PDA

View Full Version : Which alignment do you hate the most?



Emo Samurai
2009-04-23, 12:10 AM
For me, it's "lawful neutral". I have a hard time seeing how this one can't make someone a complete non-sentient tool.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 12:14 AM
Lawful good. The other alignments produce jerks, but this one produces self-righteous jerks that society generally approves of.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-23, 12:15 AM
For me, it is without a doubt "Chaotic Evil." It's destructive, cruel, and sadistic. I can't figure out why anyone would become obsessed with blood or rape or entropy or any of that garbage!

But then, I'm a paladin fanboy, so that may color my view.

revolver kobold
2009-04-23, 12:20 AM
Chaotic Good.

We get it. You don't like 'The Man'. Now please be quiet about it.

AgentPaper
2009-04-23, 12:24 AM
True Neutral.

It seems to be the most prone to contrived "I'm X alignment, so..." cases. And it's the most poorly-defined alignment also. Balance of good and evil is just ridonkulous. Too much good doesn't mean corruption and bigotry run rampant, that's what happens when there's too much evil! Good is good by definition! :smallsigh: Balance of law and chaos makes more sense, though that depends on how you interpret what the lawful and chaotic alignments are. If it's mindless drones vs wild animals, then a balance would probably be prudent.

Also, a table to keep track of all this might be fun:
{table=head]|Lawful|Neutral|Chaotic
Good|1||1
Neutral|1|1|
Evil|||1[/table]

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-23, 12:27 AM
True Neutral.

It seems to be the most prone to contrived "I'm X alignment, so..." cases. And it's the most poorly-defined alignment also. Balance of good and evil is just ridonkulous. Too much good doesn't mean corruption and bigotry run rampant, that's what happens when there's too much evil! Good is good by definition! :smallsigh: Balance of law and chaos makes more sense, though that depends on how you interpret what the lawful and chaotic alignments are. If it's mindless drones vs wild animals, then a balance would probably be prudent.Well, that or 'I'm just lazy'.

HeavySleeper
2009-04-23, 12:28 AM
Chaotic Stupid. Or Chaotic Neutral as roleplayed by people who use it to justify all their actions.

Really, all alignments bother me, but CN tends to be roleplayed the worst. Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are also common offenders.

If we ignore the roleplaying aspect, and just focus on the nature of the alignment - Lawful Evil bothers me. I'm not quite sure why; maybe I just resent wrongful authority.

monty
2009-04-23, 12:34 AM
Pretty much all of the extremes. There's a reason why nearly all of my characters are neutral on at least one of the axes. I just have a hard time seeing how a lot of those work.

chiasaur11
2009-04-23, 12:34 AM
True Neutral.

It seems to be the most prone to contrived "I'm X alignment, so..." cases. And it's the most poorly-defined alignment also. Balance of good and evil is just ridonkulous. Too much good doesn't mean corruption and bigotry run rampant, that's what happens when there's too much evil! Good is good by definition! :smallsigh: Balance of law and chaos makes more sense, though that depends on how you interpret what the lawful and chaotic alignments are. If it's mindless drones vs wild animals, then a balance would probably be prudent.

Also, a table to keep track of all this might be fun:
{table=head]|Lawful|Neutral|Chaotic
Good|1||1
Neutral|1|1|
Evil|||1[/table]

You, me, and Zapp Brannigan.

Even aside from "Pick a side, hippy" based reasoning, I totally agree on the balance between good and evil bit being incredibly stupid.

And, when a true neutral is a jerk about alignment, it's the worst kind of new agey poorly defined rant against decadent society ever.

Aquillion
2009-04-23, 12:36 AM
For me, it's "lawful neutral". I have a hard time seeing how this one can't make someone a complete non-sentient tool.Lawful neutral, I think, would be one of the more common real-world alignments. It describes all the people who quietly play by the rules without going out of their way to hurt or help anyone (except helping, say, friends and relatives and other people who they have personal reasons to help), just minding their own business. Imagine a punchclock office worker -- he's not a robot; he takes care of his kids and family, he obeys traffic regulations, he sees his life as a straightforward X-Y-Z, go to school, get married, get a job, have kids, die. But he still loves playing with his kids on the weekend and so on; things like that make it all worth it.

That's lawful neutral in a nutshell. Unless you go out of your way to play it as extreme, it's really the least offensive alignment (excluding maybe true neutral, which is just weird and poorly-defined.)

Emo Samurai
2009-04-23, 12:42 AM
Imagine a punchclock office worker -- he's not a robot; he takes care of his kids and family, he obeys traffic regulations, he sees his life as a straightforward X-Y-Z, go to school, get married, get a job, have kids, die.

Sounds pretty robotic to me. "Consume, Replicate", or in your own words, "go to school, get married, get a job, have kids, die".

Kroy
2009-04-23, 12:43 AM
The only alignment I've yet to seen played well is CE.

MCerberus
2009-04-23, 12:47 AM
Do the "stupids" count? If so, Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil. If not, Chaotic Evil simply because people assume you have to take it to the Xtreme every time they play it.

I also have some problems with how LG ends up. See: Stick -> Rear

SurlySeraph
2009-04-23, 12:56 AM
Probably Chaotic Neutral, because it's so often taken as "If I do something random and irritating, I'm a good roleplayer!" But I could spend a long time ranting about how Chaotic Good can be used to justify any, and I mean ANY course of action. I've heard people make persuasive arguments (not entirely serious arguments, but still) that selling orphans into slavery can be Chaotic Good, given a sufficiently flexible definition of Chaotic and a very long-term view of Good. It seems to me that when someone wants everything a character does to be Right, regardless of what that character actually does, they play Chaotic Good.

averagejoe
2009-04-23, 01:02 AM
You, me, and Zapp Brannigan.

Even aside from "Pick a side, hippy" based reasoning, I totally agree on the balance between good and evil bit being incredibly stupid.

And, when a true neutral is a jerk about alignment, it's the worst kind of new agey poorly defined rant against decadent society ever.

What turns a man neutral? Is it money? Lust for power? Or is it just a strong core of neutrality in his heart?

Seriously, though, I'm with you guys.

