PDA

View Full Version : Lawful or Chaotic: Your Preference?



goto124
2015-03-09, 06:56 PM
Just asking for opinions here. Do you, personally, like to play Lawful or Chaotic characters, and why?

I myself play games to escape my responsibilities to society, which is why I'm almost always Chaotic. Also, I've played a game where you pretty much have to suck up to royal jerks (PC). It's soured me a lot, and the very idea of Lawful reminds me of that. It doesn't have to be, I know, but still.

Lord Raziere
2015-03-09, 07:00 PM
I mostly play Chaotic. It just matches me and my love for art and individuality so well!

but sometimes I play Lawful, because some characters just fit that better. But mostly Chaotic.

Vertharrad
2015-03-09, 07:01 PM
Chaotic. I like the freedom to change my mind when it's needed. Lawfuls don't get that...they're too dogged, staid, and regemented. Freedom, liberty, and justice; I stick to Chaotic Good. Although I have played lawfuls, I tend to stay away from those these days.

goto124
2015-03-09, 07:06 PM
While we're at it, Talakeal once said that playing Lawful could be easier, since you don't have to think about what you should or shouldn't do.

Which sounds like you don't actually want to play the game, merely joining in to please your groupmates for whatever RL reason. Like rolling a stupid orc Barbarian who follows everything the leader tells him to do.

veti
2015-03-09, 07:16 PM
While we're at it, Talakeal once said that playing Lawful could be easier, since you don't have to think about what you should or shouldn't do.

Which sounds like you don't actually want to play the game, merely joining in to please your groupmates for whatever RL reason. Like rolling a stupid orc Barbarian who follows everything the leader tells him to do.

Conversely, your stated reason for playing Chaotic could be rephrased as "I don't really want to 'roleplay', in the sense of trying to imagine myself in someone else's head, I just want to be silly without having to face unpleasant consequences for a while".

But I don't think it's constructive to attribute uncharitable motives to other people whose preferences don't match yours. For myself I generally play chaotics, because I have fantasies of independence the same as everyone else, and in an RPG setting I don't see why I shouldn't play those out.

goto124
2015-03-09, 07:21 PM
Conversely, your stated reason for playing Chaotic could be rephrased as "I don't really want to 'roleplay', in the sense of trying to imagine myself in someone else's head, I just want to be silly without having to face unpleasant consequences for a while".

You know what, you're right.

Red Fel
2015-03-09, 07:21 PM
The funny thing about the absolute morality alignment grid is that, just as Good is "Good-er" than Evil, Lawful is often depicted as "Good-er" than Chaotic. (A sentiment with which I don't agree, but it's a position nonetheless.) Since absolute morality prevents you from easily having both Good and Evil traits (without some difficulty or Neutrality), I often use the L-C axis to give more nuance to my characters. Thus, I play my Good characters as Chaotic, so that I can give an edge to their morality; their desire for freedom allows me to give them some anger, some rage issues, without having to indulge in selfish or party-destructive conduct. I play my Evil characters as Lawful, so I can add some comprehensibility and sympathy to their ruthlessness; their pragmatism and honor can cause all but the most rectally-enbranched Paladins to respect them.

Alternatively, I just leave people guessing. In the absence of Detect spells, it's really quite fun.

Karl Aegis
2015-03-09, 07:37 PM
There is no reason to choose between either of them because both alignments can act exactly the same.

oball
2015-03-09, 08:24 PM
I think every character I have played so far has been C or N - my two characters in games that went for any large amount of time were NE and CN. However for my next campaign I plan to play a Paladin, since I have never really tried to adhere to the bounds of Lawful (and to a lesser extent, Good) in a game, and I think despite being restrictive on the surface, those restrictions may encourage more creativity - in the same way that you may get writer's block when given a blank sheet of paper and told to write anything, but be able to come up with something when given a more structured writing challenge. In other words it is easy to play chaotic (for me) because I do not have to be as consistent, while playing a lawful character will cause me to think more carefully about what my character would do and force me out of my roleplaying comfort zone.

A_Man
2015-03-09, 09:48 PM
Pretty much always Lawful, oddly enough. I enjoy having my cruel characters manipulate/play the system which is best played with some sort of rules, and my nice characters generally have some sort of code of honor and would never break it, even if it meant death.

Terraoblivion
2015-03-09, 10:06 PM
Not playing D&D it gets a bit trickier to judge since it gets into alignment debate territory to determine which I play. I'd say that my main character at the moment is chaotic, either chaotic good or chaotic neutral of the sane kind who just happens to not quite be a good enough person to be chaotic good. Beyond her, I've mostly played people in the lawful good/lawful neutral who isn't quite good enough to be lawful good zone, with the occasional character who is largely lawful but has very particular rebellions against their superiors that probably makes them neutral on that scale.

In general, I find it easier to portray a lawful mindset, especially when playing explicitly heroic characters. It's just intuitive for me to see a just government as the primary way of preserving freedom and justice than not having structures to protect people. There's nothing preventing lawful characters from rebelling against unjust authority either, which removes the primary limitation people tend to see about lawful characters. Characters more concerned with their own issues, even if generally good people who want the best for everyone, are more likely to end up chaotic because ultimately their concerns are not about larger structures, but the stuff that matters to them personally. Either group is about equally consistent in terms of personality, they just tend to have different priorities, though of course there is a large variety in either group. Introverted, dutiful and somewhat neurotic genetically engineered child soldiers who like baking insanely sweet cakes are pretty different from disillusioned Prussian officers wracked by guilt over participation in the destruction of the Paris Commune and who throw themselves into fighting alien invaders to give their military background meaning. Even if both fight alien invaders and move around somewhere in LG/NG/LN/TN (depending on interpretation of the characters in question) corner of the alignment grid.

YossarianLives
2015-03-09, 10:22 PM
Honestly I prefer to be neutral rather than chaotic or lawful. When creating a character I often start off with TN as my alignment and see how the character develops from there.

theNater
2015-03-09, 11:02 PM
Lawful, usually. I think that loyalty, honor, and honesty are fine ideals; while I don't always live up to them in real life, I can absolutely live up to them in game.

AdmiralCheez
2015-03-09, 11:29 PM
I've played characters of both alignments and found that my chaotic characters were more fun. It's just easier for me to play a character whose only loyalty is to themselves and the party. That's not to say that I play chaotic as a troublemaking lunatic that steals everything in sight; if following the law suits his needs, then so be it, but when the law gets in the way of his goals, then anything could happen.

Comet
2015-03-10, 01:26 AM
I find that D&D characters tend to lean towards chaos, through circumstance if not through choice. All that wandering and fighting. That's why I like to play characters that are Lawful in alignment, to balance things out and remind myself that there's more to the world than our adventures.

AxeAlex
2015-03-10, 12:06 PM
Hello there,

Although I enjoy alignments, I don't like characters defined by their alignment, they often fall short in overall personality.

That said, I would go for Lawful. I like my characters with clear goals, causes they hold dear. I find that both heroes and villains tend to be "larger than life" and have generally more "epic" personalities when they are lawful.

I have this silly idea that "Lawful" and "Good" are more than Chaos and Evil, which are the "lack" or law, and the "lack" of good.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-10, 12:09 PM
I don't think I have a preference here. I play both as suits my whim.

Metahuman1
2015-03-10, 12:24 PM
I favor chaotic or neutral over lawful. It's really nice to only have to give a crap about the rules that aren't my own when I feel it's the path of least resistance and/or the best way to keep people form successfully enforcing there rules on me with threat of overwhelming violence in retaliation.

