What is your approximate Character Alignment, and why?

[Fri]

Chaotic Forgetful

[Ninja_Prawn]

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

Instinctively I feel like he was probably right.

As for myself, I aim for Neutral Good, and like to think I do as good a job of it as anyone.

[DracoknightZero]

True Neutral:

Leaning on the Lawful side i tend to follow the system and rules set in place.
Leaning on the Chaotic side i can and will bend the rules and system to get things done
Leaning on the Good side i have empathy for my fellow humans and those who stand me close.
Leaning on the Evil side i would have no quarrel to make sure my enemies are worse off than me.

So i would consider myself a True Neutral in the case that i am just as likely to go in any direction on the alignment scale. It is not that i am apathic and dont care, but i shy away from the extremes and apply my will to get things done.

Pragmatic, Observing and Calculating.

[Prince Zahn]

I tend to think of myself as LN. when given the option I tend to play by the rules, I strive to be a loyal friend, I work hard, And I think trust, reliability, honesty and tact are key. Though it bothers me to admit it, I wouldn't step up for someone in trouble; I couldn't save a life - given the opportunity, I'd panic under the pressure; I wouldn't give what I can't, or be what I'm not, for someone else; Nor would I put myself on the line for a noble principle.
I've done some good things for the community, like helping out a sheltered workshop for special needs people, for example. But that isn't enough make me a good person, because I didn't do it voluntarily and tried to get out of it for those last 6 months.
The way I see it, I'm not a bad person, but I'm not a good person, either. I'm nice. I'm Lawfully Nice, and where can, I try to lean towards the right thing.

[2D8HP]

I think my argument needs

Presentation


Three graphs on alignment

Made simple-


From Pratchett's Discworld-





From:
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

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"

- Gary Gygax




From:
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett

'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.'

- Lord Vetinari




Correct answer for humanity is:


Lawful neutral

[Prince Zahn]

I think my argument needs

Presentation

*snip*

Correct answer for humanity is:


Lawful neutral

Looks like somebody done his research I didn't read into all the graphs and articles in it but I applaud the effort you put into it. clearly it's not your first alignment debate.

[Prince Zahn]

THANKS!

Nope it wasn't my first alignment debate.

Below is my very first post to this Forum:

edit: @v Whoops! messed with forum continuity there a bit, didnt'cha?;

Forgive me if I'm not as impacted by your first post having not read the thread in context and probably won't. but I'm certain that alignment was always something taken much too seriously.

[2D8HP]

Looks like somebody done his research I didn't read into all the graphs and articles in it but I applaud the effort you put into it. clearly it's not your first alignment debate.

THANKS!

Nope it wasn't my first alignment debate.

Below is my very first post to this Forum:

I'm probably not qualified to speak on this since I haven't got to play 5E yet, but I played a bunch of brown books D&D, blue book D&D (Thank you Mr. Holmes RIP), and after I got the DMG in '79 1E AD&D (mostly brown books plus monster manual). Since non of us could roll 3D6 in order well enough to play Paladins or Rangers we pretty much ignored alignment, but since I dug up the Dragon article ''THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO GOOD AND EVIL" where Gary Gygax first makes up ''lawful good'' I'm going to quote it, ''most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With probed leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good"."The lawful/good classification is typified by the Paladin" (and you needed to be a human with at least 17 CHA to be one, Gold Dragons were slightly more lawful and good on the chart then Paladins). "Good: Harmless/Friendly/Kind/Honest/Sincere/Helpful/Beneficial/Pure". So I interpret that to mean since most humans are already lawful and "Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil" then be like most humans are but less selfish then average and your "lawful/good". Simple! But how you can be a "holy warrior"and also be "harmless" puzzles me. I hope that was "Helpful" and "Beneficial".

[2D8HP]

edit: Whoops! messed with forum continuity there a bit, didnt'cha?;

Forgive me if I'm not as impacted by your first post having not read the thread in context and probably won't. but I'm certain that alignment was always something taken much too seriously.

Oops! Sorry, I meant to put a Thanks in, and got Ninja'd, and then a reverse-double-ninja-backflip!