Sergeantbrother
2009-04-23, 01:02 AM
I would have to say Chaotic Neutral is the worst alignment, because most of the people I have seen play CN basically use it as an excuse to play a Chaotic Evil character but with the idea that there should be no consequences. At least CE players generally seem to realize that destructive acts have consequences and try to be a bit reasonable or cautious - people who play CN think they should get a pat on the back for doing things that a CE evil character should get in trouble for. Not that all CN characters are bad, but usually when a player is being a trouble maker based on alignment, in my experience its almost always CN.

Eldariel
2009-04-23, 01:07 AM
The whole good-evil axis. What a load of bollocks. I much preferred the old way.

Ellye
2009-04-23, 01:14 AM
Chaotic Evil.

Jerthanis
2009-04-23, 01:25 AM
Probably Neutral Good... even though I play and have played a lot of NG characters over the years.

It's just too easy, too simple to just put down "NG" on your character sheet and be a hero without thinking about why. With a NG character, the only hook you need is, "It's the right thing to do." and you're basically a conductor on the DM's plot railroad. Any alignment can lend itself to this (Particularly the mercenary alignments of "If the money's good, I'll do anything" CN or CE), but I'm always the most disappointed in myself when I play the "Good is my only motivation" shells of characters.

Ravens_cry
2009-04-23, 01:26 AM
I fear Neutral Good.
It can be the desire to 'fix things' without even the constraint of law. The well intentioned extremest who will let nothing stop him. Why bother? They are on a Holy Mission. What hold does can mortal law have on them?
They are on a mission from the Gods.

maniakmastah
2009-04-23, 01:33 AM
Chaotic Neutral at times, since i've seen and heard players use it as an excuse to do dumb things, from stealing or harming a party to getting them in trouble because they say "i'm chaotic neutral, i just gotta do random things". The way i view chaotic neutral is that your not madcap or insane, or prone to rash actions. "I do things only one way:MY way" is the motto i see for CN. You live by your own personal code, and don't let neither temptation or valor sway you from your code and you care not for the dealings of evil or the preachings of good if they violate your personal code, and you live only by the law of survival, not man's law. To me, that's what Chaotic Neutral really is.

mikej
2009-04-23, 01:39 AM
Chaotic Neutral

It's the alignment were you can be the d-bag in game, do random idiotic stuff, and in general just be a total a-hole to ruin other players enjoyment. Then to justify thier actions, " it's just playing my character, and it's in the rule book ".

Jerthanis
2009-04-23, 01:43 AM
I fear Neutral Good.
It can be the desire to 'fix things' without even the constraint of law. The well intentioned extremest who will let nothing stop him. Why bother? They are on a Holy Mission. What hold does can mortal law have on them?
They are on a mission from the Gods.

Alignment doesn't necessitate religion, and a Chaotic Evil character can just as easily be on a mission from the Gods to 'fix things' without even the constraint of law as well. A Neutral Good character will let morally wrong actions constrain him, or else he's True Neutral or Neutral Evil. Remember, we're talking about a system with objective and measurably observable morality.

Mikeavelli
2009-04-23, 01:47 AM
I fear Neutral Good.
It can be the desire to 'fix things' without even the constraint of law. The well intentioned extremest who will let nothing stop him. Why bother? They are on a Holy Mission. What hold does can mortal law have on them?
They are on a mission from the Gods.

The Blues brothers always struck me as more Chaotic Good than Neutral Good.

What, with the rampant carjacking and such.


On the main subject of the thread, the whole "I can do whatever I feel like because I'm Chaotic Neutral" bit is definitely the most hated in my eyes.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-23, 01:48 AM
Alignement don't cause arguments
Players cause arguments.


All of the examples of Alignement that I could say I hate would be either for one of those two reason:

1- Somebody was a jerk about it (but I HAVE to kill you, it's my alignement!) and/or playing it stupidely
2- Somebody was telling ME what I should or shouldn't do because of my alignment

I can find a good examples of Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Good bad way of playing those alignement. They can be sooo annoying. But at the same time, if somebody is playing one of those alignement, is trying not to ruin the group while playing it, and is fun about it, it's all a-okay.

Same for Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Neutral. These alignement are a little extremist, but not overly so. They are probably the hardest to properly narrow and play well (not to forget the whole confusion about what's what in the Law/Chaos axis).

Neutral Evil and Neutral Good are usually much less annoying, because they are simplier. Selfish or selfless. That's the important thing. You don't care about the confusing arguments of law/chaos. Then again, people take it too extreme, and can be annoying to a group.

True Neutral is a twofold argument, in my humble opinion. It can be "I don't care", or "I care for balance". Then again, what annoys me usually is other people telling me that "you cannot do that mildly evil act, you are neutral!" after a whole campaign of good deeds. Bloody hell, I should wanna do an evil act if I feel like it! I like helping people and saving their lives, but sometimes the GM makes them so annoying I'd rather blast my way trough.

Agrippa
2009-04-23, 01:50 AM
For me, it is without a doubt "Chaotic Evil." It's destructive, cruel, and sadistic. I can't figure out why anyone would become obsessed with blood or rape or entropy or any of that garbage!

Chaotic Evil doesn't equal entropy or a desire for it. Nor does it equal rape and bloodlust. The Chaotic part is individualism and anarchism. Basically it's saying, "Screw your rules, I have my own!" or, "Screw the rules I don't have any!" While the Evil part is cruelty and or extreme ruthlessness. They generally have geat disdain for all power structures and civic order unless they can bend those institutions toward their own anarchic or selfish ends. Some Chaotic Evil chacters are the Joker others are Randall Flagg and others still are Gordon Gekko. Of course that's just classic First Edition Chaotic Evil.

Emo Samurai
2009-04-23, 01:54 AM
Of course that's just classic First Edition Chaotic Evil.

What other forms are there?

Stealthdozer
2009-04-23, 02:10 AM
I played Lawful Good, once, but didn’t like it. I was a Paladin serving a King too lazy and weak to stand on his own.

I’m not a fan of any extreme. I don’t like Evil personally, but I recognize Evil’s necessary role in culling the herd. I prefer Good, but know Good unchecked can be as destructive long term as Evil. Good destroys unintentionally, yet destroys none-the-less.

Within my community I live by the ethos “What makes you stronger makes me stronger.” Outside my community you’re on your own.

I define my community as those whom I share a Common Ground with. If you don’t have a stake in our Common Ground you’ll earn no trust from me.

