Guess the characters' alignments!

[LionHeart]

Evil lies in hurting others.

Hurting yourself isn't evil, just stupid.


(With compliments to R.A.H.)

Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*

[Scow2]

The classic example of Neutral is this:
A kingdom is being invaded by a horde of orcs.  A Neutral Druid is asked to help by the king.  Two outcomes arise: either the Druid refuses to take any part in the whole mess, or he helps the king until the king starts winning, and then he goes to help the orcs; switching sides as needed so that neither eradicates the other.  The second response can be seen as evil by both sides of the conflict, but is it?  If his core motivation is to establish a balance between the two powers, then it is not, though some of his actions will seem to be otherwise.

Actually, the latter is Stupid Neutral Stupid, resulting in getting killed once one faction realizes he's a complete moron... A true druid would side with the faction that causes the least damage to the natural world, which would most likely be the kingdom since Orcs raze and consume everything behind them. In a deliberately drawn-out conflict, it would tear up the scenery and turn the countryside into a wasteland... which is against a Druid's code.

Fae are easily classified under the D&D system: True Chaotic. Mab is, by Fae standards, Chaotic Good, though, as she has stronger altruistic motives compared to the otherwise-seen Fae attitude.

Dan is either Neutral or Lawful Good... I'm going with Lawful Good since he holds himself to a high standard. And, once he learns that contrary to previously observed, not all Creatures are horrific nightmares that need to be destroyed to keep the world "Good", just most of them (The cubi and demons themselves say that). And once he does recognize that there are "Good" Demons and Cubi, he immediately, in his dramatic manner, goes overboard in his attempt to atone and set right the world. His "go out and kill something", while not a Paragon of Virtue, is always handled in a way that what he does is for good ends. He's not chaotic by any stretch of the word, just idiotic.

Arryanna: Chaotic Evil Emo. Any questions?

Fa'Lina: Lawful Neutral. She's decidedly Amoral, I'd qualify her as a Mildly Evil considering some of the horrors endorsed by the SAIA. Of course, she's also an "Inhibitor of Evil", as her academy's strictly (but not stupidly) amoral standpoint and her own "nurturing" nature enable 'cubi to go "good" instead of tend to the evil Power-tripping inherent in creatures. I'm not sure about this, but she seems to encourage "good" unintentionally, as she does set a moral precedent that encourages harmony, at least between 'cubi.

Aliph, AKA Dark Pegasus: Lawful Evil. He's above normal laws, but he binds himself to a code of conduct, but does behave in a Dangerously Genre Savvy manner to prevent unnecessarily dying. He and Dan Ti'Fiona seem to have at least a grudging respect for each other, which helps highlight his Lawful aspects.

Kria: Chaotic evil, hands down. Yes, she's nice to those she knows or is horny for, but beyond that, she's Evil to the core, complete with claiming she's "Above good and evil". For those of you who are moral relativists... I advise you read the general consensus between that page and this one and think about what it also might be saying about you.

Pre-zombie Devin: Jerkass/Chaotic Good. Revealed in his dying scene, in case it wasn't obvious from his profession. (Defender of Beings/Hero)

Most Creatures are a strain of Evil by default, due to a genocidal "Might-makes-Right" upbringing.

Abel is Neutral, possibly Neutral Good due to his Being origin... and getting hit by a Deus Angst Machina to keep him out of the Evil territory for centuries

Alexi is Lawful Neutral.

Pyroduck is Chaotic Good.

Jyrras Gianna is Chaotic Neutral in the "Mad Scientist" manner. Non-canonically, he'd even go so far as to kill the Annual Bringer of Cheer and Holiday Spirit to please his artificially-constructed, True Neutral 'daughter'.

Moira Den Gianna, being a Lawyer, is Lawful Evil of the Card-Carrying degree.

Seth Gianna, on the other hand, seems Neutral Good. Apparently, Opposites attract, and here Good and Evil aren't always at odds, particularly since Seth is only concerned with applying his morality to the local level.

Lorenda is Neutral Good that struggles with occasional acts of evil, such as eating irritating people. She seems to be moving away from her sentient diet, though, as she begins to understand just how wrong killing beings is.

Aliyka is True Good... I'm not sure she hasn't taken at least a few Exalted feats by now. Such as Sacred Vow: Vow of Nonviolence.

Aslan: Another Chaotic Borderline Good fey.

Fi: True Neutral.

Both Wildy and Biggs are Chaotic Evil, in the "Orcish Warlord" sense. Biggs is current leader of the Twinks, a self-identified Always Chaotic Evil culture, and Wildy... outright claims to be evil, and proves it when given power. Of course, she's not homicidally evil, unlike Regina and Kria Soulstealer. She prefers to ruin people's lives through more insidious methods.

Pip is Neutral.

Matilda is a Neutral Good defector from the Chaotic Evil nature of her race. Like Seth, she does the best she can in her local area.

Merlitz... I'm not sure. I'd put him as Chaotic Neutral with a dash of good... but part of that is also drawn from my experiences with the original Merlitz over on Furcadia, which I know isn't the same as Comic Merlitz.

