Would you rather have a LE or CN in your party?

[Tanarii]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

--------------

All else being equal, including other personality traits being identical and including an Ideal appropriate for (Any) alignment, either played by the same player who you know and trust to play their character as a multifaceted as opposed to one-dimensional based on alignment character, which would you prefer to have in your party?

If it matters, assume your character is Neutral and has no previous interactions with the character in question, but has 2nd hand knowledge of what they are like through others,, and is about to embark on a mission with them.

Assume for a second that both you and the player of the PCs in question have actually read and understood the 5e Alignment typical behavior above. Assume for a second no one is making all sorts of assumptions about the alignments that are outside of these typical behaviors. A tall order I know.

[GooeyChewie]

I know and trust the player to play a multifaceted character? Then I say LE. A well-played LE character can make for a really interesting story, with complex reasoning which allows the character to function within the party.

Random player I don’t know (or just a player I don’t trust)? Then I say CN. They may act crazy, but they’re less likely to actively work against the party.

[KorvinStarmast]

CN
You can appeal to their self interest.

When you hang out with Evil for long enough, you'll end up getting some smeared on you.

[Angelalex242]

I have one of each in my current party. The LE halfling rogue character routinely takes sex slaves. The CN character is a tabaxi ranger that REALLY acts like a sentient cat.

...One of these is offensive. One of these is not.

[Temperjoke]

At least with lawful evil, you know where you stand.

[Tanarii]

At least with lawful evil, you know where you stand.This came from a discussion with several of my players. I currently don't allow Evil alignments, but do allow CN. They were saying basically this right here, that they'd prefer to have LE allowed but CN not allowed for this reason.

[Luccan]

At least with lawful evil, you know where you stand.

What turns a man Neutral?

If I trust the player, either one.

Without bringing players into it... LE if we share a goal and their code is mostly agreeable. The moment either of those is not the case? I don't trust them. At that point I'm a liability.

CN for everyday. At worst, if they mean the Neutral part, they'll be annoying.

[Temperjoke]

This came from a discussion with several of my players. I currently don't allow Evil alignments, but do allow CN. They were saying basically this right here, that they'd prefer to have LE allowed but CN not allowed for this reason.

I mean, it really comes down to the players, but everyone that I've seen play CN characters have been more disruptive and caused more problems for the group just because they can't resist the "lulz random". I mean, yeah, LE characters can do distasteful stuff, but that's often just an OOC conversation about IC limits.

[Tanarii]

I mean, it really comes down to the players, but everyone that I've seen play CN characters have been more disruptive and caused more problems for the group just because they can't resist the "lulz random". I mean, yeah, LE characters can do distasteful stuff, but that's often just an OOC conversation about IC limits.
Generally speaking, my players of CN alignment characters aren't a problem. They're usually mature about it, especially for a bunch of college kids. It's usually some version of "(personal) freedom loving", especially given the 5e definition, and in conjunction with an appropriate Ideals.

Two of the players in the discussion were older with 3.P experience, and to me, definitely seemed to have the impression that CN = lulz random.

[Wryte]

Given that about 90% of all CN characters I've ever encountered play it as the "technically not Evil" alignment, I'll take the LE character. I actually trust him more, as I can appeal to him with logic that behaving in a socially acceptable manner is more advantageous to him in the long run than whatever form of instant gratification he's about to enact.

[2D8HP]

....Play with Chaotic neutral or Lawful evil?


Well, seeing how 'CN's' are often played, I'd say LE.


....Assume for a second no one is making all sorts of assumptions about the alignments that are outside of these typical behaviors...


Oh.

Okay, in that case I choose...

....ah I just can't do it!

Still going with the fascist instead of the anarchist (so bad, sorry).


:redface:

[Xihirli]

One concept I’ve had for awhile was an LE paladin of an LN god who tasked the paladin with following the orders of a goody-two-shoes as a test of loyalty; “can you put law before evil” type thing.
I would only do it with a group I’m familiar with, though.

[Sigreid]

I don't have a problem with either. To be blunt about it, a sphincter-hat is going to be just as much of a sphincter-hat with either alignment where as a reasonable person who wants to be welcome in the group is going to be reasonable with either.

Put this way, CN isn't the insane alignment it's the live by their own rules alignment. They should still have some internal rules they follow. The LE guy isn't going to want people to know he's evil until he's too powerful to be opposed, instead portraying himself as the hard decision guy, a real leader.

[2D8HP]

One concept I’ve had for awhile was an LE paladin of an LN god who tasked the paladin with following the orders of a goody-two-shoes as a test of loyalty; “can you put law before evil” type thing..

"You think I don't know the law? Huh? Wasn't it me who wrote it? And I say this man has broken the law. Right or wrong, we had a deal. And the law says, "Bust a deal and face the Wheel"'

"All our lives hang by a thread. Now we got a man waiting for sentence. But ain't it the truth? You take your chances with the law. Justice is only a roll of the dice. A flip of the coin. A turn... of the Wheel...""

[Caelic]

Depends entirely on the player and the character.

I've seen Chaotic Neutrals who were played as being outright insane; I wouldn't particularly care to adventure with such a person. On the other hand, I've seen Chaotic Neutrals who were simply absolute libertarians, but rational; most of my characters would be okay with such a person in the party.

Likewise, I've seen Lawful Evil characters who were ruthless, but honorable; I've also seen Lawful Evil characters who were the epitome of sleazy lawyer looking to pull a fast one with fine print. The former would be tolerable; the latter, not so much.

[Pex]

Lawful Evil by process of elimination. Not every CN player but most CN players I've played with use it as an excuse to be a disruptive jerk, sometimes even doing evil things but pretend they're not because of the N on the character sheet, but a disruptive jerk is problem enough. A Lawful Evil character can be quite loyal to the party. He could even be respectful of sensibilities and not do things he knows are evil when the Good character(s) of the party are with him. The CN character will do things to upset the Good character(s) as witness on purpose to spite them and rile up the player.

[Consensus]

I'm currently in a party with a CN, LE, and N. I'm LG. The party actually works fine, the CN is an elven wizard who doesn't role play much but goes along with the party, the LE is a brutal may-or-may-not-have-committed-war-crimes-in-the-great-war warforged fighter, the N is a ranger who cares a whole lot about his wolf, and I'm a do-gooder psychic priest in training. I'm working on lessening the pragmatism of the warforged, and the rest of the party doesn't really act disruptively or immorally (by standards expected in DND)

[MxKit]

If I know and trust the player, and know that they understand the 5e Alignment system, I'd be perfectly happy to have either in the party. Either could be very interesting when it comes to character interactions and story.

(If I don't know the player and therefore don't yet trust them, I'd rather they play a CN character. I'd much rather have even one of the worse examples of the "LOL RANDOM" occasional-evil-actions idiots than edgelord "ooooooh look at me be eeeeevil, does this trigger you?" bs, to look at the extreme worst-case scenarios for both.

And if I know the player and don't trust them, I probably wouldn't be playing in a game with them. :|a But then, that comes back around to my first answer, and the answer to your actual question. At this point, I much prefer playing with people I already know and trust anyway, though I know that's not always an option, and if I know and trust them then I trust that I'd enjoy any character they play, whatever the alignment. Hell, knowing my friends, if we all knew and trusted each other we might not even bother putting down character alignments until and unless it came up due to a spell or something. :|a)

[bc56]

LE

Now let me explain.
Imagine your alignment grid. Law to the left, chaos to the right, good on top, evil on the bottom. But I feel that the difference between chaotic alignments is much smaller. I represent this by making the grid trapezoidal, squishing the chaos end down to about half the length of the law end.

Why?

I feel that the temptation to perform evil acts with any chaotic character is much greater, because you're supposed to disregard the rules.
Let me give an example of two "CG" characters I'm currently running a game for.
Arboreas, elf rogue:
-Throws animals at people randomly via a bag of tricks.
-Stole a traveler's weapons, forcing him (the traveller) to undertake a difficult journey he was underprepared for anyway unarmed.
-Worked with a thieves' guild to take out an assassin, but broke into the dude's house to lay an ambush.
-Broke into Mechanus with the intent of causing trouble.
-Allowed a thieves' guild to take a man hostage for interrogation (likely torture)
-Allowed a man in his custody to be murdered
-Stole dwarven state secrets.
-Constantly tries to orchestrate situations where he can rip merchants off.

Euclid, half-elf sorcerer:
-constantly plots how to break the economic system to make bucketloads of money.
-Aforementioned thing about assassin, interrogation, and murder of a person under his custody.
-Makes excuses for Arboreas
-Spreads gossip, both true and untrue.
-lied about political affiliations to concerned people.
-Will not stop haggling.
-Wants to open a restaurants serving "mystery meat chunks" which may or may not contain elephant meat.

Both are pretty hard to judge. Yeah, they do standard dungeon delving stuff, but they're in it for money and power and killing things, not because the things are evil.
(These characters would be shocked when they die and find themselves in Limbo rather than Arborea or the Beastlands)


I'm not even willing to play CN, but I'll sometimes play LE. LE should have boundaries, whereas CN is the total lack of boundaries.

With both you run the risk of betrayal, but it's more likely with the CN character, because they're only out for themselves.

Now that I think about it, CN and NE are really the same alignment. Both are just out for themselves and have no boundaries, moral or otherwise, to prevent them from doing evil. Evil is probably the more profitable route in a D&D game, so the CN character will usually just be evil and self-serving as a result.

[MaxWilson]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

*snip*

Assume for a second that both you and the player of the PCs in question have actually read and understood the 5e Alignment typical behavior above. Assume for a second no one is making all sorts of assumptions about the alignments that are outside of these typical behaviors. A tall order I know.

So I've got a choice between a player who likes the thought of following his own "whims" and putting himself "above all else", and a player who likes the thought of "[taking] what he wants, within the limits of a code"?

The first one sounds like a social disaster. The second one sounds like a possible social disaster, but it depends on what the code [of loyalty?] is, and whether he has any loyalty to the other PCs and important NPCs that they interact with. There's at least a possibility that the player who chooses the second option still intends to play nicely with the other players at the table.

Half a loaf is better than none. I'll take option (B) please: Lawful Evil.

My answer might be different if the alignments were defined differently, but the way the question is posed leaves me no choice. E.g. if Chaotic Neutral is just "lives for today, taking no thought for society or long-range consequences," like a coal miner who just wants to drink his beer and stay out of the Goblin Wars until it impacts the life of himself and his friends... THAT kind of Chaotic Neutral is much easier to deal with/live with.

[Angelalex242]

Way I see it...

If this were Marvel comics, would you rather adventure with Magneto (LE) or Deadpool (CN)

[MaxWilson]

Way I see it...

If this were Marvel comics, would you rather adventure with Magneto (LE) or Deadpool (CN)

I was about to say, "Oh, come on! Deadpool is CE!" and then I realized that by the definitions in the OP, there's no way to prove it.

[Angelalex242]

I was about to say, "Oh, come on! Deadpool is CE!" and then I realized that by the definitions in the OP, there's no way to prove it.

By the standards of the OP, I'd guess CE is more like Loki: Actively trying to destroy things for the evuls/personal power/etc.

[SociopathFriend]

LE. CN almost always seems to end up as, "Rogue that steals from you at the first opportunity" and that has to be the best way to piss me off in D&D. It doesn't even have to be me that's stolen from- I hate it when anyone pulls that crap.

A LE player is someone I expect to be suave, to manipulate, to toe the line and in every way be basically a gentlemen that has goals that morally go against the grain. He might not like you but if he has a use for you- damned if you die on his watch.
A CN player is someone I expect to do whatever they want at a moment's notice if it benefits them- typically in ways that screw the entire party over.

Ask yourself this- would you rather roll with Jack Sparrow or Barbossa? One of them has managed to stab someone in the back in every single movie thus far. Barbossa meanwhile seems to actually keep his promises and his word.

[Theodoxus]

LE for me. It's more fun without the disruptions.

I'm playing a LE Warlock in AL - which was a shock to the group, as no one, not even the DM realized it was allowed. From 1-4, I was a Celestial Warlock, and I played him a bit tight lipped on his motivations (mostly because I was coming into the game on their 3rd session in a TotYP dungeon crawl - so I just appeared, fully formed without the benefit of a 'session 0' background to mesh characters.)

Just before I hit 5th level, I changed from Celestial to Hexblade and have let my Evil tendencies show (as I noted, shocking the group I could play it that way). The party, once finishing the dungeon, began the PotA adventure (which I've never played or read, so knew very little about). We found a tower guarded by Waterdhavian knights who were quite hospitable, but wouldn't allow me to join their ranks, because I wasn't a noble (in fact, a country bumpkin with the stereotypical accent to boot!) I conspired with the party to kill the knights so I could claim the keep as my own and have power in the region.

I was voted down, but then the paladin (played by the DM who ran the TotYP dungeon) detected hints of evil (not me, I hadn't done anything yet) and decided to cast Zone of Truth on the dinner party. Long combat short, we managed to eek out a win, despite overwhelming odds (we were 7 4th-5th level characters against 23 knights and vassals).

