What is your approximate Character Alignment, and why?

[ThinkMinty]

Personally, I'm more or less Chaotic Good. I even wrote a handbook about it a while back.

So, how about you, Playgrounders? What alignment do you fit best into?

Or, put another way, what alignment would you like to be?

On a semi-related note, if anyone wants help becoming more Chaotic and/or Good, ask. Good is difficult, but delightful as an alignment to have, and being Chaotic is, at least from where I'm sitting, more ethically sound than the Lawful alignments are.

[Razade]

Alignment is a garbage system for a game, let alone real life. People can't be summed up with even an approximated alignment because things like Good and Evil aren't concrete, tangible things in our world. They're just words.

[Bartmanhomer]

Personally, I'm more or less Chaotic Good. I even wrote a handbook about it a while back.

So, how about you, Playgrounders? What alignment do you fit best into?

Or, put another way, what alignment would you like to be?

On a semi-related note, if anyone wants help becoming more Chaotic and/or Good, ask. Good is difficult, but delightful as an alignment to have, and being Chaotic is, at least from where I'm sitting, more ethically sound than the Lawful alignments are.

I'm more like Lawful Good. Because I follow the Law and I'm good.

[Strigon]

I'd say I walk the line between LG and LN, but generally stay on the Good side.

[2D8HP]

I just took the

Online Alignment Test - Wizards of the Coast

and it said I was Neutral.

On previous months when I have taken the test it has said I was variously:

Lawful Neutral,

Neutral Good, and

Chaotic Good.

I believe my alignment depends on how much caffeine I've recently ingested.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ha I knew it. I did the Alignment test and I'm Lawful Good.

[Red Fel]

Alignment is a garbage system for a game, let alone real life. People can't be summed up with even an approximated alignment because things like Good and Evil aren't concrete, tangible things in our world. They're just words.

As a staunch advocate of Lawful Evil, I'm going to completely agree with this. The arbitrary alignment system of D&D is dysfunctional at best, and an absurd and game-ruining exercise at worst. And I say this as someone who has written extensively on the subject. Other games that take a more nuanced approach to personal values, codes, and ethics do a much better job.

That said, I didn't come here to grouse about this busted system we call alignment. I came here to answer the OP's question. Or, more accurately, I came here to let you all answer the OP's question.

Come on, let me hear it. Say it with feeling. What is Red Fel's alignment? Here's a hint: You can't spell "Red Fel" without...

[Liquor Box]

Wouldn’t almost everybody classify themselves as good?

I mean each of us may have a different idea what the “good” act is in a particular circumstance, and what I see as good another may see as abhorrent (or vice versa). But each of us would surely classify our own actions as “good”.

Even where acts would ordinarily seem to be obviously evil, people are often able to justify them as not-evil when committed by themselves or someone who is portrayed as sympathetic. An example on this board would be Hayley Starshine, who is a thief and steals but is portrayed sympathetically and as being “good” – it’s ok you see because the people she steals from are portrayed as nasty.

The only interesting axis is whether people see themselves as lawful or not.

[Eldariel]

I certainly tend towards Chaos in the majority of topics. There are some cases where I'm lawful though. Likewise, I'm Good in some regards (I'm hopelessly altruistic to the point of constant self-sacrifice), Neutral in others, and I have a healthy respect for Evil where necessary as well. Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral would be the alignments that are most likely to fit most of my actions, but there'd inevitably be a massive number of out-of-alignment actions.

[Jormengand]

Come on, let me hear it. Say it with feeling. What is Red Fel's alignment? Here's a hint: You can't spell "Red Fel" without...

Lawful Evil!

---

Having asked people off-forum, online tests, and the like what they thought my alignment was...

	X	G(X)	G	N(G)	N	N(E)	E	E(V)	V
L						1
N(L)
N
N(C)				1
C	1	1	2	9	2	2	1		1

I think that I easily average around CN(G). Interestingly, only two people gave me any answer other than chaotic.

This means that I probably have to oppose you, Red Fel. Sorry. Contractual obligation. Then again, being chaotic, what does any contract matter to me?

