Most difficult/easiest alignment to ROLEPLAY.

[Yael]

So, as thread says, which would be the most difficult/easiest alignment to ''roleplay,'' excluding in-game prereqs (such as being ''X'' alignment to enter a PrC).

I would say that LE is the most difficult because being an ''ace'' of evilness takes time and not every roleplaying session can focus on you. Lawful Evil should fit a villian better I think.

For the easiest one I would go Chaotic Neutral; I dunno, being ''whatever'' about good and evil, and breaking rules for fulfilling an objective feels cool.

Opinions?

[Flickerdart]

NN is the easiest - you do whatever the hell you want. I'd say CN is actually the hardest, because so many people use it as an excuse for being either evil or "totally random", neither of which are actually the alignment.

[Tholomyes]

Actually, I think CE is harder to Roleplay. Essentially it straddles a very thin line of believable, especially as a PC. Sure, you could play "Chaotic Evil" but to actually make it believable is rough. LE requires a bit of subtlety, but there are enough real world examples that it can be made believable more easily.

I would agree with you on CN, simply because it requires very little to fill Chaotic Neutral. Essentially, follow your interests and don't tie yourself down, but don't be a ****.

[Madcrafter]

I think whatever alignment would be easiest would be that that is closest to your own (or tend most towards). Other than that, I think that those that don't show up in normal life as often (at least visibly) would be the hardest, just because of lack of experience.

[Yael]

Well, True Neutral could be the most easy. True, but I have always though that TN is the ''single-session'' alignment. Changing your alignment could be as fast as dying before a Mind Flayer.

[ArcturusV]

I'd agree with Flickerdart. I think Chaotic Neutral is actually the hardest to roleplay, as people don't really play it. Either A) They use it to play "Chaotic Evil" without being Evil. But they're actually trying to play Chaotic Evil. Just trying to avoid the tag. Or B) They are grandfathering in the old definition of Chaotic Neutral. At least in 2nd edition, which I know, Chaotic Neutral WAS in fact always defined and exampled as a guy who is basically a raving lunatic incapable of carrying out a coherent thought process. Examples of Chaotic Neutral from the various books included things like the Player's Handbook example of "For no discernable reason, the Chaotic Neutral guy just flips a coin and charges a Gorgon. He gets turned to stone instantly. No one knows why he did it. Maybe he thought he'd scare the Gorgon?" or the one from the Barbarian Handbook "The Chaotic Neutral guy goes and burns down the corn field that both tribes are fighting over. He doesn't think to grab any for himself. He dooms the entire valley to starvation through the winter, including himself. He dies with a smile on his face."

But that's not how third edition defines Chaotic Neutral. As far as how it's defined I'd say the closest shorthand way to describe it would be "Rebel without a Cause". It's not a free pass to do anything. It is an excuse to be high in personal liberty and freedom. But you don't really have any strong leanings. Basically it'd be the alignment of angsty teenagers looking to piss off their parents for the sake of pissing off their parents and showing how "different" they are.

As for easiest? I'd say Neutral Good. I'd say True Neutral but people (in my experience) don't tend to play it. And sometimes they get confused about True Neutral. It's vague enough it's not easy to roleplay because everything from a Cat, to a Farmer who's just trying to live to see old age and his children grow up, to some Zen Philosopher looking to understand the universe and it's balance, are all True Neutral. Neutral Good is pretty easy though. Do good things. Don't be zealous about Codes and such. Don't be a needless rebel. Just be Good. Most people can get a handle on that pretty easy in my experience.

[Sylthia]

Chaotic Neutral is the easiest to play if you think it can be used to justify anything. True Neutral is also pretty easy because you don't really have a commitment to either alignment axis. Chaotic Evil is probably the hardest for a Good/Neutral aligned party because you have to figure out why the heck they'd be cooperating with the party in the first place.

[Corlindale]

I'd go with NG, at least in most typical campaigns. You get to be the typical hero, and you usually don't need to spend much time figuring out your motivations for going on whatever quest the campaign expects you to do. "The orphans are in trouble?! We must save them!".

Hardest is probably one of the evil alignments, at least if you want to do something more advanced/party friendly than simply "mass murdering sadist".

[Curmudgeon]

Neutral Evil is the easiest, because adventurers are bad guys who go around killing people and taking their stuff.

[Grommen]

True Neutral would be very hard because when you want to "Do the right thing" you can't, because you have to call it right down the middle. You can't take sides. If your with a party of good people and they start winning. In order to keep the balance, you might have to switch teams.

I would say that Lawful Good would be next. Not because it would be hard to play. It's just hard to survive. Gets played one of two ways 1) Lawful stupid, so that every law breaking thing someone does, you just don't see it; or 2) Your the giant flaming pile of excrement that enforces your views on everything, including your fellow players. In one case evil ends up using you as a tool, in the other your party conspires to see you out to the BBEG cause they can't stand you.

Simplest is Khaotic Good. You do good for the sake of good, regardless of how you get it down. If you follow the rules great, if you don't it's because the rules needed broken. If you take down the good guy leader it was because he was oppressive. Take down the bad guys, they were tyrannical.

[Water_Bear]

In my experience, everyone has an "favored" alignment and the farther you radiate out from there the harder the RP gets.

I like playing LE characters where possible; it's pretty easy to figure out what your PC wants and the best ways to go about getting it. NE LN and LG also have easy motivations to understand, although they can get a little unintuitive in the execution. But NG TN and anything Chaotic is really tough to figure out.

Other Players of mine have included a seriously LG guy who can't stop being a hero for one second, a CE dude who has a lot of trouble with structure, my very rules-savvy LN younger brother, and some people who either strongly favored TN or couldn't RP at all.

[Keneth]

The easiest alignment to play is the one that corresponds your actual personality. For me, that's LE, and I imagine for the majority of people, it would be NG. The hardest one is definitely CN since almost no one plays it correctly.

[TheDarkSaint]

I'd say good alignments are the most difficult to roleplay convicingly.

Good is about mercy, forgiveness, charity and understanding. It's about giving aid to those who need it, even if they aren't the best of people. It's about putting others before yourself.


Humanity has struggled with this for a long time.


The easist to play are any of the Neutral Alignments. "What is best for me my family and friends" That's what humanity really is. Mostly we care about ourselves, our family and our close friends. It takes a lot to pull us out of that mentality.

[ericgrau]

True neutral is the easiest b/c you just do anything ya... unless you're trying to roleplay it. Then once some numskull tries to balance out all the alignments it's a complete mess.

Generally if you just roleplay a concept and don't worry much about your alignment, or slap on an alignment tag afterwards, it roleplays a lot better.

With stereotypes NG is the easiest and any-E is hardest, because cartoon evil does not get along well with good aligned groups.

[Keneth]

Humanity has struggled with this for a long time.

Struggled to be all that, sure, but being good doesn't mean being zealously virtuous. I would argue that the vast majority of people tend to lean toward good. While we are inherently selfish creatures, most feel empathy and compassion, and many aspire to a higher ideal, even if it's only in their fantasy. It's the reason why we create so many superheroes, and the vast majority of religions preach virtues. Roleplaying gives people the chance to be heroic vicariously through their characters, and when the town needs saving, most decide to help rather than ask "what's in it for me?"

[Deathra13]

Honestly Ive always found lawful evil the easiest to play. Evil with a code of honor basically. Makes working withthe party much easier, makes being subtle a reasonable choice. Being evil is easy if everyone thinks you are good.

Ive always found chaotic neutral to be the hardest, probably because Im nota very impulsive person. CE always struck me as the alignment for the guy who never thinks before acting, his first thought is whathe does period, no discussion no real self control.

[Flickerdart]

True neutral is the easiest b/c you just do anything ya... unless you're trying to roleplay it. Then once some numskull tries to balance out all the alignments it's a complete mess.
That's not how True Neutral works. Violating neutrality in all eight directions makes you less neutral, not more.

[Shining Wrath]

Depends on campaign and other players.

There's nothing intrinsically difficult about LE, though. Every criminal goon is LE. Loyalty to the gang above all else is all that's required. It would be easy to be a LE melee type with an IQ and WIS less than 10 who just does what he's told by the smarter people.

Going further, it may be part of the DM's job to make any alignment "difficult", if the table is in to that sort of RP. You're CN? Great, here's a situation where doing what you're told without question is necessary for your long term goals. You're NN? Great, here's a situation where an extreme alignment is about to dominate and your only way to preserve balance is to side with the opposite extreme. Yada yada yada

[Jon_Dahl]

NN is the easiest - you do whatever the hell you want. I'd say CN is actually the hardest, because so many people use it as an excuse for being either evil or "totally random", neither of which are actually the alignment.

Agreed. I know one player who has played CN alignment well - once.

It's just too tempting for players to get crazy and irritating with this alignment. I would ban it if it weren't for that one positive experience.

[NeoPhoenix0]

i would say Chaotic Neutral is the hardest to role play given that an overwhelming majority of stories on this forum of CN characters are definitely not CN.

Lawful Neutral is probably the easiest. you have a code and stick to it regardless of moral choices.

[ericgrau]

That's not how True Neutral works. Violating neutrality in all eight directions makes you less neutral, not more.
Ya but tell that to the numskull. Real TN is easy, stereotype is a mess.

Hence I say NG is least likely to be stereotyped and so many have the easiest time with it. In theory TN should be easiest.

[Amnestic]

I've always found Neutral Good or True Neutral the easiest to do.

Convincing, well rounded well developed Lawful/Chaotic Evils would probably be the hardest - for me at least.

[Jeff the Green]

In my experience, everyone has an "favored" alignment and the farther you radiate out from there the harder the RP gets.

Probably, yes. I have a hard time with any evil alignment, and to a lesser extent chaotic ones. It's one thing when I'm DMing and so roleplaying the antagonists (and I love making creatively heinous antagonists), but I really don't like evil protagonists. It makes me feel like I need a shower.

[Razanir]

Lawful Good is the easiest for me, because it's what I am in real life. And overall, I'd say the easiest to roleplay is whichever is most similar to you, the player.