Anyway, "Back in the Day" (late 1970's and early 80's for me), while they were magazine articles (besides "The Dragon", there was "Different Worlds", "The Space Gamer", "White Dwarf", and "Adventure Gaming"), and I went to a couple of DunDraCon's, but since there was no access to the internet (I guess we could have used CB radio, "Breaker, Breaker Avatar calling Blackwolf"), I really only have my memories of my local gaming circle to compare with now, but no we never really paid much attention to alignment back then.
It was pretty much just an entry in the Monster Manual for us.

[Prince Zahn]

Oops! Sorry, I meant to put a Thanks in, and got Ninja'd, and then a reverse-double-ninja-backflip!

Anyway, "Back in the Day" (late 1970's and early 80's for me), while they were magazine articles (besides "The Dragon", there was "Different Worlds", "The Space Gamer", "White Dwarf", and "Adventure Gaming"), and I went to a couple of DunDraCon's, but since there was no access to the internet (I guess we could have used CB radio, "Breaker, Breaker Avatar calling Blackwolf"), I really only have my memories of my local gaming circle to compare with now, but no we never really paid much attention to alignment back then.
It was pretty much just an entry in the Monster Manual for us.

Preaching to the choir :3 I don't go that far back but If you ask me, that's probably how it should be.

[Flickerdart]

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.

You have chosen a life that does not involve making moral choices. That's the most True Neutral thing you can possibly do.

[Bartmanhomer]

I believe that D&D alignment applies to real life as well.

[AvatarVecna]

Probably True Neutral, with slight leanings towards Chaos and Good, but not very much at all on either.

[ThinkMinty]

I like how the Lawful Neutrals try to project their alignment onto all of humanity, but even the despicable Lawful Evils haven't tried to do that.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I like how the Lawful Neutrals try to project their alignment onto all of humanity, but even the despicable Lawful Evils haven't tried to do that.

Nah, they just like to measure, organise and categorise. It's in their nature.

[Red Fel]

I like how the Lawful Neutrals try to project their alignment onto all of humanity, but even the despicable Lawful Evils haven't tried to do that.

We don't have to. We know that deep down, you're all LE; you just choose to deny yourselves.

And that's fine. The strong among you will come around to it, and we don't particularly need the ones too weak to realize it. We're fairly self-selecting in that sense.

Self-selecting, but welcoming. Hot towel?

Nah, they just like to measure, organise and categorise. It's in their nature.

Measuring, organizing, and categorizing? Have you ever seen science? It's human nature to do those things.

So of course it's LE.

[Lemmy]

I'd say most people follow the rules not because they are Lawful, but because...

1- They fear the punishment they might personally suffer for breaking the rules
2- They simply don't care/aren't committed enough to care about order/chaos, so they just go with the flow of whatever society they live in, since that's easier than defying the status quo. I believe there's a difference between "I follow the rules because I agree with the ideals of this society" and "I follow the rules because... Eh... What you gonna do?". The former is someone who share's that society's alignment, while the latter is just someone who doesn't care enough to try and change the society in question.

Besides, just because a society has rules, doesn't mean it's Lawful. A Chaotic alignment isn't limited to "absolute anarchy", after all... Just like a Lawful alignment isn't limited to "infinite bureaucracy". I dare say than an ideal (as in "one that fully and perfectly encapsulates its ideals") America would be CG.

[2D8HP]

....America would be CG.

I can't find this "America" on my map of Faerun. Did you mean the old Elvish nation Arvandaar?

Anyway, while clearly linked by blood to Elves and Orcs (chaotic good, and chaotic evil), most human societies seem to resemble either Halfling villages and caravans (Lawful good), or Hobgoblin Empires and warbands (Lawful Evil).

Are humans as innately Chaotic as their close relatives? If so how do their largely Lawful societies arise?

Gnomish researchers have long for a little while until something shiny comes along pondered this question.

[Spojaz]

I'd have to say I'm lawful evil.

I love rules. The fascinating interplay between those human ideas and reality, shaping each other, is one of the reasons I love games of all kinds. I have read a book of local ordinances for fun. I don't jaywalk, I drive the speed limit, I have never stolen anything from a store. Even if I was the last human on Earth, I would still wait for the traffic light to change.

On the other axis, I'm extremely self absorbed, I honestly don't think about how my actions effect other people, and that is at least part of being evil. My first instinct when presented with a system is to figure out how to use it to my advantage, or break it. I have taught myself lock-picking because I don't like the idea of anywhere being truly inaccessible to me. Though I don't break into places, it is important to me that I could. I have a hair trigger temper, and can be really passive aggressive. Most of these are things I'm working on (with varying degrees of success), but the question is "what alignment are you", not "what alignment are you trying to move towards?"

