Define the other players from their alignment

[Radiant_Maelstrom]

Hello everyone! ^_^

There are people that say that __whatever__ good is boring but I would partially disagree. What makes the person boring is because of who they are rather than their alignment. I for one like the lawful good Jaune Arc of RWBY or Lawful Good play Commander Shepard of Mass Effect series. On the flipside, some evil villians are really one-dimensional (I am looking at you FFV Exdeath!) while others can be quite entertaining (Kefka > Sephiroth!).

As for myself. Lawful goood. I am pretty much willing to work with authorities for the benefit of everyone. If the law/rules turns out to be detrimental, I will do what I can to make sure it is changed so it will no longer be.

[Jalpha]

Took a test here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... F20001222b

Chaotic Neutral

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. The chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). The common phrase for chaotic neutral is "true chaotic." Remember that the chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom both from society’s restrictions and from a do-gooder’s zeal.

So it turns out that I actually am CN..

Same here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkksxmBo514

I cant be wrong?!?

[Jacobian123]

Lawful good from that test, apparently.

[ven]

The only true alignment test is what you do when you have a b12 in your hands and too much spare time.

[LadyGoo]

[Jalpha]

It's interesting that the only thing that categorizes me as True Evil and not True Neutral is that I am willing to do things defined as evil to achieve what I want. That's it. The D&D definitions are constrictive and I don't really agree with their attempt to classify True Evil and place limitations upon that alignment. I'll do what I want, if I want to help the weak I will, if I choose to let an enemy pick his weapon back up I will, if I want to murder or torture I will. I don't have to do any of those things nor do I have to not do them.

The whole idea that True Evil has to be evil and do evil things and further evil is ridiculous. It's just about the ultimate form of existential freedom and being free from all rules, boundaries and restrictions. That's part of the alignment though, refusing to be restricted by laws but also being able to adhere to them if it serves a purpose.

That's from my perspective though, and comes from believing that good and evil aren't real at all. They are just restrictions people place upon themselves.

There's a very fine line between all of the neutral moral alignments.

[pedorlee]

It's interesting that the only thing that categorizes me as True Evil and not True Neutral is that I am willing to do things defined as evil to achieve what I want. That's it. The D&D definitions are constrictive and I don't really agree with their attempt to classify True Evil and place limitations upon that alignment. I'll do what I want, if I want to help the weak I will, if I choose to let an enemy pick his weapon back up I will, if I want to murder or torture I will. I don't have to do any of those things nor do I have to not do them.

The whole idea that True Evil has to be evil and do evil things and further evil is ridiculous. It's just about the ultimate form of existential freedom and being free from all rules, boundaries and restrictions. That's part of the alignment though, refusing to be restricted by laws but also being able to adhere to them if it serves a purpose.

That's from my perspective though, and comes from believing that good and evil aren't real at all. They are just restrictions people place upon themselves.

There's a very fine line between all of the neutral moral alignments.

Well, those alignements have a meaning in worlds where magic and gods exists.
Raistlin Majere was a legal evil char who sold his own brother for power but at the end...
Gods like Paladin, Takhishis or Gilean represent their alignments very well and their followers must obey and follow those ethic guidelines to gain their favor. Mages follow their heart and because of that they end up choosing a side, at least in Krynn where alignements are very lineal.
In other worlds like Abeir-Toril there is even more Gods who has more influence over terrenal affairs, but for some reasons they aren't so static when it comes to allignements.
I mean, in the novels things are more open and in the games the developers had to create the alignement system to compel players to choose an ethic guidelane, this way they are forced to perform their characters role with some order and common sense.

[MagicManICT]

After years and years as a DM, reading many, many sourcebooks, from D&D's 3rd printing (circa 1980) to 4th ed and about every rule book between, and hundreds of issues of Dragon magazine (and a lot of others), tons of stuff off the internet, interviews, etc... I came to the conclusion, and rightly so, that the alignments defined in the player handbook are there to help guild the DM and players to make more informed choices about the worlds they make and play in, not as hard and fast, set in stone requirements because real morality is rarely so concrete.

sometimes I feel I have wasted too much of my life reading rule books in way too much detail for some fantasy game that nobody else gives a crap about...

[maze]

After years and years as a DM, reading many, many sourcebooks, from D&D's 3rd printing (circa 1980) to 4th ed and about every rule book between, and hundreds of issues of Dragon magazine (and a lot of others), tons of stuff off the internet, interviews, etc... I came to the conclusion, and rightly so, that the alignments defined in the player handbook are there to help guild the DM and players to make more informed choices about the worlds they make and play in, not as hard and fast, set in stone requirements because real morality is rarely so concrete.

sometimes I feel I have wasted too much of my life reading rule books in way too much detail for some fantasy game that nobody else gives a crap about...

your hole life was was meant to give just this answer *slow clap*

[pedorlee]

After years and years as a DM, reading many, many sourcebooks, from D&D's 3rd printing (circa 1980) to 4th ed and about every rule book between, and hundreds of issues of Dragon magazine (and a lot of others), tons of stuff off the internet, interviews, etc... I came to the conclusion, and rightly so, that the alignments defined in the player handbook are there to help guild the DM and players to make more informed choices about the worlds they make and play in, not as hard and fast, set in stone requirements because real morality is rarely so concrete.

sometimes I feel I have wasted too much of my life reading rule books in way too much detail for some fantasy game that nobody else gives a crap about...

I dont know at what age you started or did that, but in my case it was between 13 and 18. I was the master and I did the same as you. I even bought the dungeon master game creator, wich was sold as a game when Duke Nukem 3D was on the stores, also the Dragon magazines and a lot of class books that we never used. Ive never felt like I lost my time because me and my friends had really good times and laughed a lot with it.
I really miss playing Ad&D. Internet came a bit later than the USA, so i never had any other source different than the ones listed above.
Im not very sure if i have understood you but are you saying Im right in my assert about alignements then?