My plan was completely foiled when the party war cleric along with the paladin torched the place, ruining any hope of claiming the tower as my own.

This is the first evil character I've played since 2nd Edition. He's definitely more of a long term planner and the evil manifests more in power he wants to accumulate than subjugation - though he certainly wouldn't be against something like slavery, but only for economic benefit, and really only if the slave deserved its fate (like, commuted death sentence or paying back massive debts).

[Kane0]

LE, because that what I usually play.

[Coffee_Dragon]

One of these is as N as LN and as C as CG. The other is Evil. So, absent any other information, CN every day of every week.

[RedMage125]

Generally speaking, my players of CN alignment characters aren't a problem. They're usually mature about it, especially for a bunch of college kids. It's usually some version of "(personal) freedom loving", especially given the 5e definition, and in conjunction with an appropriate Ideals.

Two of the players in the discussion were older with 3.P experience, and to me, definitely seemed to have the impression that CN = lulz random.

I feel the same way about people I have SEEN play that way.

As you specified in your OP that this person is someone I know and trust to play their character as multifaceted and not a one-dimensional parody of alignment, I suppose I don't care either way. Or rather, it depends on what kind of campaign we are in.

My CN characters generally work very well with Good/neutral groups, as they are either mercenaries who value their freedoms (without feeling arbitrarily obliged to break laws), or whimsical rakes who idealize heroism and adventure, but don't ACTUALLY care about the well-being of others (they just want to be famous for being heroes).

OTOH, I've made LE character concepts that could very well work with a group of Good/Neutral characters. They don't murder for fun, they keep their word, have a code of honor, they just don't have any respect for life, and have no problems killing if it is convenient and not against their code.

So while I can't answer whether I'd prefer LE or CN in your example I can say this:

I would rather have BOTH a LE and a CN character in my party, if they were played by the trusted, mature person you described, than a LG or CG character played by a complete tool.

[hymer]

From my gaming experience, I'd pick the LE character over the CN. The vast majority of CN characters I've DMed for or grouped with were played to be annoying (or 'funny' as the player would no doubt call it). They would disrupt things just to disrupt them (you know, amusing themselves by spoiling it for others), and behave in all respects as lunatics always on the edge of homicide. If they weren't PCs, they'd at least be told to leave the group, or probably killed and looted like any other villain.
In contrast, most of the LE characters I have played with were interesting, and much more prone to go on some sort of journey or arc. They are interested in the world around them, albeit for selfish reasons. They are practical people more often than not, not to mention intelligent. They are someone you can do business with, and who will affect and effect roleplaying, drawing you into the game, the characters, and the story.

[JakOfAllTirades]

If they're actually playing alignment as a moral code (not just an excuse to act the fool) then I'd rather have the CN.

Otherwise the LE guy might be preferable.

[Lombra]

Assuming player's good faith I wouldn't mind which alignment are they playing. CN is easier to play than LE for sure, but neither is inherently better than the other.

[Unoriginal]

This thread, likes most thread about alignments, treat 5e's alignment system as if it was 3.X's.

5e's alignment isn't important enough to have that much of an impact.

Are you going to ban a character who has the Flaw "I'd let my friends die if it means saving my skin"?

Are you going to ban a character whose Ideal is "I will become a monarch, by conquest or otherwise"?


Then why would you ban someone whose alignment is "I value my personal freedom above all else" or "I take what I want, within the limit of my code"?

[Theoboldi]

I'm surprised by how many people seem to have had bad experiences with CN characters. Aside from the occasional horror story I've heard online, all CN characters I've seen were pretty much your average likeable rogue archetype.

That said, CN above LE, unless it's an evil campaign. I don't like having to deal with someone who might be fascist, racist, tortures prisoners, takes slaves, or whatever else that character does that is LE while playing my game about semi-heroic adventuring.

[JackPhoenix]

LE. That has been true since 3.5, where the meaning of alignments was different. I never liked chaotic alignments. LE is more predictable, and you can learn the rules on which they operate.

I may be biased, though, I always liked to play (L or N) evil characters.


Now that I think about it, CN and NE are really the same alignment. Both are just out for themselves and have no boundaries, moral or otherwise, to prevent them from doing evil. Evil is probably the more profitable route in a D&D game, so the CN character will usually just be evil and self-serving as a result.

NE is only honest about it.

[Spiritchaser]

I remember playing with a a CN elven wizard. He played like wingnut, doing what he felt like at the time, and it was madness.

Which is probably about right.

Some play sessions were entertaining but some became impossible.

I’d generally prefer a LE party member (or depending on the code they follow, possibly play one myself)

As others have said, at least you know where they stand.

[Throne12]

I can't trust a CN player. You just never know what they are thinking. You can find a magic item. Talk it out and CN play is ok with you having it. Then 4 session later sees how fun and cool that item is. And is willing to backstab you for it.

A LE has a code he or she follows. You know when you might be a liability or when they can screw you over. But they don't have to. Just because it say Evil don't mean they are to you.

[Theoboldi]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually seen chaotic neutral characters act like that in person? I find it genuinely weird that so many people seem to have seen this kind of behavior when I've never even noticed something close to it.

Seriously, I've never had a problem knowing where a chaotic neutral character's loyalties lie, nor have any players I've ever played with even considered betraying the party. Is this really such a widespread thing?

[smcmike]

Honestly, I’d vote Lawful Evil, but not because I finding anything wrong with CN. CN is one of the default poles at my table, along with NG. We are all too cynical to go for Lawful, I think. CN just means that my barbarian doesn’t care very much about making the world better (a fool’s game), and distrusts authority figures (they are the ones fooling people).

So, LE would be an interesting contrast, and suggests that the player has something interesting to add.

[RSP]

For me, it depends on the campaign, but I don't really have an issue with either so long as they're played to be fun: a disruptive player is going to be disruptive whether their character sheet says LE, CN, LG, CG, N, etc.

Out of curiousity: do you allow PvP at your table? I've always found it odd when DMs allow characters to act against each other, like stealing from the party (I consider this PvP), yet don't allow the other characters to initiate combat against them for it.

I find if a DM allows evil or even selfish characters at their table, then they should allow the rest of the party to take appropriate action.

[KorvinStarmast]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually seen chaotic neutral characters act like that in person? I find it genuinely weird that so many people seem to have seen this kind of behavior when I've never even noticed something close to it. I've seen it once. We handled it OOC. I have played a number of CN characters (usually thieves or rogues) but I once played a CN mercenary Fighting Man who was really enjoyable. (This was when 1e UA came out, weapons specialization, he specialized in bastard sword). Sword for hire mentality all the way.


nor have any players I've ever played with even considered betraying the party. Is this really such a widespread thing?Apparently, there are a lot more jerks and "my guys" out there, or, there are about five but since nobody can stand them, they move from table to table until the next table can't stand them. :smallcool:


For me, it depends on the campaign, but I don't really have an issue with either so long as they're played to be fun: a disruptive player is going to be disruptive whether their character sheet says LE, CN, LG, CG, N, etc.
Bingo.

I find if a DM allows evil or even selfish characters at their table, then they should allow the rest of the party to take appropriate action. Agreed, but not just the DM. The whole table ought to get on board with that approach.

[Temperjoke]

I mean, when you get down to it, it really isn't about the alignment on the sheet, it's the player. As it's been mentioned, do you trust your players to play responsibly? If you do, then does it really matter what alignment they choose?

EDIT: On the CN stereotype, I think part of the problem is that people hear stories about the antics that CN characters get up to, and when they're just reading it, it's enjoyable. Which makes them want to play CN characters, or at least, not opposed to having them. But just think how frustrating it can be if you're in those groups trying to play seriously, and the CN guy ruins that session because he decided to stab the NPC you needed? Or having the CN character randomly do something because he thought it would be funny for the 11th time. You don't see those stories shared as much because they're not fun. I'll bet for every funny CN character story, there's a dozen annoyed and exasperated ones.

And yeah, LE can be just as bad. I've heard stories where they're as subtle as an axe, attempting to intimidate everyone that can see them, even NPCs who would have been friendly to them anyways. Brooding edgelords, abusers, blatantly obvious that they're not nice people.

[the secret fire]

Not knowing the player, I'd go for the LE character every time. If I know the player, then it's a specific personal judgment having little to do with the alignment on the character sheet.

The thing about CN is that it seems to be the default alignment for players who are irl selfish and uninterested in working within a cohesive party structure. But those players are going to be a problem regardless of what it says on their character sheets.

[Unoriginal]

5e Forum: "I'd rather hang out with someone who see no issue in ruining my life as long as their code allows it than with someone who might steal a few coins from the group to buy weed".

[Temperjoke]

5e Forum: "I'd rather hang out with someone who see no issue in ruining my life as long as their code allows it than with someone who might steal a few coins from the group to buy weed".

That's a rather broad assumption that I haven't seen reflected here. In fact, most of the consensus has been that a jerk will always be a jerk, regardless of their character's alignment.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Done well I fear lawful evil villains more, and that includes villain protagonists (you said to assume I'm neutral, but that in an RPG usually still means I'm semi-reluctantly working towards some form of good). Chaotic neutral characters done well can be awesome adventurers.

Chaotic neutral however has a lot of ways to be obstructive and destructive towards the game itself when played not so well. With a lawful evil teammate done not very well I might not enjoy the game, because for some mystical reason we have to keep this guy that keeps sabotaging us at every opportunity around. But at least there will be a game. Chaotic neutral characters can make everything grind to a halt by just "randomly" blowing up every lead and starting fights they don't intend to finish with everybody.

Chaotic neutral is probably also harder to do right. With lawful evil you just ask yourself "what would Hitler do?", and you get a playable character.

Overall: don't give me either, unless we're specifically in a not-good campaign and I get to blow up and pillage along with them. In that case: both, and plenty of them. But in normal, good campaigns: for people I trust or who others at the table trust I'm willing to keep chaotic neutral open. Playing with a CN character is dangerous but can be rewarded. Being forced by a DM who desperately wants the game to keep running to play with and help a LE character who is playing against me, that's kind of meh no matter how well they're played.

EDIT: Of course there is the option of token evil. The evil prince from the evil kingdom that does not feature in this campaign who has evilly agreed to help us take out a rival evil king for nothing more than his evilly fair share of the loot, who is completely honorable towards us and entirely dependable, but still really evil you guys, because back home he has a whole room full of puppies that he tortures. LE is a good alignment for that I guess. As long as the parts that I have to deal with play out more like NE, fine.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've got a player who has both on his sheet (demonic possession sometimes) and I don't honestly think he's roleplaying either.

He acts in the best interests of the party, doesn't go off alone randomly to do something crazy and the only time he's "murdered" someone was more or less a preemptive strike since that NPC was likely going to be trying to kill him later anyway. When the LE demon takes control of his body he acts much more CE and screams bloody murder.

Point being, I'm not even sure what his alignment is but if he were going to roleplay one or the other I'd prefer LE. Anything except Chaotic and/or Neutral really. My players are using Neutrality as an excuse to not take action and NPC's keep ending up dead because of it.

[Arkhios]

Putting aside my animosity towards alignments, the answer would depend on the party composition. For example, in our current party we have a CG Paladin (Ancients), NG Sorcerer, CG Bard, TN Ranger, TN Druid, and (IIRC) CN Drunken Master. In this party, a LE character would ruffle too many feathers in group ideology.

If, however, a group would consist of mostly lawful characters, LE would probably be more welcome than CN.

[Pex]

This thread, likes most thread about alignments, treat 5e's alignment system as if it was 3.X's.

5e's alignment isn't important enough to have that much of an impact.

Are you going to ban a character who has the Flaw "I'd let my friends die if it means saving my skin"?

Are you going to ban a character whose Ideal is "I will become a monarch, by conquest or otherwise"?


Then why would you ban someone whose alignment is "I value my personal freedom above all else" or "I take what I want, within the limit of my code"?

For 5E specifically I ignore those. They have their place to teach new players how to roleplay, but as an experienced player I play my character with whatever personality and morals I choose. If the book has a quote for it that's by coincidence. As for the new player, it is worse than the OP topic if he chooses either of those. He will use those flaws and ideals as an excuse to be the disruptive jerk or otherwise ignore the rest of the party as he gets his jollies improving the fortune of his own character. He's playing a That Guy without knowing he's a That Guy because he has the game giving him permission, and too often the DM enables it because the player is new and wants to encourage the player to keep playing. Without DM support to tell him to play nicely with others it's a lost cause.

If it's an experienced player choosing that flaw or ideal it's alignment by another name but still more to the point the player actively chose to be the donkey cavity and you deal with the situation as you normally would.

[Unoriginal]

For 5E specifically I ignore those. They have their place to teach new players how to roleplay, but as an experienced player I play my character with whatever personality and morals I choose. If the book has a quote for it that's by coincidence. As for the new player, it is worse than the OP topic if he chooses either of those. He will use those flaws and ideals as an excuse to be the disruptive jerk or otherwise ignore the rest of the party as he gets his jollies improving the fortune of his own character. He's playing a That Guy without knowing he's a That Guy because he has the game giving him permission, and too often the DM enables it because the player is new and wants to encourage the player to keep playing. Without DM support to tell him to play nicely with others it's a lost cause.

