OK, that's it!

[Yarulion]

Grr, you people are pushing my DM instincts to the limit with all the alignment debates.  I warned ya I was gonna start having classes.

Anyways, there have seriously been a lot of conflicts in discussing alignments (people don\'t seem to have a basic agreement on the difference between good, neutral, and evil). Personally, I go by the AD&D 2E system of alignments because D&D rocks and 3rd Edition as a table-top sucks. )

At any rate, here\'s the run-down:
Good = serves others
Evil = serves self
Neutral = serves neutrality (balance) or doesn\'t care

Lawful = appreciates order
Chaotic = demolishes or ignores order
Neutral = Either doesn\'t care for the difference or puts a higher emphasis on good v. evil

Any questions?
I will further post a discussion on any alignment as requested

[Monketh]

So, if I run over Xordan with a megeara to get my cooki jar back, is that good(cuz I\'m killing a corruptor), evil(cuz I\'m retreiving my cookie jar by killing him), or neutral(cuz they balance out)?

[Davis]

Evil is not serves self... it is serving self with a disregard for others.
Neutrality is serving self, but not at the expense of others.

[Kada-El]

What is the actual point of having personal alignments? Is it just to back up the role playing of a character and to allow a games mechanics know how to react to you in a certain situation e.g. interacting with an NPC of certain alignment.

Perhaps I am missing the point, but in life we aren\'t branded with the fact that we are incredibly evil or a do gooder, people judge us by our actions and reputation, shouldn\'t true RPing in a persistent world be the same? Or in terms of a game needing some reference to judge us by, then couldn\'t it use some kind of karma/reputation type system (I\'m sure we have discussed this before), whereby your ingame deeds score accordingly? This way the many shades of good and evil might be better reflected and those who are truly good/evil would really have to work hard at achieving such a pure reputation. What could be more satisfying than knowing you have really earned your reputation of pure evil and are feared because of it

[Boldstorm]

I have always thought the best way to do alignment or whatever you want to call it is to start of at a true neutral starting point and have actions effect it from there. This way has always added much more depth to your character and role playing experience because each action you do now has an effect on your character. If you want a truely evil character or pure goood character you have to work at it to devolp into that.

[Yarulion]

So, if I run over Xordan with a megeara to get my cooki jar back, is that good(cuz I\'m killing a corruptor), evil(cuz I\'m retreiving my cookie jar by killing him), or neutral(cuz they balance out)?

Depends on whether you wanted Xordan\'s death or your cookie jar more, and in the case of wanting Xordan\'s death, if it wasn\'t very justifiable it would be evil.

Evil is not serves self... it is serving self with a disregard for others.

Exactly. Treating yourself as number one. (as an opposite statement to serving others before yourself)

Neutrality is serving self, but not at the expense of others.

Which is... randomly switching between good and evil without regard for either... or not caring. If you only perform evil when there\'s \"no harm in it\" you\'re either neutral cause you don\'t care or a really low-INT evil guy

What is the actual point of having personal alignments?

A role-playing distinction and nothing else. We\'re not talking about modifying code, just referring to other forum discussions. Otherwise it would be in GD not Hydlaa.

[Yarulion]

OK, for Monketh, the most amusing alignment discussion I\'ve read to date, found in the 2nd Edition PHB:

Imagine how groups of  different  alignments  might  seek  to  divide  a
  treasure trove. Suppose the adventuring party contains  one  character  of
  each  alignment  (a  virtually  impossible  situation,  but  useful  for
  illustration). Each is then allowed to present his argument:


    The lawful good character says, \"Before we went on  this  adventure,  we
  agreed to split the treasure equally, and that\'s what we\'re going  to  do.
  First,  we\'ll  deduct  the  costs  of  the  adventure  and  pay  for  the
  resurrection of those who  have  fallen,  since  we\'re  sharing  all  this
  equally. If someone can\'t be raised, then his share goes to his family\".

