Alignments

[Dantagon Marescot]

I've always tried to keep Dan in the lawful good range and keeping to the idea of not going more than one step away at times (good neutral or lawful neutral). I am not saying he was exactly lawful good as he s no crusader, but rather that e is trying to uphold the ideals of the chivarious knight. As with all characters, he is only human and makes mistakes (and as to put up with the ever frusterating chotic neutral characters that turn anything against their best interest into trouble. -.- )

Edit:
Quote Estralis:
"My characters are usually Lawful Awesome or Chaotic Stupid. In other words: Such an alignment system is not really suitable for characters. I mean, what are YOU IRL? Lawful neutral or what? And what would the Taliban consider you? It is all a matter of perspective."

I've actually had this discussion with a few people and as a DM I have personally decided on this: Alignment /is/ a matter of perspective. Lawful good is the person doing what they believe is lawfully right. If there is an extremely powerful artifact that one knight believes he must find in order to save the world for the betterment of all mankind, then he is doing a lawful good deed. However there may be another knight that firmly believes that this artifact and anyone who tries to use it must be stopped because using it will destroy mankind, then he is still lawful good even if he must kill the other knight to complete this objective. The D&D aligenment system works as a decent guideline on how to run your character. There is no reason you can not deviate from an alignment. Some people have a bad day and are more spiteful one day, but may feel particuallarly generious the next. It gives us a general sense of tendencies and expecially helps new role players. I mean really, who doesn't hate the new player who is lawful good one day and then chotic evil the next. They may as well have split personality disorder (or better as hell be using it as a ruge), else I would call it bad rp.

Edit #2: Personally, I like the idea of chaotic stupid. Good stupid is even more amusing. "I'm going to slay this man who is talking down to the poor!" "No Sir Dan that is the... *blood splatter* ...captian of the guard..."

[Elias S.]

Edit #2: Personally, I like the idea of chaotic stupid. Good stupid is even more amusing. "I'm going to slay this man who is talking down to the poor!" "No Sir Dan that is the... *blood splatter* ...captian of the guard..."

I'm sorry mister, but that is not the chaotic stupid, but the neutral ironic alignment. Glad I could be of help.

[Damien]

I also am not a big fan of D&D's alignment system.
Of course, these nine fixed settings don`t really apply to anything that works out in the long run, because that system is very simplified (and it kinda has to be to keep things overviewable).
It is a simple scheme to put game mechanics to work so that they can affect game character's personas.
They're the "interface" between how characters (or npcs) are played and the "clerical system" of the game world.
Far from any perfect description, but kinda serving the purpose.

HOWEVER an alignment system is used or even which actions are defined in what way and why, is a thing for the gamemaster to handle. In the end, the flexibility of a good gamemaster can even make good stuff with a simplified system.