If it's an experienced player choosing that flaw or ideal it's alignment by another name but still more to the point the player actively chose to be the donkey cavity and you deal with the situation as you normally would.

...seriously?

For you, someone who plays the coward-who-think-of-themselves-first or the guy-who-want-to-be-king is automatically an a**hole?

[Pex]

...seriously?

For you, someone who plays the coward-who-think-of-themselves-first or the guy-who-want-to-be-king is automatically an a**hole?

It's not what's on the character sheet. It's what the player does and uses those words on the character sheet as an excuse, a reiteration of "It's what my character would do".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given the OP's restrictions, it doesn't matter--the alignment is relatively low importance.

I have no problem with chaotic in general--two of my last party were so far off the chaotic end that the Slaads were paragons of lawfulness comparatively. Evil can be fine if it's mostly informed evil--I strongly dislike players taking pleasure in doing horrific acts (even when they hide behind the "it's what my character would do" fig-leaf).

I DM'd one session for a group whose first actions were to

* have graphic sex in full view of the public
* get roaring drunk
* try to get the kids in the town drunk
* generally behave like head-gear made of donkeys.

I ended the session a bit early on a pretext and never went back.

[Unoriginal]

It's not what's on the character sheet. It's what the player does and uses those words on the character sheet as an excuse, a reiteration of "It's what my character would do".

So, to you, if someone RP a character to be a coward and don't wait for the rest of the group when they have to run from a monster, or RP as a guy who want to conquer a city and spend time gathering ressources for that, they're just being That Guy (tm)?

[Tanarii]

LE

Now let me explain.
Imagine your alignment grid. Law to the left, chaos to the right, good on top, evil on the bottom. But I feel that the difference between chaotic alignments is much smaller. I represent this by making the grid trapezoidal, squishing the chaos end down to about half the length of the law end.

Why?

I feel that the temptation to perform evil acts with any chaotic character is much greater, because you're supposed to disregard the rules.
Thats interesting. But shouldn't that make it a rhomboid or something? With much smaller space for CG and much larger space for CN CE?


So while I can't answer whether I'd prefer LE or CN in your example I can say this:

I would rather have BOTH a LE and a CN character in my party, if they were played by the trusted, mature person you described, than a LG or CG character played by a complete tool.Very well said. And to be honest, that's my takeaway too. I'm much happier with players that know how to play 5e Alignment as one part of a multifaceted set of character motivations. (Edit: that's the reason I like making these kinds of posts. They can help my clarify my own understanding that what I actually posted about isn't even the primary thing for me. And in the the case of alignment, I'm focusing on the wrong bugaboo because of my forum discussion history.)

OTOH I can't trust unknown players to do that.


This thread, likes most thread about alignments, treat 5e's alignment system as if it was 3.X's.

5e's alignment isn't important enough to have that much of an impact.

Are you going to ban a character who has the Flaw "I'd let my friends die if it means saving my skin"?

Are you going to ban a character whose Ideal is "I will become a monarch, by conquest or otherwise"?


Then why would you ban someone whose alignment is "I value my personal freedom above all else" or "I take what I want, within the limit of my code"?
1) I don't trust unknown players not to come to the table with Villains. Or worse murder-villains, the worst combination of villainy, stupidity, and murderhobo-y.

2) I wanted it to be a campaign more about heroes, generally good aligned, and no Wolverine or Punisher or Titus Pullo style Evil anti-heroes, that the heroes either tolerate or are willfully blind to their misdeeds. (Although arguably Pullo is just a villain who happens to be a protagonist.)

More the former than the latter. Now I've got some established players and they're showing their maturity and understanding of 5e alignment, I could probably loosen up and allow LE characters.

[Unoriginal]

1) I don't trust unknown players not to come to the table with Villains. Or worse murder-villains, the worst combination of villainy, stupidity, and murderhobo-y.

2) I wanted it to be a campaign more about heroes, generally good aligned, and no Wolverine or Punisher or Titus Pullo style Evil anti-heroes, that the heroes either tolerate or are willfully blind to their misdeeds. (Although arguably Pullo is just a villain who happens to be a protagonist.)

More the former than the latter. Now I've got some established players and they're showing their maturity and understanding of 5e alignment, I could probably loosen up and allow LE characters.

That's a good point, but like we both know, alignments are not a Player Action Limiter even at the best of time.

What you're talking about will never be handled by limiting alignment. What needs to be done is to have a moment before the characters are created where the DM says "please don't make villains, evil anti-heroes, or murderhobos, the campaign is about reasonably heroic characters."

[Tanarii]

That's a good point, but like we both know, alignments are not a Player Action Limiter even at the best of time.

What you're talking about will never be handled by limiting alignment. What needs to be done is to have a moment before the characters are created where the DM says "please don't make villains, evil anti-heroes, or murderhobos, the campaign is about reasonably heroic characters."My session 0 doc says, paraphrased: No evil alignments, meaning don't make a PC that regularly behaves like any of the Evil typical behaviors.

So limiting Alignment seems to do the trick nicely. Far better that I'd trust your version to do. Because the typical behaviors are far more specific, even if they are still quite broad.

[No brains]

I think I would rather have Jack Sparrow than Jafar. If you can catch Jack Sparrow and tell him, "don't be a jerk" then he may reconsider being a jerk. If you tell Jafar not to be a jerk, he won't stop and he'll lie about stopping every time.

Though one example of an LE I would play with would be someone who is mentally rather than actively LE. They just see themselves as a cog in a corrupt machine and helpless to do anything but cover their butt with the law. They will be interesting as they grow because their increasing power will give them chances to either defy or perpetuate their worldview.

CN is a little harder to use as a starting point for a changing character. Their inherent wishy-washy attitude makes it hard for growth to stick. I suppose they could learn lessons about the limits of their selfishness as they get better ideas of who to trust and with what. A CN could protect someone else's freedom because that person is a major asset to their own freedom.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What about someone who thinks they're NE/LE but are actually N or NG?

I had this idea for a group of paladins (using 5e's much more loose codes) who have all committed horrific acts and thoroughly consider themselves damned beyond redemption. But they go around protecting the weak and doing the distasteful work (killing sentient beings, no matter how evil, still isn't pleasant) necessary to keep others from suffering the same fate. They believe that they're training so that when the devils come to suck them down to the Hells they can take the fight to them on their home turf.

[TheYell]

Now that I think about it, CN and NE are really the same alignment. Both are just out for themselves and have no boundaries, moral or otherwise, to prevent them from doing evil.

I think I've stumbled onto the same conclusion. My NE Warlock is Evil because he wants to subject the planet to devastation by a CN patron, a big awakened animal. The patron is not Evil because he's just reckless and ecologically unsound. The warlock knows what he's doing.

And thinking that through, Evil is just going to try to be selfishly harmful in some way. Unthinking libertines may be a problem but they won't lurk waiting for the betrayal. I plan on my guy being the mildest form of evil, but if he ever gets a Wish, he's fulfilling his evil intention.

Played properly, I'd prefer CN.


5e Forum: "I'd rather hang out with someone who see no issue in ruining my life as long as their code allows it than with someone who might steal a few coins from the group to buy weed".

That can describe the LG too. See the thread about a surrendering dragon that is probably too powerful for the party to handle, but, it surrendered to a creature that takes such things to heart.

[Tanarii]

CN is a little harder to use as a starting point for a changing character. Their inherent wishy-washy attitude makes it hard for growth to stick. I suppose they could learn lessons about the limits of their selfishness as they get better ideas of who to trust and with what. A CN could protect someone else's freedom because that person is a major asset to their own freedom.I've been lucky in 5e, I almost have players go with Chaotic Neutral played as "wishy-washy". Probably because choosing Ideals tends to focus or reinforce make clear it means quite strong beliefs in personal freedom, or at least strong personal beliefs. Not lolz random or washy-washy.

For example, from the PHB, here are the Ideal's associated with Chaotic:
Change (godly inspired), Independence (Free spirit, from family), Freedom (Our chains, Tyranny, to work as you wish, to travel/sail, not blindly following orders), Creativity,(Artistic), Free Thinking, No Limits.

Of these, the closest to random is probably the charlatan's Independency / free spirit, but even then it's capped off as "no one tells me what to do".

Which feeds back into the point (to paraphrase Unoriginal): 5e Alignment really can't be taken by itself. A LG character with a Flaw of "I turn tail and run when things look bad" (PHB Criminal) may be a bigger liability to the party than any Alignment, even CE.


What about someone who thinks they're NE/LE but are actually N or NG?Thats a pretty common trope in fiction, but IMX is comparatively rare among PCs. Probably because RPGs lend themself well to escapist fantasy gaming, since there's rarely any real consequences than wasted time or hurt feelings. Edit: point being, this lends itself to enabling quite nasty behavior in game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've been lucky in 5e, I almost have players go with Chaotic Neutral played as "wishy-washy". Probably because choosing Ideals tends to focus or reinforce make clear it means quite strong beliefs in personal freedom, or at least strong personal beliefs. Not lolz random or washy-washy.

For example, from the PHB, here are the Ideal's associated with Chaotic:
Change (godly inspired), Independence (Free spirit, from family), Freedom (Our chains, Tyranny, to work as you wish, to travel/sail, not blindly following orders), Creativity,(Artistic), Free Thinking, No Limits.

Of these, the closest to random is probably the charlatan's Independency / free spirit, but even then it's capped off as "no one tells me what to do".

Which feeds back into the point (to paraphrase Unoriginal): 5e Alignment really can't be taken by itself. A LG character with a Flaw of "I turn tail and run when things look bad" (PHB Criminal) may be a bigger liability to the party than any Alignment, even CE.


I agree with this. I was making some characters and noticed that flaw and thought "man, that's horrible for the party. Why did they include that one?" Even if it's a valid character flaw (which it is), it's not a useful character flaw for a player character (IMO).



Thats a pretty common trope in fiction, but IMX is comparatively rare among PCs. Probably because RPGs lend themself well to escapist fantasy gaming, since there's rarely any real consequences than wasted time or hurt feelings.

Agreed that it's rare. I do feel that wasted time or hurt feelings are among the worst consequences you could reasonably have at a TTRPG table (since bigger things like outright violence or financial penalties or legal action should be (pardon the pun) off the table in those settings).

[rmnimoc]

I'd almost always take LE, because in my 10 years of D&D I've seen exactly one player play CN in a way that I enjoyed having at my table and I've only seen one player play LE in a way I wouldn't want at my table.

Hell, even experienced players that have played for years tend to screw everything up when they play CN. I'll admit even the CN characters I've played tended to quickly fall down the "Do whatever you want whenever you want with no concern for social norms, past choices, or literally anything else" way too quickly, even if I was aware of that issue and trying to work around it.

In contrast a LE character almost always ends up the kind of person you can easily work with and around. They tend to only be evil to people who aren't in the party and almost always use their evil to the party's direct benefit. It probably helps that LE seems to have more ways to play it than CN.

[Theodoxus]

Thinking upon this further, only extra-planar entities should have definable alignments. No normal person, be they human, elf, or dwarf - or any other playable race - thinks of themselves as evil. At worst, they're completely self-centered and uncaring towards (demi)humanity in general, and their actions would thus be perceived as evil, but they themselves are simply doing what they feel is best for them.

Thus, alignment in a terrestrial sense can only be an observed behavior, and rarely if ever, circumscribed by the owner of said alignment.

A particular ideology, religion, economic or political system might be considered evil, especially if it works on the backs of slaves or goads using sticks rather than carrots to force its adherents to obey the system. But again, those who would espouse such things generally do it for the power - be it political or monetary (and we've all heard that the Love of Money (aka Greed) is the Root of all Evil).

But we're talking about a fantasy game, where gods are real, demons are real, and being manipulated by outside forces to commit acts of true villainy or heroism is common place. I prefer my PCs to be wet clay when it comes to alignment - easily influenced and marked by good deeds and bad, but have little or no determinate natively.

After all, the Lawful Stupid Paladin is LS precisely because he's a paladin. Take away the divine aspect (influence) and he's just a fighter who's a jerk... and without the divine goading him, the jerkiness falls away pretty quickly. In my 30+ years of playing, never ever have I ever seen a LS fighter. It's nearly always a paladin, and when not the paladin, the war cleric.

[Tanarii]

I agree with this. I was making some characters and noticed that flaw and thought "man, that's horrible for the party. Why did they include that one?" Even if it's a valid character flaw (which it is), it's not a useful character flaw for a player character (IMO).I had a player take it for a PC once, we talked about it before his first session. He chose to run it as "when it looks like we're going to TPK". In one case, that character escaped, and recruited other PCs into a party to recover the bodies, and chipped in for the Raise Dead costs. So even though the flaw definitely did contribute to a fairly likely TPK anyway becoming a certain TPK for everyone but him, the flaw also combined with a good alignment resulted in something good happening in the end.