AlexanderML
2015-03-10, 08:40 PM
I usually play lawfuls, the only one I remember (and have liked) was my first character, who lived for 2 years, but his approach to life was lawful (he just had very different views on things at random, so not very chaotic like). The more common forms of chaotic characters seem to rub me off the wrong way, the mindset I can't understand. :smallfrown:

Twice
2015-03-10, 10:51 PM
More often than not, I'm particularly inclined toward toward characters with ambiguous moralities, so my preference is similarly ambiguous. If I can, I typically avoid lawful characters. They're rare for me partake to, unless I am playing something lawful evil. Lawful evil happens to be my favorite PC alignment.

Otherwise, Chaotic inclinations are something I'm fond of to due to freedom of thought and free choice when it comes to actions that might seem more amoral. Never the less, it's sometimes fun to play the Lawful Good character who has self-imposed ideals and doesn't project them onto more dark inclined individuals and just plays light conscience and exemplify paragon.

That said, Lawful Neutral is probably one of my least favorite alignments.

Bad Wolf
2015-03-10, 11:13 PM
Chaotic.

Chaotic Neutral is the party alignment.

goto124
2015-03-10, 11:20 PM
I'm currently roleplaying an LG in the FFRP section of these forums, just to see the appeal.

I just think of him as a cute, silly and naive boy.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-10, 11:34 PM
As I might have predicted, this bedlam seems to leans Chaotic. :biggrin:

I prefer Neutrality, honestly.

Zalphon
2015-03-11, 10:24 AM
I have a tendency toward Lawful in my Evils and Chaotic in my Goods.

And Neutral in my Neutrals.

Chaotic Good, because tyranny is a truly vile poison that affects societies.

True Neutral, because what really is morality

Lawful, because a thousand plans with a thousand more contingencies for each is more powerful than "RAWR! GIVE ME YOUR LUNCH MONEY, PUNY HUMAN!"

Sith_Happens
2015-03-11, 02:35 PM
My characters have skewed Lawful so far, but it's hard to say whether that hints at a preference considering that (a) "my characters" currently number at three (four if you count ones that I built but didn't end up actually playing) and (b) alignment has so far been one of the last things I decide about a character, with the one I end up picking basically just being a function of how I've envisioned that character's personality (excepting characters with alignment requirements, in which case the requirement acts as a constraint on the range of possible personalities I might decide on).

Mr.Moron
2015-03-11, 03:03 PM
Apart from a few "Chaotic Stupid" characters I've played mostly a Joke, I've stuck with LG or law-leaning NG. The few times I've tried to C or E leaning, I've just made myself feel uncomfortable.

Lathund
2015-03-11, 05:42 PM
I'll play whatever suits my character. So far, I've played NG, CN, CG, LG and currently N. Really want to try LN some time too. And my preference... I think lawful, because it's a more demanding alignment. Chaotic often feels like a lack of personal commitment to me; a very 'whatever' approach to life. Lawfulness, however, must be chosen and maintained.

Warfiz
2015-03-11, 08:18 PM
Easy for me people never expect me i always pick chaotic i can do what ever i want even is a group of all good i am Chaotic Evil Cleric Gnome and my deity is Zebiom (chaotic evil deity of the sea and tempests) and personally i'm a sadistic physcopath so it fits me to smack people in the face with my mace when ever i feel like it

NichG
2015-03-12, 04:47 AM
I usually tend towards neutral or chaotic.

Part of it is that it's so standard for NPCs, organizations, etc in many games to end up holding the idiot ball or have unreasonable secret agendas in an attempt to create drama, that putting your decisions in the hands of others in a D&D-like world is just asking for trouble. Its hard for DMs to mentally model the ways in which large organizations actually do ensure their own stability, because the DM is emulating all that on the brain of a single individual. So large organizations end up being just as flaky if not more so than individuals, which saps away a lot of what Lawfulness has going for it in practice.

It also doesn't play nicely with the usual D&D growth curve, because its pretty easy to level up more quickly than you could reasonable advance within an organization. The result can be a sort of weird power imbalance (or even worse, a competency imbalance). A lawful outlook also can have problems with changes in scope - if the thing you character owes loyalty to becomes irrelevant due to escalation in the game, that can make it hard to maintain the character's motivation. E.g. its all well and good to be dedicated to the defense of the village of Hommlett, but when suddenly you find yourself fighting against planar incursions, dealing with Blood War politics, etc then it can be hard to keep that concrete thing relevant. The character must grow at that point, but timescales are generally pretty compressed in adventures so it ends up feeling sort of forced and disconnecting for a character who really cares about their fealty or membership in some specific social structure in the world. A chaotic-leaning character (e.g. inward-focused) carries their motivations with them and can more easily adapt them to a new situation.

Necroticplague
2015-03-12, 05:43 AM
Chaotic. Being chaotic doesn't stop you from having a personal code, but it stops the complaints of 'your character wouldn't do that, he's lawful!' that I hate listening to. I play my characters how they act, then just try to fill in whatever alignment I think will get me the least complaints from others. I don't play my character their alignment.

Tengu_temp
2015-03-12, 06:19 AM
I'm more chaotic than lawful in real life (though I'm probably neutral either way, just with chaotic tendencies), but I tend to play lawful characters, to be precise LG ones - partially to show all the people who associate that alignment with Lawful Stupid Miko-esque inflexible sticks in the mud. My lawful good characters tend to be reliable, heroic, compassionate big brother/sister figures, and they're smart, and they're cool.

I played a paladin (or equivalent, it was a futuristic setting) who drove around on a motorbike with spiked wheels, blasted power metal in combat from the motorbike's in-built speakers, and followed the same morality system as the Avatar from Ultima. Another PC was a young punk from a warrior culture, and he gave his life direction, and taught him what honor and respect really mean, and that justice has to be tempered with compassion. When a bad guy dropped a bomb from high above on a city, his solution was to jump on it, fight the bad guy atop of the bomb, and then disarm it before it hits the ground. And that's just one character out of many. This is the kind of LG characters I play.

Aliquid
2015-03-12, 06:45 PM
Chaotic. Being chaotic doesn't stop you from having a personal code, but it stops the complaints of 'your character wouldn't do that, he's lawful!' that I hate listening to. I play my characters how they act, then just try to fill in whatever alignment I think will get me the least complaints from others. I don't play my character their alignment.I guess I would be similar.

My characters typically very loyal; avoid lying; and always keep promises… which could be considered “lawful”. They also have no interest at all in being told what to do, and ignore rules…. which is “chaotic”.

So I will go with your concept of “chaotic with a personal code"

Drakefall
2015-03-13, 08:31 AM
I prefer lawful over chaotic.

Probably for the same reasons as people who prefer chaotic, in that I look at the other alignment, instantly see its most heinous extremes (The murdering of NPCs I like for no reason, stealing from or also murdering party members, destabilising pleasant governments, etc), and recoil from the horror.:smalltongue:

I've learned to see the positive side of chaotic though, so I no longer dislike it, I just tend towards lawful characters more often is all. One day I'd actually rather like to try playing a heroic CE character and see if I can make a fun, party-friendly character that I also actually like out of the alignment I detest the most.

Freelance GM
2015-03-13, 01:09 PM
Neutral, actually.