[Blue Ghost]

Wouldn’t almost everybody classify themselves as good?

Not necessarily. Whenever these threads pop up, a significant number of people classify themselves as neutral. Those tend to be the ones who don't make active pursuit of the Good (whatever their conception of it may be) a high priority in their lives. Fewer people label themselves as evil, but they do exist.

My answer is still the same as the last time this thread came around. Lawful Good.

[5a Violista]

Wouldn’t almost everybody classify themselves as good?

I mean each of us may have a different idea what the “good” act is in a particular circumstance, and what I see as good another may see as abhorrent (or vice versa). But each of us would surely classify our own actions as “good”.

No, not really. Well, we may see our own perspective as "good" but not "Good". There is an important distinction between the philosophical term "good" and the D&D Alignment term "Good".

The philosophic/moral term "good" can mean desirable, quality, morally virtuous (and then you'd have to ask yourself which moral frameworks? Look-in-the-Mirror? Golden Rule? Publicity Principle? Legality? ...and so on), pleasurable, righteous, beneficial, morally right (oh, back to the question "Which moral framework?"). Whether someone would consider themselves good or not would depend on which definition of good and which moral framework they use.

However, "Good" the D&D alignment is well-defined (although confusingly), with one of the definitions as "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." This does not always match up with the moral "good". If someone does not see themselves as altruistic, concerned with the dignity of others, or "respectful of life" (whatever that means) then they do not consider themselves Good.
Note: regardless of considering themselves Good according to this definition, they may or may not be a good person.

[Dienekes]

Wouldn’t almost everybody classify themselves as good?

Not really, I know damn well that I don't qualify as good by any stretch of the imagination.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I have morals, I recognize the value in good deeds and respect those who live their life by those morals.

I just have never put much effort into them. I live a fairly normal life, where I help some friends if they ask, but don't go out of my way to aid others. Puts me pretty clearly in the Neutral category.

And on the Law/Chaos axis I'm pretty much the same. I respect the concept of laws, I think (assuming the laws in themselves are good) the world would be a better place if people followed the laws more than they didn't. But, I've lied, stolen, and broken the speed limit with the rest of the world.

So, True Neutral for me.

[Trekkin]

Lawful Evil for me as well, I think.

Lawful because I accept and acknowledge what is to me the self-evident predictability of a universe bounded by inviolable natural laws and describable through statistics. Evil because I can see neither justice nor mercy nor duty anywhere in those laws, nor any skewing of the distributions atrributable to morality. There's no justice, there's just us, moving from one state to the next in a big ol' Markov chain. The question, then, is whether and how we steer ourselves and others toward us getting what we want -- and while evil can be suboptimal for the long term, it would seem irrational to me not to at least perform the cost-benefit analysis. (In particular, I've often had to be reminded that we cannot run certain studies for ethical reasons, never mind the efficiency.)

So Lawful Evil, I think: lawful because logical, evil because effective.

[Lemmy]

I like to think I'm Neutral Good or Chaotic Good... But like 90% of humanity, I probably just like to think that and actually am True Neutral.

[Jormengand]

I like to think I'm Neutral Good or Chaotic Good... But like 90% of humanity, I probably just like to think that and actually am True Neutral.

Technically, only 11% of humanity is True Neutral (at least in 3.5, this was made clear in one of the books).

[Lemmy]

Technically, only 11% of humanity is True Neutral (at least in 3.5, this was made clear in one of the books).

Is it? I remember it saying that for every good person there was en evil one and vice-versa, and same goes for chaotic/lawful, but I don't recall anything about how many people belonged to each alignment...

In any case, i'm not basing my assertion on the books. It's my opinion that 90% of all humans simply aren't committed enough to good/evil/law/chaos to get a change in alignment... The majority of us are just True Neutral and believe ourselves to be Good. Most people won't go out of their way to help or harm others, no matter what they tell themselves (and others).