I once stung a lot of ears by describing the alignments thus:

A Lawful person – by rule or ruler – must be told what to do.
A Neutral person doesn’t mind being told what to do.
A Chaotic person resents being told what to do.

A Good person is compelled to help the innocent.
A Neutral person will not harm the innocent.
An Evil person is compelled to harm the innocent.

I then pointed out our rules lawyer, Seamus, as an example of Lawful. He was busy tearing through the books to find the rule that would prove my description wrong.

Fishy
2009-04-23, 02:16 AM
I hate Neutral Evil, because it tells you absolutely nothing about a character.

They're bad. They're not performing evil acts to accomplish long term goals, they're not performing evil acts for their own sake because society's rules don't apply to them. They're not methodical serial killers, they're not going to go on a mindless rampage. They're just, you know, bad. Go hit him with your sword.

ericgrau
2009-04-23, 02:32 AM
I don't hate the alignments so much as seeing them poorly played. "But that's my alignment" is a poor excuse for poor RP. They can be played well too.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-23, 02:50 AM
I dislike all of them :smallamused:

Manga Shoggoth
2009-04-23, 03:29 AM
For me, it's "lawful neutral". I have a hard time seeing how this one can't make someone a complete non-sentient tool.

One of the best NPCs I came across when I was gaming was a LN Police Inspector. He was charged with upholding the law and by golly he did. Even when it hurt.

As a result he was pretty well incorruptable (in fact he hated corruption, because it subverted the law), and was 100% dependable.

The problem with alignment(s) is that people will insist on treating them as straitjackets, not general guides to behaviour. Then they start to hate the straitjacket.

Curmudgeon
2009-04-23, 03:32 AM
Chaotic Good. It's used by players to justify causing the most disruption possible in a party, but still expecting to be regarded as a positive influence.

Poppycock.

Saph
2009-04-23, 03:43 AM
Probably Chaotic Neutral. It's the 'jerk' alignment. All the people who want to be Chaotic Evil but don't want to admit that they're Evil end up calling themselves Chaotic Neutral. The classic example are Bob, Dave, and Brian from the Knights of the Dinner Table.

"You killed him!"
"He was reaching for a weapon."
"HE WAS SIX YEARS OLD!"
"Yeah, that's what they all say. By the way, dibs on his stuff."

- Saph

Harperfan7
2009-04-23, 04:37 AM
Assuming they are played responsibly by people at ages 14+, Lawful anything. I just can't stand them, I would rather live like an indian and kill my food with a spear than live in a world run by lawfuls.

Stephen_E
2009-04-23, 04:48 AM
I have no particular hatred for any standard alignment but the the 2 PC aligments I most dislike are -

LG Stick-up-arse, My-way-is-the-only-way-and-the-rest-of-the-party-has-to-follow-it.

C(x)=Random. I-can-do-whatever-I(as a player)-feel-like-at-the-moment-without-rhyme-or-reason.

I've played CN. He ignored authority wherever he could get away with it and was vaguely resentful of it. He did evil if it was in his best interests, but would also do good provided there wasn't to much risk/inconvience involved.

As a general comment re: those who hate N. N is the most common alignment amongst humans. The "balance" type neutral is rare, most are simply unwilling for whatever reason to make any significant sustained decision/effort in any alignment "direction".

Stephen E

kamikasei
2009-04-23, 04:53 AM
So is the question "which alignments describe people and personalities we hate", or "which alignment do we most dislike as a game-mechanical entity, for the people who play it and its consequences on the game?"

sleepy
2009-04-23, 04:57 AM
Lawful Good.

Maybe it's just that it clashes so violently with my in-real-life philosophy, but I find it hard to conceptualize a LG personality that isn't shallow and boring. Goody two-shoes annoy me, lack of pragmatism annoys me, and holier-than-thou... you get the idea. I would argue endlessly with a devoutly LG person in life, and I just don't find moral high ground fascinating in a RP situation.

My favorite alignment to play is LE... cold and unnerving characters with a slightly twisted but clear and binding code of honour. I tend to play such characters as realists with decent int, who generally avoid "disgustingly evil" behaviour on the grounds that it makes social interaction a chore, but I enjoy exploring the complexity of the conflicting elements that form the character's philosophy and the RP potential found in party members' understanding, and often having difficulty arguing against, my character's descision making process even though it doesn't sit quite right with them.

Athaniar
2009-04-23, 05:09 AM
NG and NE are kinda vague. I think 4E did a good thing by combining NG with CG and NE with LE, but they should probably have kept LN and CN. But, as has been stated, CN is no justification for random craziness. It's an alignment for rebels and people without much need for social structure. Of course, random crazy people most often are CN (if they're not violent insane people), but that doesn't mean they all are.

Narmoth
2009-04-23, 06:13 AM
Alignment being an agreement with the dm that you'll act in such and such way in such and such situations, and you want a story with a certain kind of goals, I find CN and TN to be the most useless of the alignments when used by PCs.

leperkhaun
2009-04-23, 06:37 AM
Honestly i hate the alignment system. However this is mostly because of players.

The ones i hate the most

Evil - Any flavor. Most players take this as permission to kill the party when they want to or do stupid things (like randomly murder people). However it is funny when they realize that those things have consequences. More funny is when the threaten to leave and i say "Ok good bye."

Lawful good - again mostly player issue. They tend to think that they get their way because they are the law or some stupid such. They tend to put players into situations that had the player thought about, really would not have happened.

averagejoe
2009-04-23, 06:56 AM
Most people seem to be saying, "I hate this alignment because [describe this alignment taken to its logical (or illogical) extreme]. I like this alignment because [describe this alignment played reasonably."

XenoGeno
2009-04-23, 07:04 AM
My least favorite alignments are probably CG and LG when the character's emphasis on the ethics axis outweighs the morals axis. I always considered the morals Axis an indicator of what someone would do, with the ethics axis an indicator of how they would do it. So the CG character who almost gets the entire party killed by refusing to bow to a king, or the paladin who tries to kill our NPC guide and helper for the last couple of sessions after finding out the helper's wanted for basically shoplifting, yeah, these guys annoy me, especially when the excuse is they had to do it, or they wouldn't be roleplaying. :smallannoyed:

And when these two are in the same party... :smallfurious:

Okay, done ranting.

