| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Aravine |
Posted - 24 Sep 2007 : 13:00:22
Which alignment are you most likely to play? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alruane |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 22:49:41
To me, it's the core of being a mad man. My perception on it is, chaos! Essentially the guy just does things on whim, he thinks logically almost NONE of the time. Mostly it's impulse and random thought, which is why a mad wizard is fun to do with that alignment. He is eccentric already, seeing as how he is a wizard. But he furthers that eccentricity by doing his own thing with no real rhyme or reason. One second he is calm, eating a roll or some meat. The next he is splitting the meal in half and making it fight each other for his amusement. Just whatever suits his mood, which is about as stable as a poorly built hut in a devastating earthquake. That's how I play that alignment myself.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 22:33:35
I've never seen CN as being an alignment for lunatics. To me, it's someone that values individual freedom without any real concern for morality. While this could describe a lunatic, I suppose, I see it being more a thing of an individual that doesn't care what happens so long as it's not happening to him. What I don't see it as is the "I was good yesterday, and I'll be evil today!" mentality I see a lot of people use for the alignment. |
| Alruane |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 21:35:49
Sometimes I tend to go for CN characters because then you are essentially a lunatic. And it frees you from restraints sometimes, having a mad wizard. Proves to be fun for everyone, and bad depending. |
| Alruane |
Posted - 21 Nov 2013 : 09:33:33
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Good is overrated. Evil is overrated. Shades-of-gray is overrated. How about just plain chaotic (of everything)?
Chaos can be the spice of life. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 19 Nov 2013 : 13:51:43
Good is overrated. Evil is overrated. Shades-of-gray is overrated. How about just plain chaotic (of everything)? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 19 Nov 2013 : 04:24:01
quote:
Originally posted by Alruane
It is very difficult to find others interested in said RPG. Or in Mechs in general.
Well, maybe not Mekton, but you've got a few BattleTech fans here... I lost a lot of interest in BTech because of the Jihad, but I still maintain my allegiances to Clan Coyote and House Davion. Sage is a bit of an oddball who has this weird thing for the Cappies...
Though I left his origins kind of vague when I wrote him up (so that DMs could do what they wanted with him), one of my Lords of Waterdeep was formerly a member of the Davion Heavy Guards, during the 4th Succession War. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 19 Nov 2013 : 00:21:23
Chaotic Good because they are going to help others even if some laws must be broken.
FREEDOM!
John |
| Alruane |
Posted - 18 Nov 2013 : 10:05:19
It is very difficult to find others interested in said RPG. Or in Mechs in general. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 18 Nov 2013 : 09:42:28
Thanks, Alruane! That actually means quite a lot to me, seeing as I found very few people were interested in this particular RPG (Mekton) at the time. |
| Alruane |
Posted - 18 Nov 2013 : 08:43:23
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan
Actually, in the last 9/10 of the campaign, he did come to feel remorse for what he had done, but felt that there was no way he could turn back from the path he had set out on. The main reason for this change of heart was because the sentient, symbiotic super-weapon that he was bonded with decided to restore his sanity. The reason it hadn't done this earlier was because it had never been used by an insane host before, and was busy 'studying' his unstable psyche, primarily to try and determine if it could use the character in his unbalanced state to fulfill its ultimate goal (to seek out the original super-weapon it was based off of, and aid the original in stopping an eldritch abomination that destroyed the previous multiverse from destroying the current multiverse). It eventually concluded that it would be impossible, and 'rewrote the host's flawed programming'. At the end of the war, the character took the name 'Longinus', and banished himself to The Void (an unchanging non-reality that keeps the different universes connected, yet separate).
The irony of it all is that the weapon was also (unintentionally) responsible for it's host's insanity; the character's fiancee was 'predestined' to die, and her death was meant to bring 'a great change' necessary for awakening the full potential of the weapon and it's 'siblings'. (The super-weapons were, for all intents and purposes, gods, and could foresee the future, up to a point.) While the weapon could have resurrected her (it was certainly within it's capabilities), it refused to do so (the weapons could chose to restrict what powers there hosts had access to), and basically (and quite bluntly) told the character that his fiancee's death was 'necessary'. (While this might make the weapon seem evil, you have to remember that it was only a machine, albeit a god-like one, acting on what it was programmed to think was 'necessary' to accomplish it's mission.)