Agreed that it's rare. I do feel that wasted time or hurt feelings are among the worst consequences you could reasonably have at a TTRPG table (since bigger things like outright violence or financial penalties or legal action should be (pardon the pun) off the table in those settings).Just to be clear, I was talking about IRL consequences resulting from game decisions players are making for their characters.

[SarcasticDom]

Really, I'd rather have a well-played CN over a poorly played LE and vice versa, but thats avoiding an answer.

I'd have to go with Chaotic Neutral, but thats because my general experience with Chaotic Neutral has been okay. Only once while I've DMed have I had a "lol so randumb" Chaotic Neutral character, but generally speaking they've been okay. In my current party theres two characters I'd define as Chaotic Neutral. Both co-operate with the party, they discuss plans, and they don't do stupid things for the sake of stupidity. They just have looser morals than some and don't conform to any codes.

As for evil characters, I'm more hesitant as while they might not go against the party, they are more likely to do things the other party members disapprove of. My current party has one evil character, a Lawful Evil Rogue, who negotiated with Drow to recruit their fighters to help defend a town from invading nomads and kuo-toa, and part of the deal was slaves for the Drow. However, he shared this with the rest of the party and they agreed only the worse criminals would be taken away, but even then the good alighned character (theres only one good guy in the party, the rest are varying shades of grey although I'd say two are starting to lean heavily towards good) was upset.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I had a player take it for a PC once, we talked about it before his first session. He chose to run it as "when it looks like we're going to TPK". In one case, that character escaped, and recruited other PCs into a party to recover the bodies, and chipped in for the Raise Dead costs. So even though the flaw definitely did contribute to a fairly likely TPK anyway becoming a certain TPK for everyone but him, the flaw also combined with a good alignment resulted in something good happening in the end.


That I can see, but it's the sort of thing that for more "normal" parties should almost never come into play. Definitely a "handle with caution" flaw. Others are much less fraught with peril.



Just to be clear, I was talking about IRL consequences resulting from game decisions players are making for their characters.

As was I. People really shouldn't beat up their fellow players for in-game decisions :smalleek:.

In my experience, stereotypical "evil" behavior is the most likely to cause IC actions to leak out of the fictional universe and become OOC problems. This issue goes back a long way--I was just reading an old issue of Dragon magazine from back in the AD&D (2e maybe? ~1994, definitely pre-3.0, still TSR) era where the advice giver specifically cautioned DMs (as part of "getting the party together/starting a game" advice) to not allow evil characters because they cause problems for the table. From the writing it seemed like this was oft-repeated, "why do I even have to say this" advice, just like "don't look into laser with good eye" or "don't stick your hand in high-intensity x-ray beams" (both of which seem obvious, but I've seen the pictures IRL).

[Sigreid]

For me, it depends on the campaign, but I don't really have an issue with either so long as they're played to be fun: a disruptive player is going to be disruptive whether their character sheet says LE, CN, LG, CG, N, etc.

Out of curiousity: do you allow PvP at your table? I've always found it odd when DMs allow characters to act against each other, like stealing from the party (I consider this PvP), yet don't allow the other characters to initiate combat against them for it.

I find if a DM allows evil or even selfish characters at their table, then they should allow the rest of the party to take appropriate action.

We do allow PVP, but truth is it doesn't happen in our group. The last time it even came close to coming up was in 3.5 when our cleric was clearly under the influence of a magic sword and I wouldn't let him into the rope trick for the night, explaining that he's not trained in swords, but wants that one. We don't know what that swords motivations are. In the confined space of a rope trick, it's unlikely the sorcerer could survive if the sword wanted her dead, so I'd fight him (and probably lose) if he tried to enter, but the two of us could stay outside it so he's not just out on his own in the dangerous wilderness. He and the sword were ok with that.

[Throne12]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually seen chaotic neutral characters act like that in person? I find it genuinely weird that so many people seem to have seen this kind of behavior when I've never even noticed something close to it.

Seriously, I've never had a problem knowing where a chaotic neutral character's loyalties lie, nor have any players I've ever played with even considered betraying the party. Is this really such a widespread thing?

I had to quite a group because of someone that played nothing but CN.

[2D8HP]

[....]Now that I think about it, CN and NE are really the same alignment. Both are just out for themselves and have no boundaries, moral or otherwise, to prevent them from doing evil. Evil is probably the more profitable route in a D&D game, so the CN character will usually just be evil and self-serving as a result.


[....]NE is only honest about it.


Given an infinite amount of time and actual economic pressures, all adventuring groups become neutral evil (http://critical-hits.com/blog/2014/08/31/on-mid-medieval-economics-murder-hoboing-and-100gp/)


If they're actually playing alignment as a moral code (not just an excuse to act the fool) then I'd rather have the CN.

Otherwise the LE guy might be preferable.


Out of curiosity, how many people here have actually seen chaotic neutral characters act like that in person?[...]


Full disclosure, I used to put CN on most of my PC's sheets, but after seeing too many use 'CN' to mean "Evil, just not nominally", I now usually put N or CN, once I even saw a players sheet that actually put quotation marks around "Chaotic Neutral" (yes it was a "no evil" game, and yes it was obvious that the PC was evil, a Cleric of an Evil deity no less!).

I've also played a game in which the DM required us all to play with an "E" for alignment, and it was really boring!


It's not what's on the character sheet. It's what the player does and uses those words on the character sheet as an excuse, a reiteration of "It's what my character would do".


Too true, it's how played, not what's on the sheet.

[Sigreid]

Thats interesting. But shouldn't that make it a rhomboid or something? With much smaller space for CG and much larger space for CN CE?

Very well said. And to be honest, that's my takeaway too. I'm much happier with players that know how to play 5e Alignment as one part of a multifaceted set of character motivations. (Edit: that's the reason I like making these kinds of posts. They can help my clarify my own understanding that what I actually posted about isn't even the primary thing for me. And in the the case of alignment, I'm focusing on the wrong bugaboo because of my forum discussion history.)

OTOH I can't trust unknown players to do that.


1) I don't trust unknown players not to come to the table with Villains. Or worse murder-villains, the worst combination of villainy, stupidity, and murderhobo-y.

2) I wanted it to be a campaign more about heroes, generally good aligned, and no Wolverine or Punisher or Titus Pullo style Evil anti-heroes, that the heroes either tolerate or are willfully blind to their misdeeds. (Although arguably Pullo is just a villain who happens to be a protagonist.)

More the former than the latter. Now I've got some established players and they're showing their maturity and understanding of 5e alignment, I could probably loosen up and allow LE characters.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about characters that could be considered evil because they're being ruthlessly pragmatic? An example would be the party defeats some bandits when some surrender and realizing that bandits will be bandits kills them rather than either trusting them to reform or dealing with the hassle of keeping them prisoner. To be clear, I'm not talking about random killings or looking for fights with innocents, or murdering non-combatants but terminating the people who moments ago were trying to kill you and take your stuff.

[An Enemy Spy]

The player is more important than the alignment. As long as I'm playing with someone who's a good team player, I don't care what they're character is like. What I worry about is if a player chooses an alignment as way to write themselves a blank check to act like a jackass.

[Honest Tiefling]

First instinct? Go with the CN, far too many loonies encountered to make me trust that alignment. However, if they are playing actual characters, not Mr. Randomexplosion, then it becomes a bit more workable and probably on par. My experiences probably don't gel with others, but Lawful Evil has its share of stupid moments. It might have a good reputation, but then you find that ONE player who gets a little too into it and you start to wonder about them...


The player is more important than the alignment. As long as I'm playing with someone who's a good team player, I don't care what they're character is like. What I worry about is if a player chooses an alignment as way to write themselves a blank check to act like a jackass.

This is a good point. So my final decision: If I am getting this information secondhand, then presumably it is other players. Let them make the darn call based on their own experiences.

[Tanarii]

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about characters that could be considered evil because they're being ruthlessly pragmatic? An example would be the party defeats some bandits when some surrender and realizing that bandits will be bandits kills them rather than either trusting them to reform or dealing with the hassle of keeping them prisoner. To be clear, I'm not talking about random killings or looking for fights with innocents, or murdering non-combatants but terminating the people who moments ago were trying to kill you and take your stuff.
Do you mean "do I think finishing off surrendering enemies is in character for Evil characters but not Neutral or Good ones"?

I think it's not an Alignment action. Directly. But it clearly has some moral implications.

How I play it with my characters:
I think good characters can and will summarily execute for known crimes.
I think killing enemies because they tried to jump you and kill you and steal your stuff is neither here nor there. A good character might take pity.
I think killing all enemies out of hand because it's convenient is very grey to black.
Doing it regularly because you enjoy it or that pissed off is clearly CE, but that's the only one that maps clearly to a single alignment behavior.

I don't create moral traps in my campaign if I can avoid it. Players can and do let surrendering enemies go, and I don't usually pull a saving private Ryan and have the guy come back and murder the Pcs later. But at the same time most enemies are already evil/criminals and a threat to the area. No misunderstood Orcs. OTOH they're more likely to trust some Hobgoblins their parole than Human Bandits.

I inadvertently had a moral trap recently in a one-party spinoff for some friends by running Keep on the Borderlands Caves of Chaos as written for BECMI. All the humanoids have whelps. It was a mistake. In my main campaign humanoids in the region are effectively war parties, so they don't have whelps with them.


The player is more important than the alignment. As long as I'm playing with someone who's a good team player, I don't care what they're character is like. What I worry about is if a player chooses an alignment as way to write themselves a blank check to act like a jackass.Yeah. In retrospect, my OP/thread is too white room, and not enough real table.

[Sigreid]

Do you mean "do I think finishing off surrendering enemies is in character for Evil characters but not Neutral or Good ones"?

I think it's not an Alignment action. Directly. But it clearly has some moral implications.

How I play it with my characters:
I think good characters can and will summarily execute for known crimes.
I think killing enemies because they tried to jump you and kill you and steal your stuff is neither here nor there. A good character might take pity.
I think killing all enemies out of hand because it's convenient is very grey to black.
Doing it regularly because you enjoy it or that pissed off is clearly CE, but that's the only one that maps clearly to a single alignment behavior.

I don't create moral traps in my campaign if I can avoid it. Players can and do let surrendering enemies go, and I don't usually pull a saving private Ryan and have the guy come back and murder the Pcs later. But at the same time most enemies are already evil/criminals and a threat to the area. No misunderstood Orcs. OTOH they're more likely to trust some Hobgoblins their parole than Human Bandits.

I inadvertently had a moral trap recently in a one-party spinoff for some friends by running Keep on the Borderlands Caves of Chaos as written for BECMI. All the humanoids have whelps. It was a mistake. In my main campaign humanoids in the region are effectively war parties, so they don't have whelps with them.


I was thinking more along the lines of not actively malevolent, but lacking in the mercy department, which I could interpret as either neutral or evil. And yes, it's very much "these bandits are unlikely to attack us again having just been trounced, but they're almost certainly still going to be bandits and we're either well outside anyone's jurisdiction or don't have time to turn them over and maybe see if there's a reward. Too bad for them I guess."

[Tanarii]

I was thinking more along the lines of not actively malevolent, but lacking in the mercy department, which I could interpret as either neutral or evil. And yes, it's very much "these bandits are unlikely to attack us again having just been trounced, but they're almost certainly still going to be bandits and we're either well outside anyone's jurisdiction or don't have time to turn them over and maybe see if there's a reward. Too bad for them I guess."
The result of being a Bandit/Humanoid willing to kill to steal stuff is usually execution anyway. I don't take issue with an all Good party executing them personally.

Edit: in the same side game with the humanoid whelps, I had a exactly this come up. A PC executed a bandit they'd captured. It did raise all the rest of our eyebrows, because he did it without consulting the rest of the party, just said "I kill him" while the bandit was blubbering away please don't kill me! etc, without consulting with the party. I ended up telling them at the start of the next game I heads up I didn't want the game to get too unnecessarily brutal, and to remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander if they're ever captured.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was thinking more along the lines of not actively malevolent, but lacking in the mercy department, which I could interpret as either neutral or evil. And yes, it's very much "these bandits are unlikely to attack us again having just been trounced, but they're almost certainly still going to be bandits and we're either well outside anyone's jurisdiction or don't have time to turn them over and maybe see if there's a reward. Too bad for them I guess."


The result of being a Bandit/Humanoid willing to kill to steal stuff is usually execution anyway. I don't take issue with an all Good party executing them personally.

Good is not nice. I can see the idea being "If I let them go, they'll probably go hurt some innocents. Instead, I'll send them to their eternal reward as painlessly as possible."

Good does not require being a gullible sap. If you have a way of preventing regression without death, sure, you should probably take it even if it's inconvenient. If you don't, or doing so would make your higher-priority mission fail, mercy for the innocent requires you to put an end to the bandits. They forfeited* their right to mercy by banditry--mercy cannot rob justice, and mercy that hurts the innocent (which these are not) is no mercy at all but is actually cruelty.

* this does not justify torture, abuse, or any other such thing. Merely that those who attack innocents have little just claim on mercy when those innocents turn out to be stronger than they. Otherwise you end up giving incentives to be evil (because you can then turn around and claim mercy and your good opponents have to grant it, while you don't have to to the same in reverse).