[DataNinja]

I'd peg myself as Lawful Neutral. I'm generally rather... apathetic to actually going out of my way to help people, though if I see a way I can help that doesn't inconvenience me unduly, such as giving up a seat on the bus or whatnot, but that's more just common courtesy. Whereas I follow the rules somewhat more to a fault. I'm that guy who's going 50 in the 50 zone, doesn't matter that everyone else is zooming along at 70. I'll follow work regulations, even though they're generally a pain for others who want to cut corners. And so on.

So, yeah, Lawful Neutral.

[Jormengand]

Is it? I remember it saying that for every good person there was en evil one and vice-versa, and same goes for chaotic/lawful, but I don't recall anything about how many people belonged to each alignment...

In any case, i'm not basing my assertion on the books. It's my opinion that 90% of all humans simply aren't committed enough to good/evil/law/chaos to get a change in alignment... The majority of us are just True Neutral and believe ourselves to be Good. Most people won't go out of their way to help or harm others, no matter what they tell themselves (and others).

This is why I'm a fan of the tendency system, because it allows you to distinguish the 4% of people who are not at all chaotic or good, the 4% of people who are very much both, the 4% of people who are somewhat chaotic and very good, the 4% who are somewhat chaotic and somewhat good, and so forth. It allows you to have a chaotic good ideology without massively acting in a chaotic or good way. It allows you, also, to have 40% of people being essentially true neutral and 64% - a clear majority - being essentially morally neutral while also allowing them to have lower-scale traits that allow you to assign them a partial alignment.

I guess I don't see alignment as having to be massive-scale. The kind of person who would break a promise, but only to help another person more than breaking the promise will hurt is probably some shade of CG (at least, given no other information). Then again, I also see assigning people as "Good" or "Evil" exceptionally dangerous without being vitally clear about what that means.

(Of course, adding in the Exalted and Vile alignments makes everything weirder, but they probably account for a lot less of the population than any of the standard 9 or even 25 does.)

[Liquor Box]

Not necessarily. Whenever these threads pop up, a significant number of people classify themselves as neutral. Those tend to be the ones who don't make active pursuit of the Good (whatever their conception of it may be) a high priority in their lives. Fewer people label themselves as evil, but they do exist.

My answer is still the same as the last time this thread came around. Lawful Good.

I stand corrected. I thought most people who I would see as not "Good" from my perspective would classify their own actions as good, but suppose some do not.

[2D8HP]

Back in '76 most humans were Lawful Neutral according to Gygax.

From:
The meaning of law and chaos in Dungeons & Dragons
and their relationships to good and evil
by Gary Gygax

in the february 1976 issue of the strategic review

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

[Liquor Box]

No, not really. Well, we may see our own perspective as "good" but not "Good". There is an important distinction between the philosophical term "good" and the D&D Alignment term "Good".

The philosophic/moral term "good" can mean desirable, quality, morally virtuous (and then you'd have to ask yourself which moral frameworks? Look-in-the-Mirror? Golden Rule? Publicity Principle? Legality? ...and so on), pleasurable, righteous, beneficial, morally right (oh, back to the question "Which moral framework?"). Whether someone would consider themselves good or not would depend on which definition of good and which moral framework they use.

However, "Good" the D&D alignment is well-defined (although confusingly), with one of the definitions as "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." This does not always match up with the moral "good". If someone does not see themselves as altruistic, concerned with the dignity of others, or "respectful of life" (whatever that means) then they do not consider themselves Good.
Note: regardless of considering themselves Good according to this definition, they may or may not be a good person.

Even taking into account the moral absolutism of the DnD system, I would have thought most people would classify themselves as Good. Goodness in DnD is only broadly defined, and most acts can easily be defined as falling within it (I repeat my Hayley Starshine stealing example). I expect that most acts can be (and genuinely are by many of those who commit them) seen as being good both in accordance of ordinary real life morality and by DnD morality as you have defined it.

Although, it seems I was wrong about the degree to which people would see themselves as good.


A question though:
In DnD, if a person wrongly sees their deeds as Good, are they themselves Good?

