Alignments that you, as a player, can't get into?

[Isamu Dyson]

I'm of the mind that a majority of responses will tend towards the various Evil alignments.

As for myself? Lawful Neutral. I can swing Lawful Good only because the Good tempers the Lawful, but playing a character focused solely on lawfulness has basically zero appeal to me.

[Spore]

LN isn't just ultimate lawfulness. That's what arbiter outsiders stand for. LN is primarily personal code. A LN hero can protect innocent people while enforcing a LE government. But he can also protect while following his own code because this code disagrees with the current law.

[Snowbluff]

I can't do any alignment right. My chaotics come out evil, my evils come out good, and my goods come out neutral.

Nice avatar, by the way. :smallsmile:

[Isamu Dyson]

The whole "personal code versus actually declared laws" debate over the Lawful-aspect of alignments kind of rubs me the wrong way.


I can't do any alignment right. My chaotics come out evil, my evils come out good, and my goods come out neutral.

Why not take the middle road and opt for plain beige Neutral?

[Snowbluff]

That's boring and legitimately hard to pull off. :smalltongue:

[erok0809]

Lawful Good. It's hard for me to be like that. It just isn't practical a lot of the time.

[Zanos]

LN isn't just ultimate lawfulness. That's what arbiter outsiders stand for. LN is primarily personal code. A LN hero can protect innocent people while enforcing a LE government. But he can also protect while following his own code because this code disagrees with the current law.
Patriotic characters and soldiers would also generally be Lawful Neutral. "For King and Country." LN characters could also simply have a very strong sense of honor. Alternatively, they could just want order or strong government.


I personally have trouble getting into the mindset of Good alignments though. My characters usually have their own goals and aren't going to put them on the backburner to do favors for people who can't help themselves. Of course, they'll still stop the big bad evil cult from taking over the world because they think that would kind of suck, but unless there's something in it for them they probably aren't going much out of their way.

I always felt that Good was a very reactive alignment, which I found dull.

[Isamu Dyson]

There are plenty of proactive Good-aligned characters, though. Paladins are but one Lawful Good example.

[Kane0]

Lawful and/or good. My group(s) usually swing towards the deep end of the alignment pool sooner or later.
Also, being an adventurer usually means you are a killer. I find it hard to act good and lawful when ending lives is one of the primary aspects of your career.

Swimming against the tide, so to speak.

[Gnome Alone]

Lawful Neutral for me, too. Very very far from my own ethical/moral viewpoint, and seems kinds boring. I also probably wouldn't have much fun being Chaotic Evil for very long, but I don't know. I've never actually played an Evil character.

[HaikenEdge]

I can't really play any of the "good" alignments correctly; I just can't get behind a mentality that believes there will be a way up ahead that won't involve sacrifice, if the solution to save two people by killing one person presents itself now.

Basically, I'm a consequentialist, so to me, the ends justifies the means, but D&D is all about the means, as opposed to the ends, which is why I can't get behind playing a "good" character. I mean, my characters almost always have good intentions, but almost always end up doing the wrong things (murder, theft, kidnapping, torture, etc) for the right reasons (to save the day, apparently), although I'm sure that, if it was viewed from the point of view of the NPCs, my characters would all be BBEGs of sorts.

[Naomi Li]

Most alignments other than neutral/chaotic good, with chaotic good being harder for me to get into than neutral good. As an observer I can appreciate the neutral alignments as well (other than lawful neutral... those are massive pains), but I couldn't get into them as a player. Evil alignments that are because of immoral behaviour instead of, say, having read from the Book of the Damned (Pathfinder Campaign Setting), being an undead creature, or raising undead animals or undead self-aware creatures that gave informed, uncoerced consent to it are right out. (Still sympathetic people, of course, but I cannot really understand the mindset nor would I ever want to play one)

[SimonMoon6]

I have no problem with Lawful Neutral. I played an LN character once when I needed to dip monk but didn't think I could pull off my idea of LG with this particular party. Basically, he was just honorable and trustworthy and a little greedy... a decent guy but neither overly moral nor capable of despicable acts.

For me, the hardest alignment would be True Neutral. There's really nothing to get a hold of there, no obvious character motivations.

[Dr. Azkur]

True Neutral. No character concept steaming out of it seems right, it's either too passive (Mooooo, I love eating grass for a living) or too reactive (OMG that guy did something to upset the perfect balance, I have to revert it! OMG that other guy did the exact opposite, I have to line up with the first dude now! What?)... except for one, which would basically be around destroying everything so that it is all in perfect balance, but I couldn't bring myself to play such a blatantly stupid character.

Also NE usually drifts off to CE in almost no time. LE is fine since I have a code to adhere to, but without that I just usually go slash slash.

[A.A.King]

True Neutral is something I can't get into and good is also very difficult though less impossible.

Characters whose actions are less restricted by "morals" are just more interesting. I feel there is only one or 2 shades of good while there are 50 shades of evil (and the lesser-evil Neutrals). The motivation of a character is usually more interesting when it's not the Hero-Complex (unless it's the real more Evil Hero-Complex of setting things on fire to save people) and having to hide true motives from good party members is all more fun then joining in.

[Dr. Azkur]

The motivation of a character is usually more interesting when it's not the Hero-Complex (unless it's the real more Evil Hero-Complex of setting things on fire to save people) and having to hide true motives from good party members is all more fun then joining in.

Agreed.

I also love disputing the meaning of "Good" in-character. Either to thwart or to completely humiliate, good old Hannibal Lecturing never gets old :smallwink:

[Lorsa]

Didn't we have this thread just a very short while ago?

[Lord_Gareth]

....Does it count if my Good characters are the most disturbing ones in the party but the group still considers them indisputably Good?

[Vetril]

The whole "personal code versus actually declared laws" debate over the Lawful-aspect of alignments kind of rubs me the wrong way.



