Displaying poll results.
Chaotic-Good
| |
36% |
84 votes |
Lawful-Neutral
| |
10% |
25 votes |
Chaotic-Neutral
| |
14% |
34 votes |
Tom Hanks told me not to play
| |
8% |
19 votes |
Other (Note in comments)
| |
11% |
26 votes |
231 total votes.
[
Voting Booth |
Other Polls |
Back Home
]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by N3Roaster on Sunday December 20 2015, @01:36AM
Alignment: Left justified.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 20 2015, @09:32AM
Alignment: 4 bytes.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday December 20 2015, @07:30PM
Funny you should mention that. Yesterday I went to the cinema for the first time in many years, and to see my first ever 3D film. It was the new Starwars. I really enjoyed it, but there was one thing that wasn't quite right. The preface text at the beginning that sets the context, the yellow stuff which slowly goes off into the distance, was left justified. It looked terrible. It should have been fully justified on centred.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday December 20 2015, @02:58AM
Always went for Neutral Good. Don't like the goody-goody Paladins, while awesome killing machines (especially if they score a Holy Avenger) they are also a good way to get everybody killed, and Chaotic-Goods are too erratic.
Works in real life too. Too much of a rule bound, by the book, mindset is a disaster while too much breaking the rules for no good reason means nothing much will get accomplished. But being morally neutral never works out, one must always try to take a stand against Evil.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday December 20 2015, @04:47AM
Neutral good. Never heard of that before. Is it the opposite of neutral evil?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 20 2015, @08:38AM
Yup. It was a three by three grid of alignments. Good-Neutral-Evil on one axis, Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic on the other.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jasassin on Sunday December 20 2015, @11:28AM
WTF? Were you using some cheap Chinese knockoff of a players manual?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20 2015, @11:56AM
Are you in any way kidding?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Sunday December 20 2015, @12:04PM
WTF? Were you using some cheap Chinese knockoff of a players manual?
His list looks right to me. Only thing he left out is that the middle one, in the "neutral neutral" spot, is called True Neutral (and is one of the missing options for the poll). I think maybe you were the one with the knock-off manual and never noticed...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29 [wikipedia.org]
Of the alignments, I remember true neutral, lawful good, and chaotic evil characters being the biggest pains in the ass to deal with. Neutral evil and chaotic good were nice and flexible, and luckily seemed to be the most popular alignments with the people I played D&D with over the years. And myself, actually; I avoided making characters any of the three extremes (TN, LG, CE), preferring any of the others to them. They seemed under-represented (I guess because people liked Chaotic Evil more), but I found Lawful Evil characters could be a lot of fun to play.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 20 2015, @04:45PM
Oh good grief. One of "those" campaigns. Lemme guess, half the party was Drow, Vampires, Necromancers and stuff? Yet all these CE characters managed to hang together as a party and not devolve into orgies of blood where everybody ends up killing one another and you had an evil cleric who was allowed to go around all day healing everyone. And you all went into civilized places and none of the people there had any wards against Evil.
And yea, I oversimplified the Neutral/Neutral center spot. Unless you were a Druid nobody ever picked it anyway. Most non-magical animals are Neutral though in that case it is more an indication they don't really have an alignment. Although I'd sometimes start characters there if I was trying a new style out since you can move away from it in any direction at little penalty as I 'found' the character. Except for obvious exceptions, characters can move one step for free and our DM wouldn't penalize low level characters too much for two.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday December 21 2015, @12:31AM
Luckily, I never actually had to deal with one of 'those' games. My group played AD&D and rarely allowed playable monster races, which blocked a lot of the bullshit before it could even start. Sometimes a GM would homebrew up a human/monster half-breed for a player, but it always came with a bucketload of caveats ranging from in-character problems (not being able to go into towns, or people trying to kill the character like it's another monster, etc.) to balance-based ones to offset any stat advantages they got. Basically, we were flexible about allowing that sort of thing, but balanced against it harshly so that a lot of the appeal vanished unless the player really wanted a specific character concept.