    \"Since we agreed to split equally, that\'s fine,\" replies the lawful evil
  character thoughtfully. \"But there was nothing in this deal  about  paying
  for anyone else\'s expenses. It\'s not my  fault  if  you  spent  a  lot  on
  equipment! Furthermore, this deal applies only to the surviving  partners;
  I don\'t remember anything about dead partners. I\'m not setting  aside  any
  money to raise that klutz. He\'s someone else\'s problem.\"

    Flourishing a sheet of paper, the lawful neutral  character  breaks  in.
  \"It\'s a good thing for you two that I\'ve got  things  together,  nice  and
  organized. I had the foresight to  write  down  the  exact  terms  of  our
  agreement, and we\'re all going to follow them.\"

    The neutral good character balances the  issues  and  decides,  \"I\'m  in
  favor of equal shares - that keeps everybody happy. I feel  that  expenses
  are each adventurer\'s own business: If someone spent  too  much,  then  he
  should be more careful next time. But raising fallen comrades seems like a
  good idea, so I say we set aside money to do that\".

    After listening to the  above  arguments,  the  true  neutral  character
  decides not to say anything yet. He\'s not particularly concerned with  any
  choice. If the issue can be solved without his becoming  involved,  great.
  But if it looks like one person is going to get  everything,  that\'s  when
  he\'ll step in and cast his vote for a more balanced distribution.

    The neutral evil character died during the adventure, so he doesn\'t have
  anything to say. However, if he could make his  opinion  known,  he  would
  gladly argue that the group ought to pay for raising him and set  aside  a
  share for him. The neutral evil character would also hope that  the  group
  doesn\'t discover the big gem he secretly  pocketed during one of the encounters.

    The chaotic good character objects to the whole  business.  \"Look,  it\'s
  obvious that the original agreement is messed up. I say we  scrap  it  and
  reward people for what  they  did.  I  saw  some  of  you  hiding  in  the
  background when the rest of us were doing all the real fighting.  I  don\'t
  see why anyone should be rewarded for being a coward! As  far  as  raising
  dead partners, I say that\'s a matter of  personal  choice.  I  don\'t  mind
  chipping in for some of them, but I don\'t think I want  everyone  back  in
  the group\".

    Outraged at the totally true but tactless accusation of  cowardice,  the
  chaotic evil character snaps back, \"Look, I was doing  an  important  job,
  guarding the rear! Can I help it if nothing tried to sneak up  behind  us?
  Now, it seems to me that all of you are pretty beat up - and I\'m not.  So,
  I don\'t think there\'s going to be too much objection if  I  take  all  the
  jewelry and that wand. And I\'ll take anything interesting those  two  dead
  guys have. Now, you can either work with me and do what I say or get  lost
  - permanently!\"

    The chaotic neutral character is also dead (after he tried to  charge  a
  gorgon), so he doesn\'t contribute to the argument.  However,  if  he  were
  alive, he would join forces with whichever side appealed to him  the  most
  at the moment. If he couldn\'t decide, he\'d flip a coin.


Clearly, widely diverse alignments in a group can make even the simplest
  task impossible. It is almost certain that the group in the example  would
  come to blows before they could reach a decision. But dividing cash is not
  the only instance in which this group would have  problems.  Consider  the
  battle in which they gained the treasure in the first place.


    Upon penetrating the heart of the ruined castle, the party met its  foe,
  a powerful gorgon commanded by a mad warrior. There,  chained  behind  the
  two, was a helpless peasant kidnapped from a nearby village.


    The lawful good character unhesitatingly (but not foolishly) entered the
  battle; it was the right thing to do. He considered it his duty to protect
  the villagers. Besides, he could not abandon an innocent hostage  to  such
  fiends. He was willing to fight until he won or was  dragged  off  by  his
  friends. He had no intention of fighting to his own death,  but  he  would
  not give up until he had tried his utmost to defeat the evil creatures.

    The lawful evil character also entered the battle willingly. Although he
  cared nothing for the peasant, he could not allow the two fiends  to  mock
  him. Still, there was no reason for him to risk all for  one  peasant.  If
  forced to retreat, he could return with  a  stronger  force,  capture  the
  criminals, and execute them publicly. If the peasant died in the meantime,
  their punishment would be that much more horrible.

    The lawful neutral character was willing to fight, because the  villains
  threatened public order. However, he was not willing to risk his own life.
  He would have preferred to come back later  with  reinforcements.  If  the
  peasant could be saved, that is good, because he is part of the community.
  If not, it would be unfortunate but unavoidable.