Why not take the middle road and opt for plain beige Neutral?

You know who's LN and awesome? :D

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/025/2/e/javert_by_sideshow_cellophane-d5sq5kh.png

For me it's Chaotic Evil. Mostly because roleplaying like a real chaotic evil character is disturbing and morally revolting.

[Lord_Gareth]

For me it's Chaotic Evil. Mostly because roleplaying like a real chaotic evil character is disturbing and morally revolting.

Evil is supposed to be morally revolting, but CE can be done to a lesser degree. Not everyone has to be an Obyrith.

[ArcturusV]

Basically the only one I can't really get into is True Neutral. It's... too hard for me to get a handle on. True Neutral is the alignment of things that are "incapable of making moral decisions" in game like Animals, Vermin, etc. But playing a savage, unthinking creature just isn't fun to do more of the time. I've only really enjoyed it once in my decades of roleplaying, as a Half-Ogre Druid.

The "Cosmic Philosopher" style to True Neutral, someone who actively tries to avoid Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos is just so insane to me. So far outside of human experience I can't imagine trying to actually live like that. Not to mention it makes your character sound like an ass. I might try it in a comedy game just for the sake of having someone who goes around kicking Archons AND Demons right in their metaphysical nuts. But it'd get old fast. Not to mention that pretty much any act beyond "eat, sleep, procreate" basically is Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic, so trying to avoid all those things ends up still putting you in "Animal" land which is hard to RP for me.

Similarly like the OP mentioned disliking how Lawful and the Mortal Law versus Personal Honor Code thing works, I never liked the idea of "gaming" the system to be True Neutral. Trying to say "Yesterday I was lawful good, today I'll be Chaotic Evil so I can maintain True Neutral"... not only does it smack me as just as insane as the "Cosmic Philosopher" angle... it doesn't even make sense. The rules, such as they are, paint a pretty clear picture that Evil is dark, seductive, and weighs on your soul much, much more than Good. It's not something you "balance out". You can't equate "killed a red dragon" with "tortured and sacrificed an innocent maiden to get a favor from a Demon Lord". And if you were someone who just slipped once, or a few times, or even just for a few years and spent the rest of your life trying to balance those insanely evil acts against your now and future good deeds.... that's typical Hero fodder. You are Good at that point, on the road to redemption. How do you "balance"? It just doesn't make sense to me. Least trying to balance Law and Chaos makes a bit more sense. As you're not a knee jerk "rebel" doing things to be contrary and stubborn and not blindly following Dogma.

Interestingly, despite the mention of balancing Good and Evil, I don't have that problem with Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. The thing is having SOMETHING to cling to... be it Code, Honor, Law of the Land, Anarchy, Rebellion, etc, gives direction that makes the balance possible. You're not trying to balance good and evil, you're just clinging to another philosophy.

[Isamu Dyson]

....Does it count if my Good characters are the most disturbing ones in the party but the group still considers them indisputably Good?

That depends on how quirky their disturbing habits/nature are :smallsmile:.


For me it's Chaotic Evil. Mostly because roleplaying like a real chaotic evil character is disturbing and morally revolting.

Yeah: I don't like to play evil characters at all, but the spectrum of dog kicking and baby eating is pretty much a given.


--snip--

Here's my view on Neutral: while there might be much more neutrality in real life (respecting the law just enough to not get arrested, and being decent enough to not constantly be branded a jerkass), I feel like my fictional characters inevitably have to take a stand of some sort regardless of their level of competence in an adventuring party.

[Beelzebub1111]

I can't do chaotic neutral. Rebels without a cause are boring for me to play. Chaotic Good I can get behind, fighting injustices in the law. Chaotic Evil works from the angle of dismantling society's "meaningless" rules and laws and let anarchy reign. This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ) is chaotic neutral. The same basic philosophy, but without the motivation of chaotic good or the commitment of chaotic evil.

[Yawgmoth]

That's boring and legitimately hard to pull off. :smalltongue: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Talya]

LG/LN and TN are all impossible to me.

[HaikenEdge]

Isn't the whole, "Evil is icky" thing not really representative of what evil is, necessarily?

I mean, D&D is all about your means, so you could be a character who means well, but has to do horrible things to save the world; by D&D definitions of alignment, Jack Bauer would be chaotic evil, given that he murders, tortures, kidnaps and steals to keep his world from burning down, regardless of law of personal code, but that doesn't make Bauer any less heroic a character.

As for neutrality, I think it has to do with a character who doesn't particularly lean in any of the directions; this would be a person who'd keep a dollar if they found it on the sidewalk (despite it being theft by finding), but would also try to help a lost child find their parents. Basically, my understanding is that most normal people (including NPCs) are true neutral, and just have leanings towards other alignments.

[Isamu Dyson]

LG/LN and TN are all impossible to me.

Why the former two?


I mean, D&D is all about your means, so you could be a character who means well, but has to do horrible things to save the world; by D&D definitions of alignment, Jack Bauer would be chaotic evil, given that he murders, tortures, kidnaps and steals to keep his world from burning down, regardless of law of personal code, but that doesn't make Bauer any less heroic a character.

Going by that rationale, he would be Neutral Evil, since he doesn't break laws unless absolutely necessary.

[Scumbaggery]

LG is impossible to me at all times. I can't do it, not roleplay-wise or mechnically

[HaikenEdge]

Going by that rationale, he would be Neutral Evil, since he doesn't break laws unless absolutely necessary.

According to the description, NE characters break the law when they can get away with it; Bauer breaks the law even when he can't get away with it, because necessity dictates.

However, I think you could make the argument that Bauer is Lawful Evil, since the one thing he holds onto is "Make America Safe", and he's always doing what he can to do that.

Basically, the whole law and chaos this is more of a tossup, but "evil is icky" seems like an outdated concept.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, from what little I've seen of the series, he'd be pegged as Neutral Evil. Good guys don't torture. Hell, even Neutral guys don't torture.

