Define the other players from their alignment

[maze]

Do me.

Time and place.
I'll bring my pillow.

~~

Since I'm part of a peaceful village, too small to be a major player on the world stage, I suppose that makes me lawful-neutral.

No.
you're still N-E.
I still know who you are.

~~


Raiders are genreally L-N & C-N.
it depends if they are the followers taking orders to the one who wishes to kill and break shit.
Most people I think on here fit into the category.
JC is more C-N but jumps around from being C-G at times.

most people only look out for em' selfs in the HnH what will end up being C-G or T-N.

I would say a good number of people who post on the forums is C-G.
They only follow their own moral law and will judge em' selfs right when committing stuff like theft, trustpasing or murder.
HnH players seem more willing to fight for their own right then to follow others law's.

Then there is north kingdom. what I think is likely the only group in HnH that can say that are anywhere near
L-N.


People who start to think they need to kill to get ahead and but are doing the community good. are people in DIS.
L-E and C-E

Then there is other factions that use others to get ahead while exploiting their realms and killing noobs.
C-N and C-E

[Jalpha]

Neutral evil is really just about being selfish and playing lawful or neutral parts of any alignment to further their own purpose. Lawful and chaotic evil are much 'worse' from a moral standpoint. Neutral evil just has the potential to be much more powerful because they follow no rules, they just manipulate them.

Lawful anythings annoy the hell out of me, chaotics are much easier to work with.

In other words I don't torture puppies for fun or because I feel like it but I would to achieve my own ends if necessary.

[infectedking]

I'd like to feel that I do fall under the CG category due to the amount of people I do help out, but you guys be the judge.

[MagicManICT]

I don't torture puppies for fun

That's not torture, it's an experiment, and I do it for SCIENCE!!

Not really sure where I'd rate personally. My actual D&D characters (well, pretty much any RPG) have always gone towards neutral-good and usually chaotic to neutral. I've always thought it a reflection towards myself. For those that might think of me as something else on the forum... look at all the bullshit I let you guys post.

[spawningmink]

why am I not in this

[Jalpha]

This is a better chart.



So is this one.

[Jalpha]

Patchouli_Knowledge Neutral Good. You don't seem self serving enough to qualify as true neutral in my brief analysis plus goods are boring
dageir Chaotic Neutral. You're random as brah.
pedorlee Neutral Good. You lack the randomness to be chaotic and you lack the stick up your butt to be classed as lawful.
Pinkie-Pie Chaotic Neutral.
Zeler Hard to define, but I suspect Neutral Evil.
Pupsi Chaotic Neutral.
Burinn Lawful Good aka completely retarded. Also strong lawfuls lack any capacity to think for themselves. You might actually be more Lawful Evil hiding behind a guise of self righteousness. Thinking about it I suspect this is more likely the case.
infectedking Chaotic Good sounds about right.
spawningmink Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil. I think it's up to you in the next few years what you become.

Granger is definitely Lawful Neutral. He only cares about the rules and morality has no influence over his decisions.
MagicManICT seems more Chaotic Good to me.

Sorry for the double post.

[Glorthan]

One strange thing is that I can actually identify both of my user name as separate alignments.
Dataslycer: L-G
Patchouli Knowlege: TN+.
The player behind the keyboard both: Blue oval and green tetrahedral alignment.

Just MA - massively autistic, let's be honest.

What about me? What about me?

This whole thread pretty much, too much navel gazing.

[Burinn]

Burinn Lawful Good aka completely retarded. Also strong lawfuls lack any capacity to think for themselves. You might actually be more Lawful Evil hiding behind a guise of self righteousness. Thinking about it I suspect this is more likely the case.

If I'm allegedly able to bamboozle you, and everyone else, I think that would probably qualify me as not "completely retarded".

[jordancoles]

Uhm, excuse you
Did you just assume that I've been bamboozled ?