Poll: What Is Your Alignment?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back to what is important, posting results from an internet poll.

Tied for Lawful Neutral/Lawful Good, I think I'm happy where I landed.

Lawful Neutral Human Monk (5th Level)

Spoiler:

Ability Scores:
Strength- 12
Dexterity- 16
Constitution- 14
Intelligence- 16
Wisdom- 15
Charisma- 14
Alignment:
Lawful Neutral- A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs him. Order and organization are paramount to him. He may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or he may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. However, lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Monks- Monks are versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor. Good-aligned monks serve as protectors of the people, while evil monks make ideal spies and assassins. Though they don't cast spells, monks channel a subtle energy, called ki. This energy allows them to perform amazing feats, such as healing themselves, catching arrows in flight, and dodging blows with lightning speed. Their mundane and ki-based abilities grow with experience, granting them more power over themselves and their environment. Monks suffer unique penalties to their abilities if they wear armor, as doing so violates their rigid oath. A monk wearing armor loses their Wisdom and level based armor class bonuses, their movement speed, and their additional unarmed attacks per round.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXX (5)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXX (4)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Evil ---- X (1)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXX (8)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Halfling - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Half-Orc - (0)

Class:
Barbarian - XXXXXX (6)
Bard ------ XXXXXXXX (8)
Cleric ---- (0)
Druid ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Fighter --- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Monk ------ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Paladin --- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Ranger ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Rogue ----- XXXXXX (6)
Sorcerer -- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Wizard ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Stealing food, medicine, or transportation because you are placing YOUR NEED to help those you care about ABOVE the NEEDS of others IS evil. It matters not who benefits from your evil someone is getting hurt and in some cases you are KILLING OTHERS to help those YOU FAVOR. EVIL.

It must be nice being so sure that you will always know what to do. Good luck with that. I hope you are never confronted with doing something "EVIL" to save the lives of those you love,or those who cannot help themselves.

Quote:
Killing someone infected with a lethal disease should only be done if they can't be contained, but in either case it isn't murder and it isn't evil. It's a medical decision.

"It's a medical decision"? But did you or did you not knowingly take the life of a sentient being who wanted to live?

It is the reason, not the action, that gives an act its moral impetus,even in your own analysis of what happens.

Quote:
I saved the best for last: "Poisoning a genocidal warlord before he can send his forces into a neighboring country?" This is loaded with assumptions. At the root (removing labels) you are asking if it's evil to kill someone WHO HASN'T COMMITTED a crime to still be killed for that crime... You have NO IDEA if the man you labeled a warlord is going to invade or not. You want to kill him cause he COULD invade... That IS evil. On the other hand you attached a different label; genocidal. Has he already committed mass murder? If so and this isn't just a media label that has no weight of truth. Then a court of law could convict him of murder and sentence him with execution. That wouldn't be murder.

You are desperately twisting the problem to make it fit your worldview- the situation written is that this individual has committed mass slaughter via his troops, and is absolutely going to do it again based upon previous actions, and that you are in a position to stop him before he does so.

A court of law would have to apprehend him. That means fighting through his followers (at the cost of however many lives on both sides) to put him on trial (even though this situation presumes his guilt is clear and evident). Or one person who has somehow gained admittance could slip something into his wine and remove him.

I am not saying that poisoning him is a nice thing to do. It is intensely distasteful to anyone reared in our culture, with its emphasis on the sanctity of human life. But even our legal codes, built upon this selfsame culture, have degrees of justifiable homicide.

For most day to day actions, I almost agree with you, because,like you, I live in a place which enjoys the benefit of rule of law, with living conditions which do not force hard choices.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

And now, like Lemmy, I step away. I've said my bit. You will not be convinced, but hopefully, you will try to bear in mind that different circumstances breed different mindsets.


One of these days I would like to see a poll like this answered in complete earnesty. Where do people see themselves fitting the most on the DnD alignment spectrum?


Threeshades wrote:
One of these days I would like to see a poll like this answered in complete earnesty. Where do people see themselves fitting the most on the DnD alignment spectrum?

My alignment is Banana Milkshake. :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I don't think humanity has alignments, but I think it's justification to say there's no such thing as an objective morality. Subjective morality is the great excuse of people who do evil but aren't willing to simply admit it.