[Luccan]

If you trust your players and are already allowing CN, you should probably allow LE. However, if it isn't appropriate to the game you're running, then just say you don't want evil PCs. I think the only alignment that should be banned from all games is CE.

[Sigreid]

The result of being a Bandit/Humanoid willing to kill to steal stuff is usually execution anyway. I don't take issue with an all Good party executing them personally.

Edit: in the same side game with the humanoid whelps, I had a exactly this come up. A PC executed a bandit they'd captured. It did raise all the rest of our eyebrows, because he did it without consulting the rest of the party, just said "I kill him" while the bandit was blubbering away please don't kill me! etc, without consulting with the party. I ended up telling them at the start of the next game I heads up I didn't want the game to get too unnecessarily brutal, and to remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander if they're ever captured.

Fair. I was curious largely because a number of posts on these forums have made claims that executing prisoners is EVIL. Not made by you mind you, but it was out there.

[Ganymede]

I'd much rather have Olidammara on my team than Hextor.

[TheYell]

Fair. I was curious largely because a number of posts on these forums have made claims that executing prisoners is EVIL. Not made by you mind you, but it was out there.

Historically there's a wide degree of cultural traditions on the matter.

Like, you can kill any prisoner, but giving them so much as a drink of water makes them an inviolate guest.

Or, you cannot kill any prisoner out of hand, but you don't have to take any prisoners.

Or, you can slaughter small groups of prisoners just fine.

Or, you should bind the hands and abandon any prisoner you can't take with you.

Or, any prisoner is a coward and shamed himself by surviving.

A complete warrior should have learnt his answer to that one with his weapon training. Any chaotic answer is wrong, IMO. A tradition is part of a thorough character.

[bid]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Murderhobo is CN.

LE can respect an oath given to the party.


We have a terrible elf who owns the party thief. He also abuses sleep and charm whenever he can, for reasons that shall remain unsaid. It works great because the player doesn't have an axe to grind.

[Nifft]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.


If we remove tone, both of those are functionally isomorphic.


CN-as-LE: "My code of tradition is one that values my personal freedom; other than that specific tenet, I'm free to take what I want."

LE-as-CN: "I follow my whims, which means in practice that I take what I want so long as it won't interfere with my personal freedom -- losing my freedom would be severely anti-whim."


That means it all comes down to the individual player, and his or her ability to stay true to the tone of the alignments, rather than merely flavor-lawyering about the appropriateness of any specific action.

[MaxWilson]

If we remove tone, both of those are functionally isomorphic.

CN-as-LE: "My code of tradition is one that values my personal freedom; other than that specific tenet, I'm free to take what I want."

LE-as-CN: "I follow my whims, which means in practice that I take what I want so long as it won't interfere with my personal freedom -- losing my freedom would be severely anti-whim."

That means it all comes down to the individual player, and his or her ability to stay true to the tone of the alignments, rather than merely flavor-lawyering about the appropriateness of any specific action.

Not quite isomorphic. You can map CN into a LE code of sorts, but the reverse isn't generally true.

Hypothetical LE soldier: "I'm a murderous murdering murderer, but only against the 'bad guys' as I see it. I will cheerfully cut the fingers off a captured 18-year-old Nazcan private if I want information from him about where the rest of his squad is, and then I'll cut his throat when I'm done with him; but Swazania is my home and I love it. My code is loyalty and patriotism--I'm just very bloodthirsty and vengeful about how I execute it. The only good Nazcan is a dead Nazcan. Make Swazania Great Again! Hoowah!"

There is no CN equivalent of that. (And I don't think you can meaningfully call the above attitude neutral or good--there's too much animus to not be evil. Although some DMs are very reluctant to label anything as Evil unless it's really, really, inhumanly evil, so you could argue that it's evil but Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil.)

In fact, only a miniscule fraction of LE characters ever played are mappable to CN, because you just don't model someone whose code is "do whatever I feel like" as LE. You could, I suppose, but in practice everyone just calls that CN or NE or CE.

[Pex]

I'd much rather have Olidammara on my team than Hextor.

I can say ditto, but that's because Olidammara is not a jerk while Hextor is. Olidammara likes a good joke, but he doesn't hurt his friends. Hextor has no friends.

[Luccan]

I can say ditto, but that's because Olidammara is not a jerk while Hextor is. Olidammara likes a good joke, but he doesn't hurt his friends. Hextor has no friends.

I mean, I'm trying to think of any Evil deity I'd prefer over a CN one. Admittedly I'm not as familiar with all the D&D deities as some people, but even the LE ones are usually tyrants or death gods or something. Not pleasant people and not the type I'd trust. I imagine most LE mortals are thugs who keep a tight hold over their little sphere of influence, rather than honorable dark knights or something. They believe in order and bringing people under their heel and most of them don't flaunt the law unless they can get away with it out of fear of the bigger boot coming down on their necks, not because they have a personal code that keeps them from harming kids or something.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, I'm trying to think of any Evil deity I'd prefer over a CN one. Admittedly I'm not as familiar with all the D&D deities as some people, but even the LE ones are usually tyrants or death gods or something. Not pleasant people and not the type I'd trust. I imagine most LE mortals are thugs who keep a tight hold over their little sphere of influence, rather than honorable dark knights or something. They believe in order and bringing people under their heel and most of them don't flaunt the law unless they can get away with it out of fear of the bigger boot coming down on their necks, not because they have a personal code that keeps them from harming kids or something.

I'd rather have Mab on my side than Toot-toot.

[Luccan]

I'd rather have Mab on my side than Toot-toot.

Fair, but I trust Toot-toot a good deal more. He's less ambitious. Which goes back to my earlier point: If I share a goal and can trust the code/word of the LE, I will trust them until the job is done and expect to be disposed of once I'm no longer useful. Plus, Mab still has to follow the rules, so I could potentially have some magical means of insurance for awhile.

I certainly would rather stay as far away from Marcone as possible. He has a code, but by not falling in line, I'd expect him to have me removed. Maybe not violently, but I'd rather just not be in any city where he had that much influence.

[Tanarii]

I'd rather have Mab on my side than Toot-toot.
I probably would too in dire straits, but that's because Mab is insanely powerful compared to Toot-toot. On the other hand, there's a cost consideration too. Pizza is cheap, Mab on your side is going to cost a lot, one way or the other.

[strangebloke]

Its all about expectation.

Alignment doesn't ultimately matter. Staying true to your character does. But when a player puts "LE" on their sheet, they know that they're pushing the envelope, and they'll plan accordingly.

If they put CN? Anything goes! CN is a fine alignment! Of course the DM will be fine!

Every player I've had who played an evil character was a consummate team player. I had a LN wizard kill an innocent and turn him into a zombie in full view of the Paladin.

[MaxWilson]

Fair, but I trust Toot-toot a good deal more. He's less ambitious. Which goes back to my earlier point: If I share a goal and can trust the code/word of the LE, I will trust them until the job is done and expect to be disposed of once I'm no longer useful. Plus, Mab still has to follow the rules, so I could potentially have some magical means of insurance for awhile.

I certainly would rather stay as far away from Marcone as possible. He has a code, but by not falling in line, I'd expect him to have me removed. Maybe not violently, but I'd rather just not be in any city where he had that much influence.

Excellent points. I agree 100%. No wonder Harry is so apprehensive about the future. :)

I'm still glad she's in charge of the war against the Outsiders, but maybe at some point Harry can arrange an even better alternative. That's a case where Mab's foresight, not her ruthlessness, is what's important, so Vadderung or potentially even Harry himself (after a lot of character development) might do. But I think that foresight is fundamentally at odds both with Toot Toot's personality and with the motivations that lead a player to declare their character Chaotic Neutral, which brings us right back to the thread topic.

[Tanarii]

But I think that foresight is fundamentally at odds both with Toot Toot's personality and with the motivations that lead a player to declare their character Chaotic Neutral, which brings us right back to the thread topic.
Certainly that many people consider a lack of foresight to be "Chaotic" generally or "Chaotic Neutral" specifically is why, in my OP, I stressed players that had read and understood the 5e definitions so strongly.

And why in post 60 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22907864&postcount=60) I listed all the PHB Ideals that go along with (Chaotic). They're mostly not about lulz random, nor living in the moment and not being able to see ahead. They mostly stress personal freedoms, either pursing it or resisting attempts to fetter it.

[2D8HP]

Certainly that many people consider a lack of foresight to be "Chaotic" generally or "Chaotic Neutral" specifically is why, in my OP, I stressed players that had read and understood the 5e definitions so strongly....


Yes, but peoples experience is that 'CN' is too often played as CE is described.

What's in the book and what's at the table often differ.

[Sigreid]

But I think that foresight is fundamentally at odds both with Toot Toot's personality and with the motivations that lead a player to declare their character Chaotic Neutral, which brings us right back to the thread topic.

My personal experience with people is that very disciplined and ordered people often have the most problem with foresight. They are often so wrapped up in the right way that they fail to see possibilities.

[Tanarii]

Yes, but peoples experience is that 'CN' is too often played as CE is described.

What's in the book and what's at the table often differ.
Yeah. And yet I still beat my head against the walls of ignorance, trying to educate the barbarians. /martyrvoice

Seriously though, that ties right back into: do you trust the player?

Do you trust they read the alignment descriptions and understood them?
Do you trust they read the personality system and understood it?
Do you trust they made a character that fits the style of the campaign?
Most importantly, do you trust them not to be an ass-hat?

Also important: Do you trust the DM to clearly communicate what kind of campaign it is?

I sat down at all too many games where everyone knows each other, and everyone goes "let's play D&D", one person volunteers to DM, players roll up anything goes characters, start in an tavern, and then the DM valiantly tries to make stuff up on the fly and the players have no idea what's going on. That's the kind of environment where you end up with "CN" murdervillains offing shopkeepers for a pittance of gold.

[TheYell]

I mean, I'm trying to think of any Evil deity I'd prefer over a CN one.

I'm sure Red Fel would have more to say about it, but seems to me an evil deity, having the capability to tell the planet at large to stuff it, would behave very differently than an evil up-and-comer who needs some friends. If nothing else, ya gotta have that long rest while someone watches over you.



Seriously though, that ties right back into: do you trust the player?

You asking my IRL alignment?

I mean, Superman trusts people. Batman, not so much.

[2D8HP]

[....]I sat down at all too many games where everyone knows each other, and everyone goes "let's play D&D", one person volunteers to DM, players roll up anything goes characters, start in an tavern, and then the DM valiantly tries to make stuff up on the fly and the players have no idea what's going on. That's the kind of environment where you end up with "CN" murdervillains offing shopkeepers for a pittance of gold.


:confused:

They're game not like that?

What are they like?

[hymer]

What are they like?
I'd be happy to describe, but I suspect there's some kidding involved here. :smallwink:

[MaxWilson]

Certainly that many people consider a lack of foresight to be "Chaotic" generally or "Chaotic Neutral" specifically is why, in my OP, I stressed players that had read and understood the 5e definitions so strongly.

The definition in the OP stresses that CN creatures must follow their "whims" and place their personal freedom above all other considerations. That doesn't sound like foresight to me. (And it definitely doesn't sound like Toot Toot.)

Mind you, I don't think that's a very good definition of CN in the first place, but it IS the definition in this thread per the OP.


And why in post 60 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22907864&postcount=60) I listed all the PHB Ideals that go along with (Chaotic). They're mostly not about lulz random, nor living in the moment and not being able to see ahead. They mostly stress personal freedoms, either pursing it or resisting attempts to fetter it.

But the OP says specifically NOT to assume context outside of the definition quoted, which means assuming that the player is choosing based on the "whimsy" definition and not based on the list of ideals quoted in post 60.


My personal experience with people is that very disciplined and ordered people often have the most problem with foresight. They are often so wrapped up in the right way that they fail to see possibilities.

Lawful != organized.

An interesting illustration is Captain America: Civil War. Tony signs the Accords because he figures, hey, I can always break them if I need to (and he does), and besides, this is what I need to do RIGHT NOW to keep what I want. IMO that's a Chaotic (Good) attitude Tony is displaying. Steve Rogers is very reluctant to sign them because he assumes he will be bound by them if he signs them (the idea of "hey, I could always just break them" doesn't seem to ever cross his mind) and worries about the possibility of being someday given orders that he doesn't agree with. IMO that's a clearly Lawful attitude.

What makes this particularly interesting is that the character who has a clear ethical code is the one who winds up an outlaw, because of that code, and the one who doesn't retains his position of power (despite continuing to flout the law even in the last scene of the movie) because he has no qualms about saying one thing and doing another. Now I wouldn't claim that Tony Stark is not capable of foresight (clearly he can invent things that he doesn't yet need), but with respect to the moral dilemma, it is Steve Rogers who is worrying about precedents and structure and things that haven't happened yet, and Tony Stark who is basically winging it.

AFAIC that is Lawful vs. Chaotic in a nutshell. Lawful Good individuals think through the Trolley Problem and the Tragedy of the Commons in their spare time. Chaotic Good individuals shrug it off until it actually happens and then go by their gut feel.