Khaotic Neutral is the hardest. Too easy to do literally whatever you want, be chaotic stupid, or just use it as an excuse to be Kaotic Evil (Yes, they're so Khaotik that they can't spell it consistently)

[Selenir]

Personally I find Neutral Evil to be the easiest (and the most fun) to roleplay. A NE character will obey laws just like any other character, because they don't want to be caught and punished. But give this NE character an option for selfish gain without the chance of discovery? They'll take it every time. I often play NE or LE characters in primarily good/neutral parties, and since I'm not a raging jerk about it (by misinterpreting "evil" as "randomly violent"), my characters fit in very well. A Neutral Evil adventurer motivated by fame and fortune will absolutely risk his life to save the town from the dragon, because the piles of gold and the loving embrace of the several attractive barmaids that evening make it worth it, not to mention the exciting and thrilling adventure it was! And no, he won't betray his companions to steal the loot afterwards. Not if there's no good reason to do so. Why would he? These guys, goody-two-shoes that they are, are his friends and companions. Evil people can have friends too. And when the good-aligned party shies away from an "evil" path to success, like torture or murder, well, what they don't know won't hurt them. And the roleplaying opportunities that arise when a conflict of interest arises, when there's something he just won't do (or something he does that they just won't stand for), make for a very interesting game indeed.

Of course, this does not mean Evil characters work well in every party. You must have a player who understands that they are a player, not the player. I play every Evil character with the intention of highlighting the gameplay and the roleplay of my fellow party members, not of stealing the spotlight and triumphing over them. If conflicts of interest arise, my character invariably either A.) learns a valuable lesson about morality and undergoes some character development, or B.) makes for a fantastic boss fight as an NPC before I rejoin the team with a more heroic character.

[Abaddona]

Hmmm... Chaotic Neutral and Evil characters are in my opinion hardest to roleplay, but not because there is something difficult to RP in character itself (well, things like CE siding with LG can be difficult - cause why the hell would they ever want to cooperate, but this can be solved by some OoC discussion and few plot hooks), but there are times when this character not neccessarily is good protagonist/party leader. Recently I had situation when other players were saying that I am lawfull good - it seems that there are people who think that being rude to ruler of entire town (or paladins of Heironeus) is something which level 2 CN melee guy would gladly do, well my melee guy had enough int to know that giving few vague promises is better social strategy than basically trying to be jailed. It seems that many people operates on stereotypical aligments: NG guy is your everyday goody-goody, LG is kinda stiff but still nice guy in heavy armor who will rather sacrifice himsel than let the kitty be eaten by those necromancers and Evil guys - well, they are Evil, they should be rude and nasty, right (which is kinda stupid - considering that i am scheming to take control of whole nation/sacrificing virgins to gain immortality/etc. then I should behave like role model citizen - after all I don't want those guards alarmed by screams which were heard last night to be too meticulous and investigate my basement, right?)?

[Shining Wrath]

Personally I find Neutral Evil to be the easiest (and the most fun) to roleplay. A NE character will obey laws just like any other character, because they don't want to be caught and punished. But give this NE character an option for selfish gain without the chance of discovery? They'll take it every time. I often play NE or LE characters in primarily good/neutral parties, and since I'm not a raging jerk about it (by misinterpreting "evil" as "randomly violent"), my characters fit in very well. A Neutral Evil adventurer motivated by fame and fortune will absolutely risk his life to save the town from the dragon, because the piles of gold and the loving embrace of the several attractive barmaids that evening make it worth it, not to mention the exciting and thrilling adventure it was! And no, he won't betray his companions to steal the loot afterwards. Not if there's no good reason to do so. Why would he? These guys, goody-two-shoes that they are, are his friends and companions. Evil people can have friends too. And when the good-aligned party shies away from an "evil" path to success, like torture or murder, well, what they don't know won't hurt them. And the roleplaying opportunities that arise when a conflict of interest arises, when there's something he just won't do (or something he does that they just won't stand for), make for a very interesting game indeed.

Of course, this does not mean Evil characters work well in every party. You must have a player who understands that they are a player, not the player. I play every Evil character with the intention of highlighting the gameplay and the roleplay of my fellow party members, not of stealing the spotlight and triumphing over them. If conflicts of interest arise, my character invariably either A.) learns a valuable lesson about morality and undergoes some character development, or B.) makes for a fantastic boss fight as an NPC before I rejoin the team with a more heroic character.

What you seem to be saying is that to role play Evil well the player must be Good.

[Crazysaneman]

It has been my experience that, of all the alignments TN is the hardest to roleplay. I have been gaming for 20+ years now and I have yet to see anyone, dm, npc, or pc; play TN correctly. Also along that line is LG, for the same reasons. Players tend to be too unfocused to play either correctly.

As for the easiest, I would have to say CN; as that is what every player ends up playing anyway. I will do what I want, when I want, and you can't stop me.:smalleek:

[kardar233]

The Evil alignments are really easy for me, as are the Neutrals. Chaotic Neutral is easier if you scrap this line in the description: "A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy." I've played a CN character whose motivation was ensuring that people had freedom of choice, and not caring what they did with it.

The most difficult for me is Lawful Good; this is primarily because I think deontological ethics are a crock. As a result, I'm always tempted, not towards Evil but to Chaos. Basically all my attempts at Paladins end up becoming Paladins of Freedom before too long.

[Malroth]

Easiest: True neutral. Simply react rationally to every situation with regards to your own self interest.

Hardest: Lawful Good. Believe every lie you're told. Obey every rule no matter how stupid. Somehow show mercy and compassion for those too poor to have a place in society while following the same rules that made them poor in the first place.

[mregecko]

I really don't understand why people say CN is the hardest to roleplay.... Pretty much every character I play is CN, my friends all expect it of me (I've played some good characters once in a while).

Sure I'll take a quest from the king to go kill the invading lich's army of undead. But if things get hard or I'm in danger, I'm probably gonna bail.

That little girl's family was taken by the trolls in the forest... Man, that sucks. I'll see if I can help. Oh nevermind, I just saw a bounty for some goblins the next town over. Hope things work out for you little girl!

Unless the little girl reminded my character of herself. Then maybe I'll help her out instead.

The party paladin tells me that the loot we just found on a corpse while dungeon-crashing legally belongs to the church? I'm probably not going to go along with that. Unless he just argues with me to the point that I just throw my hands up.

CN isn't random, but it can be unpredictable to others. There's usually a reason to what I do, but it's usually neither malicious or "for the greater good." It's just what I want to do.

[Trasilor]

For me, chaotic evil is the hardest to play. It is hard to relate to someone who is violent with no discernible motivation.

Neutral is the easiest, because it is the easiest to relate to in the real world. I do what I think is right to help me and mine and try not to hurt others. I don't hurt others because it is easier than dealing with consequences. I will break the law if I think I can get away with it or I don't think it will others (e.g. speeding).

[ericgrau]

Bad stereotypes
chaos: insane, destroys every adventuring goal or place
lawful: stupid drone
evil: openly kills orphans for sport
good: adventures normally
neutral: both "good" and "evil" each half the time (see above)

Hence why I say neutral good causes the least issues among bad players. They tend to play NG like TN, which is the one that's supposed to actually be the most normal of the 9. Properly played, even CE could be in a party of good PCs.

[Amnestic]

Hardest: Lawful Good. Believe every lie you're told. Obey every rule no matter how stupid.

Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.LawfulStupid) or Stupid Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidGood) :smalltongue: (TVTropes Links - fair warning).

I like pointing to Keldorn from Baldur's Gate 2 as an example of a Lawful Good character (and a Paladin no less!) done well.

[Abaddona]

Keldorn - you mean that guy who tried to kill Viconia not because she done something evil but because drows are evil? Or for example - basically destroys his own family (if you give him wrong advice) for his own mistakes (he neglects his own family in favor of his duty)? Well, he certainly is lawfull but i don't know if he really is good - it's a borderline Templar example for me.

[Keneth]

I always give him "bad" advice. :smallbiggrin:

[Tholomyes]

I don't get why everyone's saying CN is always done wrong. I don't think I've seen the "Raving loony, does whatever he wants on a whim" thing more than once, and I've never seen the "CN to be CE" done, in real life (heard stories, but that's it).

Honestly, is it really that difficult to play a maybe slightly-less-good Han Solo like character? That's what the majority of CNs I've seen are. As long as you put forth an effort to play a CN and not CE/CS it's one of the easier alignments to Roleplay.

[hamishspence]

Honestly, is it really that difficult to play a maybe slightly-less-good Han Solo like character? That's what the majority of CNs I've seen are. As long as you put forth an effort to play a CN and not CE/CS it's one of the easier alignments to Roleplay.

Complete Scoundrel lists Han as TN (at least early on) so a maybe slightly-more-Chaotic Han would work.

[FleshrakerAbuse]

I'd say that CN is more like FF6's Setzer. Does what he desires. Most people in this world have ambitions and hopes; he does what he wants (that doesn't bother his conscience too much) to achieve such. He desired Maria, and then tried to get her in any way (kidnapping her). That was a bit leaning towards evil, but...
Even chaotic follows honor. Robin Hood had his own idea of honor.

Well, my hardest alignment is Chaotic Evil. It's hard for me to think about running around murdering innocent people for twisted agendas. Oddly, my friends easily do this, even to the point that all of the whole party agreed to go on a killing spree for dead bodies to reanimate/loot...

Easiest is NG with TN tendencies. Trying to help others, but having bias to oneself and close acquaintances.

[ericgrau]

I don't get why everyone's saying CN is always done wrong. I don't think I've seen the "Raving loony, does whatever he wants on a whim" thing more than once, and I've never seen the "CN to be CE" done, in real life (heard stories, but that's it).

Honestly, is it really that difficult to play a maybe slightly-less-good Han Solo like character? That's what the majority of CNs I've seen are. As long as you put forth an effort to play a CN and not CE/CS it's one of the easier alignments to Roleplay.

Not always, it and all the other alignments can be done well. And lucky you for having a good group. I'd guess about 1/3 the time on certain alignments there's "that guy" who leaves a big impression on the other 2/3. Sometimes the other 2/3 won't play that alignment because of him, or they will but they're wary of other people who want to play certain alignments because of the campaign damage the 1/3 did even alone.