[Shachza]

The classic example of Neutral is this:
A kingdom is being invaded by a horde of orcs.  A Neutral Druid is asked to help by the king.  Two outcomes arise: either the Druid refuses to take any part in the whole mess, or he helps the king until the king starts winning, and then he goes to help the orcs; switching sides as needed so that neither eradicates the other.  The second response can be seen as evil by both sides of the conflict, but is it?  If his core motivation is to establish a balance between the two powers, then it is not, though some of his actions will seem to be otherwise.

Actually, the latter is Stupid Neutral Stupid, resulting in getting killed once one faction realizes he's a complete moron... A true druid would side with the faction that causes the least damage to the natural world, which would most likely be the kingdom since Orcs raze and consume everything behind them. In a deliberately drawn-out conflict, it would tear up the scenery and turn the countryside into a wasteland... which is against a Druid's code.

Ok, so forget the Druid part, since that class' stereotypes get in the way of the analogy.  Also, why do you assume he's an idiot?  Make him a god bent on establishing said balance of power if that makes my point clearer.  If you want a better scenario too, then just make both sides opposing human kingdoms.

[Cogidubnus]

That madmen and lunatics fall into chaotic alignment category doesn't mean that it's all that it consists of. Chaotic characters value their freedom greatly, and they don't like being forced to answer to anyone else.

Well, of course. Most Chaotic characters would fall under that purview, I think, but Turnsky had already said something to that effect.

I think that's not so much a flaw of the system as it is a misuse of the system. Paladins receive a lot of attention, because they have very strict guidelines as to how they behave. Of course, a lot of people think of paladins as characters that go 'me paladin, you ebil, me smite', etc. I sincerely doubt that that's the intention of the alignment system. In all fairness, if someone makes an 'alignment stupid' character, they're probably not going to make a well thought out character, alignments or no. I find this especially true with a lot of chaotic evil villains, who have no motivations other than being evil to everyone they meet (zap the messenger, kick the puppy, etc). It's not necessarily the systems fault that such characters are made however, that it's used in that manner.

I also doubt that it's the intention of the alignment system as well. It's a roleplaying tool, and should be used more like loose guidelines rather than a straightjacket. This is in part why Paladins -do- get singled out, because their alignment is a straightjacket. They lose all class features if they don't follow their guidelines to the letter. Now, as you've said, if the paladin is particularly clever, this can be a boon to them, as they might be able to wiggle out of a situation in which they are obligated to do a bad thing. But I would also argue that it can be just as much a bane to them, as they might be obligated to ignore the greater good in deference to their own sworn oath.
This isn't entirely just player stupidity, either. Not to D&D nerd out too much, but take a look through the Book of Exalted Deeds if you have it. It's stances on how good and lawful good alignments, and how ends justifying the means in particular work, shows more of what I mean.

This scenario really depends on the type of Lawful character, some would without a second's hesitation, since they might value their personal code of conduct more than an agreement with someone. (Lawful does not necessarily mean following laws.) You could also have a character who feels all agreements are sacred, and wouldn't rebel no matter how much he would like to.

Ah, but now we are in a section of overlap, or perhaps disagreement. A person who follows his own personal code of conduct is chaotic, not lawful. While it is true that a Paladin swears a personal code of conduct, she swears one that is in line with Good and Lawfulness. To a certain degree, lawfulness is subjective, depending on what exactly the Paladin has sworn (an Oath to uphold the law of the Kingdom? The laws of her hometown?), or whether or not it is a more general oath to the concept of Order itself. In this circumstance, swearing an oath to the concept of Order, I can see a Paladin possibly rebelling against a Tyranny, if it was particularly messy or chaotic. I still see it as doubtful, however. Unless the oath was to only beneficial order, she'd be as bound to whatever was more orderly just as much as the Auditors of the Universe. Or, at least, if she would be if she wanted to keep her class features.
Conflicts between good and law tend to be particularly thorny as well. If a Paladin has to choose between the two, often it's stated that they simply lose class features and must atone.

That said, there are a few things to consider. One, that a lawful good character being legally/contractually/lawfully bound to serve someone evil is a very, very unlikely possibility. Most wouldn't deal with such people, and if they had to, they would be very careful in their dealings, being sure not to get caught by fine print or the like. Next, I know it's often portrayed that Lawful Evil characters follow the 'letter of the law', exactly. They do so when it benefits them. However, there's nothing stopping a Lawful Good character from doing the same. If a Lawful Good character found himself legally bound to serve a Tyrant, he'd likely follow the letter of his instructions, while subverting the intent of the Tyrant, trying to weaken his position, etc.

I agree, but I and my chaotic self find the entire concept silly. Laws are good laws only as much as they are Just laws. Justice is a concept above law, in my opinion, but this is philosophy and we're already rules lawyering, so I digress.
I would say that it's not really that unlikely. For example, the town guard is made up of Paladins who have sworn an oath to uphold justice in the land, and they answer to the King's Seneschal, who is in charge of domestic affairs in the Kingdom. The Seneschal is not a paladin. Corruption does what it does - pressure from external forces, dissatisfied nobles cause trouble, and eventually compromises are made. A man is made Seneschal who is not entirely honorable. He instructs the Paladins to ignore certain individuals, despite their flaunting of the law.
They would be unable to do anything but obey. They may be able to somehow subvert their efforts, but the fact remains that they could do nothing that would directly, and depending on how the order was worded, indirectly hinder them.

