame .. usually playing an assassin type character with a 'concious' or atleast considering themselves more then a simple killer or filthy rogue B-)
I highly doubt that, Most evil choices in BG just crash the quest, making it not avaliable to be finshed.
(...)
Most BG quests are: Do this for me please? Yes = XP + reward, No = Quest still open and nothing, kill the NPC normally get's you nothing besides a free lost reputation (that i don't like to get by killing, only by evil quest ways).
BG doesn't even allow us to make some quests in the evil way, most of them are forced on us to be made in the good way.
Those are the major evil acts you can take, and half of them harm you in money or xp terms, besides those, with a few exceptions there are no other evil routes to choose, you're forced in the goody two shoes patch.
Ending the game with 100.000 less xp won't change much , enjoy your evil character!
I like roleplaying neutral ones because they analise what's best for the situation . Whether you accept quests , have npcs join you, commit a crime ... however, if you get strict in your conduct, that would be LN, and messing it all up would be CN...
I tend to play characters that are chaotic good aligned, sometimes deviating to CN or NG, which varies somewhat to my usual scores on alignment tests. I tend to get LG on alignment tests, and this one placed me between LN and NG. Looking closer at the numbers, I was one point away from straight LG.
I can't really answer the poll since I've played more than one PC. But so far I've only played good PCs, I generally don't enjoy playing evil very much. My own alignment is probably neutral good.
Comments
- A quote from the 'How To Be An Adventurer' manual in IWD2.
No idea what I was likely to score, but Chaotic Neutral characters are my favourite in game. It's not easy to RP but I like the idea at least.
I myself am closest to Lawful Neutral
I didn't like the test author's unscientific attitude and lack of professional detachment. He has a clear bias against lawful people, and his alignment descriptions of people who make rules and follow them are dripping with sarcasm. He cannot be trusted to create an objective test instrument. If I were teaching a psychology class and he were my student, I would give him at best a C minus on the project, and that only if I thought he had mastered the statistical elements of his test instrument. If I thought his mathematics were weak, I'd give him a D, only avoiding the impulse to give him a flat F because I disagree with his editorial opinion. And he shouldn't be expressing an editorial opinion in a psychological test instrument.
As for the OP's question, I always play myself in D&D games, or an exaggerated or idealized version of myself. So, my PC's always have the same alignment I do. Usually neutral good, but I'll play a true neutral druid or a lawful good pally from time to time.
I actually appreciated the fact that he admitted his own biases--everyone has them, so why not make them known? I didn't get the impression that it made any difference on the test results or the creator's interpretations of them.
Honestly, with all the harassment that TSR got from the Christian Right and fearful parents about the game leading to "devil worship," it kind of explains why they designed the game around the "good fighting evil" narrative. They even renamed the 1st edition Demons and Devils to "Tanar'ri" and "Baatezu" in the 2nd edition to avoid the whole mess.
I'm on the fence about it myself.
It sounds like they were playing damage control and attempted to deflect the stigma that was being heaped upon the game. In my view, it was an unfortunate compromise in terms of game design, but I don't think it ever stopped people from playing evil PCs.
Could taking the evil path in BG entail that it will be a more difficult road? I think it depends on one's perspective on what the rewards are for your PC. I can think of a lot of evil options that are more rewarding than good options for a given quest in the game.
Ex:
Prism the artist, if you kill him for the bounty, you get nothing in terms of XP, lost the graywolf appearance, therefore the best long sword in the game. If you're good the emeralds that you shouldn't have access (after all they were used on the eyes of the statue he did) are on the ground.
Most BG quests are: Do this for me please? Yes = XP + reward, No = Quest still open and nothing, kill the NPC normally get's you nothing besides a free lost reputation (that i don't like to get by killing, only by evil quest ways).
BG doesn't even allow us to make some quests in the evil way, most of them are forced on us to be made in the good way.
Now BG II examples:
4 quests there where made with evil options:
- Firkgaark quest: the only one that's good enough. You get the party XP if you rescue Garren children or if you steal Garren deeds, ok for me this one.
- Druid Grove: make it in the evil way and you lost the 20.000 quest xp reward, the 10.000 money (the halfling lord pays less if i remember well) and lost the following quest (waukeen's mantle of the noble families), The skinner killer if/when you solve(d) this quest in the bridge district will not appear to continue that quest also.
- Umar Hills, you get 167 gold pieces and a -1 reputation (what actually IS good for me), so no big reward.
- Copper Coronet, If you kill Hendark for Lentianl, you get half of the Reward that you got from Hendark, and you lose the following of the quest (free the slaves in the slave compound) that give a 35.000 quest xp after done.
3 events allow a minor evil behavior that aren't a quest itself:
- Trade the eggs of the silver dragon with the lesser demon lord (this one if i'm not wrong was only accessible in games without the latest patch, otherwise this option is removed. Valen mod, if Valen is in the party, automatic follow this route).
- Kill Drizzt's do Urden, when we meet him after Underdark.
- Kill the Swirfn gnome in Underdark when he reveal that he has the light jewel in his pocket (and therefore lose a 35.000 quest xp reward for kill the Balor for him, if i'm not wrong).
Those are the major evil acts you can take, and half of them harm you in money or xp terms, besides those, with a few exceptions there are no other evil routes to choose, you're forced in the goody two shoes patch.
Still, there are ways to compensate for the "good bias" through role playing and being mindful of the other, non-quest related evil paths you can take. For example: In BG, you can give Unshey back his Belt of Piercing, receive the XP, and then kill him afterwards for even more XP and the belt. In BG2, you can explode a few slaves in the Ust Natha tavern as a good way to lower your reputation if it has gotten too high. It does take some planning ahead and prior knowledge of the consequences of your actions, so it's not exactly something you might do in your first playthrough.