Objective morality is a much greater excuse. Everyone who defends it "coincidentally" thinks their morality is the objectively correct one... And yet, no two people agree completely on what is morally right or wrong. Right now, even people who share the same religion, political views, nationality and social background disagree on what is good and what's evil.

If there's any objective morality in the real world, so far humans haven't agreed on it... Or even been able to demonstrate it actually exists.

So... Subjective it is.

You realize your lying right? Many people agree objectively on moral right and wrong. Sure you can find some minor variances across the billions who worship God. But my boyfriend believes as I do and many people have identical views as other people. This lie is so easy to expose it's shameful.

And YES there is one moral right and wrong. Just because people get some small parts wrong (myself included on occasion) doesn't change that fact.

to call the differences between religions minor while diminishing ones own failings in the light of a duochromatic absolute morality is naive at best.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Stealing food, medicine, or transportation because you are placing YOUR NEED to help those you care about ABOVE the NEEDS of others IS evil. It matters not who benefits from your evil someone is getting hurt and in some cases you are KILLING OTHERS to help those YOU FAVOR. EVIL.

It must be nice being so sure that you will always know what to do. Good luck with that. I hope you are never confronted with doing something "EVIL" to save the lives of those you love,or those who cannot help themselves.

Quote:
Killing someone infected with a lethal disease should only be done if they can't be contained, but in either case it isn't murder and it isn't evil. It's a medical decision.

"It's a medical decision"? But did you or did you not knowingly take the life of a sentient being who wanted to live?

It is the reason, not the action, that gives an act its moral impetus,even in your own analysis of what happens.

Quote:
I saved the best for last: "Poisoning a genocidal warlord before he can send his forces into a neighboring country?" This is loaded with assumptions. At the root (removing labels) you are asking if it's evil to kill someone WHO HASN'T COMMITTED a crime to still be killed for that crime... You have NO IDEA if the man you labeled a warlord is going to invade or not. You want to kill him cause he COULD invade... That IS evil. On the other hand you attached a different label; genocidal. Has he already committed mass murder? If so and this isn't just a media label that has no weight of truth. Then a court of law could convict him of murder and sentence him with execution. That wouldn't be murder.

You are desperately twisting the problem to make it fit your worldview- the situation written is that this individual has committed mass slaughter via his troops, and is absolutely going to do it again based upon previous actions, and that you are in a position to stop him before he does so.

A court of law would have to apprehend him. That means fighting...

Let me start this by saying that I know there is no way my comments will have any impact on Aranna, but here it is anyway.

Our history is full of people who were certain that they had the moral imperative to do what they did.

I find it most interesting that you find it acceptable to kill the person who is merely ill, but not the one that was described as genocidal. So just because a person's immune system isn't strong enough to fight off the disease, your morals say it's less evil to kill them (medical decision) than it is to kill the person who has made the evil moral decision to commit genocide.


Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.


Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

But it's ok to kill the person with the lethal disease before he infects someone else? There is no guarantee that he will infect someone else, it is only an assumption that it "inevitable"


Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

a good question.


Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

But it's ok to kill the person with the lethal disease before he infects someone else? There is no guarantee that he will infect someone else, it is only an assumption that it "inevitable"

an even better question.


Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

But it's ok to kill the person with the lethal disease before he infects someone else? There is no guarantee that he will infect someone else, it is only an assumption that it "inevitable"

I would prefer containment over the ending of his life, but that is the doctors call.


Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I don't think humanity has alignments, but I think it's justification to say there's no such thing as an objective morality. Subjective morality is the great excuse of people who do evil but aren't willing to simply admit it.

Objective morality is a much greater excuse. Everyone who defends it "coincidentally" thinks their morality is the objectively correct one... And yet, no two people agree completely on what is morally right or wrong. Right now, even people who share the same religion, political views, nationality and social background disagree on what is good and what's evil.

If there's any objective morality in the real world, so far humans haven't agreed on it... Or even been able to demonstrate it actually exists.

So... Subjective it is.

You realize your lying right? Many people agree objectively on moral right and wrong. Sure you can find some minor variances across the billions who worship God. But my boyfriend believes as I do and many people have identical views as other people. This lie is so easy to expose it's shameful.

And YES there is one moral right and wrong. Just because people get some small parts wrong (myself included on occasion) doesn't change that fact.

to call the differences between religions minor while diminishing ones own failings in the light of a duochromatic absolute morality is naive at best.