[ArcturusV]

I see someone trotted out the old definition of True Neutral in here. The 2nd edition "I am the cosmic philosopher" definition, where the True Neutral does nothing without considering the ramifications of his actions/inaction on the great balance between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos in the grand scheme of things.

Guess it just goes to show that there are legacies to the alignments which get ported in even if in the edition we're talking about it's no longer really true. I mean they label True Neutral as "The Undecided" in the examples. They do mention the philosophy as an aberrant (But valid) example, but not to the extremes of trying to Balance out the Cosmos, but just as something where they think people are zealots and crazy, and shouldn't follow their extremist examples.

Interesting to see Chaotic Evil mentioned a lot. I think it has to do with the dissonance of where Chaotic Evil should actually be alignment wise, and how WotC defined Chaotic Evil characters and NPCs when they made examples.

If I was going to take examples of how the alignments are defined (In relation to Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, rather than the stated NPCs) to create Chaotic Evil characters, they'd end up quite different. For example... the leader of the Merchant Guild might end up being Chaotic Evil. He thinks himself above and better than the rules. Flaunts them. Uses his connections, wealth, and power to avoid them. Bullies people with said connections, wealth, and power to gain more. It would be textbook Chaotic Evil. It wouldn't involve dressing up like a looney cultist and murdering everyone in sight or being a rampant pyromaniac, or other various "Chaotic Stupid" sort of things, or a guy who goes on and on about being evil because... well... I'm evil! Yeah, it may include insane characters. Hard to argue that the mentally unbalanced Slashser Horror Villain in the campaign isn't going to be Chaotic Evil. Maybe neutral evil. But most of them have such a burning hatred of various symbols of "Order" of some type (Thus for sequels as they return to kill the people starting up the order they hate once more, ignoring all the bodies that resulted last time) that I'd lump them more towards the Chaotic side if push came to shove on it.

I dunno. Just seems that a lot of the problems with alignments come from Legacy theories (Like the older edition All Chaotic Neutrals are Raving Lunatics, or the All True Neutrals are Cosmic Philosophers Concerned with Universal Balance), or more a result of the dissonance between how they actually define Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, and what they say NPCs who are that alignment are like.

Like, as an example. If you look at definitions of both Lawful and Good, it's entirely possible to be playing IN ALIGNMENT, a Lawful Good character who is a total tyrant. Of course we tend to know this as the Lawful Good characters (Thanks Paladins...) tend to bully other party members into being similarly Lawful Good. But the phrase which would fully justify it, as defined is, "I am setting up this harsh law, for your own good." Law gets defined as various things, Honor, Trustworthiness, Respect for Authority... close mindedness, judgmental, reactionary adherence to tradition... And nowhere is Good defined as "Freedom". In fact that's Chaotic territory. Good just says Sacrificing for the sake of others, respecting life, and altruism. But none of those exclude the Tyrant philosophy. "Oh yes, I respect life. That is why I do my utmost to protect Life, by maintaining complete and total control of my realm with my army and the legions of Secret Police who monitor the morality and virtue of my people at all time, and deal harshly with those who would threaten it."

Kinda twisted, I admit. But also legit. And that dissonance between how the rules define the basic alignments, the examples which pick one narrow set of definitions to show you what alignment combos might be like, and how they stat up NPCs which make caricatures of the Alignments instead, is probably the core of why people think various alignments are easy/hard, and why people tend to disagree on what alignments mean.

[ahenobarbi]

Hardest: Lawful Good. All to easy to start acting Lawful Stupid. Or maybe Chaotic Evil but not Chaotic Stupid?

Easiest: True Neutral. Just do whatever seems most reasonable.

Alignment system is mighty simple and many players think "character has alignment X so he acts like everybody else with alignment X" not "character acts like (...), sounds like it fits as alignment X". And that causes problems for "extreme" alignments (not only how people role play their own character but also what they expect from others).

[PlusSixPelican]

For me? Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. I'm a rather impulsive person, although I (usually) have a moral compass. There's times I wish I'd done something less than ethical, but it usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ultimately, I'm probably either CG (N) or CN (G).

Hardest? Lawful Neutral. I can't be that predictable, and find the alignment too casuist (the Lawful Neutral Outsiders ESPECIALLY) and buddy-buddied with Lawful Evil tendencies, particularly when convenient.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Chaotic Lawful. :smallcool:

[NeoPhoenix0]

I'd say that CN is more like FF6's Setzer. Does what he desires. Most people in this world have ambitions and hopes; he does what he wants (that doesn't bother his conscience too much) to achieve such. He desired Maria, and then tried to get her in any way (kidnapping her). That was a bit leaning towards evil, but...
Even chaotic follows honor. Robin Hood had his own idea of honor.

One of the best CN examples I've heard.

[CIDE]

I stand by my assessment that Chaotic Neutral is Tyler Durden.

[Tholomyes]

I stand by my assessment that Chaotic Neutral is Tyler Durden.

The problem with that, that I have, is that he definitely starts off CN, but he does a lot of things that scream LE to me.

[zlefin]

I'd say neutral (not the balance kind, but the general nonaligned kind) and neutral good would be the easiest to roleplay; as satisfying the requirements of each seem pretty feasible using a number of different personalities.
Not sure which is hardest to roleplay.
I myself can play all alignments fairly well, at least from my perspective of what each alignment means, which may be somewhat different from others'.

[Vultawk]

I find that all alignments are pretty easy to play since they all have room for a wide array of personality types and worse comes to worse you can find a pre-existing example of the alignment to base your portrayal around.

[Setra]

As a general rule I find Lawful alignments the easiest to roleplay, while Chaotic is the hardest.

I guess probably Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral for easiest and hardest, though I try my best to keep characters believable.

Actually though... one of my favorite characters was a Chaotic Good warblade, he was a nice guy but had a temper in combat, and was pretty reckless... it made him very fun to play honestly, too bad his recklessness got him killed.

[Yahzi]

Personally I find Neutral Evil to be the easiest (and the most fun) to roleplay. A NE character will obey laws just like any other character, because they don't want to be caught and punished. But give this NE character an option for selfish gain without the chance of discovery? They'll take it every time. I often play NE or LE characters in primarily good/neutral parties, and since I'm not a raging jerk about it (by misinterpreting "evil" as "randomly violent"), my characters fit in very well. A Neutral Evil adventurer motivated by fame and fortune will absolutely risk his life to save the town from the dragon, because the piles of gold and the loving embrace of the several attractive barmaids that evening make it worth it, not to mention the exciting and thrilling adventure it was! And no, he won't betray his companions to steal the loot afterwards. Not if there's no good reason to do so. Why would he? These guys, goody-two-shoes that they are, are his friends and companions. Evil people can have friends too. And when the good-aligned party shies away from an "evil" path to success, like torture or murder, well, what they don't know won't hurt them. And the roleplaying opportunities that arise when a conflict of interest arises, when there's something he just won't do (or something he does that they just won't stand for), make for a very interesting game indeed.
You just described what I call Chaotic Good.

:smallbiggrin:

[Abaddona]

FleshrakerAbuse -> well I don't understand why when playing CE character should i even think about running around killing innocent people. When i think about CE character i think for example about some mercenary (or even guard) guy - he likes drinking in taverns (and good tavern brawl is second good thing after good ale), has three little kittens (cause they're cute) and is generally nice to people who are nice to him. Also likes to kill things - but why should he run around and kill innocents when in typical fantasy setting there are so many bandits lurking around only waiting to be killed in horrendous ways? Sure in strict law abiding city he would fall in trouble, but in a little town in the wilderness he at most will get stern look from the guard captain and local cleric will probably preach about being good and mercifull. After all - this guy is nice to nice people, loves little kittens (however someone definetely should check what kind of meat he uses to feed them) and generally solves more problems than he is cause of. And of course there may be a day when we will need someone creative enough to provide situational bonuses to intimidate checks.

[Sugashane]

I find Lawful Good ridiculously easy to play, with or without being the Holier Than You classic jerk. It basically decides your actions for you, you just roleplay it to the character's personality.

Just think to yourself, WWCPD? (What Would Captain Planet Do?)

[PersonMan]

Even chaotic follows honor.

I disagree. "I have a code, which I strictly follow even when it inconveniences me" is Lawful.

Whether your code is "always make sure the rich and poor are of roughly equal standing" or coincides with the local law doesn't matter.

"I do what's right, without restricting myself with a strict code because I know what's right and who needs some fancy set of laws to tell them what they already know?" Would be a CG attitude, for example.

"I follow my code of honor, even if others think it's not honorable, because I know what honor is for me and refuse to bend my morals to them," is Lawful.

[sonofzeal]

FleshrakerAbuse -> well I don't understand why when playing CE character should i even think about running around killing innocent people. When i think about CE character i think for example about some mercenary (or even guard) guy - he likes drinking in taverns (and good tavern brawl is second good thing after good ale), has three little kittens (cause they're cute) and is generally nice to people who are nice to him. Also likes to kill things - but why should he run around and kill innocents when in typical fantasy setting there are so many bandits lurking around only waiting to be killed in horrendous ways? Sure in strict law abiding city he would fall in trouble, but in a little town in the wilderness he at most will get stern look from the guard captain and local cleric will probably preach about being good and mercifull. After all - this guy is nice to nice people, loves little kittens (however someone definetely should check what kind of meat he uses to feed them) and generally solves more problems than he is cause of. And of course there may be a day when we will need someone creative enough to provide situational bonuses to intimidate checks.
I'm utterly at a loss for why such a character could possibly be considered "evil". Or even particularly "chaotic". Seems more just NN with a preference for combat.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I agree with PersonMan chaotic is about following passion and ambition rather than any code. If a chaotic person runs into a conflict between a code or their own ambition or passion they will follow their own ambition or passion. To do otherwise should count as a lawful act to some degree.

[Abaddona]

Personman - well, there is also "i don't kill women and eat children (i have heartburn whenever i eat some)" type of code or even "i try to be nice to people who are nice to me" - for chaotic person that rules are just not strict laws but rather preffered choices.