Oh wow! That is quite detailed and very extensive! I like the premise behind it all, it explains everything about why he was that way. Not to mention there is logic behind it all, I like it. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 18 Nov 2013 : 08:23:34
Actually, in the last 9/10 of the campaign, he did come to feel remorse for what he had done, but felt that there was no way he could turn back from the path he had set out on. The main reason for this change of heart was because the sentient, symbiotic super-weapon that he was bonded with decided to restore his sanity. The reason it hadn't done this earlier was because it had never been used by an insane host before, and was busy 'studying' his unstable psyche, primarily to try and determine if it could use the character in his unbalanced state to fulfill its ultimate goal (to seek out the original super-weapon it was based off of, and aid the original in stopping an eldritch abomination that destroyed the previous multiverse from destroying the current multiverse). It eventually concluded that it would be impossible, and 'rewrote the host's flawed programming'. At the end of the war, the character took the name 'Longinus', and banished himself to The Void (an unchanging non-reality that keeps the different universes connected, yet separate).
The irony of it all is that the weapon was also (unintentionally) responsible for it's host's insanity; the character's fiancee was 'predestined' to die, and her death was meant to bring 'a great change' necessary for awakening the full potential of the weapon and it's 'siblings'. (The super-weapons were, for all intents and purposes, gods, and could foresee the future, up to a point.) While the weapon could have resurrected her (it was certainly within it's capabilities), it refused to do so (the weapons could chose to restrict what powers there hosts had access to), and basically (and quite bluntly) told the character that his fiancee's death was 'necessary'. (While this might make the weapon seem evil, you have to remember that it was only a machine, albeit a god-like one, acting on what it was programmed to think was 'necessary' to accomplish it's mission.) |
| Alruane |
Posted - 18 Nov 2013 : 07:11:26
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan
I voted CG, because that's the alignment almost all the characters I've ever played have been, although I've also played a few NG and CN characters. (These three alignments also roughly reflect my own personality.) I've never been able to play a lawful character properly (my DM once told me that I'm just too chaotic to pull this off successfully.)
As for evil alignments... well, I haven't had that much experience playing them (my DM doesn't allow let anyone play evil characters in his campaigns). Well, at least not in D&D, anyway. A few of my characters in other RPGs have been some of the nastiest S.O.B.'s in existence. (One even went so far as starting a war that spanned half a dozen galaxies, and committed several hundred acts of genocide, just to get the man who killed his fiancee. Oh, and also because he felt that no one else in the universe understood what it was like to lose someone they loved, and that it was his duty to 'teach' them. )
Whoa...O_O
That guy seems like a remorseless character, I dig the idea of it though. It seems interesting, his thought process behind killing so many for one lost love. Very interesting indeed. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 18 Nov 2013 : 07:06:49
I voted CG, because that's the alignment almost all the characters I've ever played have been, although I've also played a few NG and CN characters. (These three alignments also roughly reflect my own personality.) I've never been able to play a lawful character properly (my DM once told me that I'm just too chaotic to pull this off successfully.)
As for evil alignments... well, I haven't had that much experience playing them (my DM doesn't allow let anyone play evil characters in his campaigns). Well, at least not in D&D, anyway. A few of my characters in other RPGs have been some of the nastiest S.O.B.'s in existence. (One even went so far as starting a war that spanned half a dozen galaxies, and committed several hundred acts of genocide, just to get the man who killed his fiancee. Oh, and also because he felt that no one else in the universe understood what it was like to lose someone they loved, and that it was his duty to 'teach' them.) |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 17 Nov 2013 : 23:34:16
I voted NG because it's a flexible alignment to play. But I enjoy all of them except for CE and NE. |
| Alruane |
Posted - 17 Nov 2013 : 22:02:02
It depends on my character in which alignment I am. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 10 Jan 2013 : 09:41:04
Lawful Evil, face it, we know how to properly make you look bad and win  |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 18:14:50
I voted Lawful Neutral as ultimately I think my favorite characters are those who's morality is too complex to be taken as good or evil, but still live by and hold themselves to a code.
