Buddha's New D&D Thread is Groovy, Man.

[Neil]

I scored Lawful Neutral.  No wonder I tend to play LN characters.

[ulmont]

Neutral Evil
You scored 47% Law vs Chaos and 40% Good vs Evil!

Your Alignment:
"The Malefactor"

You are not nice at all. You choose not to do what is right, and you choose to be mean to people. Since you are not Chaotic, it is apparent that this mean streak of yours is not due to a lack of structure or reliability. In other words, your cruelty is a matter of choice.
You are simply mean, selfish, and bitter at heart. Way to go. But I could be wrong. Please don't hunt me down and kill me.

[crazy canuck]

Otherwise, lawful evil characters would be extremely limited as to what they could do.

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment. 

[crazy canuck]

I always thought Pendragon's opposing traits made much more sense as a guide. 

You have the following traits which are opposed: Chaste / Lustful; Energetic / Lazy; Forgiving / Vengeful; Generous / Selfish; Honest / Deceitful ; Just / Arbitrary ; Merciful / Cruel ; Modest / Proud ; Pious / Worldly ; Prudent / Reckless ; Temperate / Indulgent ; Trusting / Suspicious ; Valorous / Cowardly

Each time you behave according to a trait, you receive a check, which can result in a trait going up (and the opposite going down), which means that your character's morality and behaviour evolves as a player plays it.

When situations demand a roll, you roll against both traits. Usually, the higher one wins out and your character has to succumb to his trait (i.e., act selfish or generously, despite the player's preference). If your die roll is higher than both traits, you are free to chose your course of action.

Pendragon makes you roll for all these traits, but I have let my players pick out their traits, because it makes for interesting character creation (the courageous but greedy knight, the deceitful but merciful hero) and interesting progression (as players are often unable to play to the high standards they set for themselves at the start, evolving from a naive young hero full of ideals to a jaded mercenary...).

I wish I had access to that back in the day.  Sounds like a great way to deal with RP motivations.

[Valmy]

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment. 

That was why?  Because you had a narrow and limited interpretation of Lawful Evil?

I find it a shame the rules of the game were so built around your interpretations.

[Neil]

Otherwise, lawful evil characters would be extremely limited as to what they could do.

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment.

Your flawed interpretation is why it's no longer an alignment under the evil that is 4E?

I think you give yourself too much credit.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Neutral Good which is my most common alignment when I play. questions on that quiz are slightly better than yr average okcupid test.

[Valmy]

Neutral Good which is my most common alignment when I play. questions on that quiz are slightly better than yr average okcupid test.

Mine to.  I am always heroic, doing good and slaying evil as the game was meant to be played.

[crazy canuck]

Which is why it never made any sense to me and probably why it is no longer an alignment. 

That was why?  Because you had a narrow and limited interpretation of Lawful Evil?

I find it a shame the rules of the game were so built around your interpretations.

Neil changed the meaning of lawful so that people could meaningfully play a LE character.  By definition a LE character would have a very limited ability to do anything unless the structure he was working in was inherently evil.  Which is why Asmodeus could be LE.  His sphere war run by him under rules that were inherently evil.

In any role playing world LE characters would be essentially be non existant.

[crazy canuck]

Your flawed interpretation is why it's no longer an alignment under the evil that is 4E?

I think you give yourself too much credit.

At the very least the game designers did not go with your interpretation.  If they had it would still be in the game.  But then again your interpretation of LE is essentiall the same as CN.

[Neil]

Neutral Good which is my most common alignment when I play. questions on that quiz are slightly better than yr average okcupid test.

Mine to.  I am always heroic, doing good and slaying evil as the game was meant to be played.

There's nothing wrong with fighting to bring order and law to lands and push back barbarity, rather than wasting your efforts in a neverending moral battle.

[ulmont]

In any role playing world LE characters would be essentially be non existant.

I thought that lawful evil was supposed to be the most common alignment?  Maybe at a low-grade sort of way?

[crazy canuck]

In any role playing world LE characters would be essentially be non existant.

I thought that lawful evil was supposed to be the most common alignment?  Maybe at a low-grade sort of way?

Why do you think that?

[Neil]

Your flawed interpretation is why it's no longer an alignment under the evil that is 4E?

I think you give yourself too much credit.

At the very least the game designers did not go with your interpretation.  If they had it would still be in the game.  But then again your interpretation of LE is essentiall the same as CN.

It's important to remember that those who designed 4th edition are mental invalids, not the great men who designed AD&D.  What they do or think about anything is of little interest to me, and what interest there is is only condemnation.

And no, CN is a very different alignment.  A CN individual would never be able to tolerate the brutal order that a LE character craves.

[ulmont]

Why do you think that?

You've got a bunch of people going about their day to day lives, obeying the law, but if they find a way to take advantage of others for gain they will, at least up to a point.

Perhaps neutral evil would be more common, to include all those speeders out there.