That just left alignment woes, but like I was saying in the other comment, most of the group actively avoided playing Lawful Good, True Neutral, and Chaotic Evil. They tended to be too inflexible and just ended up dragging down groups, especially when mixed with anything from their opposites. LG tended to be hard to work with, and CE always came across as the "I'm a disney villain" alignment. Even moreso when a new player joined up and rolled a CE or LG character, though that usually ended poorly for the newbie. Disney villainy tended to end with the rest of the party either leaving the character for dead, dealing with it themselves, or getting it arrested and splitting any reward money.
We kind of settled on Neutral Evil and Neutral Good as more realistic alternatives to CE and LG. You still got tension in groups of varying alignment, but could still have groups that could work together despite it, if only temporarily. Plus, like I was saying, Lawful Evil had a lot of potential in those kinds of groups.
That said, I still occasionally got to see what happened to other people's campaigns when their groups all decided to make disney villain CE characters for an "evil campaign", and it always seemed to be a trainwreck. They usually did devolve into "orgies of blood where everybody ends up killing one another", and I remember at least one GM completely banned the use of CE alignment in his games over it.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday December 21 2015, @01:07AM
A human warrior, a barbarian minotaur, another human warrior, a human ranger, and I played a drow wizard.
Big whoop, want me to fireball ya about it?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Monday December 21 2015, @06:33PM
I had a minotaur magic user when playing Middle Earth Role Playing (or MERP I guess). I had rolled a natural 18 on my strength score and had a +2 bonus for being a minotaur.
I had a 16 or 17 intelligence... which almost became sort of pointless because I would get strength bonuses on my low level character that exceeded the damage I could do on average of the tiny amount of spells I could cast.
It became a problem due to the way that experience is supposed to reward playing in class, but apparently, natural tendencies are not taken into consideration in the DM guide. Strong things act strong and can benefit from not pretending to be weak most of the time (surprise is one thing that would involve role playing, I guess, but it would take a big robe to hide some guise of strength from a 20 strength character of any class).
Anyway that game fell apart after a while due to ultima 4 or something coming out and being more important for everyone.
(Score: 1) by YttriumOxide on Monday December 21 2015, @08:09PM
Ummm... wasn't MERP percentile based for stats like Rolemaster?
I can't seem to find any answer with a quick Google search, but I seem to recall it being the case...
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday December 22 2015, @01:09AM
Its funny you say that! Of course the barbarian Minotaur had 20 strength and 20 con with the +2 bonuses. We knew it was bullshit, but we let it slide.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 22 2015, @07:20AM
I had a 16 or 17 intelligence..
Which obviously was not enough to stop playing games, and get on to doing something useful like programming or science. And for the rest of us that have no idea what you are talking about, was this a 100 point scale?
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Monday December 21 2015, @03:32PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:33AM
Strictly speaking, a paladin can avoid lawful stupid territory as long as they can be flexible in how they perceive an order. It's been a long time since I broke out my D&D books, but the way we justified it is if an order (or law) conflicts between the paladins lawfulness and goodness, good trumps law. In RP terms, the commandments laid out by your god on how you act overrule commands from a mortal source.
They still can take an alignment hit for it (i.e., knowingly selling stolen goods), but the above flexibility gave them enough leeway to avoid a total party kill, and can make them much more interesting characters to play. Turning a blind eye can go a long way; my paladin would tend to disappear shortly after we got to a town to avoid knowing what our rogue was getting up to. Internally, it was justified as allowing a small evil to pass to let greater evils be vanquished, and my DM let me roll with that.
A big point w/ playing tabletop games is being fun, not treating the books as unalterable commandments.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bziman on Sunday December 20 2015, @03:10AM
YOUR morals do not dictate my behavior. MY morals dictate my behavior. I do the right thing, as I see it, regardless of what anyone else, especially a governing body, thinks.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday December 20 2015, @06:11PM
I went with chaotic good, simply because I am too undisciplined to keep myself from attacking nearby monsters before figuring out their alignment. Much like Sir Lancelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, if he were playing NetHack.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 21 2015, @06:43AM
That's neutral good, which is me.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @02:42AM
No. Neutral good is "best effort" for others without other convictions. If you defy authority, you have a conviction. If you do what you believe is right without regard to what other people think, you aren't good either. Hell, trump is doing that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @02:36AM
That sounds like neutral-evil to me. Good, by definition, is doing for others not the right thing "as [you] see it" but by what the majority thinks. Law and chaos is dependent on how consistent you are about your convictions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Tuesday December 22 2015, @01:14PM
Given that he said "My morales dictate my behaviour" wouldn't that make him lawful evil?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 29 2015, @09:50PM
Good, by definition, is doing for others not the right thing "as [you] see it" but by what the majority thinks.
