What is your alignment?

[ivocaliban]

I think you're onto something here, Chorn. It's easy to view Good vs Evil as a bipolarity: I'm definitely not Evil, therefore I must be Good.

But there's more to good than not being evil - it's the whole self-sacrifice aspect.

-blarg

I think this is more what I was leaning towards when I voted Neutral. Being good-minded isn't necessarily the same as being "Good." We strive to be Good, perhaps, but I believe one's actions more so than one's philosophy determine one's Alignment. And while a Neutral character/person certainly would like to think of himself as Good, he's probably not going to risk his neck and make the sacrifices required of a truly Good character.

I mean, I make donations to charities. I'm a gentleman towards others and I'm generally nice to people...but I still don't believe that is what "Good" is as defined by D&D Alignments. It's something that goes above and beyond being nice or even kind...something that is rare among most people, but common in our heros.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

I have problems with questions like this, mainly because I have an eastern view of morality as discussed on another thread. I have no desire to be called "good" and it doesn't bother me if I am called "evil" because I do not believe either of those things exist. The closest I have found int he west is Moorcock's moral system. So with all of those things said and being forced to fit myself into the 3.5 alignment system, I am chaotic-neutral with evil tendencies.

Chaotic: I have my own code of conduct but it isn't set in stone, I will deviate if I need to. I do not like draconic laws myself and break more than a few.

Neutral: I judge my actions on personal relationships and the balance of keeping things natural. I don't really see evil or good as the right way to go all the time and I believe much more in composure, humilty and tao.

Evil: I'll b ehonest here, I have no compunction with killing, we are all animals and we have no more inbred rights than they do. If I need to protect myself or others, or if I just think me or mine would be enough better off without someone, I can see killing that person, but I do believe in have ramifications to such actions and am willing to do the time if I do the crime.

so it's a hard choice for me, but I do not believe in altruism, and personally do not believe it exists as anything but the biologically defined dna process that I learned about in college concerning bees. We do good acts because we expect something in return, even if it is just a good feeling.

my two cents, let the flames comence.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I have problems with questions like this, mainly because I have an eastern view of morality as discussed on another thread. I have no desire to be called "good" and it doesn't bother me if I am called "evil" because I do not believe either of those things exist. The closest I have found int he west is Moorcock's moral system. So with all of those things said and being forced to fit myself into the 3.5 alignment system, I am chaotic-neutral with evil tendencies.

Chaotic: I have my own code of conduct but it isn't set in stone, I will deviate if I need to. I do not like draconic laws myself and break more than a few.

Neutral: I judge my actions on personal relationships and the balance of keeping things natural. I don't really see evil or good as the right way to go all the time and I believe much more in composure, humilty and tao.

Evil: I'll b ehonest here, I have no compunction with killing, we are all animals and we have no more inbred rights than they do. If I need to protect myself or others, or if I just think me or mine would be enough better off without someone, I can see killing that person, but I do believe in have ramifications to such actions and am willing to do the time if I do the crime.

so it's a hard choice for me, but I do not believe in altruism, and personally do not believe it exists as anything but the biologically defined dna process that I learned about in college concerning bees. We do good acts because we expect something in return, even if it is just a good feeling.

my two cents, let the flames comence.

I'm with you on the Eastern view of morality. I tend to take a holistic approach on good/evil/law/neutrality.

I am, however not into killing so much. Even then, I would think it's nasty business and would rather be done with it very quickly. Dead things squick me (outside of what's sold in supermarkets as "meat." I really enjoy the stuff). I do think the idea of benevolence is good, but I'm no Kannon!

 

[Oscar carramiñana]

I'm Neutral/Good I think, sniff

 

[hunter1828]

And to those who said that they are evil, do you truly believe yourselves to be evil or are you being facetious?

Good point. Makes me wonder how many of the so-called "evil" people here would do truly evil things, like rape, murder and torture. And enjoy it. Maybe some would, but I have a hard time believing it, to be honest.

I voted Neutral Good for myself. I'm generally one to abide by rules and laws, but I break them often enough to know that I'm not lawful. I spent the last ten years working for the Federal government and now work for a state government, but that doesn't make me lawful. In fact, I disagreed with almost all of the Federal agencies national policies during the time I worked for them.

