I also have a system that I use in my own campaigns to allow for characters to move outside of their alignment without changing their alignment. I took it out of "Heroes of Horror,"

Characters who claim to be good who start to do evil things like murdering, stealing arbitrarily, oppressing innocents, etc. start to receive points of "depravity." These points represent the guilt that normal people feel when they do awful things and it results in "penalties," like insomnia, a short temper, or constant sickness. Characters can remove these points by atoning for their crimes, BUT, even after they have atoned a fraction of the points still remain, because if you just do wrong and then expect forgiveness and then go out and do wrong again then you are not a good person you are just gaming the system. Characters who rack up enough points become effectively evil (i.e. they are subject to spells like protection from evil). Characters can remove the penalties entirely by changing their alignment to evil, representing a complete and total fall from grace.

Yes, I understand. I even mentioned in the OP. I was just saying that I personally did not write the alignment descriptions.

I began doing this very thing when I first started playing. I have a thief who is neutral evil, a pure mage who is lawful neutral, and a warrior who I play as lawful good. In my opinion, trying to play the three from an alignment prospective (as per AD&D rules) brings more to the game.

Well, this character hasn't joined the Civil War yet; but, she favors the Storm Cloaks which are by nature CHAOTIC because they value their personal freedom of religion. (I know; but, my character doesn't know yet - how the Nords kept the Forsworn from worshipping as they chose.)

Anyway, I should be CG as the only bad things she "intentionally" does is free Stormcloak prisoners.

Saving a comrade in arms from execution is an evil act? :confused:

After comparing my character's actions to the descriptions of each of the four (six) axis of alignment, I'm surprised to find that I'm, without a doubt, Chaotic Evil.

My context was bad, forgive me. Should have been most specific and mentioned to enforce balance in their own lives. That is listed as an example. I don't know of any ascetic monks who do that, not even in D&D - they try to stay true to their god and beliefs, not instill a sense of balance.

Lol, you can't experience much of the game's content without being evil. The Dark Brotherhood, for example.

How does sound a chaotic-neutral on his own but with a tendency to join lawful-evil organizations and some grudge against chaotic-evil?
I guess that's what my thief/assassin dunmer is. He has no willing to kill or steal on his own and usually punishes the ones that do that, but commits to it when he joins a group especially in order to advance.

Chaotic isn't evil - not in D&D. Robinhood was "chaotic". Chaotic in D&D is one who values personal freedoms.

Sure, there are law-breaking Chaotics (like thieves and assassins - but they are CN or CE depending.)

EVIL on the other hand - harms others.

Demazranez, my Dunmer assassin is Neutral Evil.

I would say that if he is strictly adhering to the orders of an evil organization that he is Lawful Evil in that he feels no guilt from performing evil acts. A Chaotic Neutral character might balk at the though of killing someone in cold blood. There are many shades of gray though.

Chaotic Evil without a doubt.

By these standards I guess I'm lawful good.

I have a good, a bad and an ugly character.

In Skyrim and nearly all of my D&D I play a True Neutral character - minus the "fighting for balance" thing. Heck I would say that I am "True Neutral" IRL too. (somedays at least )

Goodie goodie

My level 60 Dunmer Mage Neutral Evil
My level 23 Wood Elf Druid Chaotic Good

Seems I'm the only lawful good in here. Feels good to be unique. :disguise:

Hm, that's a lot of grey area. I think you can simplify it. The way I've always understood it is:

The two words describe your position on political SOCIETY and personal ETHICS.

SOCIETY can be Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic.
ETHICS can be Good, Neutral, Evil.

SOCIETY:
Lawful = you obey most laws, and believe in a just ruling party.
Neutral = you obey some laws, but break them often. You don't care who rules.
Chaotic = you believe in anarchy and obey only your desires. Nobody should rule.

ETHICS:
Good = helpful and compassionate. Lives by honor and truth.
Neutral = half or halfway good and evil; or unconcerned with either.
Evil = selfish, harms others. Lives by deceit.

So you can have Lawful Evil, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, etc. It describes your personal beliefs and how you interact with the people around you. My 2cents anyway.

By pathfinders standards, hein? Hm. Alright.

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/612717879326853817/8018695732947C18FF5EE62928C00BDACAF9EA90/ http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/612717879326852484/9ADEECC2F7F424CA5C44E5339CD0905E66D93AD4/

Chaotic Good with Lawful Evil delusions. Has an ideal of society, protects the innocent, respects life. But those who violate the ideal are entirely fair game.

Very much a punisher of the wicked concept. But with a broad definition of wicked. Kill an innocent? You are pure evil and should die. Let an innocent die, but don't kill them yourself? You empower evil and should die. Let an innocent die, don't kill them yourself, and really don't even actually know they're innocent? Evil counts on such as you to fail in their diligence, time to die, may your replacement be more worthy.

I can see your point and completely agree that this (lawful-evil) is how he would be seen from outside if all his actions and factions he joined would be known, but he builds a good image for himself anytime his actions has nothing to do with his organizations goals so I consider him a bit more complicated then that. If you say is lawful cause he respects the rules of his organization without concern about the general accepted rules I may say to the same may apply to the good-evil scale: he's good and helpful for his gang (could even risk his life to protect them) without worrying about common accepted idea of good.
I know I'm bending the D&D concepts here. In fact this is the main flaw in my opinion of this alignment system and it's interpretations I noticed from long ago: it allows chaotic-lawful scale to be reported to the own group with disrespect to the majority accepted idea but doesn't allow the same for the good-evil scale.

J'derras is Neutral Good with Chaotic tendencies.

His chaotic tendencies result from his impulsiveness when he becomes angry and his willingness to use trickery and deceit to achieve a good end.
--

As for defining alignment. There are two types of True Neutral. The fighter for balance is more common among druids. For example in the other type, clerics of Boccob in D&D don't fight for balance, they just don't care about morals and ethics in their studies, much like the College of Winterhold.

The second type of true neutral is simply doing what seems like a good idea without regard to what is right or wrong. He's out for himself, but doesn't actively seek to bring harm unto others as he doesn't like evil, but doesn't have the conviction or drive to do acts of good.

As for defining good and evil, I tend to rely on the guidelines given in the supplements Book of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness.

Another thing to know about alignment is the ends don't justify the means. For example, committing evil acts to establish a good end is still evil, much like employing unlawful acts to uphold the law is still a chaotic act.

Violence has no inherent alignment, but the intentions for violence do. Killing off bandits so they won't prey on others is a good act, killing them in self-defense is neutral, killing them for no other reason than you want to take their stuff is evil.

I came up with a full list of every act conceivable in an RPG and came up with objective alignments to them for my use when I play D&D. Despite that the Book of Vile Darkness defines these as evil, theft and lying are chaotic, but could have good or evil attached depending on the intent.

Finally, I think that we can agree that 4E D&D's Alignment system is terrible. Getting rid of half of the alignments made no sense and is one reason out of many I will NEVER play 4E.

Actually, LG is impossible unless you do nothing but pick flowers and craft.

If you join the Imperials - you may be "lawful" - but - is religious discrimination "good"?