I hate to drag this into doctrine debates... But the main differences boil down to things like which rituals are more important and which religious person has more weight. As far as I know they all agree on the big issues like murder and theft.


Aranna wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

But it's ok to kill the person with the lethal disease before he infects someone else? There is no guarantee that he will infect someone else, it is only an assumption that it "inevitable"
I would prefer containment over the ending of his life, but that is the doctors call.

Nice way to go all Herod over the question. If you say that killing is evil, but killing medically is ok, then you are being hypocritical.


Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

But it's ok to kill the person with the lethal disease before he infects someone else? There is no guarantee that he will infect someone else, it is only an assumption that it "inevitable"
I would prefer containment over the ending of his life, but that is the doctors call.
Nice way to go all Herod over the question. If you say that killing is evil, but killing medically is ok, then you are being hypocritical.

I did NOT say killing was bad, I said murder was bad, BIG difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Has he? Or is it a media label? The question doesn't answer that. As I said, if he DID commit mass murder and the courts find him guilty then by all means it isn't evil to kill him by any means short of hurting others. BUT it is NOT ok to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit just because YOU are convinced they will.

But it's ok to kill the person with the lethal disease before he infects someone else? There is no guarantee that he will infect someone else, it is only an assumption that it "inevitable"
I would prefer containment over the ending of his life, but that is the doctors call.
Nice way to go all Herod over the question. If you say that killing is evil, but killing medically is ok, then you are being hypocritical.
I did NOT say killing was bad, I said murder was bad, BIG difference.
Aranna wrote:
Killing someone infected with a lethal disease should only be done if they can't be contained, but in either case it isn't murder and it isn't evil. It's a medical decision.

My position is that you are imprinting your view of what is murder and what is killing on this situation. From what I have seen you say:

Killing is the legally sanctioned taking of life while murder is the illegal taking of life.

That is a legalistic definition not a moral one.

From a moral standpoint you have stated it is better to take the life of the innocent person with the illness than it is to take to life of a genocidal dictator after he has committed some atrocities but before he will commit more.

But you protest the difference between murder and killing instead of clearly stating that there is an inconsistency in the logic of your morality. And so we see you prove that there is not a clear morality that everyone can agree on.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Did you guys really necro a thread just to argue morality?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did you guys really necro a thread just to argue morality?

Evidently, although that was not my goal.

But so what? Welcome to the Internet.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mulgar wrote:
Welcome to the Internet.

What's that, whippersnapper?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Did you guys really necro a thread just to argue morality?

Maybe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

According to the quiz at the beginning of the thread I'm a Neutral Good Monk. Ability scores are Str: 14 Dex: 15 Con: 14 Int: 15 Wis: 12 Cha: 14
I guess I'm not super wise but I manage to make up for it well enough with my other attributes. I wouldn't have guessed monk for myself but I definitely agreee with the Neutral Good part of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm still Chaotic Good.


Lawful Good.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I used to be Lawful Good. I'd say I'm more Neutral Good now. There is definitely a point where what's right and what's legal part ways.

Right matters more to me.


I picked NG.

As for the test at the beginning:

Neutral Good Human Paladin/Cleric (3rd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 12
Dexterity- 11
Constitution- 15
Intelligence- 16
Wisdom- 13
Charisma- 11

In the detailed results, I got a 3-way tie at 16 between Cleric, Paladin, and Wizard. Well, I WAS in a campaign where my character had 4 classes (2 base, 2 PRC), so the multi-classing isn't off the mark...


I don't know, I don't think your base alignment changes with time?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I took that quiz and it told me I was a chaotic good druid.


I clicked Chaotic Good. That becomes ever more appropriate.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

7th level neutral good human wizard.

Ooo - 19 intelligence. Someone was a little cocky answering those questions. :p


Tirq wrote:

Lawful Good! Ah, I love being a Pally.

If you don't quite know yourself... go Here!

Selected CG, and then got:

Easydamus wrote:

You Are A: Chaotic Good Human Wizard (6th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 12
Dexterity- 15
Constitution- 14
Intelligence- 16
Wisdom- 10
Charisma- 14

... Pretty much what I expected

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There is no one I'd rather be than me.


I went CG I used to be NG then I society got to me.


