Describe the RPG Alignment and Class of the Person Above

[Dodes]

So MixedPotatoes and Teofish both had great ideas for "rate the person above you" threads. So good in fact, there was rumor of merging the two for how well they complimented each other. Both the threads have seemingly died off, so I present this Frankenstein Necromancy of a new thread.

Here is how it works.

You take an alignment: Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic

You take a class: Ranger, Paladin, Mage, Thief, etc.

And you take a race: Human, Ork, Elf, Dwarf, etc.

One from each, according to your perception of the above user, and you have a rating.

i.e. "<person above my post> is a Chaotic Halfling Assassin"

(Good and Evil are far too subjective, use them at your own peril)

As is customary, the first rate is the OP (original poster), you can talk off topic if you want as well, just be sure to put "NR: <user who was skipped>" if you don't give a description.

 

[Chechen!]

Chaotic paladin Orc?

 

[Dodes]

Lawful Human Shepard with aspirations of being a champion

 

[Delora Filth]

Don't we already have this thread?

 

[Jace]

A slightly less detailed one, yes

 

[Delora Filth]

Eh, this one's better so I'm not going to whine about it.

Neutral dwarf engineer.

 

[Moose!]

Chaotic Evil City Watchman

 

[Delora Filth]

Duuuude. I like to think of myself as a fairly decent guy. Why chaotic evil?

NR: Møøse.

 

[Moose!]

I just imagine you as an incredibly destructive individual that wants to watch the world burn. Don't ruin my fantasy 

Also, I much prefer this system for explaining the meaning behind alignment, as D&D morality (good and evil, black and white) doesn't really map well into this world. When I think chaotic evil, I think of people doing things for their own pleasure, (which is explained typically as chaotic neutral, which I think is dumb, since obviously this outlook can lead to consequences which some might consider "evil" even if the motivations are not necessarily bad).

隐藏

 

[Delora Filth]

. . . . . . You might have a point.

Cool. Never really had that sharp of a definition for them back in my days of 2nd edition gaming. So we just had to either just assume the black'n'white definitions applied or get creative when it came to justifying our actions against the alignment we'd chosen. (Or in the case of one particularly railroad-happy DM, the one we were assigned).

NR: Mhuss

 

[Seff]

So I'm a paragon of benevolence and universalism? D:

Moose is a Lawful Neutral Illusionist.

 

[Moose!]

. . . . . . You might have a point.

Cool. Never really had that sharp of a definition for them back in my days of 2nd edition gaming. So we just had to either just assume the black'n'white definitions applied or get creative when it came to justifying our actions against the alignment we'd chosen. (Or in the case of one particularly railroad-happy DM, the one we were assigned).

NR: Mhuss

I think it makes gaming a bit more immersive and connected to our own world. To think of Hitler as Lawful Evil does little to explain his motivations. To think of him as a person that sought power and security? That explains a little bit more.

NR: The paragon

 

[Dodes]

Don't we already have this thread?

Did you not read the header where I gave you half credit for the idea? 

@seff: Neutral Vampire and Dragon Hunter of Human and Elven descent (who doesn't play by the rules . . . sometimes)

 

[Delora Filth]

Well **** me. Guess my teeny tiny 'droid screen made me miss that somehow.

NR: Dudz.

 

[Thane Delphi]

Lawful mage dwarf.

 

[PoisonCourtesan]

Neutral Good Human Thief

 

[Thane Delphi]

Chaotic rogue human

 

[Dodes]

The young Elven mage/apprentice

 

[Moose!]

You aren' even doing it right.

Chaotic good Jester

 

[Dodes]

You aren' even doing it right.

LAWFUL Human Forester