I dunno. Just me. I don't like the "no choice" thing to Neutrality, at least True Neutral. If you're incapable of making a choice as the game recognizes it (like an animal), sure. But really think of the average person. Is the average person really "neutral"? When push comes to shove do they say "... no, I'll avoid making a choice and do nothing in your struggle between good and evil". Because that's what DnD is like. Morality is objective rather than subjective. They'll make a choice. It's inevitable. Unless they die as babies or something that are True Neutral by functionality of having 2 Int or something.

Besides, the idea that "most people are true neutral" even as mentioned above is based on some "moral equivalency" thing. I don't think you can compare "Picking up a dollar off the street" and "helping a poor lost child find their family and not be afraid and starve in the street". And it just seems like when people make the "most are true neutral" argument that's what they try to do. They try to equate something that really can't be equated like petty theft and vanquishing evil. Or punting orphans and feeding stray cats. I dont' think you can equate morality like that. There's no basis in the rules at least. There are moments though where they say things like "... if you contract and consort with demons from hell... you're evil. Doesn't matter why. Doesn't matter about coercion. EVIL." So there is basis for thinking you can't "balance" good and evil like a checkbook.

[Naomi Li]

I think neutrality means that they haven't made an extreme commitment towards an alignment, either by deliberate choice or notable inclination. TIf -49 to +49 were all neutral alignments, I imagine there would be plenty with |20|<.

As for being interesting adventurers... I think all you need to do is give them some motive that's not directly connected to an alignment. Have them be out for knowledge, other forms of power, to keep their family/country/whatever safe while not being willing to any of the alignment extremes in their efforts.

[Isamu Dyson]

I am reminded of a quest from the PC game "Neverwinter Nights".

There is a character that sacrificed children because they genuinely believed that it was a step towards goodness. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how ANY good deity would ever ask a follower or potential follower to do such a thing.

[druid91]

I can't get into lawful good, I tend towards either Chaotic Evil Characters, Lawful Evil, or Lawful Neutral.

[Blackjackg]

I guess I've had trouble with True Neutral as a player, although as a DM I think I've managed it pretty well. Perhaps the difference is that a PC (at least when I play one) has to have some sort of values and moral continuity, and playing those characteristics tends to push you in one direction or another. I'm sure there are many players that can handle Neutrality very easily, but it's been challenging for me.

[HaikenEdge]

I am reminded of a quest from the PC game "Neverwinter Nights".

There is a character that sacrificed children because they genuinely believed that it was a step towards goodness. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how ANY good deity would ever ask a follower or potential follower to do such a thing.

Doesn't that depend on whether the deity wanted the follower to follow through with the sacrifice, as opposed to stop it at the last minute and say, "This was all just a test of your loyalty and faith!".

[Isamu Dyson]

Doesn't that depend on whether the deity wanted the follower to follow through with the sacrifice, as opposed to stop it at the last minute and say, "This was all just a test of your loyalty and faith!".

It's a bit of a moot point, because they were being lied to/persuaded by Belial. Still, I wonder why any self-aware mortal being of The Realms with even a rudimentary grasp of morality and practically elemental representations of morality (the gods) would think killing children is a step towards holiness.

[Lord_Gareth]

Doesn't that depend on whether the deity wanted the follower to follow through with the sacrifice, as opposed to stop it at the last minute and say, "This was all just a test of your loyalty and faith!".

In D&D, Good-aligned deities throw out followers who 'pass' such a test of faith, probably after smiting the bones out of their flesh and blasting what's left into dust.

[HaikenEdge]

It's a bit of a moot point, because they were being lied to/persuaded by Belial. Still, I wonder why any self-aware mortal being of The Realms with even a rudimentary grasp of morality and practically elemental representations of morality (the gods) would think killing children is a step towards holiness.

Mayhaps a child in the area will grow up to be an evil warlord who will murder millions, but which one in particularly is not known, so there's a need to just kill them all?

[druid91]

It's a bit of a moot point, because they were being lied to/persuaded by Belial. Still, I wonder why any self-aware mortal being of The Realms with even a rudimentary grasp of morality and practically elemental representations of morality (the gods) would think killing children is a step towards holiness.

A natural 1 on a knowledge: (Religion) Check. With an Int Penalty and no skill points.

[A.A.King]

Stop with the spoilers

I don't think that you have to justify why someone would think X is good as long as you play that character in such a way that there is no doubt he truly believed X is good and does it because he thinks it's good.

I don't think Abraham ever thought of himself as anything less then LG and had the angel not stopped him he would have still seen himself as LG.

[Raimun]

I would say Lawful Neutral, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil are the hardest alignments for me.

I find it more easier to play Lawful Evil than Lawful Neutral. Even Lawful Good I can do and it's my least favorite type of Good. LG and LE are easier for me to grasp since I don't stress Law as much I stress Good or Evil when I play Lawful people. I can see how Lawfulness can support the views of Good or Evil alingment but I have trouble playing a character whose primary motivation (Alignment-wise) is Law.

I don't really like playing a character who is a heartless bastard most of the time when it counts. It just isn't me, so Evil is often right out. Even so, I do find "Order at any cost" more interesting argument than "Bash their heads and/or take their money because I want to", so I prefer LE over NE or CE. LE also lets you act honorably on occasion ("Doom never takes back his word!") without losing the Evil alignment. That's useful if I get sometimes really bored at playing an Evil character... :smalltongue:

Other two Neutral Alignments are pretty easy.

At its core, CN is a person who does whatever he wants. Sometimes this benefits other people and other times it doesn't. Personal freedom is important and they don't want to be coerced by other individuals or ideals.

True Neutral is the easiest Alignment to play and The Way to true moral ambiguity in a game of D&D. There's no way to act opposite of your alignment (barring repeated "offences") so you could have a few dark moments in your career but still make a few personal sacrifices if the mood takes you. Or want to have a short personal code of conduct you follow? Knock yourself out but follow your instincts other times.