Sonofzeal - because torturing and killing things for laughs is kinda evil? I may rescue someone because this is noble/right thing to do (good mindset) or I may rescue someone cause I'm bored and killing some thugs is good entertainment. At the same time - even if I don't repect law that doesn't mean I should break the rules whenever I see opportunity to do so - after all even chaotic evil person can have something of value for them which causes them to avoid generating major troubles (tavern fights don't cause problems in most societies, urinating on altar of towns main deity on the other hand...).

[NeoPhoenix0]

Personman - well, there is also "i don't kill women and eat children (i have heartburn whenever i eat some)" type of code or even "i try to be nice to people who are nice to me" - for chaotic person that rules are just not strict laws but rather preffered choices.

Very true. A small code is perfectly acceptable. Alignments are a sliding scale.

The biggest problem isn't defining the alignments but determining the cut off points. That is why i prefer using the 17 alignment system. Of course that just adds more cut off points.

This gets to the core of the problem, characters who are defined and roleplayed by their character traits and not alignments can be difficult to sort into alignments. They can even shift back and forth between alignments over time if the character is complex enough.

[mistformsquirrl]

Easiest for me is Neutral Good >_> It's just easy to always try to lend a helping hand and avoid jerkishness. The only downside is it does mean if my DM wants to they can lead me around by the nose just by having me follow a trail of disasters since I never get tired of saving the day >.>;

Hardest for me would be Chaotic Evil. I have enough difficulty with just playing Evil as is, but at least Lawful and Neutral evils I can understand. CE would, by me, probably have to be played like a Khorne Berserker from Warhammer. "MAIM KILL BURN! MAIM KILL BURN!" - Which is really Chaotic Stupid, but it's about the closest I could come to even getting into that mindset.

[Trystane_Insane]

Easiest? TN when it's just something to fill a space on your character sheet so you can do whatever you want.

Hardest? TN when it's a character's choice, because they see the benefits and detriments of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos, and believe that the best way to achieve their (their deity's, the world's) ends is to maintain the balance wherever possible.

Oh, honorable mention for Hardest is non-Miko LG. Speaking from personal experience, when your entire party is either Chaotic or non-Good, roleplaying your char how she would react AND not getting in the way of how they wanna run theirs is pretty tough.

[navar100]

Easiest: True neutral. Simply react rationally to every situation with regards to your own self interest.
Hardest: Lawful Good. Believe every lie you're told.

No


Obey every rule no matter how stupid.

No


Somehow show mercy and compassion for those too poor to have a place in society while following the same rules that made them poor in the first place.

No

[Sugashane]

Easiest: True neutral. Simply react rationally to every situation with regards to your own self interest.

Hardest: Lawful Good. Believe every lie you're told. Obey every rule no matter how stupid. Somehow show mercy and compassion for those too poor to have a place in society while following the same rules that made them poor in the first place.

You seem confused... Here, this will get you started.



SRD

Lawful Good, “Crusader”

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Even the LG Paladins can't be misconstrued as poorly as what you said, as they must "respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

[killem2]

Easiest for me is Chaotic Good.

Hardest is probably Lawful Neutral.

[PersonMan]

Personman - well, there is also "i don't kill women and eat children (i have heartburn whenever i eat some)" type of code or even "i try to be nice to people who are nice to me" - for chaotic person that rules are just not strict laws but rather preffered choices.

A "code" that's just a few things you prefer not to do is not a code.

Chaotic does not mean "completely random", it means "does not has a strict set of exacting morals they set down and follow". You can have vague ideas of right and wrong, but you don't bother to write them down and follow them. You act based on how you feel now.

[Reverent-One]

It's not a specific alignment, but the lines between NG|CG and NN|CN I find difficult to nail down in any satisfactory way. A lot of times, the descriptions of the difference between them take the form of "the chaotic person acts impulsively, without thinking about the trouble it can cause down the line". Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since intelligence isn't tied to alignment.

[ArcturusV]

Well, it shouldn't be that hard to pin down the difference between Chaotic and Neutral. The difficulty, if any, should arise merely from the fact that Neutrality in itself isn't well defined. It's merely defined as "no strong feelings". Where as Chaotic implies a strong feeling towards certain attitudes and issues.

Course that's the other problem is separating what we think of in the real world as definitions for terms like Lawful and Chaotic and what the game defines it as. Thus "Lawful" doesn't mean "Do everything some jerk in a castle, wearing a crown, tells you to do". Nor does chaotic mean "Completely random and unpredictable".

The difference between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good is mostly how they view the problems they are going to fix. The Chaotic Good guy would be willing to think of unusual answers or go to "extreme" solutions a lot easier. Is more willing to ditch current plans to come up with new ones rather than stubbornly try to make them work, etc.

So for example, if say... an Orc Horde was approaching a city with the intent to raze it. The Lawful Good person would probably go for something like trying to train those physically and mentally capable of defending the city into a militia, reach out to allies of the city to send troops. And provide an ordered defense to save the city. The Neutral Good guy might just say: Hey... lets just run out there, and kill their boss so the Orcs disband. The Chaotic Good guy might say "Ah, good plan, good plan. Here, just in case that doesn't work out, before we leave to kill the Orc boss I'm going to chase everyone out of the city and burn it down myself. The Orcs can't destroy a city that is already destroyed. And everyone will survive to run away and rebuild!"

[Tholomyes]

Essentially, the way I handle the Law-Chaos axis is what defines morality for them.

For example a Lawful Good character has the Good morality, but Lawful means that the actions are what define morality. For such a character, the act of (for example) going back in time and Killing Hitler when he is a child would be against his morality, since the act of Killing an innocent child is evil, even if he knows that in the future, the child will grow up to be a monster.

A Chaotic Good character has the Good morality, but Chaotic means the outcome is what defines morality. They don't have a specific line that they will not cross, so to speak, they just know that what they do needs to (to the best of their knowledge and foresight) be beneficial. It's a very Utilitarian mindset, that the Chaotic Good character seeks the Greatest Good for the greatest Number. If that means killing an innocent child before he becomes a brutal dictator, a chaotic good character will do that.

Neutral is a bit in the middle. They have a line they will not cross, but it's much more flexible than Lawful characters. Their goal is similar to the Chaotic characters, in that they want the most beneficial outcome, but they are not as willing to do "evil" actions to attain a good outcome.

To put it another way, if a war were to break out between a Good nation and an Evil nation, but a character knew that the individual soldiers of the evil nation were no more evil than the average person, a Lawful good character would refuse to fight, but may act in a healing or supporting role. A Chaotic good character would fight, because even if the people he was killing were innocent, if the Good side wins, then that will mean the ending outcome would be Better overall. A neutral Good character probably would fight, but would be mindful to keep bloodshed to a minimum, and might even help to patch up wounded enemy soldiers, once the battle was over.

[ZamielVanWeber]

For me I am good at the Chaotics, but terrible at Lawful. It is funny when CE is harder than LG for me.

[sonofzeal]

Sonofzeal - because torturing and killing things for laughs is kinda evil? I may rescue someone because this is noble/right thing to do (good mindset) or I may rescue someone cause I'm bored and killing some thugs is good entertainment. At the same time - even if I don't repect law that doesn't mean I should break the rules whenever I see opportunity to do so - after all even chaotic evil person can have something of value for them which causes them to avoid generating major troubles (tavern fights don't cause problems in most societies, urinating on altar of towns main deity on the other hand...).
You didn't mention torture or pain at all in your previous post, though. :smallconfused:

If a character enjoys fighting and winning (ie killing), that's a personal preference, like a taste for strawberry wine or an appreciation for getting up early and watching the sun rise. It does not in any way affect alignment; a Good character might have that same preference and simply choose to suppress it. Only ACTIONS affect alignment.

If your hypothetical dude enjoys killing, but judiciously restrains his desires except when his actions would benefit society, there's nothing remotely evil there.

[zlefin]

Essentially, the way I handle the Law-Chaos axis is what defines morality for them.

For example a Lawful Good character has the Good morality, but Lawful means that the actions are what define morality. For such a character, the act of (for example) going back in time and Killing Hitler when he is a child would be against his morality, since the act of Killing an innocent child is evil, even if he knows that in the future, the child will grow up to be a monster.

A Chaotic Good character has the Good morality, but Chaotic means the outcome is what defines morality. They don't have a specific line that they will not cross, so to speak, they just know that what they do needs to (to the best of their knowledge and foresight) be beneficial. It's a very Utilitarian mindset, that the Chaotic Good character seeks the Greatest Good for the greatest Number. If that means killing an innocent child before he becomes a brutal dictator, a chaotic good character will do that.

Neutral is a bit in the middle. They have a line they will not cross, but it's much more flexible than Lawful characters. Their goal is similar to the Chaotic characters, in that they want the most beneficial outcome, but they are not as willing to do "evil" actions to attain a good outcome.

To put it another way, if a war were to break out between a Good nation and an Evil nation, but a character knew that the individual soldiers of the evil nation were no more evil than the average person, a Lawful good character would refuse to fight, but may act in a healing or supporting role. A Chaotic good character would fight, because even if the people he was killing were innocent, if the Good side wins, then that will mean the ending outcome would be Better overall. A neutral Good character probably would fight, but would be mindful to keep bloodshed to a minimum, and might even help to patch up wounded enemy soldiers, once the battle was over.

it'd be faster if you just said you use deontology vs consequentialism.

The hardest part of this discussion is people have different opnions on what the different alignments mean; which affects how hard it is to roleplay them.

[pyromanser244]

Essentially, the way I handle the Law-Chaos axis is what defines morality for them.

For example a Lawful Good character has the Good morality, but Lawful means that the actions are what define morality. For such a character, the act of (for example) going back in time and Killing Hitler when he is a child would be against his morality, since the act of Killing an innocent child is evil, even if he knows that in the future, the child will grow up to be a monster.

A Chaotic Good character has the Good morality, but Chaotic means the outcome is what defines morality. They don't have a specific line that they will not cross, so to speak, they just know that what they do needs to (to the best of their knowledge and foresight) be beneficial. It's a very Utilitarian mindset, that the Chaotic Good character seeks the Greatest Good for the greatest Number. If that means killing an innocent child before he becomes a brutal dictator, a chaotic good character will do that.