[Asmodean_]

Chaotic Neutral.

As in, "yeah, I get it, but what's in it for me?"

[2D8HP]

...but the question is "what alignment are you", not "what alignment are you trying to move towards?"

If I go by my deeds, since most of my waking hours are spent repairing the Hall of Justice, I'm clearly aligned with Law (whether I'm good or evil depends I suppose on your point of view, i.e. which side of the bars your looking from!).

But I was raised to exalt Chaotic Good. My father often spoke of the "Revolution", and I heard a lot of Woody Guthrie growing up! This is reflected in my PC's who are mostly Chaotic or Neutral Good.

I did have an Evil PC as part of an "Evil" campaign (I role-played an upper class psychopath) and I just didn't like the experience.

It could well be argued that I'm Lawful Evil, in that the interest of my wife and sons is far more important to me than the welfare of strangers, but when I play D&D I want to play a Chaotic or Neutral Good rebels.

[Strigon]

I'd have to say I'm lawful evil.

I love rules. The fascinating interplay between those human ideas and reality, shaping each other, is one of the reasons I love games of all kinds. I have read a book of local ordinances for fun. I don't jaywalk, I drive the speed limit, I have never stolen anything from a store. Even if I was the last human on Earth, I would still wait for the traffic light to change.

On the other axis, I'm extremely self absorbed, I honestly don't think about how my actions effect other people, and that is at least part of being evil. My first instinct when presented with a system is to figure out how to use it to my advantage, or break it. I have taught myself lock-picking because I don't like the idea of anywhere being truly inaccessible to me. Though I don't break into places, it is important to me that I could. I have a hair trigger temper, and can be really passive aggressive. Most of these are things I'm working on (with varying degrees of success), but the question is "what alignment are you", not "what alignment are you trying to move towards?"

A lot of the "Evil" things you're saying are actually "Chaotic". There's nothing Evil about not wanting not to be kept out of places. Having a bad temper isn't Evil, either, though it can move you toward doing Evil.

[Red Fel]

A lot of the "Evil" things you're saying are actually "Chaotic". There's nothing Evil about not wanting not to be kept out of places. Having a bad temper isn't Evil, either, though it can move you toward doing Evil.

Actually, while I wouldn't peg them as Chaotic, I wouldn't peg them as Evil, either.

Being selfish isn't Evil, it's just non-Good. Plenty of Neutral people follow a "me first" mentality. Likewise, being passive-aggressive, or even having a temper, isn't Good or Evil - it's just being a person with feelings.

Similarly, learning lock-picking - particularly when you have no specific desire to employ it, just a general desire to have that skill available - isn't Evil. It's just learning a skill. If I decide I want to learn how to build a campfire or use the stars to navigate, that doesn't mean I'm a Park Ranger. It means I want to have a useful skill.

Spojaz, I can respect your gumption. It takes some pluck to say "I wanna be Evil." Eartha Kitt said that, and she was amazing. But you've got to bring a bit more than lock-picking to the table.

Here; take this consolation LN badge and grab a chair. Don't worry; if LE needs to hire someone, we'll know where to look.

[Amidus Drexel]

I usually peg myself as Lawful Neutral or True Neutral, but it depends on the day. I've got a pretty strong sense of personal obligation, but I wouldn't call myself particularly moral or immoral.

[Strigon]

Actually, while I wouldn't peg them as Chaotic, I wouldn't peg them as Evil, either.

Being selfish isn't Evil, it's just non-Good. Plenty of Neutral people follow a "me first" mentality. Likewise, being passive-aggressive, or even having a temper, isn't Good or Evil - it's just being a person with feelings.

Similarly, learning lock-picking - particularly when you have no specific desire to employ it, just a general desire to have that skill available - isn't Evil. It's just learning a skill. If I decide I want to learn how to build a campfire or use the stars to navigate, that doesn't mean I'm a Park Ranger. It means I want to have a useful skill.

Well, I didn't say knowing how to pick a lock was chaotic, but I'd absolutely argue that the reason behind it is.
If you want to learn how to lock-pick because it would be handy in case you lock yourself out of your house, or because you like a challenge, that has no bearing on alignment, for sure. Learning it because you don't like the idea of being locked out of anywhere, at all sounds like the most chaotic thing in the world to me.

