To allow for more proper role-playing here a topic about what defines the 9 different classes.
give examples of people, or personages that would be a role model for that class or One-lines dermining that class.


Lawfull Good
Races : Paladins (mythic), superman (comics)
Motto : Protect and Serve

Lawfull Neutral
Races : Soldiers (following orders), AI (I am the machine)
Motto : The Law is always right

Lawfull Evil
Races : The Borg (star trek), The Nazi's (real life)
Motto : Bring order at any cost

Neutral Good
Races : Saints (religion), Robin Hood (Mythic)
Motto : Good is the only law we need

True Neutral
Races : Ferengi (star trek), Opinion shapers (news)
Motto : There is aways more than one side to a coin.

Neutral Evil
Races : The Brotherhood (TES), Mercenary's (everywhere)
Motto : Don't ask, don't tell, just want to get paid.

Chaotic Good
Races : Rebels (real), Annonimus (internet)
Motto : The order is evil, fight the order

Chaotic Neutral
Races : Anarchists (real/theoretical), Jack Sparrow (PotC)
Motto : You never know what side were on.

Chaotic Evil
Races : Psychpatic killers (movies/real), the joker (Batman)
Motto : They say I'm crazy.. they are dead now.

I do have a LG paladin character, her motto is more like "I COMMAND THEE TO GIVE UP THY UNHOLY WAYS, AND GIVE IN TO THE NINE!"

Fact: Back in the early days of tabletop gaming, paladins could only be Lawful Good. Now with these newer versions of D&D it's possible to be any alignment, which in my opinion cheapens the game. :rolleyes: Kids these days!



My other current character Kate happens to be CE. She's an assassin/theif turned vampire. Kate mumbles a lot to herself, but when she happens to make sense, what usualy comes up is something like "thine fate is at my commmand" or something corny like that. I'm just glad I'm not the one "meeting my fate".

This is a little confusing to me. I think you mean to say nine alignments, don't you? And I think you mean classes, as opposed to races?

I have a bit of a theoretical objection to connecting all this with the term "proper role-playing." That implies to me that "proper role-playing" makes use of alignments and I don't believe that. Alignments may have their uses, they may be helpful to some players in planning their characters but I do not believe alignments=proper role-playing.

But if this wasn't your intent in using the term "proper role-playing" I apologize.

I never had a use for D&D's alignment system. Real people don't fit into neat little boxes. I was so glad to start playing other RPGs like Earthdawn and Shadowrun, that did away with such things.

I must confess I'm with SubRosa here. As much fun as I had in the D&D worlds of BG 1 and 2 (plus expansions) for many years, dumping the 'Alignment in a Box' and the need to memorize spells the night before you need them (?) are two D&D features I am so very glad to be rid of.

Q: Is my character good or evil? Lawful, chaotic or neutral? Can she evolve, grow and change depending upon her life experiences?
A: Yes.

Q: Does she memorize the spells she will need the next day?
A: Oh my, no. It takes so long just to figure out what she's gonna wear. Especially if its gonna be just another Manic Morndas.

:tongue:

Wow. Tough room tonight, eh? Lol.

I'd say my character fits best in Neutral Good, but I prefer not adhering to some predetermined alignment and just see what feels natural for the character.

I never really had a problem with the alignment system. To me it was just something used to further define the role of a character. But I also had really awesome DM's who did not paint someone into a box. UNLESS you wanted to be a Paladin cause you thought the Holy Avenger (or their campaigns form of it) was a guarantee. When I DM'd, I never gave much thought of it unless a character was displaying consistent behavior against their aligment.