If you feel D&D Alignments are restrictive, pick True Neutral. You can mix and match morals and ethics to your hearts content. Subjective morality and all that jazz.

[Darkranger85]

Please keep in mind that I'm contributing to this conversation despite have 0 experience actually playing DnD. I read a lot of Forgotten Realms and I write similar stories so I am well aware of the Alignment chart and such.

My problem is with True Neutral. And I really have no more on that than has already been said. It confuses me.

I tend toward the "Ends justifies the means" good guy.

[Venger]

I am reminded of a quest from the PC game "Neverwinter Nights".

There is a character that sacrificed children because they genuinely believed that it was a step towards goodness. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how ANY good deity would ever ask a follower or potential follower to do such a thing.

Some religious traditions dictate that one is born free of sin and as one lives on this sinful earth, they acclimate more sin. Thus, the younger you die, the better your chances of going to heaven are. This is why many fairy tales/morality tales from the 1600s in the Americas/england end with the children dying. that way they can die when they are pure and go to heaven which wouldn't have happened if they'd lived to adulthood.

If the character practiced a religion upholding these tenets, this might be one explanation for why he thought it was a good thing to do.

[Talya]

Why the former two?


Personal opinion:
If you were to make a foolhardy attempt to apply D&D's alignment system to reality, you'd find me on the far chaotic side of the spectrum, and I'd like to think slightly into the good section of the graph. I don't see "lawfulness" as D&D describes as a virtue in any way. Lawful good is foolhardy, tempering its goodness by a misguided attempt to abide by a code. Lawful Neutral is simply the empty code, nothing more.

Strangely, Lawful Evil I get. In fact, I'd argue that is the natural final alignment resting place of anyone who puts a code of conduct/honor/whatever ahead of anything else.

[Ninja_Grand]

Contrary to my personality, I can not be Chaotic. It comes out as ANARCHY not "peter pan"

[Raven777]

I have trouble being any kind of Lawful. Also, I can play Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil), but Complete Monster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster) goes against every fiber of my being.

[genericwit]

Neutral. Only druids should ever be neutral.

Chaotic and Neutral Evil, also. I don't like the conniving bastard or the insane rampager. I do love the cold, calculating, dedicated tyrant/exemplar, though.

[Pickford]

I've always found that Chaotic Good characters are far too easy to suddenly become Chaotic Evil with. Know what I mean? That person who's just got to help out...until suddenly they're all too willing to kill/torture the BBEG

Yawgmoth:

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

'If I don't survive, tell my wife Hello'


Zapp: I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Neutral President: All I know is, my gut says maybe.


Isamu:

Going by that rationale, he would be Neutral Evil, since he doesn't break laws unless absolutely necessary.

PHB indicates one does not change alignment from the occasional lapse. In other words: Jack Bauer can be Lawful Good, yet still do something Chaotic Evil. Now...he wouldn't be a Paladin at this point, but he'd certainly still be able to be Lawful Good, as those are his tendencies.

[ABEW19043]

Neutral evil for me.
Personally, when I play evil, I like to play either the long term, conniving, by the books everything comes together in the end lawful evil character..

Or the I do what I want when I want because it's fun and I take what I want no matter how it affects others kind of chaotic evil.

Either I want to take control of the empire, or leave everything in a burning rubble.

[Yogibear41]

I think people generally over think neutral too much, the majority of people in the world are neutral IMO. Neutral isn't really about balancing good with evil as much as just living your life one day at a time doing whats good for you when its good for you. Maybe you go out of your way to help a close friend or family member from time to time doesn't really make you good, maybe you slight the tax collector from time to time, or the guy at the restaurant gives you too much change and you think sweet and just keep it, doesn't necessarily make you evil.
Or you run your shopping cart into someones car and scrape off some paint in the walmart parking lot, and don't stick around to give them your information so you can pay for the damages, sure its not a nice thing to do, but it was an accident and you avoid the "good" path by not paying for your mistake, but it doesn't make you evil. (this is why I always park the farthest away were no one else does! :smallsmile:)

In my opinion in order to be "good" in DnD terms you have to actively seek out and help other people when it means putting their needs before your own, and to be "evil" you have to always do whats best for you without regards to other people.
And most people are just content to fend for themselves, keeping in my to not screw everyone else over to bad. That's more or less neutral to me.

[HaikenEdge]

PHB indicates one does not change alignment from the occasional lapse. In other words: Jack Bauer can be Lawful Good, yet still do something Chaotic Evil. Now...he wouldn't be a Paladin at this point, but he'd certainly still be able to be Lawful Good, as those are his tendencies.

Problem is, Jack Bauer doesn't do something Chaotic Evil sometime; he does something chaotic evil quite often. He's a guy who tortures, kills, kidnaps and blackmails whenever it suits his needs, even though his agenda is for the betterment of the world. This isn't a Lawful Good guy who lapses occasionally; this is an evil character who continuously commits acts that, in D&D would be considered evil.

[ArcturusV]

PHB indicates one does not change alignment from the occasional lapse. In other words: Jack Bauer can be Lawful Good, yet still do something Chaotic Evil. Now...he wouldn't be a Paladin at this point, but he'd certainly still be able to be Lawful Good, as those are his tendencies.

Even if that was true... and I don't think it is about "tendencies" being required, as there are quite a few acts that are listed as inherently evil, you don't get to be Good and do it, etc. The "tendencies" thing still applies. I mean given a chance, from what I've seen of an admitted fairly limited sampling of the series (They did what, 5 seasons and I only saw half of one?)... he jumps at the chance to go to "evil" means like torture as a first resort, without a single doubt in his mind. His tendencies is, when it is put on the table to embrace Evil and flaunt, twisting authority while barely respecting it.