That being said, my characters span the spectrum. |
| Kyrel |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 15:47:12
As the rules define that you have to pick an alignment, I tend to pick one that I find suits the character I wish to play. I'm quite reluctant to pick any "Good" alignment though, and similarly am I unlikely to pick "Chaotic Evil", given the way the rules describe this alignment (which is crap IMO, as playing true to that description makes the character completely incompatible with playing as a group of any sort...).
This being said, however, I find that the alignment system is a complete and utter piece of horribly stinking offal and escrement. It is a gross simplification and attempt at quantification of something that is by it's nature unquantifiable, and it is an attempt to impose a black and white morale upon the gameworld. At best it might be used as a crutch or guideline for players who find themselves struggling to figure out how to portray a particular character.
If I could, I would want the inventor of this piece of garbage beaten repetedly for introducing it into an otherwise wonderful game. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 15:45:07
LOL - this reminds me of all the Paladin discussions over on the Paizo boards (just about every other thread).
My own 2cents on that subject. Being evil is easy, being good is HARD. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 15:29:30
I think being good allows for interesting dilemnas between efficiency and ethics. Since most characters will have a different definition of good, often biased by the chaotic-lawful axis (but even within the same alignment), some tricky situations creates amazing RP that wouldn't be possible with evil characters.
The first situation that comes to mind is torture, gaining access to information required to save many at the cost of performing a terrible act. A good-only group will have an interesting discussion about it, not so much with the evil group. They might argue about who will hold the tools, but that's about it. At best, an evil character just won't care. Killing a dangerous enemy who is unarmed or has surrendered* is another, and again is not a big problem for evil characters.
If done well, an evil but grey-ish character can be very interesting in a good group, but I think only experienced players can pull that off.
* Taking into account that jails in fantasy settings are made to be broken out of, regardless of what the paladin/knight say. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 15:28:13
My evil characters do like to twirl their fingers in the darkness (or on their evil Fu Manchu mustaches) while perched on a throne and laughing diabolically about some plan they have masterminded. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 15:12:11
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Being good is boring.
Amen. I think some players forget that just because your character is evil does not mean that they spend all of their time twirling their fingers in the darkness while perched on a throne and laughing diabolically about some plan they have masterminded. Many of my "evil" character were really just over-selfish. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 14:38:04
Being good is boring. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 14:32:21
quote:
Entreri3478
Most of my characters tended to be of an evil nature.
Evil necromancers who resurrected dead things in the night?
I think my alignment is ISTJ with evil tendencies. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 14:13:03
I ignore the alignment system. I don't create 'good' or 'evil' - I create people. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 09 Jan 2013 : 13:57:52
Most of my characters tended to be of an evil nature. |
| Tren of Twilight Tower |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 01:22:33
>CG<
If I am going to create a character, then I want that character to be somebody who will not only follow his brain, but his desires too - whether they be lawful or not. Also, as somebody already mentioned, I have enough of streaming toward order and law in "real life" - have no desire to act that way when playing for fun and relaxation in fantasy world.
Tren |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 13 Apr 2010 : 22:51:38
I guess that depends on how they would define "happiness", lol!! |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 13 Apr 2010 : 09:14:44
I hope such people will find their happiness. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 13 Apr 2010 : 07:40:33
That's one of the reasons I like playing her, actually- she is evil, not because she sees herself that way, but because she just doesn't care about or trust anyone but herself, and sees "goodnss" and things like love or compassion as weakness. Probably a result of her mother being the only good influence in her life- and her mother was a powerless slave. She saw it as a reason to hate anyone who was not strong enough to stand on their own- especially her mother, who tried to instill kindness, but was rebuffed as a weak fool who could not even strike back against her master. (Who was, incidently, also Morg's father- weird family dynamic, there.) She feels disgust with anyone who can't or won't use whatever means are available to take what power they can, and she herself uses personal power as a means of keeping her mother's fate from happening to her- except that she takes her own freedom to extremes and does whatever she can get away with.
|
|
|