Let's crack open that dictionary [oxforddictionaries.com]. The first definition as a noun:
That which is morally right; righteousness:
Nothing about it requiring majority approval.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 30 2015, @08:54PM
I used to think I was Chaotic Good too. Then I realized lately it's something more like:
Psychotic Evil: I have no morals. I have no understanding of what they mean. I operate on pure instinct and rage, and those that deal with me (especially attempting to wake me) will feel the majesty of my discontent.
Sleepy Quasi-Nuetral-Evil: As long as you don't bother me too much, you can live. Especially, if your bring coffee or breakfast burritos.
Chaotic Good: You said it best.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 30 2015, @09:01PM
Well that's interesting. Darn site ate 3 of my lines of text. There was supposed to be things in between.... Oh well :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Subsentient on Sunday December 20 2015, @03:51AM
Peanut butter on your balls. 'Nuff said.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Funny) by jasassin on Sunday December 20 2015, @05:47AM
I chose chaotic neutral. I will not go out of my way to help someone getting their ass beat by a gang. I will not join a gang and beat someone. Fuck the laws, and leave me alone. Best alignment to play.
Anyone have a DM who allowed a chaotic evil person to group with a lawful good character? I convinced my DM to allow it because its not like the avatars can see the alignment written on a character sheet.
I played evil moves while I was away from the group. They know what I did, as they are sitting there, but a good DM won't allow them to take action against me if their PC didn't see it.
There was a friend in the group who after all summer of playing had a sword that if it hit, you could roll above I think 15 and if you were lawful good or chaotic evil you would die without a saving throw. He constantly threatened me with it (not his PC, him). He fell down a pit with a rhino in it. He was getting gored and he finally scaled the wall to where the rhino couldn't get him. I pulled out a wand of lightning and zapped him off the wall near the top. The rhino killed him, I levitated down and up with the sword. Sold it for 50,000 gold. The guy wouldn't talk to me for weeks.
He made another guy and as soon as he joined the group he said I attack him, but the DM wouldn't allow it because the new guy didn't know what I did to his previous guy. Fun stuff!
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday December 20 2015, @06:09AM
Ditto here. And now a quote from a more popular chaotic-neutral character:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20 2015, @06:21AM
I try to be a good person, but being lawful is hard when all the laws seem to contradict each other.
Even if the laws do not contradict, the volume to go through to try to follow the letter of the law is astounding.
Coping mechanisms:
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 21 2015, @04:40PM
Wow, I think this guy might actually be too much of a nerd to participate in this D&D discussion!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @12:45PM
I flash my dvd drives with custom firmware you insensitive clod.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:40AM
What about when law and morals collide? I think that's a way more important problem and that the law is but the means but never the ends. But it's what makes you lawful and me chaotic...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @10:02PM
You can lobby to have the law changed. This can involve writing letters, talking to people, holding protests, joining or forming a political party. This applies to both state and corporate power.
I have sometimes even met with success. I believe the Canadian "No Fly" list is not as bad as it could have been in part because I sent a letter to politicians explaining the {The Set of Terrorists} will have limited overlap with {The Set of people on the "No-Fly" list}. In that letter I also pointed out the a "No-Fly" list loaded with false positives is worse than useless (citing a case where an infectious man was let through a border crossing despite an alert).
The classic quote is: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."
(Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday December 20 2015, @10:25AM
It depends on weather, mood and your interpretation of alignment this day of the week.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @02:45AM
That means you are true neutral, the ignored alignment.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 20 2015, @04:38PM
0° Camber, -0.10° Caster, and 0.05" Toe in.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 20 2015, @05:31PM
Sexy numbers . . .