I don't think you can apply "tendencies" to normal, quiet life where you don't do anything but eat breakfast, tend the fields, eat dinner, and sleep. The "tendencies" would have to impact when you actually do have a moral choice, when you are given the option to choose between doing what is Right, and doing what is Easy. In which case he embraces the Evil.

Doesn't matter if between seasons, off screen for 3 years he's just a normal guy living a normal life, etc. His tendency is to pick evil when it's given to him.

[Yogibear41]

I have trouble being any kind of Lawful. Also, I can play Affably Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil), but Complete Monster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster) goes against every fiber of my being.

I agree, I'm afraid what playing a complete monster would do to my psyche.

I played with a guy close to it once, supposedly I was a "CE" werewolf but I played pretty much CN, but he would just go around and kill innocent people for no reason and at times I was just like WTF.... killed an old lady and stole her house once claimed he was her out of town nephew and that she had an accident and fell down the stairs of her house, so he moves in and uses her body as an experment device to learn new necromancy school spells in the basement...

Pretended to cast hide from undead on a halfling npc that was with us in basicallly an undead infested GY for no reason poor guy just barely made it out alive probably thanks to me lol. (he did cast the spell on us so we were hidden)

[gooddragon1]

I'm of the mind that a majority of responses will tend towards the various Evil alignments.

As for myself? Lawful Neutral. I can swing Lawful Good only because the Good tempers the Lawful, but playing a character focused solely on lawfulness has basically zero appeal to me.

Obviously none of the evil ones. None of the neutral ones. I could almost maybe think of chaotic good except that I don't like the idea of anarchy. Lawful good however is just too stringently adherent to laws which can be created improperly. Neutral good on the other hand can use the laws that work while working with or around the ones that don't.

Your avatar almost leads me to believe you read drowtales.

[Pickford]

Even if that was true... and I don't think it is about "tendencies" being required, as there are quite a few acts that are listed as inherently evil, you don't get to be Good and do it, etc. The "tendencies" thing still applies. I mean given a chance, from what I've seen of an admitted fairly limited sampling of the series (They did what, 5 seasons and I only saw half of one?)... he jumps at the chance to go to "evil" means like torture as a first resort, without a single doubt in his mind. His tendencies is, when it is put on the table to embrace Evil and flaunt, twisting authority while barely respecting it.

I don't think you can apply "tendencies" to normal, quiet life where you don't do anything but eat breakfast, tend the fields, eat dinner, and sleep. The "tendencies" would have to impact when you actually do have a moral choice, when you are given the option to choose between doing what is Right, and doing what is Easy. In which case he embraces the Evil.

Doesn't matter if between seasons, off screen for 3 years he's just a normal guy living a normal life, etc. His tendency is to pick evil when it's given to him.

I think a clear case can be made that he's lawful, and then we're just left nitpicking about the good part.

If you don't believe me, refer to the section on alignment in the PHB.

[Isamu Dyson]

Obviously none of the evil ones. None of the neutral ones. I could almost maybe think of chaotic good except that I don't like the idea of anarchy. Lawful good however is just too stringently adherent to laws which can be created improperly. Neutral good on the other hand can use the laws that work while working with or around the ones that don't.

Your avatar almost leads me to believe you read drowtales.

I have read Drowtales, but that was quite a while ago. Is it still in "production", and, if so, is it worth catching up on the last four plus years?

[nobodez]

I can't play the "horizontal" neutrals (on the good-evil axis). I can play good characters, and I can play evils ones, but I'll be damned if I can play the middle ground. I'm naturally a good person, so playing good is easy. Evil is just self-interested, which I can do pretty well (even better than others I've played with, since I play a truer evil, not "let's work as a group by still be 'evil' ").

Of the "goods", Neutral Good is the easiest for me, then Lawful Good, then Chaotic Good.

Of the "evils", again, Neutral, then Lawful, then Chaotic.

Of the "neutrals", I think chaotic neutral is the hardest to play, with lawful neutral being easier than true neutral.

[Naomi Li]

*Blinks* Your description of "evil" sounds like "neutral" to me, nobedez. Evil requires that they get their self interest at the expense of other people, perhaps from the pleasure of harming people, or merely as a cost of doing business. (Sacrificing the souls of a village for some powerful magic weapons, perhaps?)

Self-interest that isn't at another person's expense is just neutral. (I want my family to be prosperous and happy, but I'm not going out of my way for anyone else), for example.

[ArcturusV]

I think a clear case can be made that he's lawful, and then we're just left nitpicking about the good part.

If you don't believe me, refer to the section on alignment in the PHB.

I dunno. I am reading it. Here's what I see that may suggest your point is valid:

"Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other"

Not even a full sentence, just a fragment that may tie into it. However you can look at the character. He doesn't lack commitment. He's VERY committed to making the evil doers pay, going "rogue" and breaking the rules and any sense of morality in order to accomplish his mission. It's not a lack of commitment at all.

Compare to what it says about Evil:

"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

Which describes him pretty well. He doesn't give a rat's ass if he kills, oppresses, tortures people. He doesn't shed a tear for them. He gladly does it and tries to pretend he's being self sacrificing by electrocuting a man for information...

Note that even in the Neutral respect it mentions:

"A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland"

But he's not sacrificing himself, he's sacrificing others.

At the very least if you slave only to Player's Handbook, and ignore any other book, he's definitely not good due to:

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

I think concern for Dignity flies out the window when you're deliberately trying to break people for information.

Even on the Lawful axis, slaving only to Player's Handbook you have:

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability"

Maaaaaybe Reliability. He flaunts authority and goes Rogue all the time. He lies a lot. He certainly has no sense of honor concerning the things he's willing to do to enemies and the fact that he'll cross lines when it's convenient.

