Alignment Shorthand

[Gotham]

It's also missing an alignment

I do what I must, Because I can = Apeture Science

[Aethereal]

It's also missing an alignment

I do what I must, Because I can = Apeture Science

For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.

[The Old Hack]

Or the Categorical Imperative: I do what I must, because universal morality requires it.

>.>

(I probably expressed that one wrong or too crudely. Ah well.)

[GoD1x]

What about the "I do what I do, but I don't know why."?

[Dash]

Also Gangster Neutral: "I do what I want... Haters gon' hate."

[Outcast]

Meh. I am not entirely happy with it, it is a little bit too simplistic. It assumes that selfish = evil and selfless = not evil. It is entirely possible for a selfless person to do great evil and to be evil.

But as a rough guideline, it isn't too bad.

This summary isn't inaccurate at all. It's just that the alignment system is too simplistic.

[HungeringShadows]

I wouldn't worry about how accurate this chart is and isn't. Alignment is best left to an afterthought. After I come up with my characters concept I'll read it and stamp it with the alignment I feel is closest to his motivations. If I get it wrong I don't really worry about it because it can easily be shifted based on actions in game without even having to ask for it.

[Guttersnipe]

I wouldn't worry about how accurate this chart is and isn't. Alignment is best left to an afterthought. After I come up with my characters concept I'll read it and stamp it with the alignment I feel is closest to his motivations. If I get it wrong I don't really worry about it because it can easily be shifted based on actions in game without even having to ask for it.

This is precisely how alignment should be regarded. Your PCs actions define their alignment, their alignment doesn't decide their actions. If you find yourself thinking "I'm lawful good, how should I react to this?" you're doing it wrong, frankly.

The consideration should always be about your character's personality, motivations and beliefs, with no regard to those two silly letters on your character sheet. It's a sure way to be two-dimensional and bland.

[The Old Hack]

The consideration should always be about your character's personality, motivations and beliefs, with no regard to those two silly letters on your character sheet. It's a sure way to be two-dimensional and bland.

I would agree, except... in certain cases, alignment changes can be mechanically crippling. And yes, 'mechanically crippling' is meta but it can be ICly translated into, "My God will hit me with a big hammer if I screw this up." Clerics have to be a bit careful. Paladins are darn near tightrope walking at times. Falling from your patron's good graces is never fun and to be frank, only exceptionally good roleplayers take it in stride and forge on when it happens. (Mind you, I have enormous respect for those who do take it in stride and attempt the difficult climb back to grace, succeed or not.)

~tOH.