[KorvinStarmast]

Historically there's a wide degree of cultural traditions on the matter.

Like, you can kill any prisoner, but giving them so much as a drink of water makes them an inviolate guest.

Or, you cannot kill any prisoner out of hand, but you don't have to take any prisoners.

Or, you can slaughter small groups of prisoners just fine.


The Lawful sultan (who from the Turkish PoV was lawful good) had executed some thousands of prisoners after the battle of Nicopolis.
There was a battle (IIRC in Spain?) some centuries later where the prisoners were sent home, and most of them blinded (eyes damaged) except for a few who were to lead them home.

The setting in which the game is set isn't enlightenment era anywhere ... unless the DM creates the world as such.

[bid]

There was a battle (IIRC in Spain?) some centuries later where the prisoners were sent home, and most of them blinded (eyes damaged) except for a few who were to lead them home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kleidion

Byzantines defeat Bulgarians, 1014

[GreyBlack]

Lawful Evil. Full stop.

[Tanarii]

The definition in the OP stresses that CN creatures must follow their "whims" and place their personal freedom above all other considerations. That doesn't sound like foresight to me. (And it definitely doesn't sound like Toot Toot.)Okay fair point on whims.


But the OP says specifically NOT to assume context outside of the definition quoted, which means assuming that the player is choosing based on the "whimsy" definition and not based on the list of ideals quoted in post 60.Yah, I did specify an Ideal that works with (any) alignment. Hoisted by my own petard.

[TheYell]

The Lawful sultan (who from the Turkish PoV was lawful good) had executed some thousands of prisoners after the battle of Nicopolis

According to Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, that was actually in straight up retaliation for Frankish mass slaughter of Turk prisoners the week before, so, it's more of a summary execution of the hatchetmen.

Tit for Tat retaliation has a long tradition before the last two hundred years. George Washington caused a scandal by selecting a paroled British officer to be hanged in retaliation -- Congress thanked God that the family got the French monarch to request he be spared, so they could do so as a favor without backing down to unseemly emotional appeals. Lawful can be a nice can of worms if you let it be so.

[Pex]

I mean, I'm trying to think of any Evil deity I'd prefer over a CN one. Admittedly I'm not as familiar with all the D&D deities as some people, but even the LE ones are usually tyrants or death gods or something. Not pleasant people and not the type I'd trust. I imagine most LE mortals are thugs who keep a tight hold over their little sphere of influence, rather than honorable dark knights or something. They believe in order and bringing people under their heel and most of them don't flaunt the law unless they can get away with it out of fear of the bigger boot coming down on their necks, not because they have a personal code that keeps them from harming kids or something.

On the other hand, I'd rather have Severus Snape on my team than Gilderoy Lockhart.
:smallbiggrin:

[Luccan]

On the other hand, I'd rather have Severus Snape on my team than Gilderoy Lockhart.
:smallbiggrin:

Pre-Obliviate, I'd easily move Lockhart into Neutral Evil territory. Not world threateningly so, but he literally destroyed people's minds to create and maintain his position and seemingly had no remorse for his actions. He was even willing to do this to children. Neutral Evil because he doesn't seem to enjoy destroying others for the sake of it, but also doesn't seem to hold to any code or respect for law/authority beyond that which he can't overcome. I'd also say Snape is still LE, but he leans LN in several places.

Edit: But yeah, there are a lot of reasons Snape would be a better teammate. As was demonstrated in the books.

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, I'd rather have Severus Snape on my team than Gilderoy Lockhart.
:smallbiggrin:

Because Gilderoy doesn't play for any team but Team Gilderoy.

Which, when you come down to it, is the whole problem with CN as defined in the OP. The definition REQUIRES you to put yourself before all others, so the only people who will read that definition and think, "Hey, I want to play that!" are the ones who are intending to be loose cannons.

Those who already have a take on CN may choose it for other reasons, but for a new player who's choosing based on the 5E definitions (which are not very good definitions), choosing CN should be a warning flag to the other players. (DMs on the other hand should be delighted at the opportunity to torment the players vicariously by presenting situations the CN player character is sure to blow up.)

[Luccan]

Because Gilderoy doesn't play for any team but Team Gilderoy.

Which, when you come down to it, is the whole problem with CN as defined in the OP. The definition REQUIRES you to put yourself before all others, so the only people who will read that definition and think, "Hey, I want to play that!" are the ones who are intending to be loose cannons.

Those who already have a take on CN may choose it for other reasons, but for a new player who's choosing based on the 5E definitions (which are not very good definitions), choosing CN should be a warning flag to the other players. (DMs on the other hand should be delighted at the opportunity to torment the players vicariously by presenting situations the CN player character is sure to blow up.)

Emphasis mine. I agree wholeheartedly. I know some people say Neutral on the Good-Evil scale is selfish, but there's selfish and then there's holding no regard for any human being before your personal goals. Which strikes me as a distinctly evil attitude.

[Sigreid]

Emphasis mine. I agree wholeheartedly. I know some people say Neutral on the Good-Evil scale is selfish, but there's selfish and then there's holding no regard for any human being before your personal goals. Which strikes me as a distinctly evil attitude.

I tend to think of Neutral as "What you do is not my business until you make it my business".

[FreddyNoNose]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

--------------

All else being equal, including other personality traits being identical and including an Ideal appropriate for (Any) alignment, either played by the same player who you know and trust to play their character as a multifaceted as opposed to one-dimensional based on alignment character, which would you prefer to have in your party?

If it matters, assume your character is Neutral and has no previous interactions with the character in question, but has 2nd hand knowledge of what they are like through others,, and is about to embark on a mission with them.

Assume for a second that both you and the player of the PCs in question have actually read and understood the 5e Alignment typical behavior above. Assume for a second no one is making all sorts of assumptions about the alignments that are outside of these typical behaviors. A tall order I know.
Where is your definition of these alignments coming from? You could say this for any alignment in a general way "uses [X] to get what they want" where X is their alignment. Yes, even good.

[KorvinStarmast]

According to Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, . Which I have read, they did not execute the rich noblemen whom they captured, but instead kept them for ransom/hostage/money. If you weren't rich, surrender = death ... to bad they didn't realize that before they surrendered. :smalleek:

[MaxWilson]

Emphasis mine. I agree wholeheartedly. I know some people say Neutral on the Good-Evil scale is selfish, but there's selfish and then there's holding no regard for any human being before your personal goals. Which strikes me as a distinctly evil attitude.

Yeah, to me "Neutral" is just not particularly anything. As Steven Sondheim writes in /Into the Woods/, "Nice is different than good."

If you take advantage of other people for your own convenience, or enjoy other people's pain (even your enemies), that's a form of evil.

If you sacrifice to improve the lives of people whom you are not personally close to, whether it's a sacrifice of time or of money or of emotional energy, that's a form of good.

If you consistently or habitually do evil things, you're Evil, even if the evil things aren't huge acts like human sacrifice. (If you're the kind of guy who bullies his wife to make himself feel good after a hard day's work, you're Evil.) If you consistently or habitually do good things, you're Good, even if you've never saved a life or saved the world. If you do nice things when they're convenient for you or when you feel you have to, and do selfish things when you feel like it, you're probably Neutral. All the main characters on the TV series Big Bang Theory are Neutral, for example, except that Amy might be Good. (And Bernadette might be Evil, although it's hard to tell because it's always played for laughs. And Sheldon leans Evil because he's so vengeful and petty.)

But anyway, I agree with you that "selfish" is a trait that aligns with Evil in D&D terms.

[Sigreid]

Which I have read, they did not execute the rich noblemen whom they captured, but instead kept them for ransom/hostage/money. If you weren't rich, surrender = death ... to bad they didn't realize that before they surrendered. :smalleek:

They might have. A beheading is a cleaner, less painful death than you're likely to find in battle.

[MaxWilson]

They might have. A beheading is a cleaner, less painful death than you're likely to find in battle.

Do tell! I've never experienced either.

[Tanarii]

Where is your definition of these alignments coming from?
From the Player's Handbook.

[guachi]

I'd take Lawful Evil. That's just a typical rapacious CEO buying off politicians and getting trillions in tax breaks.

Chaotic Neutral is Donald Trump. Mass chaos every single day not knowing what will happen at any moment. No, thanks. It's exhausting in real life.

At least you can box the Lawful Evil guy in if he's surrounded by enough Good PCs.

[strangebloke]

It's been said numerous times. If you trust the player, who cares what he puts on the sheet?

If you don't... what they have on the sheet doesn't matter. I've seen 'LG' crusaders who constantly bully the party. I've had a 'LN' necromancer who would kill complete innocents in order to get bodies to turn into zombies, and I've also had a 'CN' warlock who would kill innocents to prevent damage to a single tree.

[Millstone85]

5E definitions (which are not very good definitions)
I agree wholeheartedly.Tanarii is going to hate me for this, but I really think those definitions are best read as:
* Good folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
* Evil is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
* Lawful individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
* Chaotic creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

A PC's alignment necessarily involves a balance. The laws of Mount Celestia are such that its residents seldom feel conflicted between following them and doing the moral thing, but your LG character will often have to make that call. Meanwhile, a LN, N or CN character isn't particularly altruistic, but is not without compassion and qualms either.

The PHB tries to make each combo for us. The "whims" of a CN character become the "conscience" of a CG one and the "arbitrary violence" of a CE one. Well, that's one way to do it.

[Unoriginal]

The definition in the OP stresses that CN creatures must follow their "whims" and place their personal freedom above all other considerations. That doesn't sound like foresight to me. (And it definitely doesn't sound like Toot Toot.)

There is no "must" in alignment.

Alignment is not a binding contract, it's just a tendency.

A chaotic neutral gnome doesn't have to cheat on his wife just because he whimsically thought "damn, I'd love to sleep with this hot new barmaid". Same way that if you use their codes to exploit a group of lawful evil knights, it won't be long until one of them decide the code is less important than making you suffer.

[strangebloke]

There is no "must" in alignment.

Alignment is not a binding contract, it's just a tendency.

A chaotic neutral gnome doesn't have to cheat on his wife just because he whimsically thought "damn, I'd love to sleep with this hot new barmaid". Same way that if you use their codes to exploit a group of lawful evil knights, it won't be long until one of them decide the code is less important than making you suffer.

Law/Chaos is just about how you view society's expectations. Being chaotic does not preclude having a strong personal code, nor does it necessitate following your every whim. A CN gnome can be 100% perfectly faithful to a wife he detests, simply because that's a personal conviction of his. He just won't be faithful because that's what society tells him to do. Heck, in a society that has open marriages, a CN PC might actually be more faithful to his wife than his LN peers would be. "You mean you don't keep a mistress? Hah, if I acted like that my wife would never let me hear the end of it."

Alignment is just a way of thinking about your character's moral hierarchy.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii is going to hate me for this, but I really think those definitions are best read as:
* Good folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
* Evil is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
* Lawful individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
* Chaotic creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

You're on my naughty list now. You're going to have mighty hard to come off of it.

As a way of trying to redefine the 5e individual explanations into an explicit Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis/chart, that's the best I've seen so far. Mainly because it retains the 5e simplicity of single sentence typical behaviors, as well as actually being pulled from the 5e typical behaviors.

Personally the thing I recommend to players creating characters is to look closely at all the PHB background traits, to get a good feel for how they're set up. In the case of Alignment, check out the associate Ideals. Not because they refine Alignment itself, but because in conjunction with Alignment they produce a refined specific ethical/moral beliefs for that specific character. As can many Bonds and Flaws, or course. Even the occasional personality trait.

----------/-

I mean, let's roll back one assumption of my OP, and instead say that it's between these three Soldier characters:

Chaotic Neutral
Ideal: Independence. When people follow orders blindly, they embrace a kind of tyranny.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins.

Personally, if I was the party leader, I'd almost certainly hire the middle guy for the job. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, let's roll back one assumption of my OP, and instead say that it's between these three Soldier characters:

Chaotic Neutral
Ideal: Independence. When people follow orders blindly, they embrace a kind of tyranny.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins.

Personally, if I was the party leader, I'd almost certainly hire the middle guy for the job. :smallamused:

In this case (and assuming ceteris paribus), the middle one makes for a good soldier, but a bad first-in scout or special-forces operative (someone who necessarily has to exercise considerable discretion about the orders given). And the second set are closer to what D&D teams really are. There's no solid chain of command, so there's no "just authority" within the party. That means the 2nd dude is following the orders of someone outside the party. And in many cases, that's a bad thing. Note that the first guy doesn't have "won't follow orders" as an ideal. It's about following orders "blindly" that's called out as bad.

In a traditional military situation, I'd take the second one in a heartbeat.

[smcmike]

m
I mean, let's roll back one assumption of my OP, and instead say that it's between these three Soldier characters:

Chaotic Neutral
Ideal: Independence. When people follow orders blindly, they embrace a kind of tyranny.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins.