I can maneuver into whatever alignment I want.


I plan out my actions to be whatever alignment I feel like.

The Exchange

I'd say I'm Lawful Neutral, but from completing that survey/quiz it appears I'm more baseline neutral. I think the stats turned out pretty decent as well.

You Are A: True Neutral Human Paladin/Sorcerer (2nd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 11
Dexterity- 15
Constitution- 14
Intelligence- 17
Wisdom- 15
Charisma- 12

I could also be a Ranger as that scored the same value as Paladin and Sorcerer:
Paladin --- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Ranger ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Sorcerer -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)

Seems my score was also quite close between my estimate of LN and the results of TN:
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lawful Good Human Cleric (5th Level)

Lawful Good was no surprise to me. I got a 30 for that and a 1 for chaotic evil.

Ability Scores:
Strength- 14
Dexterity- 12
Constitution- 16
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 16
Charisma- 14

30 point buy...
Those ability scores are to high.
I would say the following are closer. The class and level I would say is right, but I noticed that monk and druid were close seconds. Those three classes tend to be my favorites.
Str- 14
Dex- 10
Con-14
Int- 12
Wis- 16
Cha-13

20 point buy.


Apparently I'm a Neutral Evil Human Bard. I did not know that about myself. I always thought I was going to end up a Chaotic Good Orc of some kind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Apparently I'm a Neutral Evil Human Bard. I did not know that about myself. I always thought I was going to end up a Chaotic Good Orc of some kind.

*Casually walks away*


"Ah, so it's a test you're looking for. We don't do tests." - Hodge


Lawful Good Human Druid/Sorcerer (3rd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 13
Dexterity- 14
Constitution- 15
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 14
Charisma- 12

Hmmm... I'm more Neutral Good and I believe in a good balance between Order and Freedom; however, given the limited scope of the questions... Also, I'm not sure about Druid/Sorcerer. I'd say more Ranger than Druid. While I love the outdoors, I'm not Druid level nature-guy.

Also, I think I'd drop Dex to 12, Con to 14, and bump Int to 15. That seems a little more likely... But we're never a good judge of ourselves, are we?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd thought I'd be NE.

But the (annoying and contradictory, seriously, why wasn't there a 'both" option for some of those?) quiz put me down as a CG Paladin.

Wut.

And then I saw the stats,

Strength- 17
Dexterity- 17
Constitution- 17
Intelligence- 12
Wisdom- 17
Charisma- 11

LET ME ROLL THOSE FOR A GAME PLEASE!

Silver Crusade

Neutral good, and the online survey linked earlier in the thread agrees with that assessment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I'd thought I'd be NE.

But the (annoying and contradictory, seriously, why wasn't there a 'both" option for some of those?) quiz put me down as a CG Paladin.

Wut.

And then I saw the stats,

Strength- 17
Dexterity- 17
Constitution- 17
Intelligence- 12
Wisdom- 17
Charisma- 11

LET ME ROLL THOSE FOR A GAME PLEASE!

Chaotic Good Paladin. I think their use to be rules for paladins of the CG, LE, and CE bent in 3.5.

You think of yourself as evil but are really good, now the healing can begin. ;)
I think everyone gets high scores with this test. I don't know what that says about those that got low scores, test anxiety maybe. Anyways looks like you rock Rysky.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hehe Thankies, and yeah I liked Paladin of Freedom from Unearthed Arcana :3

Shadow Lodge

is mayonnaise an alignment?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, Patrick, mayonnaise is not an alignment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I guess I'm a Neutral Good Human Druid.


captain yesterday wrote:
I guess I'm a Neutral Good Human Druid.

Was it a total surprise? What would you have guessed about yourself?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

LG Elf Wizard 3/Cleric 2

Ability Scores:
Strength- 13
Dexterity- 17
Constitution- 12
Intelligence- 18
Wisdom- 17
Charisma- 16

I want those stats!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apparently if you prefer the country over the city you automatically become a druid? lol

Shadow Lodge

Well, color me surprised. I am a Neutral Evil Human Sorcerer (4th Level).

Ability Scores:
Strength- 12
Dexterity- 13
Constitution- 12
Intelligence- 15
Wisdom- 16
Charisma- 13

I was expecting True Neutral or Chaotic Evil.

151 to 200 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Poll: What Is Your Alignment? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.