56 réponses à ce sujet

[Nemo_Studio]

I'm apparently Lawful Neutral.

 

Thought I was NG. Figures.

 

Since you keep contributing to the community, you probably are. The test must have never asked questions that pertain the instances where you act in a charitable manner.

 

 

 

Welcome to the druids next meeting will be held at Stonehenge in a few weeks, bring a robe.

 

Since 3rd edition, Druids can be "Good"

[Arkalezth]

More neutral stuff.

I think neutral alignments (or perhaps all of them) are very complex in the way that they may include many different types of people, and that nothing is written in stone and it all depends on the person. The people in your examples may be neutral, but that doesn't mean that all neutrals have to behave that way, IMO. There's a wide variety of greys between black and white.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. No point in discussing it to death.

[kevL]

& let's fact it : most are Neutral moreso than any of the axioms.

 

 

being axiomatic just gets peeps into trouble ( think JC / AH )

[Tchos]

I do tend somewhat toward Lawful despite being Neutral...

[Dann-J]

I think neutral alignments (or perhaps all of them) are very complex in the way that they may include many different types of people, and that nothing is written in stone and it all depends on the person.

 

Lumping all alignments into just nine categories tends to over-simplify things. A lawful evil (100,25) character will behave differently to a lawful evil (75, 0) character. The former is extremely lawful but only slightly evil (ie. politician or lawyer). The latter is only moderately lawful but completely evil (ie. used car salesman or real estate agent).

 

Shoe-horning people into behavioural categories is never reliable. That must be true, since us aquarians are known for our honesty and intelligence.

[Elrith Galadon]

Considering that ethics can now be programmed, maybe it's not that complicated. Yes, I'd totally believe a robot 100%. (tongue in cheek)