Whether they're good or evil, my characters tend to play by the rules as long as it suits their interests, and not a second longer.

Keeps people on their toes.

goto124
2015-03-13, 09:00 PM
I myself classify that as Chaotic, though I realise that leads to putting a lot of Neutrals as a Chaotic.

I haven't gotten the hang of the finer points of DnD alignment.

Hazrond
2015-03-14, 01:52 AM
I am a fan of Chaotic, for reasons i cant quite explain, but i see Adventuring as a very Chaotic profession, its unstable dangerous and some of the most varied and different work you would ever see compared to the job of say, a town guardsmen

Brendanicus
2015-03-14, 06:38 AM
Chaotic. I always want to play a character who is open to crazy but effective plans. Also, my characters always have some sort of esoteric goal. For example, my favorite character was a CG wizard who was constantly paranoid about demonic invasions, despite the campaign not containing any outsiders whatsoever.

Kalmageddon
2015-03-14, 08:46 AM
I don't pick characters based on alignment, I pick alignments based on the character. Therefore, it is entirely dependant on what I want to play at the moment and what kind of alingment best represents its morals and beliefs.

With that said, even when playing free spirits and rebels I never found a good reason to pick a chaotic alignment, since chaotic seems to be defined by an unreasonable hostility towards laws and authority figures of any kind and in my opinion this is fairly unrealistic, especially in pseudo-historical settings. Even a hardcore rebel would probably be ok with laws and a governament that he can identify with. Otherwise, he's a rebel for the sake of being a rebel... AKA a stereotypical teenager with no sense of reality.
And completely ignoring traditions and cultural backgrounds makes for characters disconnected with the setting, whose open-mindness serves only as an excuse to apply modern sensibilities in settings where more often than not they have no real place.

slaydemons
2015-03-14, 08:49 AM
I prefer chaotic myself, and I have been told by several people that having a code of conduct while chaotic means I am more likely to break it. However I have been told by several people that I play True neutral amazingly well. Still chaotic is the alignment I prefer, mostly so I can invert what people in my group think of chaotic which is going around trying to be that loony character who doesn't care about anyone but themselves.

Drynwyn
2015-03-14, 11:52 AM
I generally prefer playing Lawful characters, simply because lawful characters follow rules, and that, in my opinion, makes for a more interesting character than one that can just do what he wants. More potential for internal conflict and angst.

pwykersotz
2015-03-14, 12:54 PM
Lawful. I've tried Chaos in many forms and I've always found it annoying.

I don't generally play exemplar-level dedicated Lawful, but I'm definitely more ordered and forward thinking in my play than I am spontaneous.

Wraith
2015-03-14, 02:37 PM
Pretty much always Lawful, oddly enough. I enjoy having my cruel characters manipulate/play the system which is best played with some sort of rules, and my nice characters generally have some sort of code of honor and would never break it, even if it meant death.

I feel the same way as this.

As an Evil character it gives me something to "play" with - the law is a toy to use to my advantage as I see fit, and simply being chaotic and smashing it apart seems like a perfect valid, but perhaps repetitive, way to play.

For everyone else, it's a built in motivation that doesn't rely on being an anti-hero.
I like playing neural characters too, but one of my biggest bugbears in RPing is when someone hears a plan and goes, "My character is neutral, he doesn't care about that" and expects to be spoon fed a reason to play the game being offered to them. If I'm lawful though, there's no excuse - I have a reason to go and do something, at the very least because I expect to maintain the status quo that is being averted by the current antagonist. I know that you can do the same with chaotic, but I'm just no a fan of fighting things "because I've been told not to", sorta thing.

Rater202
2015-03-14, 02:41 PM
I'm of the opinion that Chaotic Good is the most moral alignment because it basically boils down to "screw your rules and laws, this is wrong and I'm fixing it."

I prefer chaotic Good Characters and I'm really pissed that Exalted Deeds didn't have much support for chaotic Good Exalted Characters.

sktarq
2015-03-14, 09:32 PM
I've mostly played and enjoyed chaotic-for simple reason that whatever ethical system I devise that doesn't fit neatly into the DnD nine boxes won't cause some argument. It's an opt-out of a sub-system I basically detest. That said if the DM and I are relatively simpatico on how much "lawful stupid" annoys me several of my favorite characters have been pretty classically lawful-including Paladins-okay especially Paladins. I love playing a Paladin with a DM doesn't try to tell me what a Paladin is or try to shove a lance in my hand and a maiden's scarf on my head.

On a similar note I destest things in game that I feel are the effects of law imposing themselves on my characters. Carthian Law in nWoD, auto charm effects in citywide areas. . . several DM's have not been ready when my result is to be ready to bail/burn whatever support system that interference has into little bitty bits. . . . then again a couple have rolled with it to great effect. So to say I dislike law, especially pushy law, could be a major understatement.

Gamgee
2015-03-14, 11:25 PM
Neutral.... I guess it could be said evil. It's just so fun.

I can't do lawful. I can do chaotic sometimes though.

I'll use the laws against my enemies one second, and the next I can be executing them and assassinating them when I get an opportunity to do it with no witnesses.

I'll have allies and like them hell even cherish them and take care of my minions I mean allies, but the next second if it means survival I'm going to ditch you. Hell I might even sell you out. I'm real fun like that.

I can play politics in the highest court, rig "the game" better than any, and the next be in a brawl kicking ass and leading shadow organizations from the front.

Usually I play with one goal in mind. Me being in some sort of ultimate authority. Except I don't care about the authority, so much as everyone hails to the king.

Whatever form my Empire takes I'm in control, but don't necessarily even uphold its laws. Openly sure... but in the shadows? Ha.

I think that's pretty neutral evil. I can play good characters, but struggle with lawful good and its strict code. If I do play a good guy it's neutral good.

I can play chaos more easily than lawful.

My GM called me a magnificent bastard. Also he said I was extremely Machiavellian. He wanted to hit me and destroy my character as much as he wanted to cheer for him. What does that even mean? I sure don't. :smallwink:

TheOOB
2015-03-16, 01:34 AM
My characters tend twords Law over Chaos, I find that codes of conduct, bonds of tradition, and links to establish, help me roleplay. Constrictions help with creativity.

It's like a puzzle, how can my character with these beliefs and obligations achieve their goals with compromising them.

anti-ninja
2015-03-21, 10:38 AM
I usually play chaotic or neutral characters due to a few bad bad experiences, with paladins and other characters with the same mindset ,making me only see the extremes of lawful play.though recently i have been trying to play lawful neutral.

themaque
2015-03-21, 12:49 PM
I usually play NG but it varies widely depending on the character concept I'm going for.

If I was playing something more in lines with myself It would be Lawful.

That being said, Chaotic characters can be Honest, Loyal, and dependable. They will follow a set of rules, it's just going to be THEIR OWN rules over anyone elses. They can and will change those rules.

Michael7123
2015-03-21, 04:36 PM
I usually lean towards lawful. I'm playing a CE character right now though, and there are times when that can be awesome.

Esprit15
2015-03-24, 01:13 PM
I enjoy ordinarily Lawful characters with Chaotic moments. I like the character who is calm and controlled, but the wrong word or pushing them past some point means tables are gonna get flipped and I get to use the word defenestration.

DigoDragon
2015-03-24, 03:54 PM
I tend to play good characters. The other axis is up for grabs.