So he's pretty clearly evil. Question is Neutral or Chaotic, because it certainly isn't lawful. Chaotic has this support:

"chaos can include recklessness, resentment of legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility"

Which at least a few of those are right in his wheelhouse. And neutral gets the support in:

"has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel"

Which might also fit as he is supposedly a huge patriot and willing to do what he can for the legitimate authority of the land. But isn't a slave to the law and order, and will do what he feels he has to do.

[gooddragon1]

I have read Drowtales, but that was quite a while ago. Is it still in "production", and, if so, is it worth catching up on the last four plus years?

Don't know what you mean by in production but it's okay I suppose.

[TuggyNE]

Didn't we have this thread just a very short while ago?

Why yes, yes we did.

[Aegis013]

I have trouble being any alignment other than Neutral Pragmatic.

Not to say I can't do it, I can do any of the alignments reasonably ok, but as a player, I typically end up being Neutral Pragmatic.

[theIrkin]

I'll start with the opposite question, I am of the Lawful Neutral persuasion. But as far as alignment I find difficult go, I have trouble playing anything without a Neutral component, whether it's one of the three Neutrals, or Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, all the extremes are difficult for me.

[Twilightwyrm]

I, incidentally, have little problem playing Lawful Neutral, but this is probably because I tend to lean up against the Lawful/Neutral boundary when doing so. For example, I might have a character that honors his allegiance to a far away lord, that will stand up for his family name, uphold his personal chivalric code, respect the laws of war, and who seeks to enforce a central monarchy on a chaotic, warring region, but will accomplish this through feints, guile and mass warfare. What separates him from Lawful Good is that he is seeking these goals in large part for personal, not altruistic, reasons and that he is willing to be very pragmatic in doing so. What separates him from Lawful Evil is that he does not uphold his code as a means to place himself superior to others or take advantage of it, but rather because he actually believes in it, and he will not (generally) commit evil acts (and certainly not despicable ones) to further his ends. He is honorable, if pragmatic. And if you are playing a lawful neutral character, that is key. You need not temper your lawful actions with good, but rather with good old fashioned pragmatism, and unless you are a monk, or other class that absolutely requires a lawful alignment, you can feel free to temper this lawful alignment with personal concerns.

[Pickford]

I dunno. I am reading it. Here's what I see that may suggest your point is valid:

"Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other"

Not even a full sentence, just a fragment that may tie into it. However you can look at the character. He doesn't lack commitment. He's VERY committed to making the evil doers pay, going "rogue" and breaking the rules and any sense of morality in order to accomplish his mission. It's not a lack of commitment at all.

Compare to what it says about Evil:

"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient."

Which describes him pretty well. He doesn't give a rat's ass if he kills, oppresses, tortures people. He doesn't shed a tear for them. He gladly does it and tries to pretend he's being self sacrificing by electrocuting a man for information...

Note that even in the Neutral respect it mentions:

"A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland"

But he's not sacrificing himself, he's sacrificing others.

At the very least if you slave only to Player's Handbook, and ignore any other book, he's definitely not good due to:

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

I think concern for Dignity flies out the window when you're deliberately trying to break people for information.

Even on the Lawful axis, slaving only to Player's Handbook you have:

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability"

Maaaaaybe Reliability. He flaunts authority and goes Rogue all the time. He lies a lot. He certainly has no sense of honor concerning the things he's willing to do to enemies and the fact that he'll cross lines when it's convenient.

So he's pretty clearly evil. Question is Neutral or Chaotic, because it certainly isn't lawful. Chaotic has this support:

"chaos can include recklessness, resentment of legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility"

Which at least a few of those are right in his wheelhouse. And neutral gets the support in:

"has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel"

Which might also fit as he is supposedly a huge patriot and willing to do what he can for the legitimate authority of the land. But isn't a slave to the law and order, and will do what he feels he has to do.

I was actually pointing to this:
PHB 103

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character. ... In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behavior.

So really, all I'm saying is that Jack is fighting to defend the system (lawful) and protect the innocent (good). That he occasionally does this by committing acts that are not lawful (killing a criminal) nor good (cutting off said criminal's head) does not counter his overriding personality traits (that is, to be lawful and good)

[Spore]

If I may abuse this thread. I am a bit unsure about my current dragon disciple. He sees himself as a superior being and he is obedient to his master (the reigning king is a CE red dragon). His homeland is in a war and he is told to aid the nobles (our group) to defend it.

He defends his homeland using torture, he defends the nobles but he has no problems into killing a few of his own soldiers with a fireball (as long as he kills more enemy soldiers with it). Would he be considered LE or LN? He has metamagic to deal nonlethal fire damage but he will only use it once in a while (it's my alternative to selective spell).

[Pickford]

If I may abuse this thread. I am a bit unsure about my current dragon disciple. He sees himself as a superior being and he is obedient to his master (the reigning king is a CE red dragon). His homeland is in a war and he is told to aid the nobles (our group) to defend it.

He defends his homeland using torture, he defends the nobles but he has no problems into killing a few of his own soldiers with a fireball (as long as he kills more enemy soldiers with it). Would he be considered LE or LN? He has metamagic to deal nonlethal fire damage but he will only use it once in a while (it's my alternative to selective spell).

He just sounds like a liability. Why would the group bring along someone who'd be willing to frag them?

[Averis Vol]

When I play I find that for the life of me I can't play true neutral. I try to stick with a balance, but I can't play a character who just doesn't care or thinks he's above law/chaos and good/evil. Also, Chaotic Evil kind of confuses me. I always want to try it until my friends remind me that I'll basically be doing stupid **** that might get us killed because someone told me not to do that and I do what I want when I want (that just so happens to be what the other people don't want me to do. It just comes off as confrontational)

All the other alignments I can deal with one way or another, but if I'm evil, I prefer it neutral, and if I'm good I prefer it lawful (maybe because I play a lot of paladins)

[Angelalex242]

Like I said in the last thread of this kind, I just don't do evil too well...