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 20 2015, @05:37PM
I say it now, and I said it way back in the '70's when I was learning Dungeons and Dragons. There are only two axis, with no allowance for pragmatism.
I lean toward lawful, and I lean toward good. There are some absolutes on both axis. Murdering someone for money is pretty damend evil and it's pretty damned unlawful. But, a hungry child stealing some bread and fruit is neither, in my book. Obviously, I can't be absolutely lawful good.
After all these years, I'm not quite sure how to place myself on that scale.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 21 2015, @06:59PM
Use the expanded, 5x5 table. Neutral moral?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by YttriumOxide on Monday December 21 2015, @08:23PM
I always interpreted the "lawful" to "chaotic" spectrum as being more to do with your perception of rules (including but not limited to laws). If you consider rules to have value in and of themselves rather than the purpose of them, then you're "lawful" leaning; if rules are generally to be followed but exceptions are made for pragmatic reasons and it doesn't bother you greatly, then you're "neutral" leaning; and if you consider the rules to be a hinderance and more trouble than they're worth, you're "chaotic" leaning.
You follow the idea of being good and will follow the law in general, however will take the pragmatic approach and consider exceptions where necessary. Based on that, I'd say you're either neutral good or lawful good, depending on how you feel about it when taking the pragmatic approach to the law. If you're okay with it and say "law be damned, this was the right thing to do in this case", then I'd put you as neutral good. If however you feel really bad about having broken the law - even though you knew it was necessary to do so in this instance - you're probably "lawful good".
(Score: 4, Informative) by Dunbal on Sunday December 20 2015, @09:53PM
Come to the dark side. We steal cookies.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Marand on Tuesday December 22 2015, @08:08AM
Come to the dark side. We steal cookies.
Not the lawful evil ones! They'd rather turn over their cookie-stealing party members to the authorities and then buy cookies with the reward money.
(Score: 1) by moylan on Monday December 21 2015, @10:46AM
a simple guide for people to work out their alignment... :-)
http://www.chartgeek.com/firefly-characters-chart/ [chartgeek.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 21 2015, @11:31AM
I got this uglee error message: This resource is no longer valid. Please return to the beginning and try again.
AC, not allowing cookies nor JS.
Alignment: frustrated & confused
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 21 2015, @04:45PM
What, no love for the Tom Hanks reference? [imdb.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 21 2015, @05:31PM
I am a Chaotic-Lawful-Neutral Bugbear Paladin, have you seen my Book of Vile Darkness?
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Wednesday December 23 2015, @01:03AM
Neutral silly.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday December 25 2015, @06:10AM
On the internet, nobody knows you're a cat.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:17PM
From the online version of the d20 System Reference Document [d20srd.org].
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:33AM
I maximize Good. The only way to do this is NG. Lawful Good is stuck at a lower stage of morality and generally have a huge stick up their collecive ass, and Chaotic Good is an excuse to loot and cause mayhem while still pretending to be Good; it's the refuge of high-school holdovers who think Naruto has something deep to say about moral dilemmas.
The way i see it, the POINT of the Law is to show what is Good for those who lack either the intelligence or the will to figure it out themselves. If a law is not doing this, by definition it is not Good, and it is one's duty to break it. On the other hand, if it aligns with what is Good, it takes no effort to follow it if you yourself also do.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by deimios on Friday December 25 2015, @05:45AM
Where is Neutral-neutral/True neutral?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @10:51PM
That was my thought as well. But I guess our not voting signifies our vote for true neutral - no one selection gets favored over any other in the poll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @05:39AM
You have to oscillate between Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Neutral, and the regularity of the oscillation determines at a higher level which one you are, but it is all a matter of subjective opinion at that point.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday December 25 2015, @11:16PM
I'm aligned with the losing side of the argument.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @11:15PM
I'm aligned every which way.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday December 30 2015, @07:16AM
DnD mechanics are wrong to me in this respect. I always considered lawful good to be the most evil possible disposition a person can have. So sick of self righteous people trying to make life/economic/association decisions on behalf of others. Quote CS Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 02 2016, @05:16AM
misaligned