REVISIONIST
2015-03-24, 06:44 PM
Lawful good for me. Nothing better than a dwarf paladin dolled up in plate, smiting evil, spreading the law
with a battleaxe as his butter knife. Can my helm have stylized angel wings please.

VincentTakeda
2015-03-25, 12:02 AM
Neutral good during the game, but chaotic neutral on the page. Unprincipled in the Palladium system.

Wardog
2015-03-29, 05:18 PM
There is no reason to choose between either of them because both alignments can act exactly the same.

"Does your alignment affect where you prefer to live?"

"Well, I'm Lawful, so I prefer to live in the big city, where you have laws and order and a functioning social system, and everyone is interdependent."
"Well, I'm Chaotic, so I prefer to live in the big city, with all its buzz and bustle and confusion, and so many people you can lose yourself in the crowd and not have to worry what anyone else thinks."
"Well, I'm Chaotic, so I prefer to live alone in the wilderness, where no one can spy on me or tell me what to do."
"Well, I'm Lawful, so I prefer to live in alone in the wilderness, where I can meditate in peace and avoid all distractions."

Keltest
2015-03-29, 05:20 PM
I prefer neutrality myself. Im generally inclined to be lawful, however when roleplaying I like the freedom to say "The laws are dumb, lets sneak into the place and loot it." or something like that.

Coidzor
2015-03-29, 05:46 PM
I prefer a chaotic character since it means I can organically feel them out rather than having to come up with some kind of rigid code in advance or risk being told I'm not being lawful enough by the DM/fellow players.

I mostly do neutral things (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqZXPX0CiQI), though.

King of Casuals
2015-04-20, 12:05 PM
I get kind of annoyed when people sterotype certain alignment combinations. When I make a Chaotic evil character, it's because i've made an evil character who just happens to be chaotic. He's no more evil than the lawful evil character that I made last week, but he's objectified as such, just because of his alignment. That's why I like playing True Neutral characters; they're not bound by the restrictions of Law, Chaos, Good or Evil. They are Good until they have cause to be Evil, and they follow the rules until they have cause to break them. They're not emotionless, apathetic robots, TN characters are some of the most real ones that I have ever played.

King of Casuals
2015-04-20, 12:17 PM
Also, alignment restrictions on class are total BS. What if theres a LE person who becomes a paladin so they can get holy powers? Or a LN Barbarian who gets angryat people who break promises? Sorry if im ranting too much, but I just really hate restrictions on character creation in RPGs

Heemi
2015-04-20, 12:28 PM
I typically play Lawful Good because I play it well. "Do what you do best" and whatnot.

Keltest
2015-04-20, 12:48 PM
Also, alignment restrictions on class are total BS. What if theres a LE person who becomes a paladin so they can get holy powers? Or a LN Barbarian who gets angryat people who break promises? Sorry if im ranting too much, but I just really hate restrictions on character creation in RPGs

A paladin is more than just a warrior with holy powers, and a barbarian is more than just a fighter who gets angry at people. If you want to play a fighter with holy powers, you can multiclass a fighter/cleric, or pick a prestige class or something. If you want to play a paladin, specifically, there are some connotations behind that which include being Lawful Good.

Roderick_BR
2015-04-20, 01:07 PM
Depends completely on the kind of session and the kind of character I want to play.
If I want a free, independent thinker, I play chaotic.
If I want a goody "Saturday morning hero" kind, I play Lawful.

That said, I more often than not play lawful. That's just how I know how to play.

And let's stop with the strawman-ism, people. "I like this way because is better, people that like the other way is <insert extreme bad examples of that way>"

Jay R
2015-04-20, 09:36 PM
I can't imagine trying to amuse myself by pretending ti be somebody less than I am. So I prefer to play somebody stronger, more charismatic, and with greater powers, than me.

For the same reasons, I can't imagine playing somebody I would look down on morally, either. So I generally play Lawful Good, unless there is a specific reason not to. (My 2E Thief/Wizard was Neutral Good - but was routinely more moral than the Paladin. In an argument about what to do, I once replied to her, "Yes, well, that's because you're a Paladin, sworn to do what's Lawful, and what's Good. I'm a Thief, free to do what's right.")

oball
2015-04-20, 09:52 PM
I mostly do neutral things (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqZXPX0CiQI), though.

I hope you remember to be aggressive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XGp5ix8HE), though

dps
2015-04-20, 10:00 PM
I actually tended to prefer NG myself when playing.

goto124
2015-04-20, 10:04 PM
What is the crucial difference between NG and CG, anyway?

Lord Raziere
2015-04-20, 10:11 PM
What is the crucial difference between NG and CG, anyway?

The difference between a kind, warm-hearted priest, and her wild cowboy sharpshooter friend with a reckless streak.

goto124
2015-04-20, 10:15 PM
I play a wild notpaladin with a reckless streak. Her boyfriend is a kind, warm-hearted cowboy vampire.

I should stop confusing myself.

Anyway... the difference is recklessness?

Lord Raziere
2015-04-20, 10:26 PM
Or the difference between a scientist who devotes his life to making medicine and cures versus a scientist who devotes his life to making evil blow up because he wants to have fun with his evil smiting,

Or the difference between the journalist who councils everyone settle down and negotiate and get along, and the journalist who exposes this piece of corruption that is true and calls for people to get angry.

Or the difference between a swordsman who dislikes fighting because he knows how horrible it is even though he is good at it, and a swordsman who has gotten good at fighting so as to to end it quickly because strength is needed for good to prevail against evil at all and sometimes you need to use that strength violently

Or the difference between a wizard who learns magic to protect people through shielding spells and a wizard who learns magic to protect people with illusions, enchantments and trickery.

its more about the archetypes that the alignment brings to mind rather than any specific thing. Neutral Good tends towards more.....good-hearted, kind idealistic archetypes, while Chaotic Good tends towards more wild, free-willed, rugged pioneer kinds of archetypes.

VoxRationis
2015-04-20, 11:12 PM
The thing with Neutral Good is that they see law as a thing which can be useful but can also be a hindrance to the common good, while Chaotic Good sees it mostly as the latter.

I'm Lawful, highly so, in real-life. Regimented, do best when following someone's orders, dislike change or people's disregard for the rules. In character, though, I think I play mostly neutral or chaotic types. I'm not quite sure why that is.

CWater
2015-04-21, 03:09 AM
Most of my characters have been/are Neutral on this axis. There is no conscious decision behind this, it has just turned out that way (which I suppose is sort of neutral in itself). I would say this is because my characters rarely fit into my idea of 'Chaotic' or 'Lawful', they usually have a mix of both traits in even enough quantity that Neutral suits them best.

For example a cleric I currently play could be described as Lawful because he has a set of beliefs he follows and is unlikely to break them, however he could also be Chaotic because his personal backstory pretty much revolves around the fact that he's working against the religious organization he belongs to because he thinks they are acting wrong (and it's not a clear Good vs Evil issue either, as far as I know), and he is ready to break the law if need be.


Also, alignment restrictions on class are total BS. What if theres a LE person who becomes a paladin so they can get holy powers? Or a LN Barbarian who gets angryat people who break promises? Sorry if im ranting too much, but I just really hate restrictions on character creation in RPGs

I agree in that I see most alignment restrictions on classes as very, well restricting, and usually remove them in my games. Classes are most of all mechanics, and those can be interpreted in a lot of ways, for example the Barbarian.

