Hi,
Came up true neutral in that one. Some of the questions really did need more of a situation description. Would a Paladin who was wrongfully accused of a crime and could only clear his name by escaping from prison and bringing the guilty to justice answer "If imprisoned, would you injure or kill others to escape?" with "No, except for minor wounds that will heal easily" or "No. Those guards are just doing their jobs". And if those guards were enemies in the first place, might not the answer be "Yes. Serves âem right for locking me up"?
Details matter ;)
Also, I completely agree with the following paragraph. Too many people that role play play a one dimensional character. In many ways, it's the exceptions, not the rules, that make a character interesting.
"Now that your character has taken the test, make a note of which questions scored in the opposite direction from your overall alignment. These exceptions can tell some interesting tales about your character Are you a good character with a greedy streak? Are you a lawful character who canât stand the village elders? Donât just roleplay your alignment -- roleplay your alignment exceptions, too. Few characters perfectly embody their alignment choice."
However, it would have been nice if they had given the questions, your answers, and how that answer effect your alignment. Otherwise it is still just a guessing game of what the intent of the questions was.
One thing I cannot agree with and never did like it's implementation in D&D is the definition of "evil": "Evil people generally seek to harm the othersâ welfare." This is the b-grade movie definition of evil. It isn't evil, it is insanity. It is irrational because it lacks motive. I prefer to think of the good/evil as a measure of the relationship with others. Putting the good of others first is "good", balancing the good of the many with personal desire is neutral, doing anything to achieve one's personal desires is evil. Doing good is rational, most benefit from a good action and all benefit from general good behavior. Evil must also be rational to make sense, otherwise it is insanity -- not a character trait but an illness.
--Pete
Came up true neutral in that one. Some of the questions really did need more of a situation description. Would a Paladin who was wrongfully accused of a crime and could only clear his name by escaping from prison and bringing the guilty to justice answer "If imprisoned, would you injure or kill others to escape?" with "No, except for minor wounds that will heal easily" or "No. Those guards are just doing their jobs". And if those guards were enemies in the first place, might not the answer be "Yes. Serves âem right for locking me up"?
Details matter ;)
Also, I completely agree with the following paragraph. Too many people that role play play a one dimensional character. In many ways, it's the exceptions, not the rules, that make a character interesting.
"Now that your character has taken the test, make a note of which questions scored in the opposite direction from your overall alignment. These exceptions can tell some interesting tales about your character Are you a good character with a greedy streak? Are you a lawful character who canât stand the village elders? Donât just roleplay your alignment -- roleplay your alignment exceptions, too. Few characters perfectly embody their alignment choice."
However, it would have been nice if they had given the questions, your answers, and how that answer effect your alignment. Otherwise it is still just a guessing game of what the intent of the questions was.
One thing I cannot agree with and never did like it's implementation in D&D is the definition of "evil": "Evil people generally seek to harm the othersâ welfare." This is the b-grade movie definition of evil. It isn't evil, it is insanity. It is irrational because it lacks motive. I prefer to think of the good/evil as a measure of the relationship with others. Putting the good of others first is "good", balancing the good of the many with personal desire is neutral, doing anything to achieve one's personal desires is evil. Doing good is rational, most benefit from a good action and all benefit from general good behavior. Evil must also be rational to make sense, otherwise it is insanity -- not a character trait but an illness.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?