Acheron's Favorite Alignments

[kriegslied]

If you had to pick one, what would it be? Please post why so we can have a discussion. ;D

[Fade Mei'ren]

Neutral Evil. Why? You're not inclined to follow the law, but you're not bent on murdering everything on sight and destroying everything. NE is when you're not swayed by law or chaos, and you simply do what you have to do, even if it involves blowing down mountains or killing the innocent. None shall stand in your way to whatever goal you pursue.

[Cecil]

True Neutral for me. I discovered this to be the alignment that most fit a character that grew close to me over several years of play, I was the entire alignment spectrum with him except the lawful alignments, trying to find where he fit the most. Finally he wound up True Neutral because he 'did what he felt was in the best interest of his people, for the greater good, regardless of method.' He was bordering on NE since those methods were sometimes too coldly efficient though.

[cyrgon]

Lawfull Neutral, i suppose, but it would depend mostly on what personality i envision for that character.

As a LN i am (contrary to popular belief) NOT necessarily inclined to follow the law, but have my own code, people will know they can rely on me, and that I keep my word.
A LN is generally focused and disciplined.
A
(Now it might be said that a RP group wich i was part of, in an 12 RL year AD&D campaign had its probably slightly off views on alignment. An assassin that was professional to the fingertips, always followed the contract, being as efficient as possible etc, would likely be LN. An assassin who liked his job a little to much would be Evil. ) The REASON for the act, more than the act was the deciding factor.

Example, a mage blows up a wagon of innocents that had seen a compromising situation, and would likely report this to their homeland, and war would break out. Why did he do this?

LN - hed swore an oath as a knight to protect his country, and his country would been crushed by the other far larger nation.

That was thew char that actually did this.


A Chaotic good mightve done the same.
He might have decided that a few innocent lives lost was preferable to the hundreds of thousands lost in war.

NE. It would make me look good in court at home, saving us from a war that will crush us.


Our world was probably a lot more... pragmatic and gritty than most.

[sweppes]

Chaotic good. My chars cant stand not being able t smash up soem things if the opposition differs onecould say.

[cleitanious]

Lawful Good - My main character is a Paladin of Torm.

I cant stand doing anything even remotely evil without feeling guilty, and chaos is the enemy of Law, and Law is Order and Order is good.

[pyscho]

CN- Why? because the law only the law if caught by someone who cares, and why be good or evil when you can benefit from both. If you need something done you can go to either side to get it done so long as you dont mind the method of getting it done

[cleitanious]

Well if you had a deity like Torm, you couldn't say "because the law only the law if caught by someone who cares" because Torm sees all, and he cares.

[kriegslied]

Just noticed I never adding a reasoning in my own thread *doh*

CG - Why? Because D&D is all about the valorous heroes, and CG is like a box of valor in nice christmas wrapping with a bow on top. Out there on your own, no laws to guide you, just your conscience. Cut the red tape and get down to business. Tyr wants you to stick a knife in the damsel in distress? You tell him where he can shove it. Yeah, I'd say CG is cool as the Boondock Saints.

Now if only I could figure out why I almost never play CG characters myself...

[DM Badger]

If I ever play a good character, it's Neutral Good, which is why I usually play a druid of Mielikki based on The Book of Exalted Deeds if I want to go good. She preserves nature and tips the scales so that the balance is present in all things, yet is swayed by her personal morals and ends up doing what is best for people: it may mean upholding the law or knocking a greedy noble over his pedestal.

I usually play evil characters, though.

[cleitanious]

The DnD Manuals tell you right in them that players should NOT pick any Evil alignment.

[DM Badger]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Vile_Darkness

"Book of Vile Darkness introduced several new mechanics relating to evil in Dungeons & Dragons, including rules for drug use, demonic possession, torture, and ritual sacrifice. It introduced 18 new prestige classes (see List of prestige classes). Like most supplemental source books, it included new spells, feats, and magic items. Some, including corrupt spells and vile feats, introduced new mechanics supporting evil characters."

[cleitanious]

Thats not the Book I am talking about ((Obviously))

[kriegslied]

Hmm, I don't have the DnD manual but I remember the FR campaign setting suggesting that you don't let players play evil characters only because they wouldn't be enticed to go on the epic quests of heroism as much.

It also mentions how it would strain party dynamic, but at the end of the day, it's up to the players and the DM as to how they want their campaign to run.

Edit: One last thing: in FR there are more good-aligned adventurers than neutral, and more neutral than evil adventurers (same as the FR deities, g>n>e).

Edit2: People=>Adventurers

[cleitanious]

I was reffering to the 3.5 Core Rulebook #1.

Evil for players just makes them a player controlled monster bascially - So if a player went ahead and just killed the evil player, the other players 'shouldnt' be like "Oh no you murdered him, blah blah." because that other player must have done things (whether it be in the past or not) that were of extreme evils - Or they would not have that alignment. Killing an Evil player is the same as killing an Evil Lizardman. Since both have the minimum intelligence required to make moral decisions and have both chosen to be Evil.

Additionally: Did anyone else notice how many of the prefab characters that come with the game are Evil? lol - Almost all of them are evil.