137 réponses à ce sujet

[Hammerstorm]

Chaotic Good - A vigilante and a champion of the oppressed; he breaks the law either because they are unjust or they aren't doing enough for the common man... never afraid to stir up trouble, and probably has the most fun of the "good" archetypes

 

or

 

Chaotic Neutral - The prankster, the lover of life, and the most confounding, his motivations are rarely clear (even to himself). He has an endless zest for laughter and passions. Called crazy and stupid by others, he's unpredictable, he's not well-liked, and he is often alone... but he is free

 

Hard to say which of this my male human rogue is going to be, but probably a combination.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

chaotic - stupid.. yep thats my allignment.

[Pierce Miller]

Neutral Evil as always

[Joe Barnin]

From game to game I try to be different but I always seem to end up Neutral Good. Boring me.

[Lady Artifice]

I think the worse thing D&D did for roleplaying was creating alignments. They are a terrible guide as people just don't break down like that, they are more complex and their motivations are far more important than some artifical two axis scale.

I see your point, but if we can remember to think of it as a jumping off point rather than something that defines a character, then it's just a little fun.

[Iokastos]

Neutral Evil - Extremely anti Chantry

 

However...

 

I fear we'll be lockid into goody two shoes with the occasional "jerk" option

[UgnokOfOtherThings]

A Qunari Mage who is Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. I always can't help playing nice guys in games...its just my nature...

[Jouni S]

I think the worse thing D&D did for roleplaying was creating alignments. They are a terrible guide as people just don't break down like that, they are more complex and their motivations are far more important than some artifical two axis scale.

 

There were many worse ideas than alignments in D&D: hit points, experience points, character classes, levels... As game mechanics they were already obsolete decades ago, but game designers still pick them over and over again.

 

Anyway, the role of alignment in D&D is twofold. It's obviously the moral alignment describing the beliefs of the character on the "altruism vs. selfishness" axis, as well as on the "rule of law vs. common sense" axis, but it's also the metaphysical alignment of the character. The division between good and evil, and order and chaos is real in a D&D universe, so the alignment also determines how the forces of nature affect the character.

 

I generally prefer to play good guys. Characters with privileged backgrounds tend to be somewhere between lawful good and lawful neutral, while characters from lower classes are usually neutral good or chaotic good. My first Inquisitor is probably going to be a human mage, so he might start as lawful neutral.

[Get_Off_My_Lawn]

I always feel drawn to Lawful Neutral, my Inquisitor is out to bring order but it is not like he has to be all sunshine and daisies about doing so (kinda like playing the bad cop)

[Celtic Latino]

Most likely neutral, either with a lawful or chaotic slant. I've never really been one for goody-two shoes or stupid-evil on my first run.

[fizzypop]

Chaotic Neutral. Self-serving, sarcastic, a little crazy, and will take no **** from anyone.