[Siosilvar]

I'm textbook Chaotic Good. I have an anti-authoritarian streak a mile wide, but a strong sense of communal responsibility. Some people think that makes me Lawful. I think it makes me pragmatic.

[ThinkMinty]

I'm textbook Chaotic Good. I have an anti-authoritarian streak a mile wide, but a strong sense of communal responsibility. Some people think that makes me Lawful. I think it makes me pragmatic.

Chaotic Good, woop woop.

[Red Fel]

Lawful Evil!

That's sweet of you, Jormengand. Completely accurate, but sweet nonetheless.

I think that I easily average around CN(G).

I would say "Nobody's perfect," but I'm right here.

This means that I probably have to oppose you, Red Fel. Sorry. Contractual obligation. Then again, being chaotic, what does any contract matter to me?

It's cool, we can have cookies after.

Lawful Evil for me as well, I think.

Lawful because I accept and acknowledge what is to me the self-evident predictability of a universe bounded by inviolable natural laws and describable through statistics. Evil because I can see neither justice nor mercy nor duty anywhere in those laws, nor any skewing of the distributions atrributable to morality. There's no justice, there's just us, moving from one state to the next in a big ol' Markov chain. The question, then, is whether and how we steer ourselves and others toward us getting what we want -- and while evil can be suboptimal for the long term, it would seem irrational to me not to at least perform the cost-benefit analysis. (In particular, I've often had to be reminded that we cannot run certain studies for ethical reasons, never mind the efficiency.)

So Lawful Evil, I think: lawful because logical, evil because effective.

Welcome! Care for a hot hand towel?

In DnD, if a person wrongly sees their deeds as Good, are they themselves Good?

No. In D&D, alignments are objective reality, literal and concrete cosmic forces with tangible presence and influence. A thing can be objectively Evil, irrespective of its perspective on the matter. An objectively Evil act remains an objectively Evil act, and no Good person could readily perform such an act, regardless of what he believed was right or wrong.

[Strigon]

No. In D&D, alignments are objective reality, literal and concrete cosmic forces with tangible presence and influence. A thing can be objectively Evil, irrespective of its perspective on the matter. An objectively Evil act remains an objectively Evil act, and no Good person could readily perform such an act, regardless of what he believed was right or wrong.

This. In the D&D verse, alignment is completely, 100% real. Saying someone who does Evil, and thinks they're doing good, is Good would be akin to saying someone in our universe who steps on a broken scale actually weighs 0 lbs.

[2D8HP]

Cookies and heated hand towels?

I've got to take that quiz again!

[Flickerdart]

Most people are True Neutral, for one simple reason - we lack conviction. How many of you would kill for Good? Practice sacrifice and self-denial for Chaos? Commit to Evil always, not just when personally convenient? Follow rigid Law regardless of consequences? If you really think about it, none.

If faced with the trolley problem, we'd all be too busy checking our phones to even think about flipping the switch.

[2D8HP]

...If faced with the trolley problem, we'd all be too busy checking our phones to even think about flipping the switch.

Well yeah, I've got PbP games I need to keep up with!

[Trekkin]

Most people are True Neutral, for one simple reason - we lack conviction. How many of you would kill for Good? Practice sacrifice and self-denial for Chaos? Commit to Evil always, not just when personally convenient? Follow rigid Law regardless of consequences? If you really think about it, none.

I disagree; you can make the entry requirements for a non-Neutral alignment extreme to the point of insanity, sure, but is that necessarily a useful way to calibrate the scales?

Sure, most people don't make that many considered moral choices throughout the day, but I'd argue that's because most of the choices we make don't have a moral component. When I pick what socks I'm going to wear in the morning, what's the Good choice? How does one meaningfully do arithmetic Chaotically? Who knows what Evil lurks in the heart of sandwiches?

I guess I'm just saying that for the sake of questions like this, it helps to set the parameters such that it's possible to locate, or at least posit, many examples of each alignment. In this case, most of us aren't deciding on a daily basis whether orc babies should live or die, so the system makes more meaningful distinctions when the standards are brought closer together. (Whether the system is at all a sensible reflection of reality is another matter, of course.)