Which is REALLY the best alignment?
- Thread starter Whizbang Dustyboots
- Start date
Cthulhudrew
First Post
I don't necessarily know about "best", but I'd say that CN is the closest to how real people work. We all act differently according to who/what/when/where we are- maybe not drastically so, but at least slightly, and I think CN represents that best. All the World's a Stage, after all.
Nyaricus
First Post
Neutral Good. I ike playing a selfless hero who will sacrific for others, but not have to worry about where they are going too to too much.They have strong personal morals, and are lawful in that respect, but are willing to bend other rules to get what they want. This is just a broad brushstroke of all the characters I've played in the last 8 years of gmaing however, but it's close.
True Neutral was a close second; I also like playing contemplative characters which are really deep thinkers and who balance many things.
cheers,
--N
True Neutral was a close second; I also like playing contemplative characters which are really deep thinkers and who balance many things.
cheers,
--N
SpiderMonkey
Explorer
Real World: LG, baby!
I like to think of Lawful Good in terms of Kant's Categorical Imperative: 1) Would I, when engaging in any ethical action, will it at the same time to be universally applicable? and 2) Treat people as ends only, never as means.
If everyone played by the rules, there wouldn't be a need to be explicit about them.
In Game: Any Good'll do ya. I guess I just burned out on "neutral stupid" as a kid: do whatever you want (be good to get the quest, engage in whatever amoral thrillseeking you want along the way) without penalty. Probably for the same reason anti-heroes in comics bore me.
I tried a few evil characters (both Blackguards), and they were fun for the first session (which, admittedly was the lifespan of one of 'em), but the novelty of evil (mwa ha ha!) wears thin quickly.
I like to think of Lawful Good in terms of Kant's Categorical Imperative: 1) Would I, when engaging in any ethical action, will it at the same time to be universally applicable? and 2) Treat people as ends only, never as means.
If everyone played by the rules, there wouldn't be a need to be explicit about them.
In Game: Any Good'll do ya. I guess I just burned out on "neutral stupid" as a kid: do whatever you want (be good to get the quest, engage in whatever amoral thrillseeking you want along the way) without penalty. Probably for the same reason anti-heroes in comics bore me.
I tried a few evil characters (both Blackguards), and they were fun for the first session (which, admittedly was the lifespan of one of 'em), but the novelty of evil (mwa ha ha!) wears thin quickly.
Steel_Wind
Legend
Neutral Good == Do the Right Thing
'Nuff said.
'Nuff said.
Aaron L
Hero
Neutral Good. Good, helping others, is your primary concern, without allowing either dogmatic adherence to law and tradition or personal pride and a desire to "not be told what to do" getting in the way. Order is a tool to set up ways to help the most people, but can easily be abused by unscrupulous people to advance themselves at the cost of others, and Neutral Good feels no compunction against ignoring laws which get in the way of doing Good and helping others. Chaos is all too often to prideful, stubborn, and too concerned with personal freedom to be ultimately concerned with helping others.
People who sue others for breaking ribs while performing the Heimlich maneuver and saving the suers life is a good example of Law getting in the way of Good, as is the theoretical case I was always asked in different classes of when a man who knows someone dieing of a rare disease who can't afford the cure because it is being sold for an exorbitant price by a pharmaceutical company, the man is perfectly justified in stealing the medicine to save a life and the Law be damned. Or ignoring an international embargo to deliver medicine and food to sick and starving people.
Doing Good, helping others to be healthy, happy, and free, is the primary concern of Neutral Good, and that is the very best alignment. The law is a tool to promote Good, and when it gets in the way of Good it should be discarded. Likewise with Chaos, it should be used when it will promote Good and ignored when it doesn't. Lawful Good restrains it's Goodness according to the wishes and order of society, and Chaotic Good is too prone to getting its feathers ruffled by being told what to think or do. Neutral Good weighs it's options and does takes the best course of action to help others.
People who sue others for breaking ribs while performing the Heimlich maneuver and saving the suers life is a good example of Law getting in the way of Good, as is the theoretical case I was always asked in different classes of when a man who knows someone dieing of a rare disease who can't afford the cure because it is being sold for an exorbitant price by a pharmaceutical company, the man is perfectly justified in stealing the medicine to save a life and the Law be damned. Or ignoring an international embargo to deliver medicine and food to sick and starving people.
Doing Good, helping others to be healthy, happy, and free, is the primary concern of Neutral Good, and that is the very best alignment. The law is a tool to promote Good, and when it gets in the way of Good it should be discarded. Likewise with Chaos, it should be used when it will promote Good and ignored when it doesn't. Lawful Good restrains it's Goodness according to the wishes and order of society, and Chaotic Good is too prone to getting its feathers ruffled by being told what to think or do. Neutral Good weighs it's options and does takes the best course of action to help others.
Last edited:
Gnome Quixote
First Post
Chaotic Good, baby. Tune in, turn on, kill bad guys and take their stuff.
Similar Threads