Paladins (and other similars like Knights) are a bit of a special case, as the whole idea of the class revolves around the idea of the alignment. However, I tend to allow for a bit of leeway there too, for example Paladins can be NG or LN as well, although they still fall the same if they act obviously Evil or Chaotic. Still, it can add a bit of spice to RPing the character, it's likely that they would struggle more (internally at least) to live up to their code. It could be an interesting experiment to see how an LE person would act the part of the Paladin (Why did they want those powers? Do anything evil and they're gone.), though it might require some special circumstances.

goto124
2015-04-21, 03:14 AM
All those horror paladin stories I've read make me shudder to try anything like that :smalleek:

A lot of DM interpretation and such.

An evil person would have to exploit a lot of loopholes in the oath/alignment system to remain LG, let alone Paladin. Sounds pretty awesome, but not many DMs (or even players) would like that kind of loophole abuse. For one thing, you'll need a highly mechanical system where good & Good, and evil & Evil, are very distinct, to result in an evil Good person. Doesn't sit well with most.

dramatic flare
2015-04-21, 04:15 PM
On the original topic, my current longest running character is the one I decided to explore switching from chaotic to lawful.
He's a fetchling in a pathfinder game who started off attempting to work for the shadow dragon lord of his region (which is pretty common to fetchlings according to fluff), failed in a spectacular way and didn't have the subservience to maintain his good graces with the dragon ruler. Out of respect for his sister (another player, also playing a fetchling. We bicker constantly,) the dragon instead of killing him banished the two of them to the material plane. Lacking options and hating government machinations, he took to banditry for a short while (but was horrible at it) and now, since forming a kingdom is a big part of the module, is sliding towards lawfulness.
This is HIS kingdom, he's helping rule this place, and unlike his first interactions with the lawful governments, he's realizing that law can be used to promote unity and peace that he himself didn't get before.
And of course his aprentice is a centaur. Somehow.

Hypername
2015-04-21, 05:39 PM
The only Lawful alignment I like playing is Lawful Evil. I like playing lawyer and mafia-characters. They have interesting roleplaying choices and character development.
Other than that I prefer chaotic. Gives me more freedom in my choices as a player and RP wise fighting for freedom and bringing down tyrants is awesome.

malkarnivore
2015-04-22, 05:42 AM
Chaotic.

Dealing with situations as they come, and really not caring about the expectations of others beyond friends and family.

Oh, and no, I don't care who you are, I'm not surrendering my weapon and coming along quietly.

goto124
2015-04-22, 10:13 AM
When I hear 'surrender your weapons', I think 'Do my fists count?'

On topic, I personally like Chaotic. I already spend all my time IRL forced to adhere to society's LG ideals, why must I do it in my fantasy worlds too?

I guess the appeal is in stuff like 'actually having the power to fulfil said ideals'. Then again, personal preference.

MonkeySage
2015-04-22, 10:40 AM
I like playing anarchists, so my characters are always either neutral good or chaotic good. :)

Segev
2015-04-22, 11:23 AM
I generally love trickster archetypes, so chaotic tends to be a favorite veneer. Interestingly, though, a great many "trickster" types operate by a set of alien-but-well-defined rules, so whether they're really chaotic or just look that way to those who don't understand them is a valid question.

The difference between NG and CG is actually pretty simple: NG will tend to follow the rules right up to the point where doing so requires them to allow harm to come to another who does not deserve it; CG will tend to follow the rules, at best, only as long as they're convenient. Both are motivated to help others and treat others fairly and, insofar as doing so doesn't permit harm to come to still others, kindly.

Cluedrew
2015-04-24, 07:54 PM
I like playing anarchists, so my characters are always either neutral good or chaotic good. :)You do realize that V, the king of- err... a very notable anarchist was completely lawful?

Well, he is if you use an interpretation of lawful-chaotic that focuses on order and personality rather than actually following the law. Myself, my characters are usually neutral when by themselves and lawful when with the rest of the party. Because the rest of my group had a definite chaotic tendency that I found myself trying to offset.

I do like chaotic characters as well, but especially in off the cuff role-playing I find neutral and lawful characters easier to portray because that is closer to my base personality. I hope to broaden that with practice eventually.

TheTeaMustFlow
2015-04-25, 06:57 AM
Most of my recent characters (with the exception of a single CG-quickly-slipping-into-CN feline revolutionary with delusions of godhood) have tended to be LN or N, with either a `backroom schemer` or a `consummate professional` mentality. I've always found Lawful to be more... constructive than chaotic, though.

Zalphon
2015-04-26, 08:06 PM
I'm a fan of Lawfuls in game and lend towards Neutral out-of-character.

Chaotic is too scrambled and psychotic. They lack discipline.

MonkeySage
2015-04-27, 11:18 AM
You do realize that V, the king of- err... a very notable anarchist was completely lawful?

Well, he is if you use an interpretation of lawful-chaotic that focuses on order and personality rather than actually following the law. Myself, my characters are usually neutral when by themselves and lawful when with the rest of the party. Because the rest of my group had a definite chaotic tendency that I found myself trying to offset.

I do like chaotic characters as well, but especially in off the cuff role-playing I find neutral and lawful characters easier to portray because that is closer to my base personality. I hope to broaden that with practice eventually.

I know someone who plays anarchist paladins, and honestly I can understand that too. Makes quite a bit of sense to me... Not sure I'd peg V as lawful, given some of his actions... I think at times he's probably too crazy to be lawful; breaking up with a statue and what not. ^_^

I will say that when I play evil characters, they're usually of the lawful-neutral variety. My current evil character is a neutral evil banker/merchant.

Cluedrew
2015-04-27, 04:55 PM
Not sure I'd peg V as lawful, given some of his actions... I think at times he's probably too crazy to be lawful; breaking up with a statue and what not. ^_^

I wouldn't peg V as nice or pleasant, I can't even claim some of the arguments for him being evil as completely wrong. But I will stand by him being lawful, even if he is insane his internal mad world is too ordered to be anything else. I don't have my copy of V for Vendetta on hand, but I will quote these as best I can:

There are no coincidences, just the appearance of a coincidence.This shows a belief in order and reason, that every event happens for a particular reason. Often that reason is because he set it up, pulled the strings and made seemingly random things go exactly how he wanted them to.

No Eve, this isn't anarchy. This is chaos.
So he is not fighting for anything chaotic and he actually seems to find the idea distasteful. (This is when there are riots going on.) Chaos was a tool of his but it was not his end goal. V was more than willing to go to extreme lengths to get what he felt what had to be done done. He was also willing to go to some extreme length to wash that away... but that is getting close to the end of the book.

The statue thing... besides giving us some insight into V I would say that is V is just having fun. As my instructor put it "V charges into battle from a makeup room." V is very dramatic and this applies even when no one is looking.

MonkeySage
2015-04-27, 05:13 PM
You make a very good case... To quote Proudhon in this, "Anarchy is Order"..

Ken, my elf wizard was one of those anarchist characters I was thinking about earlier. In the sense he rejects what he sees as unjustified authority. I probably chose his alignment poorly, I dunno. He had a love of danger that might be thought of as reckless, excited about going down a well that earlier a bunch of adventures disappeared into.
I think what I was thinking about when I chose CG as his alignment was the Doctor. Depending on the incarnation, he tends to be pretty much an anarchist, at least from the perspective of other Time Lords.

Cluedrew
2015-04-27, 06:19 PM
I'm working on defining meaningful alignment chart. It is taking a really long time. But one of the guidelines I have is that when a bad law is encountered, a chaotic character will ignore it and a lawful character will change it. At "unjustified authority" I think every good character will hate it, the difference is how to they address the issue.