    The neutral good character did not fight the gorgon or the warrior,  but
  he tried to rescue the peasant. Saving the  peasant  was  worthwhile,  but
  there was no need to risk injury and death along the way. Thus, while  the
  enemy was  distracted in combat,  he tried to slip  past and free the pea-
  sant.

    The true neutral character weighed the situation carefully. Although  it
  looked like the forces working for order would have the upper hand in  the
  battle,  he  knew  there  had  been  a  general  trend  toward  chaos  and
  destruction in the region that must be combatted. He tried to help, but if
  the group failed, he could work to restore the balance of  law  and  chaos
  elsewhere in the kingdom.

    The neutral evil character cared nothing about law, order, or  the  poor
  peasant. He figured that there had to be some treasure  around  somewhere.
  After all, the villain\'s lair had once been a powerful  temple.  He  could
  poke around for cash while the others did the real work. If the group  got
  into real trouble and it looked like the villains would attack  him,  then
  he would fight. Unfortunately, a stray magical arrow killed him just after
  he found a large gem.

    The chaotic good character joined the fight for several reasons. Several
  people in the group were his friends, and he  wanted  to  fight  at  their
  sides. Furthermore, the poor, kidnapped peasant deserved  to  be  rescued.
  Thus, the chaotic good character fought to aid his companions and save the
  peasant. He didn\'t care if the villains were  killed,  captured,  or  just
  driven away. Their attacks against the village didn\'t concern him.

    The chaotic neutral character decided to charge, screaming  bloodthirsty
  cries, straight for the gorgon. Who knows? He might have broken its  nerve
  and thrown it off guard. He discovered that his plan was a  bad  one  when
  the gorgon\'s breath killed him.

    The chaotic evil character saw no point in  risking  his  hide  for  the
  villagers, the peasant, or the rest of the party. In fact, he  thought  of
  several good reasons not to. If he party was weakened, he might be able to
  take over. If the villains won, he could probably make a  deal  with  them
  and join their side. If everyone was killed, he could take  everything  he
  wanted and leave. All these sounded a lot better  than  getting  hurt  for
  little or no gain. So he stayed near the back of the battle, watching.  If
  anyone asked, he could say he was watching the rear, making  sure  no  one
  came to aid the enemy.

[Davis]

What I said. Sort of.

[Wedge]

I\'m Ninja Aligned!  

[seperot]

i like neutral it give me the right to kill oh say....... jedi!

then save a family from a burning building (for a reward of course)

[Jedi]

I like good because it gives me an excuse to stab Sep in the face...It\'s ridding the world of his evil blight. jk

[Yarulion]

Tighten up, fellas. Moogie\'s referring peeps to da thread here. Act like you\'re on topic! :]

I\'m about to post the various discussions on alignments to my webpage as per PHB2e. Link will be posted in a later edit (unless you spam the crap out of my thread and I\'ll re-post).

EDIT: Here\'s the link. That should do well to incite discussion. Do I need to post area alignments to help out, too? Sometimes they can give a different perspective on how alignments function in a group (e.g. a guild).

[Kiern]

Oh yes, alignments...it\'s all a type of control, even though people have these huge arguments and don\'t play by the rules anyways, but if you like those sort of things...enjoy yourself.

See...I can do it

**pats shotgun and stares at the ceiling for that damn bird**

[Yarulion]

Originally posted by seperot
i like neutral it give me the right to kill oh say....... jedi!

then save a family from a burning building (for a reward of course)

Oh? That\'s why you\'re neutral? I thought...

Originally posted by TSR, Inc.
Some  things  -  particularly unintelligent monsters (killer plants, etc.) and animals  -  never  bother with moral and ethical concerns. For these creatures, alignment is  simply not applicable. A dog, even a well-trained one, is neither good nor  evil, lawful nor chaotic. It is simply a dog. For these creatures, alignment  is always detected as neutral.

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

{edit: A link has been posted. You rolled doubles! Move back three posts.}
{edit 2: Er... two posts now. Somebody got baleeted. 8o }
{edit 3: alignment allegory above has been extended.}

[druke]

allignments are hard to determine w/o the use of the secong half ,the law/neutarl/chaos it really depends o how you rp