As for the True Neutral "keeping balance" thing, I take that to be a Millian, "If everyone was good, mankind would stop progressing" deal. Basically, if everything was good, free healing and everything from clerics and no one died until they were 110, mankind as a whole would stop growing, because mankind, with everything so nice, would have no need to progress further, and no desire. Having a threat causes society to progress; intellectual debates, the creation of new technologies, all of this needs some sort of strife to continue. At least, that's what I imagine the arguments for the balancers to be, whether they're right or not.

Saint Nil
2009-04-23, 07:24 AM
Two

CN-Most arguments for it have already been made, it's what players use to play when they realy don't care about roleplaying. When played right, it's actually pretty fun

LG-So many people play this alignment "Miko-style", its annoying. The "kill the baby for the greater good!" is NOT Lawful Good. When played right, it can be played many ways. A LG cop protecting the law. A politician making just laws. A king who cares for its people.

DigoDragon
2009-04-23, 07:24 AM
Chaotic Neutral, or as my group calls it, "Chaotic Butter" as that generally is what most characters of the CN alignment end up looking like after botching a dungeon crawl. I forget where "insanity" started going hand in hand with CN alignments, but really my opinion is that needs to end. :smallsmile:

Tengu_temp
2009-04-23, 07:33 AM
When badly played, Chaotic Neutral, because way too often it's taken as an excuse to indulge in any behaviour, no matter how stupid/malicious and still not be considered evil because "my character does what he wants/is so nutty". Evil characters at least are honest about it.

When played right, any Evil, because I don't like villain protagonists in anything that's not pure comedy.

Ascension
2009-04-23, 08:06 AM
True Neutral, simply because there are too many different ways to define it.

Is True Neutral the alignment of those who don't care about any alignment? Is it the alignment of animals and idiots? Or is it the alignment of those who are fanatically obsessed with balance and will play every side in order to ensure that none rises above another?

I was in a party with a fanatically TN druid once, and I was honestly more concerned she'd stab me in the back than I would've been if she had been evil.

Morty
2009-04-23, 08:21 AM
Most people seem to be saying, "I hate this alignment because [describe this alignment taken to its logical (or illogical) extreme]. I like this alignment because [describe this alignment played reasonably."

And we end up with a beautiful collection of strawmen.
In any case, my answer to the question is: all of them. Because the concept of objective moralty is completely failed right from the start, and for alignments not to get in the way of a good game they need to be dilluted so much they don't mean anything anymore. The alignment I like the most is True Neutral, because it describes a person who isn't overly concerned with ideals of good, evil, law and chaos. But, surprise, it's because that I myself find them unnecessary at best.

Paramour Pink
2009-04-23, 08:49 AM
I suppose the only one I "hate" so far is Chaotic Evil. Ironically, it's because I'm seeing it being played properly. Or at least, being shown one way it can be played well. The character of the player doing it is wonderfully irritating, and makes passive-aggressive attempts to kill her party mates (me and the others). But they're so subtle (so far) that at best we can't accuse her of anything. It's all surprisingly fun. :smallbiggrin:

Rhiannon87
2009-04-23, 09:04 AM
I don't hate the alignments so much as seeing them poorly played. "But that's my alignment" is a poor excuse for poor RP. They can be played well too.

Exactly. There's no bad alignment, just bad roleplayers, IMO. CN doesn't equal irritating jerk; it's a free spirit, someone who values their personal freedom over everything else. I've been in games with pretty much every alignment possible represented, and any problems haven't been the fault of the alignments, it's been the fault of players not getting how alignments work. Alignment should be one of the last things you pick for your character, after personality/background/etc. I mean, you have to be kind of conscious of class restrictions (if you're playing a pally, then obviously the issue is solved for you), but generally you pick the alignment that best suits the character you've created, rather than creating a character around the alignment.

Eldariel
2009-04-23, 09:17 AM
I don't hate the alignments so much as seeing them poorly played. "But that's my alignment" is a poor excuse for poor RP. They can be played well too.

But what do good roleplayers need alignment for? Does one really need to write two words that will describe the character's actions for the remainder of the game?

I feel alignment should be a tool for people with difficulty of comprehending mindsets other than their own to get a clear guideline as to what type of actions their characters are willing to take - if people with trouble roleplaying cannot use it properly, I think alignment has lost its meaning.

monty
2009-04-23, 09:51 AM
But what do good roleplayers need alignment for? Does one really need to write two words that will describe the character's actions for the remainder of the game?

Remember that alignments are objective forces in D&D. In a world of Blasphemy and Detect X, alignment has a meaningful impact on characters regardless of how they're roleplayed.

averagejoe
2009-04-23, 09:53 AM
But what do good roleplayers need alignment for? Does one really need to write two words that will describe the character's actions for the remainder of the game?

I feel alignment should be a tool for people with difficulty of comprehending mindsets other than their own to get a clear guideline as to what type of actions their characters are willing to take - if people with trouble roleplaying cannot use it properly, I think alignment has lost its meaning.

That's a very broad statement. I would question the assumption you seem to make that roleplaying skill directly relates to the extent one utilizes external measures to shape and define one's character. I'll concede that a good roleplayer probably doesn't "need" alignment, but it's an element of the game that serves to force the players to think about certain aspects of their character which are seen as important to the game. The themes of good vs evil and law vs chaos extend far beyond just alignment in DnD; indeed, they're fairly prominent at all levels of the game. It doesn't matter how good, bad, experienced, or inexperienced a roleplayer you are, it's a separate issue.

I would also question that the two words, "Describe the characters actions for the remainder of the game." This is only true if you play an alignment instead of a character.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-23, 03:14 PM
True Neutral.

It seems to be the most prone to contrived "I'm X alignment, so..." cases. And it's the most poorly-defined alignment also. Balance of good and evil is just ridonkulous. Too much good doesn't mean corruption and bigotry run rampant, that's what happens when there's too much evil! Good is good by definition! :smallsigh: Balance of law and chaos makes more sense, though that depends on how you interpret what the lawful and chaotic alignments are. If it's mindless drones vs wild animals, then a balance would probably be prudent.
Yeah, AD&D (2E) had a couple problem alignments. True Neutral was one, but Chaotic Neutral was the other.

"I'm craaaaazy! I reject all laws, and neither Good nor Evil matter to me! I'll stab you and give you a quarter. Woo!"

