Real life alignment

[Simetra Irertne]

What do you think the best alignment to live is? I'm limiting it to standard lawful-neutral-chaotic good-neutral-evil. The obvious answer is some form of good, but we wouldn't be anywhere near our current level of technology if it weren't for military advances, and by extension, war, and by extension, evil. Feel free to argue for something you aren't yourself. Nobody will know.

[J-H]

As the Batman demotivator says:
Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice.

You don't have to be good to understand the need for properly applied violence, along with the training and tools to apply that violence well. A second-best army is far more expensive in the long run.

[Razade]

Didn't we already have this thread? Oh we do? On the front page no less?

[2D8HP]

Didn't we already have this thread? Oh we do? On the front page no less?

That thread was on what alignment you are, this one is on what you advocate, so not the same thing.

So which alignment do I advocate?

I advocate not touching the subject with a ten foot pole.

Your welcome.

[8BitNinja]

Oh look another real life alignment thread.

Dress up like you are going to clean up a nuclear meltdown, because things are going to get toxic

[Mauve Shirt]

Lawful anxious.

[lunaticfringe]

Neutral Good, you know when to follow the rules & when they need to be broken.

[Norrefve]

I agree with lunaticfringe. While I personally tend more towards LG or LN, if everyone was NG, it would be a perfect world. Everyone would follow the rules when it is the right thing to do, or they would disregard them if it is the better choice, and everyone would understand why they did it.

Since everyone is Good, no one is trying to exploit the rules for themselves, or creating needless anarchy for their own gains. Everyone looks out for each other and makes sure everyone is OK.

[pendell]

A problem I have with this thread is that, unlike DND, real life does not have an objective way to determine good/evil. So if I advocate LG, for example, I'm advocating my interpretation of that alignment.

Which may not be what LG actually is.

My real-life self-perception of my alignment is neutral good (seek to improve the lot of self and others, prioritize the needs of others over my own, seek good , cause minimal unnecessary harm, keep the law when possible, break 'em good and hard if the laws are no longer serving their purpose, or were designed to be evil from the outset).

I'm pretty sure that does not match up with what other forum posters would consider NG. Based on my discussions of military ethics elsewhere on this forum, I'm pretty sure there are commenters who would consider me some variation of Lawful Neutral/True Neutral/Lawful Evil. I don't think I would be considered Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil, but there's enough wiggle room for almost anywhere on the rest of the axis.

So if I advocate for Neutral Good, is that really the alignment that I am advocating? Or am I deluded, and actually advocating something else?

Respectfully,

Biran P.

[2D8HP]

Neutral Good..

...If everyone was NG, it would be a perfect world...

...Neutral Good.

Must I bluetext everything?
Well I'm now totally and irrevocably convinced that Neutral Good...

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have scented hand towels.

.....Lawful Evil is the alignment to be. How could I think otherwise?

[8BitNinja]

Okay, fine. I said I wouldn't do it but here it is.

Lawful Good.

[Red Fel]

.....Lawful Evil is the alignment to be. How could I think otherwise?

To be fair, the towels come in lavender, peach, and mint. We like to diversify.

So, yeah. Lawful Evil. Because real life alignment is about class, people.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think the best way to live by is Lawful Good but today society is True Neutral.

[the moon druid]

well deciding how you are aligned then the alignment scale would largely expand wouldnt it?

[Asmodean_]

Although Lawful Good is definitely a good alignment for society to be, there has to be some outside of it for anything to happen. Conflict drives progress.

[Razade]

That thread was on what alignment you are, this one is on what you advocate, so not the same thing.

If you advocate an alignment you don't think you are, you should probably ask why you're not the alignment you advocate. They're basically the same thread.

Your welcome.

You're. Not your. I don't have a welcome, because I didn't need you to try and condescend to me.

[Asmodean_]

You're. Not your. I don't have a welcome, because I didn't need you to try and condescend to me.

> is condescending about small grammar point that doesn't matter

> "I don't need you to be condescending towards me"

ahh

[2D8HP]

...They're basically the same thread..

Since I don't think that all those who confess to not being very good on that thread, actually advocate not being good, yes I do think that "embodying", and "advocating" are different.

If you advocate an alignment you don't think you are, you should probably ask why you're not the alignment you advocate....

Um.. "Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue", and some of us recognise that we are not perfect, and even as we strive to, our actions do not match our ideals.

...You're. Not your...

Thank you, I appreciate the spelling lesson.

I also often write "are" when it should be "our"

...I don't have a welcome, because I didn't need....

The your (sic) welcome, was to everyone for not sincerely advocating any "alignment", as it is a game mechanic that I don't think models real world behavior, ethics and morality that well, and even if it may...

Oh look another real life alignment thread.

Dress up like you are going to clean up a nuclear meltdown, because things are going to get toxic

..."Alignment" discussions often seem to descend into rancor.

Arguments about the superiority of "Chaotic" or "Lawful" good get strident, much less "don't impose your idea of good on me!" etc.

I prefer if our arguments about "Alignment" stay "tongue-in-cheek", but then again I'm clearly evil, even if I don't stoop as low as to commit vile acts of sarcasm. Must I bluetext everything?

[Wandering Bard]

I don't think that evil is the cause of war. Disagreement is the cause of war. I think that there is no "best alignment." To technologically advance, humans require motivation, which often comes from competition. There needs to be a fair mix of everything.

Pretty sure I overthought this.

[2D8HP]

I think my "real life alignment" varies between Lawful Cranky and Chaotic Inebriated.

(Double posted in the "Confessions" thread)