[danzibr]

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

Same.

What is Red Fel's alignment? Here's a hint: You can't spell "Red Fel" without...

Neutral neutral?

Wouldn’t almost everybody classify themselves as good?

As others have said, nope.

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.

Same again!

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"

Same again!

Actually, while I wouldn't peg them as Chaotic, I wouldn't peg them as Evil, either.

Being selfish isn't Evil, it's just non-Good. Plenty of Neutral people follow a "me first" mentality. Likewise, being passive-aggressive, or even having a temper, isn't Good or Evil - it's just being a person with feelings.

Yeah.

For me, I treat the people around me well, so they might think of me as good, but that doesn't extend very far. On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being Evil Evil and 10 being Good Good, I bet I'd be a 6.5 or so.

Definitely lawful though.

[DataNinja]

Nah, they just like to measure, organise and categorise. It's in their nature.

Lawful Neutral: We're the ones who put the pegs, no matter what they are, through the holes - without the use of other tools. No making the hole bigger, or sanding edges off. That's cheating. Looking at you, Chaos. I see you over there with that saw, trying to get that square peg in that round hole!

[Trekkin]

But you've got to bring a bit more than lock-picking to the table.

I would agree; lockpicking isn't evil. I think my teaching style became so, though, back before I was able to go pure research.

Spoiler

Show

See, I got a lot of students coming through my lab classes who were obsessed with getting an A. Hang the material, hang the science, what mattered was that A on their GPA. What I wanted was more capable undergraduate workers for the labs of which I was part.

So I started each semester by pointing out how we graded on a curve for the one big project determining 90% of your course grade, so your performance only mattered for your grade relative to your classmates'; I'd also make sure to spread out the grade-obsessed people among the project groups. Then it was a simple matter of being critical of individuals' work but globally very impressed. "You all have certainly raised the bar this year, keep it up!" in public, "Don't worry, you've still got time to work on this." in private. Always the implication that everyone else is miles ahead -- and dear me, were they all willing to fake it 'till they made it. Smiles all round, all the time. And if they thought to ask with increasing desperation who was doing so well? Oh, I couldn't possibly comment.

It was the little things that made the difference in the end. I'd let the smile fall fractionally from my face when I saw their data; I'd suggest that they make sure the new technique they wanted to try had reagents available, because "they've been seeing a lot of use lately." They were doing work years above their grade level and coming in hoping they'd pull out a B- if they really applied themselves -- and whenever a group seemed content to let the grade-obsessed member do most of the work, why, that was an excellent time to remind everyone to keep track of who was doing what, since we'd be taking your reviews of each other into account when determining individual grades.

I liked that. I'm not the one you have to worry about, no; I'm positively ecstatic over how far you've all come. Couldn't be prouder. No, you've got to worry about the fellow in your group chugging energy drinks to pull their second consecutive all-nighter and increasingly convinced that your (relative) laziness is keeping them out of whatever the next stage of their career might be.

By the end of the course, the vending machines were empty of caffeinated beverages, everybody was exquisitely prepared to do work well beyond where they were supposed to be -- certainly well above their peers in the other sections of the course -- and a good deal of them hadn't left the labs for days prior. I got recognized for results well above the norm, and the university got a crop of excellent lab undergrads. If many of them were turning to undergraduate research to shore up their apparently subpar performance -- we did, after all, grade on a curve -- so much the better.

So that's sort of how I think of Evil. Lockpicking isn't Evil, but stoking fear and envy in people who certainly didn't do anything to deserve it because it might benefit me? That might be.

[ThinkMinty]

Lawful Neutral: We're the ones who put the pegs, no matter what they are, through the holes - without the use of other tools. No making the hole bigger, or sanding edges off. That's cheating. Looking at you, Chaos. I see you over there with that saw, trying to get that square peg in that round hole!

Pff, you need to think outside of that peg-hole paradigm. Open up your perception to the vast swirling unknown that is the cosmos, bro.

[Amidus Drexel]

Pff, you need to think outside of that peg-hole paradigm. Open up your perception to the vast swirling unknown that is the cosmos, bro.

The universe is deterministic. All the information is there, it's just not all available to us. It's pegs and holes (or turtles, if you prefer) all the way down.