My evil tends towards 'Joker Evil.' Where it amuses me to torture random people walking down the street, castrate fellow party members, and make them dance off cliffs with dominate spells. JUST BECAUSE I CAN AND I WANT TO WATCH THE WORLD BURN! Best of all is when I can manage sequences like the beginning of the Dark Knight, where the Joker has EVERYONE working under him kill each other off in sequential fashion, leaving not ONE of them alive, and walking off with all the loot.

"But I just spent 2 hours making that character!"

"Too bad, sucker. I'm an agent of chaos."

DM:Why'd you destroy that orphanage?

"Why not? Cause it's THERE and it's hilarious to watch it burn. Man, I love the smell of roasted children in the morning."

DM:Okay, no more playing evil for you...

[ImperatorV]

Lawful Evil. All my evil characters are filthy backstabbers and oath-breakers.

[Con_Brio1993]

My Lawful Goods tend to end up as either Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good.

Probably because my heart desires to play Chaotic Evil and that screws up any attempts to be completely Lawful and Good.

To clarify: My Chaotic Evil is of the burn the orphanage variety. Though I can temper those desires to get along with the party (or to avoid pissing off the DM) if need be. But my Chaotic Evil characters treat other people as video game NPCs. They exist only for my amusement

Edit: What would a Utilitarian be in DnD? And I mean of the John Stuart Mill variety? Basically pick actions that increase net happiness for the most amount of people. Would that be Lawful Good or Neutral Good since you'd do chaotic actions if they increased net happiness?

[Talya]

Jack Bauer is not chaotic evil. He's lawful evil. He has a personal code, and believes that in order for a good society to exist, someone has to be around to do the evil things that must be done in order for it to survive. He knows what he does is wrong, and does it anyway, for the protection of society. He's the very epitome of Lawful Evil. Lawful does not necessarily mean, "obeys the laws of the land." Worse yet, he's not even that far into evil. Yes, he does a lot of evil things... specifically because he respects human life and values it so highly. He is just of the belief that sacrifices must be made for the greater good; it's a system of utilitarian ethics that actually values human lives above any particular ideology.

[Faily]

If I may abuse this thread. I am a bit unsure about my current dragon disciple. He sees himself as a superior being and he is obedient to his master (the reigning king is a CE red dragon). His homeland is in a war and he is told to aid the nobles (our group) to defend it.

He defends his homeland using torture, he defends the nobles but he has no problems into killing a few of his own soldiers with a fireball (as long as he kills more enemy soldiers with it). Would he be considered LE or LN? He has metamagic to deal nonlethal fire damage but he will only use it once in a while (it's my alternative to selective spell).

Torture is by definition in D&D an evil act* (Book of Vile Darkness), and willingly and knowingly torturing, even if it is for the "greater good" is an evil act. In D&D's alignment system the end does not justify the means.
The character also shows lack of value for life, as he does not mind casualties of those on his side, and as you say "only use nonlethal fire damage once in a while", making it seem that he thinks more that he should use nonlethal force if it would cripple his own side too much, but not because he doesn't want to kill those on his own side.
From your description, this character is solidly in the Evil-camp.


Personally, I feel comfortably playing almost any alignment. The only one I don't play is Chaotic Evil because of it's "yar-har I'm evil and psychotic"-vibe. I prefer Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil if I first play something on the evil-axis, but my preference is with Good alignments of all sorts. For me, D&D is a hero-game, and the heroes are supposed to be the good guys... so Good-alignment. I used to think that Lawful Good would be the most challenging for me until I played a Paladin, and I've been having great fun with the challenge of making the right choice that upholds good and law.



*= and is in real life as well. Torture is systematically inflicting pain on a person physically and mentallty to break them down to the point where they will say whatever they believe their torturer would want them to hear, regardless if it's true or not.

[Dr. Azkur]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

I'm using this as my signature, hope you don't mind. Thank you. :smallsmile:

[Isamu Dyson]

Torture is by definition in D&D an evil act* (Book of Vile Darkness), and willingly and knowingly torturing, even if it is for the "greater good" is an evil act. In D&D's alignment system the end does not justify the means.
The character also shows lack of value for life, as he does not mind casualties of those on his side, and as you say "only use nonlethal fire damage once in a while", making it seem that he thinks more that he should use nonlethal force if it would cripple his own side too much, but not because he doesn't want to kill those on his own side.
From your description, this character is solidly in the Evil-camp.


Personally, I feel comfortably playing almost any alignment. The only one I don't play is Chaotic Evil because of it's "yar-har I'm evil and psychotic"-vibe. I prefer Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil if I first play something on the evil-axis, but my preference is with Good alignments of all sorts. For me, D&D is a hero-game, and the heroes are supposed to be the good guys... so Good-alignment. I used to think that Lawful Good would be the most challenging for me until I played a Paladin, and I've been having great fun with the challenge of making the right choice that upholds good and law.



*= and is in real life as well. Torture is systematically inflicting pain on a person physically and mentallty to break them down to the point where they will say whatever they believe their torturer would want them to hear, regardless if it's true or not.

Just WHAT is a prospective player of an anti-hero supposed to do :smalltongue:?

[Naomi Li]

Anti-heroes in D&D pretty much always have evil alignments. It's how the universe works. Even IF they're theoretically being a net benefit for good (which I personally find unlikely, but who knows), their own alignment is probably evil and they have a very unpleasant afterlife in their future unless they find a way around it or change their ways.

Unless somebody actually has and demonstrates the virtues of Good, they won't have that alignment, even if they are on the "right side".

[Zhentarim]

My Lawful Goods tend to end up as either Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good.

Probably because my heart desires to play Chaotic Evil and that screws up any attempts to be completely Lawful and Good.