Personally, if I was the party leader, I'd almost certainly hire the middle guy for the job. :smallamused:

As Phoenix points out, adding a party member is not very similar to hiring someone for a job, unless you have an atypical party with clear chains of command (do people do this? It sounds like it could work well in certain groups).

The nature of the setting/plot matters, too. You might be hesitant in allowing any Lawful character to join in a Sherwood Forest adventure.

Even that last character could work, assuming an understanding that the character viewed the party boss as Stronger.

[MaxWilson]

There is no "must" in alignment.

Alignment is not a binding contract, it's just a tendency.

And in the absence of other information about a player, it says something about a player who is attracted to the idea of playing a character who "follow[s] their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else." Am I apprehensive that she's going to be That Guy? Yes I am. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong about her, but I'll be apprehensive until I see how she plays in practice.

[MaxWilson]

Law/Chaos is just about how you view society's expectations. Being chaotic does not preclude having a strong personal code, nor does it necessitate following your every whim. A CN gnome can be 100% perfectly faithful to a wife he detests, simply because that's a personal conviction of his. He just won't be faithful because that's what society tells him to do. Heck, in a society that has open marriages, a CN PC might actually be more faithful to his wife than his LN peers would be. "You mean you don't keep a mistress? Hah, if I acted like that my wife would never let me hear the end of it."

Alignment is just a way of thinking about your character's moral hierarchy.

Interestingly, what you define as Chaotic, the PHB seems to define as Lawful.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, let's roll back one assumption of my OP, and instead say that it's between these three Soldier characters:

Chaotic Neutral
Ideal: Independence. When people follow orders blindly, they embrace a kind of tyranny.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins.

Personally, if I was the party leader, I'd almost certainly hire the middle guy for the job. :smallamused:

Given these three choices, alignment will be a non-factor in my decision to prefer one hire over the other. All three of those ideals are reasonable statements; they don't even conflict with each other.

I do think it's a bit odd that the middle guy gets characterized as Lawful Evil though instead of Lawful Neutral. Is it the "do what I must" clause that makes him evil in your eyes?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Given these three choices, alignment will be a non-factor in my decision to prefer one hire over the other. All three of those ideals are reasonable statements; they don't even conflict with each other.

I do think it's a bit odd that the middle guy gets characterized as Lawful Evil though instead of Lawful Neutral. Is it the "do what I must" clause that makes him evil in your eyes?

No, they're lawful evil as a separate matter. Those are just ideals that correlate with a particular part (law or chaos) of their attitudes. That could describe any lawful X character.

[Millstone85]

You're on my naughty list now. You're going to have mighty hard to come off of it.

As a way of trying to redefine the 5e individual explanations into an explicit Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis/chart, that's the best I've seen so far. Mainly because it retains the 5e simplicity of single sentence typical behaviors, as well as actually being pulled from the 5e typical behaviors.Ah, that went well enough. :smallsmile:

[Telonius]

I've generally had good luck with Chaotic characters in the groups I've played with. Currently I'm playing a CN (edging towards CG) Cleric of Olidammara in a 3.5 game. We're using LudicSavant's reimagining (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445953-My-pantheon-s-take-on-Olidammara) of Olidammara as the God of Greed. Yeah, coin is very nice, and being a Draconic character she really does like the shinies; but it's not what she's really greedy for. For Cassandra, stealing from the party would actually be against her religion - since that would be actively getting in the way of what she really does want (namely, to have people like her and freely want to be around her).

The whole idea of personal freedom is a big thing for her, and she instinctively distrusts hierarchy and works to undermine it whenever she can. She takes particular delight in arranging things so any of her shady dealings actually get official approval. Like when the party arranged for an archon to give an official okay to a "work-release program" brewery, staffed by various monsters we'd captured, acquired, or diplomanced into joining us (and whom we had absolutely no intention of "rehabilitating" other than getting them to play nice enough to make us loads of money at the brewery). The spectacle of getting an archon to publicly shake hands with a Cleric of Olidammara was a prank that was just too good for her to pass up. Enlightened self-interest is a help, too; yeah, she's trying to save the countryside from undead abominations, but she's also using every opportunity to enrich herself and franchise out the brewery in every little thorp we go through.

In general, I'd prefer to adventure with a Chaotic character than a Lawful one. While there a lots of different flavors of both, my characters and I tend to get along better with someone when we can ignore codes of conduct if necessary.

[RSP]

Not sure anyone's mentioned this yet, but the notable character that comes to mind when I think of CN is Capt Jack Sparrow (at least from the 1st Pirates movie, I haven't seen them all).

He certainly doesn't care about laws, and he has no real hesitancy to put people who are friends or at least associates/employees in danger, even though he seems to like Will and his hired crew. But he also doesn't like killing and even tends to avoid it. Even his "vengeance" and desire to kill Barbosa is more of an "I just want him to know I beat him to get my ship back" kind of thing.

His main concern is his own freedom, which he idealizes as the Black Pearl.

A well constructed Character, like Jack Sparrow, at least in my opinion, make a game more fun.

[MaxWilson]

Not sure anyone's mentioned this yet, but the notable character that comes to mind when I think of CN is Capt Jack Sparrow (at least from the 1st Pirates movie, I haven't seen them all)... A well constructed Character, like Jack Sparrow, at least in my opinion, make a game more fun.

As long as you're only watching or running the game/movie and not trying to play in it.

Jack Sparrow would be a nightmare as a teammate. Totally unreliable. As team captain, I'd take Barbossa over Jack Sparrow any day.

(As DM I'd be rooting for the team captain to pick Sparrow so I can use him to throw all kinds of monkey wrenches in their plans.)

[Tubben]

Interesting Thema.

And funny enough something i just discussed with my GM.

I play in another group (same dm like in my normal, weekly group) an halfing AT, which i choosed CG. He's Lv 7 now and after the last session i decided to switch him from CG to LE and spoke with my DM about it. He said he would choose CN and i think he's right.

We played some module i did for the first time but it's something regular. We had to destroy some artefact called soulmonger and did meet some wizards of thay. I decided i dont like them. They had some artefakt to destroy the soulmonger with like an nuclear blast (like 140d6 dmg). They came with us (enemy of my enemy is my friend and so) and after a while i took that from one of the wizards, not that they had a chance to say no.

We also had a device to teleport the ones i choose up to 200f away. At the soulmonger i activated the artefact, dropped it, and teleported my group away, but not the last surviving wizards of thay, i more or less murdered them in cold blood, leaving them behind with the now exploding device i left behind.

On my way home i did think about that and how i did play the rogue in the past sessions:

He's absolute loyal to his group, he dont take anything which belongs to the group (and he could, believe me, it's a newbie group with 1 Barb, 1 Warrior and me the AT, thats all).
He never flees from battle, without making sure the others are able to flee also.
He always do what he says and never breaks his word.
But he has absolute no problem to steal from others or even murder them if he's in the mood or think it's right and needed.
He dont kill for fun, it's always with a reason (it's just, that sometimes there are other solutions - it's just easier to kill them, than to talk).

Thats why i wanted to switch from CG to LE (and after i spoke to my DM i changed to CN).

After reading this thread, reading how many dont really want to play with CN chars i am not to sure about that :-)

[GodofThunder]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

--------------

All else being equal, including other personality traits being identical and including an Ideal appropriate for (Any) alignment, either played by the same player who you know and trust to play their character as a multifaceted as opposed to one-dimensional based on alignment character, which would you prefer to have in your party?

If it matters, assume your character is Neutral and has no previous interactions with the character in question, but has 2nd hand knowledge of what they are like through others,, and is about to embark on a mission with them.

Assume for a second that both you and the player of the PCs in question have actually read and understood the 5e Alignment typical behavior above. Assume for a second no one is making all sorts of assumptions about the alignments that are outside of these typical behaviors. A tall order I know.The choice is simple enough:
1. CN is a habitually unpredictable person. You have absolutely no idea what they're going to do at any given moment. This can be quite useful as they can legitimately roleplay while taking just about any action imaginable.
2. LE is predictable. They'll always look out for themselves first. They'll always try to take power and wealth for themselves. They won't mind screwing the entire party if it suits their best interests. But it's all bad behavior that you can reliably count on.

I'd prefer the CN character myself because they are afforded more built-in adaptability. They can be absolutely annoying, but they're not as likely to slit everyone's throats in their sleep just because it's the LE thing to do at the time.

[kivzirrum]

I can only speak to my own experiences with the game, and I do remember when I was younger thinking of Chaotic Neutral as being the alignment that most justifies the "crazy random" character behavior. However, as adults, I haven't had any problems with the groups I've played in. I have a character in the game I'm DMing now, and one of the PCs is Chaotic Neutral. I warned him of the common pitfalls of the CN alignment and that, if he fell into them, it doesn't matter that he's my boyfriend, I will destroy him. But the character has been played the way, in my opinion, CN should be--a free spirit, yes, but not a vent for "lol random" pointlessness that lacks any semblance of actual character.

On the other hand, LE can be fun in a good/neutral party. A well-played evil character can find lots of reasons for doing the right thing--until, of course, that critical moment where it ceases to benefit the character. So I'd be fine with either alignment.

Then again, my friends are really good roleplayers, and I might be more skeptical if I hadn't known that going in.

[GlenSmash!]

From the PHB:

Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

--------------

All else being equal, including other personality traits being identical and including an Ideal appropriate for (Any) alignment, either played by the same player who you know and trust to play their character as a multifaceted as opposed to one-dimensional based on alignment character, which would you prefer to have in your party?

If it matters, assume your character is Neutral and has no previous interactions with the character in question, but has 2nd hand knowledge of what they are like through others,, and is about to embark on a mission with them.

Assume for a second that both you and the player of the PCs in question have actually read and understood the 5e Alignment typical behavior above. Assume for a second no one is making all sorts of assumptions about the alignments that are outside of these typical behaviors. A tall order I know.

As a DM as long as we had a session 0 and outlined the expectations of the game I wouldn't have problems with either. As a player either.

In the mind of my character CN over LE. Someone who values their personal freedom over all is unlikely to come into conflict with me, but someone who may abuse others inside the limits of their code would be harder to deal with (unless I also made an evil character) but that's rare.

[the_brazenburn]

Honestly, it depends on your IRL alignment. I am personally CG (some might dispute this), so I'd pick the CN 10 times out of 10. On the other hand, if you were lawful-aligned and wanted everything under control, then you'd pick the LE so that you could at least know what was going on.

[Luccan]

Honestly, it depends on your IRL alignment. I am personally CG (some might dispute this), so I'd pick the CN 10 times out of 10. On the other hand, if you were lawful-aligned and wanted everything under control, then you'd pick the LE so that you could at least know what was going on.

I'd say I'm closest to Neutral leaning Lawful at least (I'm not gonna claim moral high ground, though I think of myself as a good person). I'd prefer CN. Because if you're Evil, you're Evil. Which isn't to say I'd like hanging out with someone who could be described as CN, but at least I know they aren't stepping on the backs of innocents and people I care about on a regular basis. They smoke behind the bleachers, instead of torturing squirrels in the woods. Of course, if the world could be placed in simple alignments groups all the time, we'd probably also have real wizards.

[Tanarii]

Given these three choices, alignment will be a non-factor in my decision to prefer one hire over the other. All three of those ideals are reasonable statements; they don't even conflict with each other.

I do think it's a bit odd that the middle guy gets characterized as Lawful Evil though instead of Lawful Neutral. Is it the "do what I must" clause that makes him evil in your eyes?


No, they're lawful evil as a separate matter. Those are just ideals that correlate with a particular part (law or chaos) of their attitudes. That could describe any lawful X character.
Exactly. I was just avoiding restating the typical behaviors again, which were already listed in the OP. And contrasting that 1 is LE with a Lawful Ideal, and another LE with a Evil ideal. Which kinda reinforces one aspect or the other.

I like contrasting 1-2 aspects of personality to show how even though you might have 2 characters that share an Alignment or other trait, they can be considerably different characters. I mean, it's pretty obvious at it's most extreme of 4 different traits. For example, these two Criminals are very different characters, even before we even look at their Race & Class.

PC1:
Lawful evil (LE): I methodically take what I want, within the limits of my code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Personality: I always have a plan for what to do when things go wrong.
Ideal: Honor. I don’t steal from others in the trade. (Lawful)
Bond: Someone I loved died because of I mistake I made. That will never happen again.
Flaw: An innocent person is in prison for a crime that I committed. I’m okay with that.

PC2:
Lawful evil (LE): I methodically take what I want, within the limits of my code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Personality: I don’t pay attention to the risks in a situation. Never tell me the odds.
Ideal: Greed. I will do whatever it takes to become wealthy. (Evil)
Bond: I will become the greatest thief that ever lived.
Flaw: When I see something valuable, I can’t think about anything but how to steal it.

Edit: Which is to say, this is just me understanding even more than my OP was far too "white room". :smallwink:

[Segev]

If I trust the player, I'd be fine with either so long as he'd worked out the potential pitfalls and how to mesh the PC with the party. I will say it's more likely to be annoying with a CN character, if only because I know that I risk being annoying when I play "whimsical."