3E treated both alignments far more sensibly.

wizzy
2009-04-23, 03:40 PM
For me, it is without a doubt "Chaotic Evil." It's destructive, cruel, and sadistic. I can't figure out why anyone would become obsessed with blood or rape or entropy or any of that garbage!

But then, I'm a paladin fanboy, so that may color my view.

chaotic evil are just evil misunderstood person nothing els just let them do what they do....
wait... uhm maybe u should jsut >_>... uhm hmm:smalleek:..... ill say just stay away from them >_>

on topic:
i dont really dislike any alignment

lsfreak
2009-04-23, 04:18 PM
They are all horrible when played badly, and great when they're played well. Any player who starts out with a character based on their alignment is likely to play it poorly from there on out; hence why well-played paladins are fairly rare. And likewise why most "but I'm a rogue!" characters aren't played well. And why most evil campaigns fall apart.

When people create the character, their background, their personal ethics, their inner workings, and then match that to an alignment, they all work great.

ErrantX
2009-04-23, 06:34 PM
Overall, alignments are wiggity. Good and evil are moral questions that are subjective to people's viewpoints. Chaos and Law are the only actual realities in my opinion, but even that is a bit subjective.

Overall, I dislike neutral alignments (really, any of them). Pick a side, hippy. Believe in something and stand by it. Be it a holy empire, a decadent tyrannical dictatorship, or people killing and eating each other for fun and profit. :P

-X

Crel
2009-04-23, 08:54 PM
I would say LG, because its the, as many already have said, stick-up-the-proverbial-ass alignment, not to mention all the idiotic paladin party members I've had to "convince" to ignore something. Also, CN most of the time. I view it as someone who does what appears to be the best thing for him without hurting people intentionally, and that his life is more important than others, except for those he cares about. My beef is that it is the "except" alignment, and that people always go crazy on me when i play it.

For instance, I played a CN druid. We were attacked by this old sorcerer guy who commanded a bunch of kids that he had under a spell to attack us. we beat him, and all the kids fell to the floor. they then began to twitch, and, to me, looked like they were going to get back up and attack. So I start cou'de'grace-ing them. Everyone freaks on me! I mean, if i was just attacked by these kids, and it looked like they were going to attack me again, i would start slashing. I didn't know what spell was used, or if the duration was up, i just wanted to make sure I didn't die!

Yes, I probably should have waited. but thats not the point. My point is that sometimes when people think that someone is playing to be an ass, or says "because its my alignment", its just what would make sense to save there own skin. Don't jump to conclusions on every single CN character, is all I'm asking.

Dixieboy
2009-04-23, 09:03 PM
True neutral, why?
Because it's broken.

Take the harpers for example, (aswel as that group of super 'zards but i forgot their name) they believe that neutrality is the only way the world will truly prosper, if a benevolent kings stretched out his reign too far bad **** will happen, thus he must be put down. Similar too what would happen if an evil dude got too much power.

They do this for the "Greater good"
Notice that
"Greater GOOD"
Misguided as they may be they are nonetheless chaotic good, not true neutral.
As from what i can gather intent is the most important thing, though one could argue that doing bad **** in the service of good is a neutral act it just doesn't make sense.

Also, in all other regards, still borked.
Unless a guy is completely apathetic (Spelled?) he will ALWAYS lean to a side.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-04-23, 09:43 PM
What's with all the 'hippy = neutral' comments? I grew up with hippies, and if anyone can say for sure, they're Good. Or at least, true hippies are Good.

Anyway, I hate the Stupid axis. I'm fine with the nine real alignments.

Stephen_E
2009-04-23, 09:46 PM
I agree there are no bad alignments, only bad roleplaying of alignments.

That said the 2 alignments that attract bad aligment playing the most are IME LG and CN, followed by, in rough order, CE, E, CG.
NG, N and LN I haven't run into players screwing up badly (other than an AD&D Ranger - must be Good, which I think was NG and who was played as LE, but he played it well as LE:smallsigh:).

The most common bad play of LG is the attempt to control the rest of the parties alignment play, generally through a Paladin PC but not always.

The most common CN/Cx nad play is the randon actions which disrupt anything the party is doing without rhyme or reason. A PC who has consistient disruptive traits is managable, keep the compulsively honest person away from negoitiation - and player of disruptive PC should co-operate with competent managing of their PC, The CN/Cx badly played lives to disrupt the parties plans.

I'd also note that the truly insane, as in delusional/irrational aren't Chaotic. They're Aligment XY insane. Insanity isn't an alignment it's an illness that modifys behaviour. An insane LG PC may be delusional and orrational but is still :G, it's jsut that their illness means that what they think is LG behaviour doesn't appear as such to most people. "I killed him because his aura showed he was actually a demon in disguise who was about to feed on a inocents soul, and god had spoken to me and given me the job of killing those demons" is perfectly LG behaviour for a delusional madman. Of course a perfectly reasonable party responce to such behaviour i to put the PC into a mental asylum.

Stephen E

Godskook
2009-04-23, 10:08 PM
They do this for the "Greater good"
Notice that
"Greater GOOD"
Misguided as they may be they are nonetheless chaotic good, not true neutral.
As from what i can gather intent is the most important thing, though one could argue that doing bad **** in the service of good is a neutral act it just doesn't make sense.

Also, in all other regards, still borked.
Unless a guy is completely apathetic (Spelled?) he will ALWAYS lean to a side.

Heh, do you read Dominic Deegan?

Anyway. I think the problem is with the good/evil axis on the whole, not TN. I mean, I can think of examples where the 'bad guy' was better described as LG rather than LE(I, Robot - movie version), where the 'good guy' was CE(Riddick), and other fun stuff like that. The problem, as I see it, is that the axis is over-stuffed with meanings, preventing detailed characters from finding clean-cut places on it. From what I can tell, there's at least three sub-axes:

Selfish <-> Selfless
'Good' <-> 'Evil'
Activist <-> Non-confrontational

Cutting it up this far, at least I can plainly see where Han Solo falls(for instance). He's selfish, either 'Good' or neutral leaning 'Good', and non-confrontational(obviously chaotic). Riddick would be selfish, neutral on the 'good'/'evil' axis, and non-confrontational(again, obviously chaotic). Most annoying paladins would be activists and probably selfish, where as a well done paladin would be non-confrontational and selfless(Both would obviously be lawful and 'good').

Bluebeard
2009-04-23, 10:32 PM
Alignment is the single worst part of Dungeons and Dragons.