Neutral is a bit in the middle. They have a line they will not cross, but it's much more flexible than Lawful characters. Their goal is similar to the Chaotic characters, in that they want the most beneficial outcome, but they are not as willing to do "evil" actions to attain a good outcome.

To put it another way, if a war were to break out between a Good nation and an Evil nation, but a character knew that the individual soldiers of the evil nation were no more evil than the average person, a Lawful good character would refuse to fight, but may act in a healing or supporting role. A Chaotic good character would fight, because even if the people he was killing were innocent, if the Good side wins, then that will mean the ending outcome would be Better overall. A neutral Good character probably would fight, but would be mindful to keep bloodshed to a minimum, and might even help to patch up wounded enemy soldiers, once the battle was over.

so LG people are mary sues and CG people are pre-fall Anakin? I find this offensive........ :smallannoyed:

there is a difference between a willingness to fight "dirty" and the-ends-justify-the-means. first off "fighting dirty" is not only ambiguous but completely arbitrary. is a Chaotic person going to run a dictatorship "for the greater good"? NO! personal freedoms is one of his highest ideals. failing to meat, or even remember, the higher ideals of an alignment is just that, a failure. it is never a mixing of other alignments.


in my experience Chaos gets a bad rep. randomness and disorder are not synonyms for evil, they just seem destructive to people trying to impose arbitrary order on the world. "chaotic people" are just the ones who get that they have no order or control in their lives and find they enjoy it that way.

so yeah I find most of my characters being chaotic. not really because they're "easier" per-say but because the alignment's focus on the individual let's me have more fun role-playing a more unique Person. if anything lawful is easier. create a binary linear code and follow it. the only role-playing done is when you get to revise the code for a situation that wasn't foreseen. NG and NE also benefit from this somewhat though they get it more from being focused, rather than robotic. :smallyuk:

[Mithril Leaf]

Easiest in general is probably lawful stupid. You basically have the whole of your actions already decided for you. You're a paladin and see a drow? Kill it! Nice and simple.
Easiest for me is either lawful evil or chaotic good, because they're both very reasonable to understand archtype. Lawful evil is focused on advancing the self through application of the law, and chaotic good is about spreading positivity to those around him in the most efficient way for himself.
Hardest would probably be lawful good. There's no wiggle room but you don't actually get your decisions premade for you.

[Thiyr]

Easiest? Depends on the character for me. I've had an easy time slipping into certain roles, and once I get the character down it's easy to pull off. If I had to choose an alignment that's easiest to get behind, though, probably CG. Being helpful yet flexible.

Hardest? Well, I haven't tried to do CE yet, so I won't count it, but LN has been tricky for me recently. I'm quick to adjust my views and work around rules to really pull lawful off easily enough to have it the primary defining alignment descriptor. Still trying to pull it off, but we'll see how I can make it work.

(Probably wouldn't be doing it if the character weren't an Incarnate though. freakin' actually-relevant alignment restrictions)

[sonofzeal]

I've played characters all over the spectrum, so....


Lawful Good: Fairly straightforward... if you have a religious dogma to guide you. If not, you'll have to develop it organically as you're put in awkward situations, and that can be difficult.

Neutral Good: Dead easy. Awkward situations are rarer, and usually easily-handled. If you have trouble with this one, you should check your moral compass.

Chaotic Good: This can actually be harder than NG because it's likely to put you into conflict with The Powers What Is if you play it with any strength. It's easier than LG to plan, but harder to execute and can derail a plot.

Lawful Neutral: Like LG, you have to put some thought into dogma here, but it's a little less important since more pragmatic options are accessible.

Neutral Neutral: ...this one depends on the flavour. NN is just generic, while "True Neutral" is a careful balance. The good news either way is you can usually justify whichever action common sense dictates.

Chaotic Neutral: Dead easy. You're in it for yourself and just follow your whims. I find characters here tend to have shorter life expectancies, but there's nothing complicated about playing this alignment.

Lawful Evil: This can be hard to play if the character has a lot of control in the party, or if they're by themself, because there's a whole lot of planning implicit in pulling off LE well. A LE character who's subserviant to someone else is dead easy though.

Neutral Evil: A compromise between LE and CE, I really can't think of anything interesting to say here. Most PCs are murderhobos anyway and wouldn't notice a NE member most of the time.

Chaotic Evil: Rip kill destroy blaaaarg! I'm exaggerating, but CE might be the simplest to play (satisfy every depraved whim), but correspondingly have the shortest life expectancy.

[Yondu]

Lawful alignments are the most difficult for me, you have to follow a code or a law writen by someone else...you have less freedom to do what should be done, especially for LN characters, LG or LE have a little bit more freedom on this.
Chaotic are easier to play if you want a independant character, free will and own code of conduct is the key of playing a chaotic character, it can be twisted and amoral (CN Tyler "The Best" Durdan), for the poor and weak (CG Robin Hood), or psychopatic and emotionless (CE Hannibal Lecter)...

Neutral is the way of manicheism, you do good or evil, or you are for the balance of both...

Hardest : LN
Easiest : CG

[Threadnaught]

Easiest is either Lawful Neutral, which so many Paladins end up playing because they forget about the "Good" half of Lawful Good.
Or Chaotic Evil. Which any would be sociopath ends up playing for shiggles, also people who pick the Chaotic Neutral alignment can have trouble not falling into this one.

Hardest, gee, there's Lawful Good, Lawful Evil (allegedly), Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.

Many Paladins are said to forget that when it's a choice between doing what's Lawful and what's Good, Good comes first. A Paladin who does what's good even when unlawful, if it's the only way to do good.

Lawful Evil, okay so what's so hard about this? It's possible to help the good guys as a Lawful Evil character without causing a single change to your alignment... I really don't see the problem, you just have to be smart.

Chaotic Good, gee why don't I do a load of evil crap and just say it's fine because I'm Chaotic? All those murders will be balanced out because I robbed a king to feed the poor. Sure, he wasn't an evil king, but he was rich, robbing him was still good, right?

Chaotic Evil... Kill! Smash! Crush! Destroy! Murder! What do you mean I sound Chaotic Evil!? I must have killed some evil guys when I slaughtered that city, I should still be Chaotic Neutral! Baww! Whinge! *bleep*! Moan! Whine! Complain!

[Abaddona]

Sonofzeal -> wait, if only actions affect alignment, then in scenario aka "some cosmic horror tries to destroy the multiverse" all evil characters (especialy chaotic evil) should sit this all out or side with said cosmic horror, cause defending multiverse from destruction is certainly major good act (hey, most of my greatest villain acts took place here, I like this place, nobody except me has any right to destroy it and certainly no-one has any right to try to destroy my favourite tavern, don't even think about it). For me motivation is vital part of action - sure, my actions might be beneficial to society but it's only because what is beneficial to society is coincidentally beneficial to me (for example: Lawfull Evil overlord can try to make paradise (or rather false paradise) through dominating/brainwashing opposition - such city will be a nice place to live in as long as you don't stand out: no crimes (bandits and such were brainwashed to be model citizens), no debates (everyone who causes ruckus was brainwashed to be model citizen), no poverty (overlord sees everyone as his playthings and likes when they are in good condition), probably also safe (noone dares to destroy my things) - well, in short: basically plot of Berserk :-) ).
And as for torture and such - well, I kinda wrote something about "providing circumstancial bonuses to intimidate checks" but english is my second language (and I'm not very good at it) so my intention probably weren't clear enough.


A "code" that's just a few things you prefer not to do is not a code.
Sorry, I agree with you - basically I meant that chaotic person can have some sort of "preffered choices" but those choices are fluent. For example "I don't kill women" for lawfull is "always and independently of circumstances" but for chaotic this is "unless i will really have to".

[sonofzeal]

Sonofzeal -> wait, if only actions affect alignment, then in scenario aka "some cosmic horror tries to destroy the multiverse" all evil characters (especialy chaotic evil) should sit this all out or side with said cosmic horror, cause defending multiverse from destruction is certainly major good act (hey, most of my greatest villain acts took place here, I like this place, nobody except me has any right to destroy it and certainly no-one has any right to try to destroy my favourite tavern, don't even think about it). For me motivation is vital part of action - sure, my actions might be beneficial to society but it's only because what is beneficial to society is coincidentally beneficial to me (for example: Lawfull Evil overlord can try to make paradise (or rather false paradise) through dominating/brainwashing opposition - such city will be a nice place to live in as long as you don't stand out: no crimes (bandits and such were brainwashed to be model citizens), no debates (everyone who causes ruckus was brainwashed to be model citizen), no poverty (overlord sees everyone as his playthings and likes when they are in good condition), probably also safe (noone dares to destroy my things) - well, in short: basically plot of Berserk :-) ).
And as for torture and such - well, I kinda wrote something about "providing circumstancial bonuses to intimidate checks" but english is my second language (and I'm not very good at it) so my intention probably weren't clear enough.

Are we talking D&D ethics or real-world ethics? There's a pretty big difference.

D&D is demonstrably deontological, meaning it's based on rules. If a Paladin kills an innocent to save the world, they still fall. Certain actions increase your taint score regardless of your motives or the results of those actions. Clerics of Good deities are unable to cast Evil spells, even when doing so would further their deity's interests... and the reverse is true of clerics of Evil deities.

In D&D, action matters. Not intent, not result, not personal preference, just action.

In the real world, yes, I'd argue intent is relevant. But even then, action is a component there. Someone enjoying killing but who never murders is not a bad person. They aren't "evil". No matter how depraved someone's desires, if they restrain those desires in all but societally-acceptable venues (assuming the society itself isn't too warped), the worst they can be by D&D alignment would be neutral.

But in D&D, it's only the actions that count. Saving the universe doesn't quite count, since that's just a preservation of the status quo... but if a Devil had to choose between doing something shining and noble, and having their plans destroyed, they'd feel horrible and gross about doing the Good thing and might not even be able to bring themselves to do it.