One of my favourite role-play characters ever was named Ken Gaterow. I think he might have been chaotic, I never defined his D&D alignment.

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 08:23 AM
I strongly prefer Lawful characters over chaotic. I try chaotic, but they end up strongly Lawful anyway.

Of course... I do very scary Lawful at times as well.

Lawful Good IS less good than Neutral Good - Mercy is a Neutral Good, not Lawful Good, concept. Law balks at people unfairly getting out of punishments that they've earned through their own actions, due to its reliance on precedent.

hamishspence
2015-04-28, 09:51 AM
Lawful Good IS less good than Neutral Good - Mercy is a Neutral Good, not Lawful Good, concept. Law balks at people unfairly getting out of punishments that they've earned through their own actions, due to its reliance on precedent.

Mercy is a Good concept, full stop. Both LG and CG are merciful on average - just a bit less so than NG. Celestia is characterised as "the home of justice and mercy" in Manual of the Planes, after all.

Hawkstar
2015-04-28, 01:19 PM
Mercy is a Good concept, full stop. Both LG and CG are merciful on average - just a bit less so than NG. Celestia is characterised as "the home of justice and mercy" in Manual of the Planes, after all.The Lawful Good notion of mercy is different (And much more strictly defined) than the True Good notion of mercy. There is no room for Personal Judgement anywhere in Law. However, Lawful Good does not accept Unjust Law - and 'blind justice' is something of an oxymoron. And, in true Lawful Good, the punishment is never excessive for the crime committed.

I actually suspect Chaotic Good is more merciful than even Neutral Good, but it ends up being Less Good because it lacks the 'judgement' of Lawful Good- Chaotic, at its extreme, cannot say "You shouldn't do that" - it concerns itself only with the actions of itself, not others. Neutral Good is the balance between Lawful's Judgement and Chaos' mercy.

Stupid Lawful Good is "No Mercy for the wicked - they condemn themselves through their actions. If you don't want to be condemned, don't do Evil. This goes for EVERYONE, from the heights of Celestia to the stygian pits of the Abyss and everything in between" (And Evil and Unlawful are one and the same in Lawful Good). Stupid Chaotic Good is "I personally will help the poor, protect the weak, do the right thing, etc, but don't care if you eat babies and incinerate orphans and kick puppies (But will stop you in due course if I'm in a position to do so, simply because it's my nature to do so)"

Cluedrew
2015-04-28, 05:33 PM
The Lawful Good notion of mercy is different (And much more strictly defined) than the True Good notion of mercy. There is no room for Personal Judgement anywhere in Law. However, Lawful Good does not accept Unjust Law - and 'blind justice' is something of an oxymoron. And, in true Lawful Good, the punishment is never excessive for the crime committed.
On the contrary there is room for both personal judgment and mercy in law. An example of the former is that sentences carry a minimum and maximum punishment, it is up to the judge's personal judgement where in this range the person falls. As for mercy consider the parole system, where prisoners can get out early (with conditions) if they are well behaved. So mercy is not really a chaotic principle, particularly if you scan across the evil alignments.

Unless you define mercy as dolling out less punishment to someone than the law dictates, in which case it is not mercy but simply part of the law. In that case I wouldn't say mercy is good either, as a "chaotic" gut instinct on what sort of punishment someone deserves is no more accurate (on average) than what the law states.


(And Evil and Unlawful are one and the same in Lawful Good)No, for some Lawful Good individuals "unlawful" might be a lesser kind of evil (in the same way lawful is evil to some Chaotic Good people) but even they can tell the difference between "burn, rape, pillage" and J-walking. There once was a time when crossing the street was not a crime. I digress. And the majority will just the good or evil of an unlawful action by whether it was good or evil, not because it was unlawful.

Draken
2015-04-29, 12:09 AM
Or the difference between a scientist who devotes his life to making medicine and cures versus a scientist who devotes his life to making evil blow up because he wants to have fun with his evil smiting,

Or the difference between the journalist who councils everyone settle down and negotiate and get along, and the journalist who exposes this piece of corruption that is true and calls for people to get angry.

Or the difference between a swordsman who dislikes fighting because he knows how horrible it is even though he is good at it, and a swordsman who has gotten good at fighting so as to to end it quickly because strength is needed for good to prevail against evil at all and sometimes you need to use that strength violently

Or the difference between a wizard who learns magic to protect people through shielding spells and a wizard who learns magic to protect people with illusions, enchantments and trickery.

its more about the archetypes that the alignment brings to mind rather than any specific thing. Neutral Good tends towards more.....good-hearted, kind idealistic archetypes, while Chaotic Good tends towards more wild, free-willed, rugged pioneer kinds of archetypes.

You are attaching some exceptionally unrelated baggage to the alignments.

From my perspective, you could simplify the alignments as follows:

Good & Evil: How an individual should interact with those around him.
Good - Do what is best for others. Maxim: One for all.
Evil - Do what is best for yourself. Maxim: One for himself.

Order & Chaos: Represent how a person believes the world should interact with him.
Order - Structure and institution to the benefit of its components. Maxim: All for one.
Chaos - All things function in their own interest. Maxim: Every man for himself.

-----

I tend towards playing Lawful Evil, personally. That said I don't play psychopaths who get their kicks out of murders.

hamishspence
2015-04-29, 02:35 AM
"One for all, and every man for himself" doesn't really work as a combined maxim for Chaotic Good. Chaos isn't so much about self-interest, I think.

Lord Raziere
2015-04-29, 04:19 AM
You are attaching some exceptionally unrelated baggage to the alignments.

From my perspective, you could simplify the alignments as follows:

Good & Evil: How an individual should interact with those around him.
Good - Do what is best for others. Maxim: One for all.
Evil - Do what is best for yourself. Maxim: One for himself.

Order & Chaos: Represent how a person believes the world should interact with him.
Order - Structure and institution to the benefit of its components. Maxim: All for one.
Chaos - All things function in their own interest. Maxim: Every man for himself.

-----

I tend towards playing Lawful Evil, personally. That said I don't play psychopaths who get their kicks out of murders.

Nope.

I see the mistakes people have been making with alignments now.

they're thinking like you: as a cosmic hard and fast rule for systemically determining all morality ever.

when really, they're just supposed to be this fluff thing. its not about an actual metaphysical characteristic, but rather indicative of what narrative moral archetype you intend to fulfill. the morality of a wild cowboy is not one of a strict upright paladin. its not about how people actually think or how morality actually works. its about how certain archetypes fit in morally. the Chaotic Good alignment is about the archetype of the rebel, the cowboy, the individualist, the artist, the revolutionary and so on and so forth.

you don't give him alignment to actually reflect his morality, you give an alignment to reflect the archetype he is fulfilling. if he is a clever rogue who lies, cheats and steals but ultimately does good because of those actions, that is Chaotic Good, if he is a cowboy who shoots the outlaw dead before he can draw his gun- thats Chaotic Good. and so on and so forth, its less about hard and fast rules and more about general archetypes you wish to emulate. Chaotic Good is when you want to the wild cowboy who takes justice into his own hands, Lawful Good is when you want to be the sheriff. which I think is more reasonable than what you are talking about.

for example, a revolutionary succeeds and becomes leader, and now he is going to emulate the morality of a good ruler, he becomes Lawful Good. its less about actual morality and more the style of morality: Chaotic Good is when you want your morality more free and independent and such, and Lawful Good is when you want your morality to be more about upholding something. True Neutral is not a person who does not care or cares only about cosmic balance, its the archetype of your actions being truly ambiguous in their morality, even if your a dynamic character who clearly has an agenda.

and so on and so forth.