A good example might be of a paladin king who is bound to grant an evil cleric three favors. The first two the cleric spends asking for information, with which the paladin responds with a whole bunch of half answers, none technically lies, but they answer as little as possible. Next, the priest asks to be brought 'the head of a certain noble'. The paladin complies, by bringing the noble alive (since he technically brought his head), with a large host of armed guards, and then doesn't help the cleric escape that situation.

This now becomes a game of legalism, which, while not necessarily bad, seems silly to me in that context.
Were I to have to answer to those who meant Evil to my family and those I loved, I would hope that I could lie, and I think I would feel little remorse for it. Perhaps this is wrong of me, and perhaps it is wrong that I would feel no remorse over it. It's true, the Paladin King through his wits could avoid telling the Cleric anything of value - but then it's simply a matter of who is more clever at asking questions, and who is more clever at giving answers. An evil cleric who was able to wrangle three favors out of a Paladin, I imagine, might be clever enough to ask his questions in the right way as to find the information he seeks. Being clever merely lets the Paladin escape his predicament, but only as far as he is clever. It isn't a real solution.

I'll assume you're talking about a chaotic good character here for a moment, but, yes, they very well can. But such a character likely wouldn't have very much respect for said order and would be willing to bend and twist it the moment he stops thinking it's for the best.

Depends on the Chaotic character, yes, and some could. But would it be a Chaotic act? Probably not.

[Tapewolf]

Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*

<nitpick>
So, if the aftermath of a a kidney operation hurts like hell, does that make the surgeon evil?   
</nitpick>

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

(With compliments to R.A.H.)

Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*

Only if I'm quoting, rather than paraphrasing.


Scow2, using "" in your url tags breaks them. Just so you know.

[Anker Steadfast]

Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*

<nitpick>
So, if the aftermath of a a kidney operation hurts like hell, does that make the surgeon evil?   
</nitpick>

All dentists are evil !!

.. just saying. 

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Actually, I believe that should be "knowingly hurting others". *has read the book*

<nitpick>
So, if the aftermath of a a kidney operation hurts like hell, does that make the surgeon evil?   
</nitpick>

Arguably, while that's hurting, it's also healing, and the heal outweighs the hurt.

Or so I understand the Hippocratic Suggestion to be saying.

[Shachza]

This scenario really depends on the type of Lawful character, some would without a second's hesitation, since they might value their personal code of conduct more than an agreement with someone. (Lawful does not necessarily mean following laws.) You could also have a character who feels all agreements are sacred, and wouldn't rebel no matter how much he would like to.

Ah, but now we are in a section of overlap, or perhaps disagreement. A person who follows his own personal code of conduct is chaotic, not lawful. While it is true that a Paladin swears a personal code of conduct, she swears one that is in line with Good and Lawfulness. To a certain degree, lawfulness is subjective, depending on what exactly the Paladin has sworn (an Oath to uphold the law of the Kingdom? The laws of her hometown?), or whether or not it is a more general oath to the concept of Order itself. In this circumstance, swearing an oath to the concept of Order, I can see a Paladin possibly rebelling against a Tyranny, if it was particularly messy or chaotic. I still see it as doubtful, however. Unless the oath was to only beneficial order, she'd be as bound to whatever was more orderly just as much as the Auditors of the Universe. Or, at least, if she would be if she wanted to keep her class features.
Conflicts between good and law tend to be particularly thorny as well. If a Paladin has to choose between the two, often it's stated that they simply lose class features and must atone.

"Lawful Neutral, "Judge":  A Lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.  Order and organization are paramount to her.  ..."  Page 105, D&D Player's Handbook.

And I tend to agree with the D&D assessment.  Chaotic characters don't have personal codes of conduct; they don't outline how they should behave at any given time.  They pick a general theme (good, neutral, or evil) and then react to each new situation according to their own whims as colored by their chosen theme.  When confronted by an orphan begging for change a chaotic good person might give them a nickel, $100, invite them home for a meal, simply alert a kind-hearted friend to the orphan, or any number of things; whichever one seems convenient for the character and beneficial for the orphan.  A Chaotic Evil person might very well kill the orphan for presuming to talk to her, or just maim the orphan, or give her a coin and then call for authorities to arrest the orphan for stealing coins; anything convenient for the character, but detrimental for the orphan.

A lawful character will have an idea of what to do about an orphan beforehand.  If she follows the local laws, then those will guide her, if it's a personal code-of-conduct, then that lays the groundwork.  If her code denounces orphans as non-people then you know that the character will always ignore the orphan, because that's what she believes in.  She doesn't change how she reacts barring extreme circumstances (say the orphan grabs and tries to restrain her, making it impossible to ignore the orphan).