I am a good person. I try to help others when I can, I care about those I'm closest to most, but have general goodwill towards my fellow human beings. I'm opposed and horrified by crimes like rape, murder and torture, and think that those that do such things should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, whatever the law may be in the state where the crime was committed.

Hunter

 

[Kalendraf]

I used to think I was probably neutral good, but after taking some on-line tests (don't know the links - sorry), and thinking it through, I'd have to say I'm much more Lawful Neutral w/ good tendancies than anything.

Why do I think I'm lawful? I strongly believe that telling the truth and being honest are two of the finest qualities that anyone can possess. I respect the laws, and expect others to do the same. I believe the guilty should be swiftly punished appropriate to their crime.

Why do I think I only have "good tendancies? I don't go out of my way to help everyone, which is what prevents me from being lawful good. Sure I'll lend a hand from time to time, but I'm still too lazy and perhaps even a tad selfish to do that on a regular basis.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

And to those who said that they are evil, do you truly believe yourselves to be evil or are you being facetious?

Ah, sociopath or poser, the eternal question... Luckily I don't respect either, so I don't have to worry too much about it myself.

I don't think Facetious is the right other option (though I guess some could be). I ran into a fair number of psuedo-intellectual gits in college who had somehow decided that acting like they are "beyond" empathy, ethics or morals makes them terribly edgy in that highly intellectual 'post geneva convention' sort of way. Most of them get over it, but until then I just roll my eyes at them and keep an eye in case they really are emotionally defective...

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Good point. Makes me wonder how many of the so-called "evil" people here would do truly evil things, like rape, murder and torture. And enjoy it. Maybe some would, but I have a hard time believing it, to be honest.

I voted Neutral Good for myself. I'm generally one to abide by rules and laws, but I break them often enough to know that I'm not lawful. I spent the last ten years working for the Federal government and now work for a state government, but that doesn't make me lawful. In fact, I disagreed with almost all of the Federal agencies national policies during the time I worked for them.

I am a good person. I try to help others when I can, I care about those I'm closest to most, but have general goodwill towards my fellow human beings. I'm opposed and horrified by crimes like rape, murder and torture, and think that those that do such things should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, whatever the law may be in the state where the crime was committed.

Hunter

Evil is not nec. in the extremes. That is one of the problems with the dnd alignment system. Just because you are *evil* according to dnd does not mean you would 'rape, torture and mutilate' it also means that you would think of yourself first and no one else. There are degrees of evil and if every evil guy in your campaign will rape and torture, that's pretty extreme. Most soldiers would register as lawful-evil, they do what they are told when they are told to do it and do not question the moral ramifications, they can't (else they die). I am not saying they are bad people, just that by the book definition they are probably closer to lawful-evil. Remember lawful-evil can take the guise of doing what you are told even though you know it is wrong. Evil can also be a fact of just not caring, even neutral people care about *something,* for a good example, look at some scientists who see their research as the only important thing, no matter who they hurt.

Would I kill someone? Yes, without question if I thought it needed doing. Would I rape someone? No I wouldn't, although people in the bdsm lifestyle like myself can walk a fine line there. Would I terrorize anything? No I wouldn't, because I do not think it is fair. Do I make any of these choices based on morality? No, I do not, and there lies the reason why I might be considered evil by the book. I do not believe in right or wrong as universal concepts.

my two cents

 

[Orius]

Neutral.

I ain't a charity, I can be pretty damn cold and unfeeling at times, but I'm not so corrupted at to be evil, yet. I can feel pity, if someone is a real victim, but I never feel sorry for people who bring problems on themselves.

I'm also neutal wrt law/chaos. While part of me would love to impose my will on the world, and I dislike chaos a great, I'm rebellious and independant-minded enough to not be lawful. I'm not as narrow-minded as a truely lawful person, and I don't blindly obey. My loyalty has to be earned. However, I loathe the irresponsibility and carelessness inherent in chaos.

 

[hunter1828]

Would I kill someone? Yes, without question if I thought it needed doing.

What does "if I thought it needed doing" mean?

Does it mean if you just got tired of the bum on the corner begging for money all the time you'd put a slug in him? Or does it mean if someone assaulted you or a loved one you would defend them, even if it meant killing their attacker?

If you mean the first then you're really f-ed up and need to see a shrink. If it's the second then that's called self defense or justified homicide (depending on the specifics) and is neither murder nor evil.

Hunter