Neutral Good and flat Neutral are the only two I don't despise.
And that's because they're essentially meaningless.

Faulty
2009-04-23, 10:38 PM
Lawful Evil. My two least favorite places on the axises combined. It takes everything bad about authority and adds in selfishness and disregard for others. :smallannoyed: I'd say I'm Chaotic Good, so it's pretty much my antithesis.

Vexxation
2009-04-23, 10:44 PM
Lawful Evil. My two least favorite places on the axises combined. It takes everything bad about authority and adds in selfishness and disregard for others. :smallannoyed: I'd say I'm Chaotic Good, so it's pretty much my antithesis.

I'll second that.
Lawful Evil is, in my opinion, worse than Chaotic Evil. At least Chaotic Evil is realistic. Lawful tends to try to justify itself as "the greater good." I hate that sort of thing.

Now, anything Stupid Evil of Lawful Stupid is just... well, stupid.

Faulty
2009-04-23, 10:53 PM
Not vene necessarily greater good, there are also LE people who think that they have a right to dominate or injure other people. That pisses me off insanely.

lsfreak
2009-04-23, 10:53 PM
I'll second that.
Lawful Evil is, in my opinion, worse than Chaotic Evil. At least Chaotic Evil is realistic. Lawful tends to try to justify itself as "the greater good." I hate that sort of thing.
That's odd, I can think of dozens of examples of real-world Lawful Evil societies, while I can barely think of any Chaotic Evil. On LE side you have most totalitarian regimes and fringe "cult" religions. On CE you have... the lone militant anarchist or sociopath sending mail bombs.

EDIT: Bah, I need to stop posting while tired. Misread "realistic" in a different sense. In which case, yea you're right for the most part.

Faulty
2009-04-23, 11:04 PM
On CE you have... the lone militant anarchist

As an Anarchist, I'd just like to say that most Anarchists would probably be Chaotic Good, and some Chaotic Neutral.

Harperfan7
2009-04-23, 11:11 PM
The only alignment associated with being a lone militant anarchist is chaos by itself. Nothing about that speaks of morals or a lack thereof. Now, if he kicks puppies...

Actually, now that I think of it, I can see most rangers being lone militant anarchists, and rangers tend towards CG (cough*RobinHood*cough).

Faulty
2009-04-23, 11:20 PM
Well, Anarchy (is in the actual body of socio-political theories) is about more than just like of authority, and Chaotic isn't necessarily Anarchic in the Anarchist sense. You can be Chaotic and support small government. Chaotic is individualistic and spontaneous, not complete orderlessness. Likewise, Anarchy is about organization, but organization without hierarchy or what Anarchists refer to as illegitimate authory (e.g. government). The alignment of most ture Anarchists would probably be Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Neutral for the Individualist Anarchists (e.g. thinkers like Max Stirner).

lsfreak
2009-04-23, 11:28 PM
Let's not get into a political debate here. I meant "militant anarchist" to be tied into "mailbox bombs;" i.e. those willing to use terrorism to try and change government would be chaotic evil. I am by no means trying to imply anarchists as a whole are CE (after all, I'm one too).

Faulty
2009-04-23, 11:32 PM
(after all, I'm one too).

Well hello there.

Harperfan7
2009-04-23, 11:34 PM
Let's not get into a political debate here. I meant "militant anarchist" to be tied into "mailbox bombs;" i.e. those willing to use terrorism to try and change government would be chaotic evil. I am by no means trying to imply anarchists as a whole are CE (after all, I'm one too).

We know. It just wouldn't be proper internet forum behavior to let anything unstated go, no matter how obvious.

Faulty
2009-04-23, 11:44 PM
Just making sure, there are a lot of misconceptions about Anarchists. I can get sensitive. :smallbiggrin:

snoopy13a
2009-04-23, 11:44 PM
That's odd, I can think of dozens of examples of real-world Lawful Evil societies, while I can barely think of any Chaotic Evil. On LE side you have most totalitarian regimes and fringe "cult" religions. On CE you have... the lone militant anarchist or sociopath sending mail bombs.

EDIT: Bah, I need to stop posting while tired. Misread "realistic" in a different sense. In which case, yea you're right for the most part.

Prison populations and street gangs would probably classify as chaotic evil societies. Basically, the only rule is that the strong make the rules and everyone looks out for themselves.

LG isn't portrayed very well. I think what some people forget is that mercy and compassion should be traits that LG characters have. Following the absolute letter of the law and showing no mercy is for LN characters. Twisting the law to exploit others and control them is the domain of LE characters.

Agrippa
2009-04-24, 12:08 AM
Lawful Evil. My two least favorite places on the axises combined. It takes everything bad about authority and adds in selfishness and disregard for others. :smallannoyed: I'd say I'm Chaotic Good, so it's pretty much my antithesis.

Evil doesn't have to be selfish, just cruel and brutal. If you want a really good example of utterly selfless Lawful Evil take a look at the Opperative from Serenity. Not that his selflessness makes him any better. His goal is create a world with out sin, by any means deemed necessary. A world he himself cannot be part of. That said, Lawful Evils are the worst. Yeah there are some truly monsterous Neutral Evils and Chaotic Evils out there, but the cold utterly ruthless and brutal collectivism of Lawful Evil scares the hell out of me.

Shadowbane
2009-04-24, 12:15 AM
I have great personal dislike for Chaotic Neutral and True Neutral.

Unlike many here, I like Lawful Good. I play it most of the time. I certainly hope I'm good at it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-04-24, 12:57 AM
But what do good roleplayers need alignment for? Does one really need to write two words that will describe the character's actions for the remainder of the game?

Yes. If you're like me and almost exclusively play paladins, you need to write the words "Lawful Good" on your sheet before you're allowed to play.

Unless you have Unearthed Arcana, in which case you also have the options of writing "Chaotic Good," "Lawful Evil," or "Chaotic Evil."

As much as alignments are just two words on a paper, they're two words that are required before you can play.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-24, 01:13 AM
When you think about it, there is no real "evil" in the society. Who can see himself as evil? Most people would think they are doing some good for the society. Now, you can put in the selfish/selfless aspect, but then again, where would you put Ozymandia? Is he selfish or selfless?


