Amata Lirein

Rebecca Hail

Amata LireinOut of curiosity (and boredom) I ran Amata through the official D&D Alignment Test... turns out she's "Neutral Good".

What about your character(s)?

Neutral evil. Pretty fitting imho, even if the test itself is a little hard to take for an ED character.

So the Empire supporter is good and the one supporting the Fed evil? How fitting...

Yes, you kind of need to adapt some of the questions for the E:D setting, but I didn't find it that hard tbh.

A C Ender

Amata Lirein

Rebecca Hail



Neutral evil. Pretty fitting imho, even if the test itself is a little hard to take for an ED character.

So the Empire supporter is good and the one supporting the Fed evil? How fitting...

Yes, you kind of need to adapt some of the questions for the E:D setting, but I didn't find it that hard tbh.

It depends a bit how I interpret the different categories.

Ender is a lawless pirate/privateer that's aligned with Archon Delaine and operate within/from his territory.

If I treat "community" and country to mean those like minded, aka lawless people, Ender turns out as true neutral. If I treat the community to be the general population of the Empire, who Ender sees as enemies, he is chaotic evil. One man's hero, anothers terrorist...

I think what made him chaotic in the latter test is that he respect friends and family (who I always treated to be those like minded), with no respect for others. Since his ideals doesn't align with the non-lawless, that made him appear selfish and chaotic, while he do care for his local community of like-minded resistance of the other powers.

Short explanation of the terms (from memory):
Lawfull - Predictable actions, positive or negative
Chaotic - Unpredictable
Good - follow authority
Evil - selfish

Many think lawfull mean that you are law-abiding, which if my memory serve isn't correct. It just means that your actions are predictable.

Law versus chaos
The law versus chaos axis in D&D predates good versus evil in the game rules.

Originally the law/chaos axis was defined as the distinction between "the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life", as opposed to "the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world".[7] According to the early rulebook, lawful characters are driven to protect the interest of the group above the interest of the individual and would strive to be honest and to obey just and fair laws. Chaotic creatures and individuals embraced the individual above the group and viewed laws and honesty as unimportant. At that time, the rulebook specified that "chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'".[7] Neutral creatures and characters believe in the importance of both groups and individuals, and felt that law and chaos are both important. They believe in maintaining the balance between law and chaos and were often motivated by self-interest.[7]

The third edition D&D rules define "law" and "chaos" as follows:[9]

• Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
• Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
• Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to follow rules nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others if it suits them.

Good versus evil
The conflict of good versus evil is a common motif in D&D and other fantasy fiction.[15] Although player characters can adventure for personal gain rather than from altruistic motives, it is generally assumed that the player characters will be opposed to evil and will tend to fight evil creatures.

The third edition D&D rules define "good" and "evil" as follows:[9]

• Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
• Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.
[liPeople who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.[/li]

JB ThreepwoodSo...

Do the team make it to Ao in time to save his arm?

Does Vodan get a tail on Creamy?

Does Sakashiro take Jubei up on his offer?

...come on guys, some of us are itching for the next instalments.

Sakashiro Blame FDev. I'm too busy playing the game.

Amata LireinOn our side RL is being a bitch on some of us, slowing all of us down. Since I don't know if they are okay with it or not I will not share any details here unless they are willing to provide those themselves.

SakashiroToday I was grinding Imperial ranks for a shiny new Clipper, and I accepted a mission to assassinate a deserter. I found the mission target and destroyed the ship. Then I opened the comms panel and saw this...

[img=657x256]https://i.imgur.com/s2ObeJG.png[/img]



Now I'm curious: Have you ever felt regret about killing an NPC?