[Azif13]

Personally I find Neutral Evil to be the easiest (and the most fun) to roleplay. A NE character will obey laws just like any other character, because they don't want to be caught and punished. But give this NE character an option for selfish gain without the chance of discovery? They'll take it every time. I often play NE or LE characters in primarily good/neutral parties, and since I'm not a raging jerk about it (by misinterpreting "evil" as "randomly violent"), my characters fit in very well. A Neutral Evil adventurer motivated by fame and fortune will absolutely risk his life to save the town from the dragon, because the piles of gold and the loving embrace of the several attractive barmaids that evening make it worth it, not to mention the exciting and thrilling adventure it was! And no, he won't betray his companions to steal the loot afterwards. Not if there's no good reason to do so. Why would he? These guys, goody-two-shoes that they are, are his friends and companions. Evil people can have friends too. And when the good-aligned party shies away from an "evil" path to success, like torture or murder, well, what they don't know won't hurt them. And the roleplaying opportunities that arise when a conflict of interest arises, when there's something he just won't do (or something he does that they just won't stand for), make for a very interesting game indeed.

You sir have all my respects.

I keep reading "TN is the easiest" or "If you are TN you can do whatever you want". I think that TN is very hard to roleplay, you're not suppose to do "whatever you want" that's more like a libertary CN concept. TN is about equilibrium, balance or apatheía (the greek term is appropiate I think). An example for the first 2 would be a druid who helps a village when it is attacked by gnolls and helps the gnolls when they're being erradicated from they're mountines by the villagers. He cares for balance. An example of the third one would be a commoner who just wants to live his life in peace and little more.

Personally I don't think there is an "easiest", I just want to roleplay all the alignments, I love roleplaying and every alignment gives me something different to work with.

EDIT: One think I whink people don't understand is that every alignement can be viewed form different perspectives, there are a lot of CG guys out there, but none of them acts in the same exact way, the same for the others.

[Abaddona]

Sonofzeal -> actually "end justify the means" doesn't quite work in real world Ethics (Ethics as Academic discipline) too (for example doing evil things to achieve greater good still equals evil - but sadly my knowledge and proficiency in language doesn't sufficient to take place in such discussions). But still taking alingments in such a linear way makes the whole system quite meager and restricts roleplaying capabilities. Also - if devil's are not able to do certain acts to further their goals, then I simply think they are inefficient - for example to make paladin fall you should lower his guard first by giving him "good" advices (bonus points if such good advices still further your goal - for example that evil mage the paladin defeated and put in jail was messing your plans) and then gradually make them fall in the grey area (whispering to his ear that he should kill villagers is quite easy to discern, suggesting that killing this little child to save the world is noble act - not so much).
Aside extraplanar beings (which morality AFAIR works different that mortal's morality) - if only action matters then person who wants to kill everyone near him in most gruoseme ways but at the same time is too afraid to do so (example: psychopatic commoner who had really bad luck with rolls) will be Neutral.

[sonofzeal]

Sonofzeal -> actually "end justify the means" doesn't quite work in real world Ethics (Ethics as Academic discipline) too (for example doing evil things to achieve greater good still equals evil - but sadly my knowledge and proficiency in language doesn't sufficient to take place in such discussions). But still taking alingments in such a linear way makes the whole system quite meager and restricts roleplaying capabilities. Also - if devil's are not able to do certain acts to further their goals, then I simply think they are inefficient - for example to make paladin fall you should lower his guard first by giving him "good" advices (bonus points if such good advices still further your goal - for example that evil mage the paladin defeated and put in jail was messing your plans) and then gradually make them fall in the grey area (whispering to his ear that he should kill villagers is quite easy to discern, suggesting that killing this little child to save the world is noble act - not so much).
Aside extraplanar beings (which morality AFAIR works different that mortal's morality) - if only action matters then person who wants to kill everyone near him in most gruoseme ways but at the same time is too afraid to do so (example: psychopatic commoner who had really bad luck with rolls) will be Neutral.
Well, not to derail too much, but there's three branches of ethics:

Deontology - rules based ("Thou Shalt Not")
Consequentialism - results based ("Greatest Good for the Greatest Number")
Virtue Ethics - intent/character based ("What Would {insert prefered name} Do")

Ends justify the means in Consequentialism, but never in Deontology. Virtue Ethics, as is usual for such things, goes back and forth depending on the specifics. I find it tends to conform better to our intuitions, and produces less bizarre results in thought experiments, which is about as good a reason as any to hold to it.

In the real world, then, I'd say intent matters - a corruptor who teases a mortal with real help to ensnare them later is acting entirely within their proper role. D&D ethics are in many ways simpler and clearer, but the result is almost surreal some times, especially when considering Evil Outsiders. To really follow through with it, you have to treat Fiends as the inverse of Angels. Would an Angel harm and mislead a mortal for the purpose of redeeming them later? If not, then a Fiend shouldn't assist in order to corrupt.

Under this sort of system, Outsiders of any extreme alignment become rather alien beings, inscrutable and inhuman. But, having said that... that can make for some darned awesome stories. I think there's something to be said for having them be less Rubber Forehead Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RubberForeheadAliens) and more Starfish Aliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens). In this sort of setting, when a powerful Outsider shows up, things get tense. Even the "nice" ones could turn on you at a single wrong word.

[PersonMan]

In D&D, action matters. Not intent, not result, not personal preference, just action.

I have a concept or two that really plays with this - they are Evil on the inside, but have easily manipulated personalities and are around Good people, so they end up LG despite having a CE mentality.

[Razanir]

Since this seems to have turned into what does each alignment mean, I'll throw in my 2 cp.

Good v Evil is partly a function of who you care about. Good characters care about others, Neutral characters care about friends and family, and Evil characters are concerned only with their own well being.

Law v Chaos is about your means of achieving your goals. Lawful characters will work within a codified set of laws and work honorably. Chaotic characters, on the other hand, are prone to working outside of the law like Robin Hood. In a way, it's almost a deontological/consequential split

[snoopy13a]

Neutral Evil is easy because the ends do justify the means evilness-wise. As long as the character has an "evil" goal then any behavior that leads to this goal is acceptable.

Neutral Good is easy--for characters, at least--because most, if not all, players know what the altruistic option is in a given situation. Unlike real life, altruism in game does require any self-sacrifice or effort (I don't consider minor penalties or even death for a character in a RPG to be self-sacrifice on the part of the player) so being a good character isn't that tough.

Any chaotic alignment can can be tough because reasonable people differ how to define chaotic.

[Zweisteine]

My takes on the alignments. They get longer not because I have more to say, but because as I write, I get pulled further into it and can't help but write more.

I'd say True Neutral isn't the hardest or the easiest. PEople who try to play True Neutral tend to drift off in one direction or another.

Neutral good seems pretty easy to me, and probably easiest, because simply doing what's "right" and not being especially focused on enforcing good law, or rebelling against it.

Chaotic Good, too, wouldn't be too hard to roleplay. Simply try to be good and help people, but ignore rules that you think get in your way, and especially go against rules that appear evil.

Chaotic Evil can be easy or hard, depending on how you plan to play it. If you want to be Chaotic Evil and Insane, it instantly becomes easiest, by being as simple as attacking anybody you see. If you want to be sane... Well, it gets a lot harder then. You have to start prioritizing, and decide whther to plan for chaos or just run for your goals.

Lawful Neutral is relatively easy as well. Just follow all the laws everywhere, always. (I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but it shouldn't get too much more complex...)

Chaotic Neutral, I would agree, is also harder to play than it might seem, unless, again you plan for insanity. As with True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral types probably will start to drift towards good or evil, as you should be acting only on personal preference, and you likely prefer one over the other.

Lawful Good is easy to roleplay wrong, and could be easy to do well, depending on the setting. You don't have to be overzealous, but you can't be too lax, either. It isn't always easy to uphold a code of honor, but you must, because you believe that honor is the right path. You believe that law is necessary to maintain order, but you also want to help people. You can't help everybody that suffers unjustly, because the law sometimes works that way (Unless you're a lawful good lawyer. Then you can try to help those people, but not the ones suffering in the deep, dark Caves of Adventuring.). If a law is evil, you might stand against it, but only to uphold the laws that are good.

Lawful Evil is moderately hard to play. It is hard for some of the same reasons as Lawful Good, but harder because you have to act for personal interest instead of compassion.

Neutral Evil is probably the easiest alignment to roleplay a sane character of. You can be as selfish as you want, but you don't go out of your way to kill people, and don't have some code you have to follow. You have no qualms about killing, but you don't revel in needless bloodshed, though you may kill for sport.




Sample situations:

1. In a city, there has been a string of murders. At least twenty have been killed. The culprit is wanted alive, not dead, so that he may stand trial for his crimes, which could take months, and he might be acquitted or given a light sentence. The character has hunted down and cornered the criminal.

LG: Try as hard as you can to capture him, and only use deadly force if absolutely necessary.

NG: Try to capture him alive, but he is a murderer, so if he dies, so be it.

CG: This man murdered twenty peoples and caused their families horrible pain, and the flaws in the justice system mean he could go free, so he must die. If he falls unconscious before he dies, maybe you could take him alive, if you feel merciful.

LN: Pull all your blows so that the criminal does not die. Only kill him if you would die otherwise.

N: Being True Neutral, you are probably hunting him for the reward or because he killed someone you knew, so you want to either kill him or spare him, depending on why you searched him out.

CN: Your dislike for authority means you are probably doing this for revenge, so kill the murderer.

LE: You probably either want him alive (unless your personal code includes "take no prisoners"), or to recruit him.

NE: Why are you hunting this guy down? He could be useful. If it's for personal reasons (revenge), kill away!

CE: If you are more intent on spreading chaos than being it, let him go free. If you wish to spread destruction more personally, you'll probably want to kill him (or maybe even to recruit him).


I was going to write more situations, but I'm getting tired of all this typing...


Phew... That was a lot to say...
I typed way more than I meant to. :smalleek:
I hope this helps this conversation in some way...

[illyrus]

Easiest for me in actual play with the groups I've played with would be TN or LN. I've seen GMs question people's actions on all the other alignments but I've never seen a GM question a LN or TN character's choice. That is not to say that those were played properly, just the lack of conflict with the GM over them.