PC2:
Lawful evil (LE): I methodically take what I want, within the limits of my code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Personality: I don’t pay attention to the risks in a situation. Never tell me the odds.
Ideal: Greed. I will do whatever it takes to become wealthy. (Evil)
Bond: I will become the greatest thief that ever lived.
Flaw: When I see something valuable, I can’t think about anything but how to steal it.

I think this sounds more NE, in all ways save the alignment line. Everything in there suggests that, even if he respects a tradition, he's willing to set it aside out of impatience for results, desire for wealth or achievement, or convenience. The only nod to tradition and code is in the alignment line, but giving him a benefit of a doubt regarding that, I'd say he sounds like he thinks they're good ideas, but only as guidelines to follow when his impulsive acquisitiveness isn't getting the better of him.

[Tanarii]

I think this sounds more NE, in all ways save the alignment line.
The player has chosen Lawful Evil, and uses "I methodically take what I want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" as an additional motivation for deciding what to have their character do on top the other four personality traits instead of using "I do whatever I can get away with, without compassion or qualms".

1) LE chosen by player.
2) LE typical behavior used as one of his 5 motivation for deciding PC actions by player.

Therefor it is Lawful Evil, not Neutral Evil.

You can of course be one of those DMs that chooses to run 5e Alignment as judged by you the DM, determined by PC overall behavior, and dictated to the player. The resulting table arguments are on you. :smallamused:

Now if you're saying that as a player, you'd choose Neutral Evil instead of Lawful Evil, because you feel it fits those other personality traits better ... go for it. But I was illustrating the difference between players making two different Lawful Evil characters.

[smcmike]

The player has chosen Lawful Evil, and uses "I methodically take what I want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" as an additional motivation for deciding what to have their character do on top the other four personality traits instead of using "I do whatever I can get away with, without compassion or qualms".

1) LE chosen by player.
2) LE typical behavior used as one of his 5 motivation for deciding PC actions by player.

Therefor it is Lawful Evil, not Neutral Evil.

Sure, but this character doesn’t seem to make quite as much sense as the first example, which fit together very well as a character I could imagine playing.

[Segev]

The player has chosen Lawful Evil, and uses "I methodically take what I want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" as an additional motivation for deciding what to have their character do on top the other four personality traits instead of using "I do whatever I can get away with, without compassion or qualms".

1) LE chosen by player.
2) LE typical behavior used as one of his 5 motivation for deciding PC actions by player.

Therefor it is Lawful Evil, not Neutral Evil.

You can of course be one of those DMs that chooses to run 5e Alignment as judged by you the DM, determined by PC overall behavior, and dictated to the player. The resulting table arguments are on you. :smallamused:

Now if you're saying that as a player, you'd choose Neutral Evil instead of Lawful Evil, because you feel it fits those other personality traits better ... go for it. But I was illustrating the difference between players making two different Lawful Evil characters.

I do tend to subscribe to the notion that the player will play his character, and might even choose his alignment according to what he thinks it is, but that it's up to the DM to actually assign alignment. If the player really cares (and, if there are alignment requirements for anything he uses in his build, he has every right to), then discussion with the DM is important.

I'm saying, here, that I would question why the player thinks this is LE, and not NE, if I were the DM, and as a player I would choose NE because nothing in this personality blurb, aside from the declared alignment, suggests "LE" to me.

[Tanarii]

I do tend to subscribe to the notion that the player will play his character, and might even choose his alignment according to what he thinks it is, but that it's up to the DM to actually assign alignment. If the player really cares (and, if there are alignment requirements for anything he uses in his build, he has every right to), then discussion with the DM is important.

I'm saying, here, that I would question why the player thinks this is LE, and not NE, if I were the DM, and as a player I would choose NE because nothing in this personality blurb, aside from the declared alignment, suggests "LE" to me.Even if they are not allowed to write LE on the character sheet without your permission, they are still the one using "I methodically take what I want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" as an additional motivation for deciding what to have their character do on top the other four personality traits, instead of using "I do whatever I can get away with, without compassion or qualms".

You can call it what you want as a DM, but they're the one making decisions based on five facets/motivations, one of which is explicitly the LE typical behavior.

Just because you don't see a way to make them "fit" together doesn't mean no player can.

[Theodoxus]

As Phoenix points out, adding a party member is not very similar to hiring someone for a job, unless you have an atypical party with clear chains of command (do people do this? It sounds like it could work well in certain groups).

I think my next campaign will be built like a military squad.

Make the Lt 1st level with free expertise in history, the sergeant 3rd level, corporal 2nd level and the rest 1st level privates.

[Luccan]

I think my next campaign will be built like a military squad.

Make the Lt 1st level with free expertise in history, the sergeant 3rd level, corporal 2nd level and the rest 1st level privates.

Im in a (3.5) game right now where three characters are 4th level bodyguards of the 1st level princess character. We defer to her for most descisions regarding where we're going, but she takes advice from her trusted guards/advisors in their fields of expertise. Different levels of in-game social power work fine, as long as there is player buy-in and the understanding that group fun is more important than one player on a power trip

[Segev]

Even if they are not allowed to write LE on the character sheet without your permission, they are still the one using "I methodically take what I want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" as an additional motivation for deciding what to have their character do on top the other four personality traits, instead of using "I do whatever I can get away with, without compassion or qualms".

You can call it what you want as a DM, but they're the one making decisions based on five facets/motivations, one of which is explicitly the LE typical behavior.

Just because you don't see a way to make them "fit" together doesn't mean no player can.

If they play Lawful, I'll call them Lawful. I don't see compatibility between "I'll do whatever it takes" and "I am constrained by the limits of my code and tradition." I can see a neutral person torn between those extreme statements, or a chaotic person who doesn't actually have the constraint at all.

If he's playing LE, then he's probably not living up to the "anything it takes" angle. If he's doing "anything it takes" but saving sliding on his code/traditions for a last resort, that's well within NE, however.

[Tanarii]

If they play Lawful, I'll call them Lawful. I don't see compatibility between "I'll do whatever it takes" and "I am constrained by the limits of my code and tradition." I can see a neutral person torn between those extreme statements, or a chaotic person who doesn't actually have the constraint at all.

If he's playing LE, then he's probably not living up to the "anything it takes" angle. If he's doing "anything it takes" but saving sliding on his code/traditions for a last resort, that's well within NE, however.
So what you're saying is you have trouble with reconciling a general typical but not consistently required behavior motivation, with a specific motivation for specific situations, that sometimes come into conflict?

Personally I don't see a problem a typical behavior of "take what I want within my personal code" and "do whatever it takes to become rich" generally conflicting. I think they will usually line up nicely. But making a PC that deals with the occasional inner conflict between multiple conflicting motivations is fine by me. Especially when one of them, alignment, is specifically about typical overall but not constantly required behavior. And the others are more specific.

Edit: I'd say you're having trouble with what I'm taking about because you are viewing alignment as determined by behavior after the fact. Not a motivation used in conjunction with the other alignments.

If you want to determine alignment purely from behavior after the fact, and not have players use it as a motivation at all, first of all, go for it. But I'd also say that technically you can't use the the other personality traits and say for sure "that sounds like NE". It may work out that way, but it takes table play to find out for sure. Any alignment written down at first by the player is merely a best guess in that case.

[Segev]

So what you're saying is you have trouble with reconciling a general typical but not consistently required behavior motivation, with a specific motivation for specific situations, that sometimes come into conflict?

Personally I don't see a problem a typical behavior of "take what I want within my personal code" and "do whatever it takes to become rich" generally conflicting. I think they will usually line up nicely. But making a PC that deals with the occasional inner conflict between multiple conflicting motivations is fine by me. Especially when one of them, alignment, is specifically about typical overall but not constantly required behavior. And the others are more specific.

Edit: I'd say you're having trouble with what I'm taking about because you are viewing alignment as determined by behavior after the fact. Not a motivation used in conjunction with the other alignments. Possibly. My point is that you've not given enough detail to define "conflicting traits making him struggle." You've just given one line that is out of synch with the rest of the otherwise-consistent characterization.

You're now suggesting that the alignment on the character sheet is aspirational, what the character WANTS to be. That's...an interesting take. One I'd never considered before.

It is possible to play an LE person who is TEMPTED by his greed to shirk his code if his code is in the way of sating his greed. He may even sometimes give in. I'm not claiming you have to be a paragon of your beliefs to adhere to an alignment in general. But that isn't "I do whatever I have to to sate my greed." That's, "I follow my code, and do anything within its bounds to gain treasure. If anything could get me to break my code, it would be the temptation of loot."

But that isn't what you wrote. Maybe that's the interpretation on that combination of things (which I assume are verbatim copies from the PHB) you intend, but if so, it requires that you actually elaborate that, or take license with the traits copied from the book and rewrite them to reflect how you plan to play it.


If you want to determine alignment purely from behavior after the fact, and not have players use it as a motivation at all, first of all, go for it. But I'd also say that technically you can't use the the other personality traits and say for sure "that sounds like NE". It may work out that way, but it takes table play to find out for sure. Any alignment written down at first by the player is merely a best guess in that case.Sure. Alignments change with character actions, if appropriate.



Finally, though, I wouldn't say actions determine character alignment so much as they reveal it. And to a degree, motivation does matter, and is something the player can and, if necessary to determine how to contextualize an action, should discuss with the DM.

[Tanarii]

Possibly. My point is that you've not given enough detail to define "conflicting traits making him struggle." You've just given one line that is out of synch with the rest of the otherwise-consistent characterization. I don't think it's entirely out of sync. I think the Alignment typical, but not constantly or consistently required, overall behavior can easily sync up with the (Evil) Ideal that is specific to wealth. And other times it may not. Just as an Ideal and a Flaw may go out of sync at times. In fact, most common IMX is anything and a Bond or Flaw coming into occasional conflict.


You're now suggesting that the alignment on the character sheet is aspirational, what the character WANTS to be. That's...an interesting take. One I'd never considered before. Its how I view Alignment behavior sentences. A general, but not constant or consistent, baseline behavior. That is reinforced or causes conflict when appropriate by the more specific personality traits. A broad fall-back "motivation", using the term in the same way a stereotypical actor might.


But that isn't what you wrote. Maybe that's the interpretation on that combination of things (which I assume are verbatim copies from the PHB) you intend, but if so, it requires that you actually elaborate that, or take license with the traits copied from the book and rewrite them to reflect how you plan to play it.They are all from the PHB. And it helps to think about how they all interact in advance. But not required. They can all come in to play as appropriate, either reinforcing or conflicting, as needed during play.


Sure. Alignments change with character actions, if appropriate.That can happen whether you use them as motivations to feed into specific actions, or determined by behavior. It can also be a feedback loop used both ways, changing the motivation as the character changes in play. Same with the other personality traits. Nothing says you can't swap them out or add new ones as a character evolves.


Finally, though, I wouldn't say actions determine character alignment so much as they reveal it. And to a degree, motivation does matter, and is something the player can and, if necessary to determine how to contextualize an action, should discuss with the DM.Fair enough. And I'm not using motivation as in intent, and certainly not meaning justification. If a table is playing that overall behavior reveals Alignment, then it's on the table to determine how much intent matters when deciding what alignment a PC is. Personally I'd go with behavior exhibited matters more than intent. Or self-perception on the part of the PC.

Personally if I played that way I wouldn't even have PCs pick an alignment when they made the character. I'd do a review of behavior every once in a while after some play time with the player, and we would decide together what alignment they were based on that discussion.

[Nifft]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Chaotic Neutral
Ideal: Independence. When people follow orders blindly, they embrace a kind of tyranny.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority.

Lawful Evil
Ideal: Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins.

Personally, if I was the party leader, I'd almost certainly hire the middle guy for the job. :smallamused:

Isn't that middle guy a lot more Lawful Neutral than any kind of Evil?

Evil means abusing power for personal gain, and it seems to me that kind of behavior is inherently irresponsible.

[strangebloke]

Sure. Alignments change with character actions, if appropriate.



Finally, though, I wouldn't say actions determine character alignment so much as they reveal it. And to a degree, motivation does matter, and is something the player can and, if necessary to determine how to contextualize an action, should discuss with the DM.

Hence why it's perfectly appropriate for a DM to grumble: "You have LN on your character sheet, don't play such a evil monster unless you're trying to get into PVP with the paladin."

[Tanarii]

Isn't that middle guy a lot more Lawful Neutral than any kind of Evil?

Evil means abusing power for personal gain, and it seems to me that kind of behavior is inherently irresponsible.
Certainly it's fair to say he's got more Lawful than Good or Evil, because he's got a (Lawful) associated Ideal. But that doesn't mean his overall behavior can't be any of the Lawful alignments.

That's the point. I was contrasting is one Lawful Evil character with a Lawful Ideal, to another with an Evil Ideal. Same with the two Criminals, one with Lawful, the other with Evil. But both Lawful Evil overall.

Having a (Lawful) or (Good) or (Chaotic) or (Evil) Ideal doesn't, or at least shouldn't, restrict you to the corresponding Neutral. If it did, only (Any) Ideals would be appropriate for LG, CG, LE and CE characters.