To clarify: My Chaotic Evil is of the burn the orphanage variety. Though I can temper those desires to get along with the party (or to avoid pissing off the DM) if need be. But my Chaotic Evil characters treat other people as video game NPCs. They exist only for my amusement

Edit: What would a Utilitarian be in DnD? And I mean of the John Stuart Mill variety? Basically pick actions that increase net happiness for the most amount of people. Would that be Lawful Good or Neutral Good since you'd do chaotic actions if they increased net happiness?

John Stuart Mill would be Neutral Good (Chaotic), since he stated that people should be free to pursue what makes them happy so long as it did not harm others. He would appear chaotic neutral until a good vs. chaos situation arose, in which he would likely choose good over chaos.

[Joe the Rat]

I try to shy away from the deep end, mostly because I tend to go decadent gruesome very quickly. I do not like decadent gruesome.

The one alignment I have the most trouble with is Neutral Evil. I just can't get a grip on Evil without focusing on Sinister Manipulations or Wanton Destruction. All I come up with are mustache-twirling caricatures. Oddly, Neutral Good isn't an issue.

[hamishspence]

Anti-heroes in D&D pretty much always have evil alignments. It's how the universe works. Even IF they're theoretically being a net benefit for good (which I personally find unlikely, but who knows), their own alignment is probably evil and they have a very unpleasant afterlife in their future unless they find a way around it or change their ways.

Unless somebody actually has and demonstrates the virtues of Good, they won't have that alignment, even if they are on the "right side".

Heroes of Horror at least raises the possibility that some antiheroes committing Evil acts in a Good cause are "a flexible Neutral"

I would guess that these tend to be minor Evil acts though.

[Faily]

Just WHAT is a prospective player of an anti-hero supposed to do :smalltongue:?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but just because you're the one taking down the BBEG doesn't mean you're good. Your actions on that road determines your alignment.

BBEG murdered Joe's village and family, Joe swears revenge at whatever cost. Joe tortures witnesses, and/or possible allies of the BBEG, to learn where he can find the BBEG. Joe steals from other people to afford weapons/armor/food/magic items/explosives/whatever to take down BBEG.
The BBEG is still evil, but Joe is certainly no better person for leaving a wake of death, pain and misdeeds on his way to take down the BBEG. Joe's end to kill the BBEG does not make his means acceptable, nice or good.

It is possible to play an anti-hero that is still good-aligned. Not all anti-heroes utilize torture or blind violence.

[ReluctantDragon]

I personally think that this is an impossible question to answer, as it automatically assumes that any game you play a character in involves only 'you'.

Save for some rare exceptions, a typical D&D game will involve multiple players. Therefore, a player doesn't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a setting that involves interaction with other players and are responsible for the fact that the game isn't just about them.

A game isn't only about a single player and how 'close' to the Joker's Chaotic Evil that player can mimic with their character. Nor how close to 'Judge Dredd' your lawful neutral character can be.

If you're playing the 'watch the world burn' character amidst players who are going the good route, then how is that a fun game? For anyone?

My opinion is that how you play a character is ENTIRELY dependent upon the group you are playing in. You aren't going to be all that individual a snowflake for playing the Joker, if the whole point of the game is to play the Joker.

Regardless, I've found in the multiple different groups I've had the blessing to play in, playing an evil alignment falls flat. Not just for me, but for many players. The reason is, even in 'pretend fantasy world', just describing what it takes to be truly chaotic evil is beyond most people in a society. The people that are really good at it tend to be people that I don't play with.

Of course, all the above is simply my opinion. Skin-deep answer is, I can never pull off evil. It becomes an exercise in futility for me and things get immature very quickly in the gaming group.

-RD

[Isamu Dyson]

Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil characters are frequently portrayed as being insane. Why does this not hold true for Chaotic Good characters?

[ArcturusV]

Mostly because Good overwrites Insanity so it seems.

Or rather because the "Good aligned Rebel" got tagged into Chaotic Good. It's an interesting question. And as someone who's had problems with Chaotic Good I wonder.

I admit that 3rd edition tried to distance away from the "Chaotic Insane" a bit more. As in earlier editions Chaotic Neutral was literally defined as "incapable of rational thought".

But I believe it has to go with Lawfulness, to be honest. Or rather Lawful Evil. Chaotic Good, being it's pure opposite, has to be opposing to it. Lawful Evil is petty, arbitrary, twists the rules to favor itself and punish others, etc. Cruel, vindictive, etc.

So they figured Chaotic Good had to be the opposite. Meaning it couldn't be "insane", as it had to be about freedom, fairness, flaunting rules to do what they think is right, etc.

Similarly you can look at it for Chaotic Neutral. Lawful Neutral, it's opposite, is rigid, cold logic, etc. So they put Chaotic Neutral as the pure opposite of Logic. Some might have gone for "emotional" in that regard, instead they decided it was "incapable of logic due to being insane".

And Lawful Good being enlightened, fair rule, just for all, kind, etc. Meant you had to have someone who was pointlessly destructive. Who didn't care about order and goodness, who wanted to see everything ripped down, etc. Their mission of being opposite of Lawful Goodness meant they ended up anarchist and incapable of order, turning into insanity.

[old school man]

I just can't seem to get into Neutral Evil, Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil they just don't do a thing for me.




John

[AgentofHellfire]

I actually don't have any alignments I'm bad at. I've done them all at some point. :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

Chaotic Evil I'm just not fond of due to all of the hangups in the culture surrounding Chaotic Evil, especially the chaotic evil = stupid evil problem in both interpretation by players & DMs and in actual practice and people putting down Chaotic Neutral and then acting like a stupid version of Chaotic Evil. Not really into acting "lolrandomstab" and it feels like acting otherwise runs into people's prejudices and telling others that they're alignmenting wrong.

With Lawful Neutral, my issue is playability, I have difficulty conceptualizing a player character with the alignment, but can come up with NPCs that manage to maintain the necessary veneer for long enough to pass muster during casual interaction.