Neutral good.
so i do some bad stuff that are minor, but mostly good things.
like say, i kill a rampaging orc, i do so in a fun way, and i even take his stuff too sell too the merchant next too his body.
not like he’s using it…
1 Like
I am chaotic neutral. I’m not even sure if that is a thing, but I’m not bad or good, just confused. ![:man_shrugging:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/man_shrugging.png?v=6" ":man_shrugging:")
You could start a new alignment! Chaotic apathy!
I like that.
One again - since we’re talking about alignments - I need you to find me a link from D&D that states LG characters it’s okay to kill innocents. You keep saying that alignments only define in terms of selfish and selfless - show me that link from D&D then.
I also think it’s hilarious that you complain about me trying to use real world examples then gloss over my non-RL examples (like Thanos). Then you try to use other non-D&D examples yourself.
Can you stay consistent please?
Now that almost 100 of you have committed to an alignment, read it and weep…
4 Likes
Well then, looks like Eveara is chaotic neutral instead XD
Alfredo pizzas can be the bomb when done right
Look at easydamus, the same site you linked me, but look at the evil alignments, and you’ll realize it’s impossible to fit any controversial “greater good” characters into it.
And yes like ive said before, for a lawful good character, killing innocents is not ok. Letting innocents die when you can prevent it is ALSO not ok. The point is if a character is forced to choose.
I ignored Thanos cause i havent watched the avengers movies at all, but the impression i get is maybe lawful neutral.
Neutral good if I had to guess. Except my Warlock, he is Chaotic good because undead males have awesome and mocking laughs.
Chaotic Neutral. That way I can do anything I want to and the DM can’t say anything about it.
I didn’t say find me something on easydamus. Find me another credible D&D site since you want to keep alignments out of moral ambiguity in the real world. You wanted to set the boundaries to stay away from the real world scenarios and keep it to alignments.
Go look at the neutral alignments and you’ll see that this “greater good” fits right into some of those.
Actually you can be… it’s called zealotry… I remember in a forgotten realm’s book there was a very good example of this. The paladins thought they were doing right and good by destroying everything to do with an artefact. However they were mowing down innocents to do so in the name of ‘greater good’ as they believed that if they didn’t, evil would get it’s clutches in the world.
Another good example is in a DnD based webcomic called Order of the Stick… with the author making a great example of one of ‘those’ paladins.
As to the topic, Waraila is borderline between chaotic good and neutral good. Probably more neutral good than anything though… she will follow the law unless it is wrong, and she is intensely loyal to friends worthy of her loyalty. She’s also pretty much washed her hands of the horde and alliance, she still has loyalty to her family though and her race in general. But the current and previous wars have put her off the factions as a whole.
If easydamus isnt good enough for you, why did you link it?
Honestly the official descriptions arent always helpful because there are two interpretations for alignments and they sometimes mix it a bit, one being what we’re talking about and what people use to describe characters in other settings, and the other being just a description of which side you’re on in a metaphysical conflict or goodXevil and lawXorder. In this view, genociding orcs wouldnt be an evil act because orcs are always evil creatures.
The neutral alignments necessarily dont fit because they represent someone who doesnt particularly care about strangers, but isnt as willing to exploit them for his benefit. This sort of character might actually care a lot, and could even be willing to sacrifice himself for his ideals.
Neutral Good. Just like my boy Baine.
As an anti-hero the closest might be chaotic good.
I don’t know where you’re doing with it.
My point about neutrality in good/evil spectrum is that they’d be more inclined to committing evil acts for what the consider great good.
I need you find me an example on that site where it states it’s okay that a lawful good can willfully kill innocents. If you can’t find me one there then you need to find it somewhere else if you’re going to provide me proof.
The discussion the other guy and I were having has to do with willfully killing innocents. We’re those zealots killing innocents willfully for the greater good? Or did the consider them not innocent?
Besides - those are npcs. Did it list the alignment of those npc characters? I need more context than some random campaign.
I am chaotic purple.
1 Like
The artefact was a ring that controlled a siege engine. That was all… the paladins guarded the siege engine, thinking it would cause the end of the world, and went after the CHILD who had the ring. They killed the child’s foster parents and nearly killed the child until she went into hiding. Now forgotten realms has a neutral good organisation called the harpers. One of them tried to protect the child, and they nearly killed her.
All to prevent the siege engine being used… instead of you know… destroying said siege engine.
I’ll add, there was nothing evil about the siege engine, the child etc… now yes, the forces of evil… mostly the zhentarim at the time, were also after the siege engine…
It basically transpired that the head of the paladins was in the zhentarim’s pockets… the rest of the paladins thought they were doing it for the greater good… and they did not fall either.
The book is called thornhold and is part of the harper series of books.
Can you give me a better source than a book based on the forgotten realms series? That books is based on an Arthur trying to apply complex discussions of morality to a table top game.
Apparently I wasn’t allowed to do that when I brought up the real world definition of what evil means.