Just something discovered while trolling. Here’s how it works.
We all play RPG’s right, so write what alignment you think you are, i.e what alignment you would be if you were in an game like Final Fantasy. Along morality, you can be good, neutral or evil. Ethically you can be lawful, Neutral or chaotic. Then take the test, and post your results.
I’ll try first. Methinks Me is Chaotic Neutral.
Results:
Neutral
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutrality is a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil. After all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. The common phrase for neutral is “true neutral.” Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
So I am like that huh. Its okay coz I dont know and I dont care :lol:
I’d chime in if I didn’t get an error trying to use that link. Having played D&D for many years, my guess is that I’d probably get Neutral Good.
The link should work fine now, I think :roll:
Yeah, it works now. Surprisingly, I got Lawful Good. :shock:
Still Chaotic Evil, this is the second time I’ve taken an alignment quiz and got this. Neither I nor my friends would ever consider me Chaotic Evil … neutral evil, perhaps, or even lawful evil, but I am not really a Chaotic person … I wonder why that keeps happening? I suspect the makers of the quiz and those I know disagree with the definition of Chaotic Evil.
Actually, not much of a difference there. It may mean you have abordeline between good and nutral, in other words, maybe you are not ready to accept your good side. :shock:
Which is good, since lawful good guys wont accept incest, ever :twisted: :lol: imagine superman having sex with his cousin (any one of them, all of them are too hot anyways), though I can imagine batman doing it 
Not that I’m surprised, really.
I disagree with the “best alignment you can be” statement … who’s to say what the “best” alignment is? Every one of them has their equally valid place - that is blatant opinion and bias and I won’t acknowledge it.
Got neutral good. It was pretty much what I expected.
Chaotic Neutral
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. The chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). The common phrase for chaotic neutral is “true chaotic.” Remember that the chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom both from society’s restrictions and from a do-gooder’s zeal.
I personally would argue that I’m chaotic good, and that some of the questions didn’t allow me to properly bring in that perspective. 
(Assassinate the king? That depends. Is he a bad king?)
That’s the entire point - EVERY alignment says “this is the best alignment” because it’s trying to show how people of that sort would feel.
Which is exactly what a neutral character would wonder, and not a good character, since assassination is per essence an evil act. A good character respects life, and dignity of sentient beings. Faced to a bad king, a good character would rather try to dethrone then make him judged (probably by the new government --though a chaotic character may have him judged by other ways) because, as someone good, he would consider any sentient being deserves a trial and a chance. ‘Good’ implies altruism, forgiveness and compassion, after all.
While I agree with what you say Olf, I think papillon is right about some of the questions making the test less than accurate. Some had bad phrasing, while others had a poor selection of answers.
I think you are a little confused. Don’t you mean I might be on the borderline between lawful and neutral? Anyways, it is funny you mention Superman getting it on with his cousin, because this was posted earlier this year by Narg in the WTF thread:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4571&start=725#p86147
(In case you don’t see it initially, the image has 26 variations, with the first one being Superman.)
I didn’t disagree with her about that point…
I didn’t notice they all said that … okay, I’m less offended now.
Perhaps so, but their system also presents neutrality as generally being a matter of self-interest, and slaying evil is a noble tradition. Killing an evil king in order to prevent the mass murder of others (not yourself) is ‘good’ by D&D tradition. It’s just not LAWFUL good.
As I understand it, a lawful good character would have great difficulty dealing with an evil king, because the king is the lawful ruler, and overthrowing the king is unlawful. Our LG paladin is probably stuck trying to talk the king out of being evil, smuggling the intended victims away, or waiting around near the intended victims to strike back in defense of an immediate threat.
Leading an uprising is probably more neutral good. Assassinating the bastard is more chaotic.
Now, if you’re killing the king because of taxes, that’s not a good act.
Actually, this is incorrect. Lawful good characters may or may not believe in relative morality at all, but it is always to a point. They are moral absolutists in the broad sense. They serve the “ideal” law, and have no real internal conflict over evil laws. If Truth, Justice, and the American Way get into a fight, then Truth and Justice win.
Lawful Good is not Lawful Neutral.
In the case of the Paladin and the evil king engaging in human sacrifice, he would probably deal with it the same way he would a particularly powerful gang of slavers. Storm the stronghold, break them. Merely because someone has enough swords and fortified castles to force others to submit does not give him carte blanche to do as he sees fit. True law is distinct from rule by force, and only has meaning when it is just law.
lawful is just that: Lawful. It means someone lawful will stick to the law. For example if a resolution is passed banning girls to wear mini skirts in college, a lawful person, even if he/she doesn’t agree will NOT wear a mini skirt, no matter what his personal view will be.
A Neutral person will probably just shrug his shoulders at the annoyance of te whole deal.
A chaotic opn the other hand, is much more subjective, since two chaotic minds rarely think alike.
All of this claptrap has nothing to do whether a person is Evil, Neutral or Good.
Actually when you think about it, Chaotic Evil is probably more interesting.
Actually Killing is Unlawful, no matter how you see it. Even killing mass murderers is in no way “lawful”. So even if a king would be a tyrant, a lawful person would try not to assassinate or murder him, he’ll probably try to release the prisoners, work with the law to dethrone him, stuff like that. Being Lawful good, a crusader, or a paladin, whatever will have a lot of difficulty as he has to reason out every move, thats why a lawful good charecter wouldn’t want a person dead, even if that guy has killed some people.
Executions can be lawful. They’re within the law.
But Lawful Good was always supposed to be pretty restrictive and make the paladin’s life difficult as she has to argue against the rest of the party being the bloodthirsty XP-hunters they love to be.