[Abaddona]

Sonofzeal - well, I understand this, but still i think that this system lacks some depth and can create strange consequences (campaign's big bad who plots world domination, but in such a way that his alignment will stay good - so he can scheme even under paladins watch) and severely limits some alignments from comming into play (Chaotic Evil becomes some sort of crazy indiscriminate killer, which makes my cry. Furthermore still quite crazy but rather Dexter-type sociable killer becomes now Chaotic Neutral, which makes me cry even more).

This becomes even more severe with Outsiders - who (if I understand correctly) are mentally/physically incapable of acting outside their alignment which throws out of window interesting character ideas (well, succubus Paladin is strange even for me, altough I kinda like Fall-from-Grace (Planescape: Torment) - Lawful Neutral succubus;). As for Angels - well, to be honest I see some space for good celestials to present mortal believer in tough moral situation in order to broaden his horizons (for example make Miko-type paladin face some impossible "kill innocent to save a world" type of situation in order to let her realize her own weakness and thus prevent her from becoming a Templar in future).

In the end - it seems that whole alignmet system is one of things which should be discussed between players and DM before start of the campaign in order to provide most fun for everyone.

[sonofzeal]

Sonofzeal - well, I understand this, but still i think that this system lacks some depth and can create strange consequences (campaign's big bad who plots world domination, but in such a way that his alignment will stay good - so he can scheme even under paladins watch) and severely limits some alignments from comming into play (Chaotic Evil becomes some sort of crazy indiscriminate killer, which makes my cry. Furthermore still quite crazy but rather Dexter-type sociable killer becomes now Chaotic Neutral, which makes me cry even more).
CE doesn't have to be a total psycho - but they do have to act on their urges, at least some of the time. If your hypothetical guy abused his wife (and possibly others if he thought he could get away with it), and would torture fallen enemies even when there was nothing to be gained, that'd be enough to make him Evil. Chaotic is a bit muddier, but he should at least have a "problem with authority", resenting order and generally being a bit defiant with authority figures. Such a person is not a nice man, nor a pleasant man, but far short of a "crazy indiscriminate killer" while still being CE enough to justify writing it on the character sheet. Honestly, I think I know people like this.

As for Dexter... I haven't watched/read any, but IIRC he was CE in the past, and has been trying to move away from that. The idea of hunting down and dispatching criminals the law can't touch is high CN to the point of bordering on CG, but I'm given to understand he shows more brutality in the task than necessary which lowers it somewhat. Still, he seems to be a CE trying to work his way up to CN, from what little I know. I don't see why that would make you cry.


This becomes even more severe with Outsiders - who (if I understand correctly) are mentally/physically incapable of acting outside their alignment which throws out of window interesting character ideas (well, succubus Paladin is strange even for me, altough I kinda like Fall-from-Grace (Planescape: Torment) - Lawful Neutral succubus;). As for Angels - well, to be honest I see some space for good celestials to present mortal believer in tough moral situation in order to broaden his horizons (for example make Miko-type paladin face some impossible "kill innocent to save a world" type of situation in order to let her realize her own weakness and thus prevent her from becoming a Templar in future).
If you see space for Angels to act like that - which is entirely plausible - then there's space for Devils to do the reverse.

And I didn't say they're incapable of acting outside their alignment. They may be, but I don't think it's mandated by the rules. "Always Lawful Good" doesn't actually mean "always", just 99%. They aren't, quite, automatons. But any holding to a pure alignment (and most will) should honestly be a bit creepy to be around and talk to. The rest though, those that have "been around humans too long", may be considered insane or defective by the others but might be easier to talk to, and more willing to act outside their rigid alignment.


In the end - it seems that whole alignmet system is one of things which should be discussed between players and DM before start of the campaign in order to provide most fun for everyone.
Definitely agreed. If you're going to play a character for whom alignments have signficant mechanical effect, talk to your DM first.

[ArcturusV]

Honestly I kinda like that Abaddonna, that Alignments don't really speak to your end goals so much as they do your desires, code, and methodology.

It allows for things that can make for more interesting stories that my players get.

For example, the Chaotic Good Villain. Most ascribe that alignment to "Robin Hood" and imply a sort of nobility and in some extreme cases aura of "Founding Fathers of America" sort to them. I've had group that hold Chaotic Good up as the ultimate Good, because they do what's right and don't let "piss ant red tape" get in their way.

But Villainy really is less a matter of Alignment, and more a matter of how far the Crazy knob is turned. It's entirely possible to have someone who is Chaotic Good, trying to save the world by being a complete anarchist. Which results in the Chaotic Good guy going around and beating up/killing any attempts to instill order upon the people. Scattering communities to the wind, and spreading his dogma about the evils of Social Contracts and the benefits of unlimited freedom.

I mean he's still "Good", he's tearing down regimes and institutions like Slavery, Dictatorships, Evil Cults, etc, and not just indiscriminately murdering others when he can instead just drive them off towards a better life. He's doing it to help other people and not for his own reward or in service of some Dark Power. He's definitely being Chaotic. But a player group will still peg him as a Villain.

Similarly I can take Lawful Evil character, play them completely within the bounds of Lawful Evil. And people worship the character as a Hero. And not a "Because he was necessary" but they honestly look up to and admire the character.

The fact that Heroes aren't always Good, and Villains aren't always Evil, isn't a weakness in the system, but a strength.

And yeah, if you're playing Outsiders right, they should be creeping people out. Least in my experience. Even minor outsiders, ones that you'd normally go "Pssh, it's only 2 HD, lets kill it and take its stuff!" should play out in such a way that, due to characterization, it just creeps players out. Should really be hitting that Uncanny Valley sort of area.

[hamishspence]

Since this seems to have turned into what does each alignment mean, I'll throw in my 2 cp.

Good v Evil is partly a function of who you care about. Good characters care about others, Neutral characters care about friends and family, and Evil characters are concerned only with their own well being.

In the context of D&D I'd say this is an exaggeration - Savage Species makes it clear that Evil characters can care greatly about friends, family, their own peers, etc.

[ahenobarbi]

But Villainy really is less a matter of Alignment, and more a matter of how far the Crazy knob is turned. It's entirely possible to have someone who is Chaotic Good, trying to save the world by being a complete anarchist. Which results in the Chaotic Good guy going around and beating up/killing any attempts to instill order upon the people. Scattering communities to the wind, and spreading his dogma about the evils of Social Contracts and the benefits of unlimited freedom.

How is beating and/or killing virtually everyone "respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and making "personal sacrifices to help others"? (i.e. SRD definition of good alignment)

This guy could sounds chaotic neutral to me but there is no "good" part to him (and if he causes a lot of death(directly or not) he is probably evil).

[ArcturusV]

Because it's not Objective but Personal. While alignments are given Objective terms, the Objective terms are usually in terms of Personal Motivation.

I mean it's defined as:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life"

" "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

The Chaotic Good Anarchist Villain fits by the following:

He is protecting "innocent life". In his definition, Innocent Life means FREE life. Life unfettered by the chains of civilization and societal rules. Those who are suffering under these shackles are victims. By tearing down orders and civilizations, they are protecting the innocent.

Of course since his concern is about the dignity of others and their freedom, and not personal rewards, it already fits the peg for Altruistic Tendencies. A Respect for Life (Note that DnD already allows leeway for it meaning "non-evil" life. And in his view those he is fighting ARE evil) is similarly covered with the exception of life that he considers "evil", which is perfectly fine for Good aligned types. Not like Good people are driven to say, respect the evil Arch Lich who is terrorizing the countryside.

Of course since his motivation is to free people from "enslavement", the "dignity of sentient beings" is also being concerned.

The only one it doesn't hit on the head is making personal sacrifices for others. But that's more in the realm of particular situations that come up. If in the course of his actions he's someone who "leads from the front", is willing to take risks to protect those he's in the process of Freeing, etc. But it doesn't exclude him from the alignment on the concept basis either.

[ahenobarbi]

Because it's not Objective but Personal. While alignments are given Objective terms, the Objective terms are usually in terms of Personal Motivation.

D&d disagrees. Alignments are objective. Even 1st level characters can detect them.



He is protecting "innocent life". In his definition, Innocent Life means FREE life. Life unfettered by the chains of civilization and societal rules. Those who are suffering under these shackles are victims. By tearing down orders and civilizations, they are protecting the innocent.

You changed definition from "protect innocent life" to "protect arbitrarily defined subset of life". So almost everyone fits (except non-living and those who will not protect even their own life).


Of course since his concern is about the dignity of others and their freedom, and not personal rewards, it already fits the peg for Altruistic Tendencies.

To scatter communities you pretty much must destroy everything community members valued (in the community). How is destroying things people value an altruistic? (and how does he deal with the fact that despite worshiping freedom he forces his own will on everyone?)


A Respect for Life (Note that DnD already allows leeway for it meaning "non-evil" life. And in his view those he is fighting ARE evil) is similarly covered with the exception of life that he considers "evil", which is perfectly fine for Good aligned types. Not like Good people are driven to say, respect the evil Arch Lich who is terrorizing the countryside.

I don't see the "non-evil" in definition. It's simply "respect for life". Which he lacks.


Of course since his motivation is to free people from "enslavement", the "dignity of sentient beings" is also being concerned.

You didn't give any examples of what "villain" actually did but I assume that if he is a villain he actually didn't respect folks dignity.

TL;DR You stretch definition of "good" it covers almost everyone alive. They villain isn't good (or isn't a villain; please let us know what he actually did).

[Kudaku]

As for Dexter... I haven't watched/read any, but IIRC he was CE in the past, and has been trying to move away from that. The idea of hunting down and dispatching criminals the law can't touch is high CN to the point of bordering on CG, but I'm given to understand he shows more brutality in the task than necessary which lowers it somewhat. Still, he seems to be a CE trying to work his way up to CN, from what little I know. I don't see why that would make you cry.