Chaotic/Lawful scale of things is more realistic, as you have people who think you need an authority to manage things, and other think that people manages well by themselves. But Good/evil? Come on.. there is no one of "pure evil" in the world. Even the worst people you can think of were deluded in thinking they were doing what they thought was best. (Bond Villains don't exist. Nor do Blackguards, or Sith). I always saw those "pure evil" villains to be part of the "fantasy/sci-fi" element. These kind of people don't exist.

Which is why I'd rather see Good/Evil as "Tolerant/Intolerant", or "Respectful/Disrespectful", etc... It's much more vague, off course. You could see how someone who is acceptant of other people's way of belief/morality, where others want to inpose theirs on everybody else (fundamentalists are a good example). But then, I got thinking that some societies in our past were condoning slavery, and I am not sure where to put that in.

What do you say of a man that don't care about people of other races, was a slaver, and actually found entertainment in seeing the slaves beat each other for food? Now, what if that man simply didn't care about the other race, but when he is at home, he donate anonymously all of his profits to help the orphans and the poors?

I think one's man psych should not be defined by an alignment. In my group, currently, I am playing a "Lawful Evil bard" (we accepted to switch the chaos/law axis for the bard, and called it a "politician"). My character is very ambitious, but he wants the best for his people (because he is the heir of the throne). We recently came across a tribles of primitive and aggressive people, and we made a deal to have them stop attacking travellers in their territory (we would have killed them all), but in exchange, they gave me "worthless" women and children that lost their husband/fathers in battle recently.

I intend to give these women and children to my warriors in my own tribe. To those who had their woman died of sickness and had not the time to get a heir (and gather political clout among my warriors)

Is that an evil act? Maybe. It was certainly slavery, in a way. But it was done with the best intentions toward my trible, my warriors, and my interest.

I personnally think the game would gain a lot more out of doing away with alignments. These are too vague and too generic to describe a character's personality, and people are using them as the easy way out. I like the aspect of "to access spells/power, you need to respect X code" of clerics/druids/paladins (and to a lesser extend monks, barbarians and bards). But there are other ways of enforcing those than simply putting the label "Lawful".

Take Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2e for an example. The Priests have to follow one specific God to get their power. But they risk provoking the wrath of that God if they violate the God's scriptures. However, as long as you respect the scriptures, you are a-okay. There is ALSO the fact that many people would interpret the different scriptures in different ways. I will give as example the scriptures of Taal & Rhya, Lord of Nature & Mother of Earth:



Taal's children gladly give themselves for food and sacrifice. Respect and honour this gift to you
A sacrifice, or an animal or grain, must be made to Taal and Rhya once per month, at the dark of the moon.
Each year, all Priests must spend seven solitary days and nights away from civilization, communing with nature and living on what they can catch. The time for each Priest's retreat is determined by the hierarch in the region
Do not clad yourself in metal, rather wear the hides of your animal kin
Take pride in your strenght and natural skill. Avoid firearms and other works of science.


As you can see, even if the list is about morality, it will concern the God's personnal interest rather than an over-arching moral compass. Which, after all, is the only thing a God should be concerned about. The God of Nature does not care if you deal with Undeads or if you kill Imperial Citizen who trespass in the forest. He cares if you kill a wild animal for no good reason.

The same should apply for most Paladin/Clerics. We should not label them "lawful Good", but rather give them a proper code of conduct, and ask them to respect "The Letter and Spirit of that Code". What does it mean? It's open to the player character, obviously. You might even have conflict within a same religion about what "that" scripture means. But that's in-character conflict rather than inter-player conflict. I find the whole thing much more enjoyable around a game table, when the players argue about what "work of sciences" mean in the scriptures up-there rather than what defines "Neutral Good".

Zeta Kai
2009-04-24, 01:19 AM
Chaotic Evil. CE is the most overused, hackneyed, trite alignment out there. It's been DONE, okay? D-U-N done. A well-motivated LE villain is much more interesting, & can actually tie into a plot worth caring about.

Mystic Muse
2009-04-24, 01:43 AM
I hate all alignments when played badly and like (most) when played well. I cann see an evil character even fitting IN with a good character at the gaming table but there are a lot of evil acts I just can't stand and simply will not allow at my table.

also I agree that they should do away with the alignment system FOR THE MOST PART. you still need to tell your dungeon master HOW you intend to play and if it conflicts too largely with the other players you have to change or leave.

Kioran
2009-04-24, 03:36 AM
Chaotic good. What atrocities have I seen committed in the name of this alignment. CN is also bad, but even if either alignment is used for playing one step more evil yet remain "good" on the surface, it's the Haleys of all the RPG groups I've played with I want to hit (with a +3 keen wounding Glaive) the hardest.

imp_fireball
2009-04-24, 04:00 AM
For me, it's either chaotic evil or lawful good. Or both.

Both run the risk of being horribly misunderstood by players. :smalltongue:

If you want to go the mile in the shoes of an LG or CE, just for reference - A CE guy isn't always into murder and entropy for their sake; I mean, sometimes he knows that he'll at least run the risk of getting caught or at the very least that it's inconvenient compared to the other solution (unless he's confident that he can easily fix the resulting consequences).

An LG guy won't always murder you for violating traffic laws or whine and leave the party over the fact that people happen to adventure for anything but helping the community (though I can see a CE guy explaining that what he did was a 'moral accident'). Nor are they identical to paladins.

He can be lead to believe otherwise. Really good aligned people do it for the 'greater good'.


I hate all alignments when played badly and like (most) when played well. I cann see an evil character even fitting IN with a good character at the gaming table but there are a lot of evil acts I just can't stand and simply will not allow at my table.

also I agree that they should do away with the alignment system FOR THE MOST PART. you still need to tell your dungeon master HOW you intend to play and if it conflicts too largely with the other players you have to change or leave.

Pretty much this, although realistically it makes more sense to allow the players to deal with the problem. Or if they're fine with a railroading GM, the GM can make rocks fall (or deliberately run a solo adventure with the PC's who's falling out, which would be cool). After all the PC's don't have to cooperate (although it's generally assumed that they will).

I like to remember that evil PCs have the mind to know that plenty of others find their own baser instincts appalling and so they just might not actually reveal them until the time is right - so under that rule, it is still somewhat conventional to allow evil people to adventure with the good guys.

Also remember that being chaotic evil does not automatically mean that you are on the 'other side' (although you do run the risk of becoming a soloist and/or joining the bad guys) and that the big bad doesn't necessarily have to be evil either (see: anti villain in tv tropes).