Hawkstar
2015-04-29, 07:29 AM
On the contrary there is room for both personal judgment and mercy in law. An example of the former is that sentences carry a minimum and maximum punishment, it is up to the judge's personal judgement where in this range the person falls. As for mercy consider the parole system, where prisoners can get out early (with conditions) if they are well behaved. So mercy is not really a chaotic principle, particularly if you scan across the evil alignments.

Unless you define mercy as dolling out less punishment to someone than the law dictates, in which case it is not mercy but simply part of the law. In that case I wouldn't say mercy is good either, as a "chaotic" gut instinct on what sort of punishment someone deserves is no more accurate (on average) than what the law states.That former case is one of Order's concessions to Chaos, since humans are not entirely creatures of law. Of course... I guess I am defining mercy as "Dolling out less punishment than the law dictates". In a fully-Lawful (in the sense of Cosmic Law/Forces of Order sense) Good society, the range provided by minimum and maximum sentences is for the appraised circumstantial variation in the crime, not "Whim of the judge".


No, for some Lawful Good individuals "unlawful" might be a lesser kind of evil (in the same way lawful is evil to some Chaotic Good people) but even they can tell the difference between "burn, rape, pillage" and J-walking. There once was a time when crossing the street was not a crime. I digress. And the majority will just the good or evil of an unlawful action by whether it was good or evil, not because it was unlawful.Of course they can see the difference in magnitude - but the Jaywalker is still putting his personal convenience over the safety of himself and others and has a chance of creating catastrophe, so warrants a mild punishment to serve as a deterrent from casual violation.

Draken
2015-04-29, 10:10 AM
"One for all, and every man for himself" doesn't really work as a combined maxim for Chaotic Good. Chaos isn't so much about self-interest, I think.

I see the alignments as being about expectations.

In the chaos and law axis, those expectations would be: for Chaos "I expect nothing of anyone and no one should expect anything of me", there are no ties, no bindings, no behaviors deemed appropriate for the situation. For Order, there are expectations on the mind of lawful individuals of how the world and its institutions interact with the individual, with everyone else being part of one such institution, this is where etiquette comes from, and all other societal norms.

"Laws" thus become an interesting thing. Laws are artificial, arbitrary, just like pretty much everything wizards ever put out about alignments. "People of alignment X do this and that and don't do this or that", these are norms. A lawful creature can break a law, she simply understands that what she is doing breaks a law, she may not feel guilty about breaking the law, but understands the consequences of her deeds and is either willing to take up said consequences or do her best to avoid them. A chaotic creature doesn't care about the law, she is not out to break it as an act of defiance, she simply dismisses the inherent worth that individuals with a lawful mindset ascribe to the law (which I believe is simply a difficult idea to understand for us because we are raised in a fairly lawful manner in the real world).

-----

And no, I do not believe that alignments are a hard cosmic fast rule, that to me is the basis of plenty of the issues people have with it, mostly because that is what WotC tried and tried to make the alignments into, something that is sent down from on high for humans to conform to.

My vision and its maxims are from an individual perspective. A person is good when, in her beliefs, the proper course of action in any given situation is to think of others first, whereas an evil person thinks of herself first. A lawful person thins of what is expected of her first and a chaotic person thinks of what she wants to do first.

What the person actually does, after these initial considerations, is up to a lot more variables than just the alignment. What is the simplest thing to do? What brings about the most promising outcome? Should I even do anything? Sword or axe? Decisions, decisions. Each person will make their own based on their preferences, allegiances, experiences, and a slew of other traits and beliefs that are much more extensive than three words in the alignment entry of the sheet.

See Raziere's first post that I quoted (also answering Raziere in this whole spiel, sorry for not quoting it this time), she ascribed a bunch of things a few characters would do based on their alignments more or less alone, highly specific courses of action at that, these are not really tied to alignment, what alignment would describe is how that person would feel about his actions before and after the fact.

Then again, I may be working under a post 3.5 paradigm, when Wizards has had the presence of mind of excising alignment's interactions with any actual game mechanics (read: spells) and left them purely in the much more appropriate realm of philosophy (and extraplanar creatures with mindsets alien to the human condition).

Hawkstar
2015-05-03, 04:28 AM
Nope.

I see the mistakes people have been making with alignments now.

they're thinking like you: as a cosmic hard and fast rule for systemically determining all morality ever.

when really, they're just supposed to be this fluff thing. its not about an actual metaphysical characteristic, but rather indicative of what narrative moral archetype you intend to fulfill. the morality of a wild cowboy is not one of a strict upright paladin. its not about how people actually think or how morality actually works. its about how certain archetypes fit in morally. the Chaotic Good alignment is about the archetype of the rebel, the cowboy, the individualist, the artist, the revolutionary and so on and so forth.

you don't give him alignment to actually reflect his morality, you give an alignment to reflect the archetype he is fulfilling. if he is a clever rogue who lies, cheats and steals but ultimately does good because of those actions, that is Chaotic Good, if he is a cowboy who shoots the outlaw dead before he can draw his gun- thats Chaotic Good. and so on and so forth, its less about hard and fast rules and more about general archetypes you wish to emulate. Chaotic Good is when you want to the wild cowboy who takes justice into his own hands, Lawful Good is when you want to be the sheriff. which I think is more reasonable than what you are talking about.

for example, a revolutionary succeeds and becomes leader, and now he is going to emulate the morality of a good ruler, he becomes Lawful Good. its less about actual morality and more the style of morality: Chaotic Good is when you want your morality more free and independent and such, and Lawful Good is when you want your morality to be more about upholding something. True Neutral is not a person who does not care or cares only about cosmic balance, its the archetype of your actions being truly ambiguous in their morality, even if your a dynamic character who clearly has an agenda.

and so on and so forth.Actually, in D&D, they are supposed to be cosmic forces. Of course... I find two alignment axis to be redundant - and Lawful and Good often fill the same roles, as do Chaotic and Evil. In fact, they're actually missing a traditional alignment - Light and Dark. The gist of Alignment can really be summed up in a bunch of quotes/concepts shouted by random RTS units:
"Forces of Darkness Beware!"
"For Great Justice!"
"For the Light!"
"We await the coming of the Tides of Darkness"
"The great armies of Evil"
"The Forces of Chaos"
etc...

The alignments really are monolithic - but Evil and Chaos have "Fighting themselves" as part of their schtick - but when Evil and Chaos fight itself, it reinforces, not diminishes, Evil and Chaos. When Good and Law fight Evil and Chaos, Evil and Chaos are diminished.

Frankly - a party with diametrically-opposed alignments should not be able to work out as a long-term thing - If it does, there needs to be a shift to Neutral on at least one side.

Necroticplague
2015-05-03, 01:31 PM
Frankly - a party with diametrically-opposed alignments should not be able to work out as a long-term thing - If it does, there needs to be a shift to Neutral on at least one side.

Why not? As long as they have the same goal(s) in mind, what exactly there philosophies are need not be in line with each other, or even come up.

denthor
2015-05-03, 02:42 PM
I find Chaotic to be more liked and survive longer than my lawful the group I play with has murdered every Lawful I have run.