It should be noted that Dexter's life and a large part of the plotline is "the code", a complex set of rules, guidelines, and so on he was given by his father. It explains how to ensure your target is guilty (and Dexter is (mostly) very very thorough in making sure that he only kills "those who deserve it"), how set up the perfect murder scene, perform cleanup afterwards, where to dump the bodies, and so on. Even the actual execution is highly rulebound and ritualized.

Dexter's murderous instinct are presented as "urges", something inherent to his personality. His father helps him develop "the code" to keep Dexter in check, by giving Dex "productive" ways to satisfy them.

http://dexter.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_Harry

On the other hand Dexter frequently shows he has quite a bit of range inside that code - for instance he frequently sabotages murder cases so that he can catch and kill the guilty himself.

I'd argue that Dexter's character shows significant lawful tendencies, I might even define him as Lawful Evil: He is heavily bound by rules which he follows each day because he wants to (no external influence forces him to, save the parental authority of a deceased father), but eager and skilled at finding and using loopholes within those rules to get what he wants. The few times he has broken his rules he has seemed contrite and has reflected on what this means for him and how to do better in the future.

However I find using alignment to define modern characters tricky since alignment is at least in part defined by the society around it.

In Varisia for instance, it's perfectly acceptable to kill bandits with extreme prejudice.

If swedish police took to gunning down people on sight for car theft, that would cause a bit more controversy.

I consider Dexter evil because part of what his character does is very much actions that his society would consider 'evil'. Of course, the downside with that is that those views are fluctuating. Hell, being gay was illegal not that long ago.

[Tholomyes]

It's arguable that you could have a "Good" villain, similar to what Arcturus is describing. Just look at Watchmen; A case for Ozymandias being "Good" is easy to make: He's an altruist by nature, and his entire plan was based around "protect[ing] innocent life" from cold-war era nuclear tensions (pegging down L vs C is more difficult, since by the deontological/consequential split he's more C, but by most other respects, he's L), but he's the main antagonist of the Graphic Novel.

[ArcturusV]

Similarly it's possible, even easy, to have "Evil" heroes.

We put the Good/Evil on Heroes/Villains without really thinking about it. Just a kneejerk reaction. Though often it is completely warranted. Sometimes obviously so for the usual DnD villain of "I am evil because I worship evil for he sake of evil" sort of thing.

But it's really easy to have Evil "Heroes". Particularly I find of the Lawful bent. The fact that they are power brokers and looking to climb the ladder means they have a vested interest in stability and societies that others depend upon (And thus consider the defense of or creation of typically "good", in the Heroic sense if not the DnD sense).

It's not only possible, but piss easy to have a Lawful Evil guy, being completely Lawfully Evil, out on some megalomaniacal mission but viewed as a hero for bringing order and safety to the world and creating some stable regime.

Heck. Happens to almost every Lawful Evil character I play. Even when I betray the "Good" teammate I still came out looking like a hero.

And tying into what Tholomyes said, when I have done it I've had the guy I "betrayed" telling me I "Pulled a Watchmen on him" by making his good character a scapegoat that I united an Empire to fight. :smallwink:

So unclear on that if the "Watchmen" thing is necessarily a Good person who does "Villain" things for Good Purposes. Or an Evil person who does Good things for Evil reasons. Or maybe both. But it clearly exists. And Alignment systems don't really prevent Good aligned Villains, or Evil aligned Heroes outside of kneejerk reactions "He's a villain, he's evil!" sort of things.

Heck, Lawful Good can be (And often is) just as tyrannical as Lawful Evil supposedly is. Free Choice and Freedom is Chaotic, not Good aligned. The ultra police state with no free will where everything is "For your own Good", is quite Lawful Good. And quite a villainous Empire in the eyes of most players.

[ahenobarbi]

It's arguable that you could have a "Good" villain, similar to what Arcturus is describing. Just look at Watchmen; A case for Ozymandias being "Good" is easy to make: He's an altruist by nature, and his entire plan was based around "protect[ing] innocent life" from cold-war era nuclear tensions (pegging down L vs C is more difficult, since by the deontological/consequential split he's more C, but by most other respects, he's L), but he's the main antagonist of the Graphic Novel.

Firstly antagonist is not the same as villain.

Secondly to my limited knowledge he sounds nothing like a good guy. Killed lots of people because of quite possibly imaginary danger? And what he thinks about those humans he's "saving" that they are incapable of reasoning on their own? To me he sounds like he murdered lot of people just to get attention (yeah, he wouldn't describe it like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29)).

[Somensjev]

four words
look, at, my, name
i'm sure you could figure it out

[Tholomyes]

Firstly antagonist is not the same as villain.

Secondly to my limited knowledge he sounds nothing like a good guy. Killed lots of people because of quite possibly imaginary danger? And what he thinks about those humans he's "saving" that they are incapable of reasoning on their own? To me he sounds like he murdered lot of people just to get attention (yeah, he wouldn't describe it like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29)).Just calling it a hunch, but you've never read Watchmen, have you?

[ahenobarbi]

Just calling it a hunch, but you've never read Watchmen, have you?

How in did you figure that out? Well "to my limited knowledge" part might have been a hint but it's so subtle I didn't expect anyone to get it.

No I didn't. And I'm not willing to spend 3 hours risking death from annoyment watching the movie (and much less willing to spend much more time reading original).

But I saw a few characters that he sounded similar to him and... well while reading/watching they may sound cool and all but if you stop and think for a while it turns out they are egomaniacs with support from author to appear as good guys.

[Razanir]

Firstly antagonist is not the same as villain.

Secondly to my limited knowledge he sounds nothing like a good guy. Killed lots of people because of quite possibly imaginary danger? And what he thinks about those humans he's "saving" that they are incapable of reasoning on their own? To me he sounds like he murdered lot of people just to get attention (yeah, he wouldn't describe it like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29)).

An example of antagonist not meaning villain– Les Misérables. Javert is the antagonist, but he is NOT Evil. Javert is LN. The real villains of the story and the only people I would peg as Evil are the Thérnadiers

[Water_Bear]

But I saw a few characters that he sounded similar to him and... well while reading/watching they may sound cool and all but if you stop and think for a while it turns out they are egomaniacs with support from author to appear as good guys.

Yeah, it's really not like that at all. Alan Moore is all about ambiguity; none of the characters are "good guys" and the morality is never spelled out.

On the one hand, Ozy's actions brutally kill about half of the characters in the graphic novel on-panel, characters who had been developed since the first few pages, and the surviving ones treat him and his plan with horror and disgust. On the other, it is very likely that he did save the world through his actions (although Rorschach might have thrown a wrench into that). So whether he's a "good guy" or a monster is up to the reader.

Also; Ozymandias is not the protagonist, or even a viewpoint character. He is a minor character at first and revealed as an antagonist later.

But back to alignments; do people view ruthlessness in pursuit of a "Good" goal to be Evil or Neutral? Like, if the party finds a Little Girl With Evil Sealed Inside HerTM and the Fighter decides to kill her to make sure it can never be released, are they Evil? Or if a Wizard releases a magical plague to kill off Orc tribes which were organizing to invade humanoid lands?

[Joe the Rat]

It does rather depend on what you thing the "right" way to play an alignment to be. I mean, TN as "Indifferent to the Cosmic Struggles" is a viable approach, and gives you a lot of flexibility of action. Of course, these are the folks most likely to end up drifting towards the party alignment median over time, simply because they're most likely to go along with whatever wacky hijinks the others come up with.

TN as "Conscious Decision to Maintain Balance" can be a beast, particularly when your party has a fair number of characters in the four non-neutrals. Too obsessed with order. Too self-serving. Too willing to sacrifice to improve the lot, but not willing to sacrifice the lot to keep the bad at bay.

So one alignment is as likely to be easy to work with anyone, and I mean anyone, as it is to butt heads with half of the other options.

For me, I find chaotic easier to play - freedom of choice as to what I do and don't hold to. Keeping your word when you know - know - that they will turn on you at some point, having personal honor be more important than winning... yeah, I have a harder time with it.

Evil is one that is easy to get into, but can get rather uncomfortable. When you are (in character, on stage) engaging in acts of artistic expression that give Melniboneans pause, it's hard for me to stick with it. Off-stage horror-shows (let's not get bogged down in details about which organs you are using as a bellows) make it easier, but it's not where I want to be playing.

[Simetra Irertne]

I would agree that the easiest to play is the one closest to yourself. I've always found the easiest to play are lawful good and chaotic neutral, but they're also the least interesting. Lawful good is your run-of-the-mill hero, devoted to good and blah blah blah. Boring as a petrified roper. Chaotic neutral is good if you can pull off a deserving character. The do-whatever-you-want players who don't want to be locked down in alignment all choose this one.
Next on the chopping block are the two remaining chaotics: chaotic evil and chaotic good. Chaotic evil is the standard insane villain. There's too many of them running around, and most of them are pretenders Even when played well, it doesn't contribute to a group and is a poor choice for roleplaying. Chaotic good is the rebel alignment. Not too difficult to play, so it's good for a starting player. At a higher level of roleplaying, however, they get boring fast.
Moving on to the harder, but more interesting alignments. Neutral evil is fun to play, and requires a special kind of selfishness. You need to establish a goal early, usually one devoted to yourself. Lawful neutral is also fun, but only to a certain type of person. It limits your freedom for creativity, though, which makes it easier to play but harder to do well.
Now for my personal favorites: Neutral good, lawful evil, and true neutral. True neutral is less good for team play, and very hard to do well. It requires an indifference to most of the world that few can pull off. The hundreds of characters who play true neutral for the do-whatever mindset give it a bad reputation, but it's nice to have a few around. They make good NPC's.
Neutral good is the typical hero. Fun and easy to play, based on a simple premise: good for the good of the good.
Finally, lawful evil. The hardest to play well, but the most fun. The ultimate manipulator, requiring a mind behind the PC. Overall the best alignment for a player looking for an interesting game. However, if you can't play it well, stick to one of the others.


Disclaimer: Everything here is situational. If you pull off a perfect chaotic neutral rogue, good job. These are my personal views, and should not be taken as offensive. Unless you play lawful good. I stand by my condemnation of those guys.

[noob]

I am sorry for thread necromancy.

[OldTrees1]

^Thread Necromancy of a 4 year old thread^