And if being insane and chaotic evil are different things. That's why there's insanity rules. Even then, it's perfectly fine in to allow a chaotic evil guy to be sociopathic - well, if players aren't stupid with it.

Ie. A reasonable player might create a sociopath who has 'strange emotions' compared to other characters, whereas an ignorant player would create a sociopath whom stabs the first npc she sees (and likely talk like a 20th century prisoner, "He was lookin' at me wrong!").

Tengu_temp
2009-04-24, 04:33 AM
Yes. If you're like me and almost exclusively play paladins, you need to write the words "Lawful Good" on your sheet before you're allowed to play.

Unless you have Unearthed Arcana, in which case you also have the options of writing "Chaotic Good," "Lawful Evil," or "Chaotic Evil."

As much as alignments are just two words on a paper, they're two words that are required before you can play.

Unless you're like many DND groups, or anyone who plays non-DND, and don't use alignment at all.

artaxerxes
2009-04-24, 04:46 AM
Chaotic Stupid. Or Chaotic Neutral as roleplayed by people who use it to justify all their actions.

Really, all alignments bother me, but CN tends to be roleplayed the worst.

This.

10char

Stephen_E
2009-04-24, 07:21 AM
I came across a commentary on Sociopaths once. The interesting comment that stuck with me (in part because it identified a sociopath I once worked with).

You don't see a sociopath by looking at them, you see them by looking at the people around them. Basically sociopaths tend to create a zone of disruption around them but ussually appear to be fairly normal and quite effective/efficient in themself.

As someone posted earlier about a CE PC that is playing at getting the other PCs killed, but in such a subtle fashion that they can't call the PC on it, indeed without metagame knowledge I suspect the PCs wouldn't even workout what was happening. A Classic Sociopath pattern. Sociopaths are a good CE subtype because unless they're very stupid they won't go around doing showy pointless evil acts. Of course they lower the parties survival chances, although it helps if you put them in charge.

Stephen E

Telonius
2009-04-24, 07:48 AM
Neutral Good. It just seems so ... average.

Dixieboy
2009-04-26, 03:11 PM
Heh, do you read Dominic Deegan?


Nay, what is that?

averagejoe
2009-04-26, 03:33 PM
Neutral Good. It just seems so ... average.

:smallannoyed: What's wrong with that?


Nay, what is that?

It's a webcomic in which the titular character becomes the champion of balance (as opposed to the champion of light and law) in order to counter the champion of dark and chaos. At least, I assume that's what he was referencing. It has been going for quite a few years now, and doing daily updates for a good chunk of that time.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-04-26, 08:45 PM
I have been, at times, NG, LN, CN, and N. I have sympathy for them, accordingly.
Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil are common enough IRL. I don't mind them.
LG strongly resembles my religion, and I support it.

Now, between CE and CG....

Chaotic Evil I have never seen roleplayed well. Heck, Chaotic Evil I have never seen roleplayed at all besides one-shot cultists whose insanity makes them more neutral (incapable of understanding morality) than CE.

Chaotic Good gets bland after a while. I swear, more adventurers nowdays get hurt by Dictum than by Blasphemy...

Aquillion
2009-04-26, 10:25 PM
It's a webcomic in which the titular character becomes the champion of balance (as opposed to the champion of light and law) in order to counter the champion of dark and chaos. At least, I assume that's what he was referencing. It has been going for quite a few years now, and doing daily updates for a good chunk of that time.
It's really quite popular here on these forums. Why, there have been huge hundred-page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108632) threads devoted to it! Massive amounts of fan art! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108763)

I'm sure the people in those threads will be happy to explain it to you. :smallamused:

chiasaur11
2009-04-26, 10:38 PM
It's really quite popular here on these forums. Why, there have been huge hundred-page (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108632) threads devoted to it! Massive amounts of fan art! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108763)

I'm sure the people in those threads will be happy to explain it to you. :smallamused:

You are cruel, aren't you?

bosssmiley
2009-04-27, 05:53 AM
Chaotic French: it's an inherently sleazy alignment with few redeeming features. Look at it sitting round all day leering at women and eating pigs' testicles while reeking of garlic, cigarettes and mashed geese. :smalltongue:

Seriously: Chaotic Neutral. It's difficult to play it well without either defaulting to Chaotic Greedy, or to sub-Muppet Show zaniness. I mean, what does it offer that either True Neutral or X Evil doesn't? :smallconfused:

imp_fireball
2009-04-27, 06:03 AM
I dislike all of them :smallamused:

... this. :smallamused:


Chaotic Neutral. It's difficult to play it well without either defaulting to Chaotic Greedy, or to sub-Muppet Show zaniness. I mean, what does it offer that either True Neutral or X Evil doesn't?

If the campaign were a movie, then it'd offer to the audience that your character is the most bad ass dude who makes all the catch phrases, breaks all the ice that there is to be broken, while not rubbing the pain caused in unnecessarily (CE), and not driven up his ass by ideology.

By the way, evil people have ideologies too, so they're practically the same as goodies on the political spectrum.

If you want a good idea of douchieness in the minds of today's audience -

Lawful Good - Superman
Neutral Good - Spiderman
Chaotic Good - Wolverine
Lawful Neutral - Charles Xavier
True Neutral - Dr Manhatten
Chaotic Neutral - Rorschach
Lawful Evil - Ozzymandius
Neutral Evil - Venom
Chaotic Evil - Carnage (oh god cliche!)

Under this ruling, 'lawful' simply means going with the system whether it is liberal or conservative which is a little tipsy seeing as characters still need to have personality and with that often comes political preference (which could almost replace alignment as something more flexible).

But at the same, this view I've presented says that anyone can be heros, no matter their alignment (and so D&D doesn't fall into the hellish void of oldest tropes that haven't died off yet for some reason).

Ozzymandius, as a very decent example (course, you'd have to read the GN), had flexible enough morals and enough intelligence to do the 'right thing' even though it wasn't exactly the right thing, so he's a hero in a sense too.

And finally, as you can see from this, Rorschach is the most bad ass. He goes by logical judgement (which he's very good at, due to his wisdom), but at the same time he's not afraid to tip the balance.

THAT'S CHAOTIC NEUTRAL. It doesn't have to be greedy or evil. Thank you. Goodnight.