When Lawful I take very careful notes and report to organizations which the group does not like. They feel the party can do what it wants and know one should be aware of it.

Lawful is a pain in my anyway so I want to explore thinking in a way I do not think in real life

Keltest
2015-05-03, 03:02 PM
Actually, in D&D, they are supposed to be cosmic forces. Of course... I find two alignment axis to be redundant - and Lawful and Good often fill the same roles, as do Chaotic and Evil. In fact, they're actually missing a traditional alignment - Light and Dark. The gist of Alignment can really be summed up in a bunch of quotes/concepts shouted by random RTS units:
"Forces of Darkness Beware!"
"For Great Justice!"
"For the Light!"
"We await the coming of the Tides of Darkness"
"The great armies of Evil"
"The Forces of Chaos"
etc...

The alignments really are monolithic - but Evil and Chaos have "Fighting themselves" as part of their schtick - but when Evil and Chaos fight itself, it reinforces, not diminishes, Evil and Chaos. When Good and Law fight Evil and Chaos, Evil and Chaos are diminished.

Frankly - a party with diametrically-opposed alignments should not be able to work out as a long-term thing - If it does, there needs to be a shift to Neutral on at least one side.

The point of the two axis system is twofold. For one, when it was just a scale of LG to CE, that was passing judgment on chaotic characters. Robin Hood was automatically morally inferior to, say Miko from the webcomic because he was chaotic.

The other point is that while Law and Good may often be on the same side, they aren't always, and calling a clearly Lawful character Chaotic Evil because theyre really nasty is horribly inaccurate.

Hawkstar
2015-05-03, 03:20 PM
Why not? As long as they have the same goal(s) in mind, what exactly there philosophies are need not be in line with each other, or even come up.
Because they don't have the same goals in mind - Lawful aligned people have the goal of bringing greater order to the world. Evil people have the goal of making the world a worse place for everyone else. Good people have the goal of making the world a better place for everyone who's not Evil (And ensuring those who ARE evil get to hang out together in their own little place off the material plane), and Chaotic people have the goal of unchaining the world from the falseness of order imposed by Law. Or, their alignment can be incidental - they don't have those goals, but the sum of their actions over the course of their lives lead to those ends.

If the party sticks together for too long, then either their personal sub-goals eclipse their alignment and drift to neutral, or their compromises with each other (Their strong association with each other from the camaraderie of being in a long-term adventuring party lead to them being responsible/accountable for each other's actions - A Good person cannot be such if they tolerate the actions/goals of an Evil person to the extent of protecting them in the manner an Adventuring Party leads them to.) drift toward the group consensus' goals or outcome on the world (With their personal differences from the group tugging them toward their own alignment - A formerly-evil person who's a lifelong member of an overwhelmingly Good group will drift to Neutral).
The point of the two axis system is twofold. For one, when it was just a scale of LG to CE, that was passing judgment on chaotic characters. Robin Hood was automatically morally inferior to, say Miko from the webcomic because he was chaotic.

The other point is that while Law and Good may often be on the same side, they aren't always, and calling a clearly Lawful character Chaotic Evil because theyre really nasty is horribly inaccurate.
Except it was never a scale from LG to CE - merely L to C, with no 'moral' judgement at all. Law was generally more benign than Chaos (A chaotic person doesn't have any rules against murdering orphans so they can bathe in their blood and dance in their bodies, but they won't necessarily do so), and easier to see as such, but not always. And, Robin Hood was Lawful, despite being outside the Chaotic law of Prince John.

Cluedrew
2015-05-03, 03:30 PM
Light and DarkI agree that light and dark are powerful symbols but that is all they are symbols. They don't mean anything beyond a subjective measure of the number of photons bouncing around until they are made a symbol of something. The lawful-chaotic may be a little bit confusing at times but defiantly means something.


The alignments really are monolithicI never understood where this view that an alignment means exactly one type of person. To me it always seemed like infinity/9=1, where did the others go? Then of course people say this is a great failing of the alignment system... and if I had any evidence to support the monolithic interpretation, I would agree with them. But I haven't seen any.

Roxxy
2015-05-03, 07:46 PM
If I must use alignment, I typically play Lawful Good. Sometimes I play Neutral Good. I never play Chaotic Good, and I never play anything that isn't Good. I play games to be a hero, and I don't like being morally dubious, so I don't play non-Good characters. I personally see the law as a necessity of civilization, and disorder a very bad thing for the people who can't maintain a stable lifestyle, so Chaotic never really holds any appeal to me. I do sometimes like playing Neutral Good characters who agree with the law in principle, but see corruption everywhere that needs to be rooted out or a tyrant that needs be overthrown.

That said, I scrap the alignment system when I GM Pathfinder. I find it doesn't give me anything my game needs. Chief issue is that I do not run campaigns for adventurers, I run them for government agents. That right there knocks out the option of Chaotic characters, because upholding law is an important theme of the entire game. I portray the government as the "Good Guys" of the setting, so Evil characters also clash too much (and I do not GM for Evil characters, anyway). At this point, the system already has too many banned options for me to like it, and I don't need it. A key theme of my setting is that the Gods are gone, because it is time for humans to take care of themselves instead of being taken care of. An objective morality system would clash with that theme horribly. A subjective alignment system is just unnecessary. Moral structure for the campaign is already provided by the role of players as government agents, and I find "You are a government agent. Act as such." to come across far better than enacting alignment restrictions. Also avoids any alignment arguments, which is important in a game that swings toward the Law annd Good sides of the spectrum pretty shamelessly.

goto124
2015-05-03, 11:00 PM
It's kind of funny. I see Law as a necessity for goodness in the real world, which is populated by billions of strangers, and the danger of malice and misunderstanding runs high. Yet/Because of that, I play games to escape from the necessary Lawful confines of RL, which means Chaotic holds a lot of appeal to me.

Then again, you like running government-themes campaigns, while I'm more of a hack-and-slash kind of person.

darkscizor
2015-05-04, 12:29 AM
Chaotic.

Lawful PCs are limited in their choices and act lawful.

Sure, Chaotic PCs CAN act lawful too, but they have extra freedom to do stupid chaotic things, and I've never really played a lawful character right anyways.

Roxxy
2015-05-04, 11:36 AM
It's kind of funny. I see Law as a necessity for goodness in the real world, which is populated by billions of strangers, and the danger of malice and misunderstanding runs high. Yet/Because of that, I play games to escape from the necessary Lawful confines of RL, which means Chaotic holds a lot of appeal to me.

Then again, you like running government-themes campaigns, while I'm more of a hack-and-slash kind of person.I do think that's the key difference, yea. In medieval fantasy, I do prefer the knight in service to a lord to the adventurer, but I don't run medieval fantasy often. My current setting is split into multiple eras, my favorite of which is basically Dieselpunk. In fact, industrialized settings with firearms everywhere are my thing. I much prefer them to medieval. It is still Dungeons and Dragons, in that magic exists openly and is practiced by people, elves and dwarves are numerous, dragons amd such cause issues, et al. Adventurers don't fit, however. Strong industrialized nations with effective police and strong military forces dislike vigilantes and sellswords running amock in their territory. Solution is to let the players be those effective police and military personnel who kill all the monsters. Also a good way of explaining where the PCs get automatic firearms and explosives, and why it is so easy for them to get access to things like secured crime scenes and evidence lockups, military installations, and highly classified information.