Most difficult alignment.

[shadow_archmagi]

In your experience, what is the trickiest alignment to roleplay? Obviously chaotic evil and lawful good are incredibly easy, if boring. Chaotic good isn't hard either, you just make sure that you're willing to break the law if its good for everyone.

Lawful evil is what I'm currently working with, and I'm finding it rather tricky.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Hmmmmmmmm.......One of the Neutrals. NE excepted, since it's easy, and maybe NG, too. And LN, since being an uptight rule monkey is not hard, but TN and CN are HARD. People think CN is Chaotic Stupid, and TN...well, it's really hard to play for the middle and not a side.

[shadow_archmagi]

Ah, most of the trouble about being an uptight rule monkey stems from the fact that our DM put us in the middle of a lawless nowhere, and everyone else is playing a fighter, except the barbarian.

[Azerian Kelimon]

No, not THAT kind of rule monkey. This is just basing myself on WoTC's LN chars. So far, all of them do stupid things ("I must obey my liege. Take her (the character's significant other) away"), which require you t be pretty stupid. Though LN is probably not meant to be played that way.

[Maxymiuk]

For that matter LG and CE are hard to play well. LG because, let's face it, being honorable, steadfast, and consistent is a nigh-impossible task, especially in the face of the covey of homicidal kleptomaniacs that is your typical gaming group, as well as the GM himself, who'll likely seize the opportunity to viciously "test" your resolve.

CE proves hard to play because most people confuse it with being an unhinged homicidal maniac and stabbing the nearest person in the face. Which frequently brings up the question of how their character survived up to this point. A CE character should have some restraints, as well as a working knowledge of when he's free not to exercise them.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Aye. A CE should be a sadist, torturer, or something of the like, but he or she should have some restraint. Check Drow, or, specially, Vashar, for an example.


Fact is, Vashar are plain perfect for everything, and specially for examples of evilness. They're Drow Humans! What's better than that?

[Kurald Galain]

All of them

Seriously, TN is probably the hardest to envision. And CN is the one most often played dead wrong.

[Mr. Friendly]

Honestly, I think all alignments are equally difficult and equally easy. It all depends on additional motivating characteristics.

For example, all characters have their "easy" setting:

Lawful (Good/Evil/Neutral) as mindless automatons who obey their respective rulesets to the letter.

Neutral as indifferent, NG as the doey eyed helper to all puppies and children, NE as the ruthless guy who is only self interested.

Chaotic (Good/Evil/Neutral) as the "crazy guy" who just goes buck-nutty whenever someone tries to enforce a rule.

Then there are more defined and and difficult characters to play.

This comes from actual roleplaying and not allowing your alignment to dictate your characters persona.

Another factor is that the "difficulty" in RPing an alignment is almost entirely subjective. For instance, I find it difficult to RP Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil, simply because I find the outlooks so generally reprehensible.

[mostlyharmful]

TN I'd have to second, if you really try for this one in an adventuring group you end up having to metagame just to keep it in my experiance. It's easy when you're an NPC to which nothing happens or an individualist like a druid who can work on their own at their own pace but once the crazy things start happening in an adventure you've pretty much got to pick a side. Reacting to outside wackiness at a phenomenal rate it gets hard not to form patterns of behaviour that define you as more than "Meh, not really this and not really that"

[Telok]

I always felt that roleplaying an alignment was a mistake. I thought that you were supposed to play a character, and choose an alignment that fit the character's personality. That's what I've always done.

[Ossian]

Well, 1 can get rid of alignments any time, granted, but I still do think they work as a broad guideline. Otherwise, characters tend to forget to act according to background and start acting (slowly but inevitably till they cross the even horizon of metagame) in martial/spellcasting looting/glory/power addicted versions of the players. So, yeah. they're "good" because most missions are "save/rescue this goodie" or "smite this evil for me". Fair enough, good roleplayers don't need an alignment on their char. sheets, but Wizards didn't write the game for good roleplayers. They wrote it more for the "homicidal kleptomanics" that Maxymiuk highlighted.

While most solo-hero types tend to lean towrds the "chaotic good" type (take Kenshiro of the First of the north star) I have a lot more experience (as DM) with Neutral Good guys. They really are vagabonds and find law ill fitting but reasonably useful in most cases, and they tend to give a hand whenever they can and it'sm reasonably feasible. They wouldn't think twice to ignere an order that sounded stupid, but they know when they can just be forced to do stuff, and it's just better to cooperate. Still, no law would be able to force them to "do evil, as per the law".

So, Neutral Good is OK to play. Lawful Good, however, is that one that throws me out of balance. (the description of Roy's actions have actually shifted the balance in favor of LG, lately). CE is tough too...

Ossian

[SilverClawShift]

I always felt that roleplaying an alignment was a mistake. I thought that you were supposed to play a character, and choose an alignment that fit the character's personality. That's what I've always done.

THANK YOU.

The primary purpose of an alignment system at all is for determining the results of spells and effects which concern themselves with alignment, and for certain class/feat restrictions.

Why would you pick an alignment and try to act it out to a T? That limits you to 9 characters with different class/race combos, but still the same outlook and behavioral processes.
Alignment is defined by what you do, not the other way around.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I've seen too many players in the past which seem to have difficulty playing Lawful Good. Drives me nuts when I see a paladin killing someone just because they are "evil". Makes me want to throttle the player's neck.

[Duke of URL]

I don't think any alignment is inherently more difficult to play than any other, but some are misunderstood more. If you don't understand the alignment, how can you play it well? This is often why you can see poor roleplaying in the evil alignments, but the other alignments can be just as tricky.

I've been a proponent of reading alignment as a major/minor situation... that is, a LN alignment can either be someone who is dedicated to law, order, and tradition, to the point that matters of the end results of the law are irrelevant. Or, it could be someone who is basically individualistic (and not abusive) who feels that (s)he can benefit best from the protection that the law provides.

In the first case, the "major" alignment is Lawful and the "minor" alignment is Neutral. This character has more flexibility in his/her outlook on the concepts of "good" or "evil", as long as it is in service to his/her outlook on law. (Prototypical case: Inspector Javert from Les Miserables)

In the second case, the "major" alignment is Neutral and the "minor" alignment is Lawful. The character believes in him/herself and that people are responsible for themselves and their actions; the law is seen as the best means to accomplish that goal, but the character might be convinced to bend a law or two in his or her own self-interest.

My favorite current character is Chaotic Neutral. While all too often, this is an abused alignment (basically a license to do anything), I play him as being independent-minded, self-confident, and willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his goals (or protect his skin), within certain limits. He will help others, but expects to be well compensated for it. He will work with a party, because that offers him a greater chance of success and survival.

I've seen Evil played well, and played badly. I've seen the same with Good, or Lawful, or Chaotic. Quality players play their characters well, poor players don't, and I don't think the alignments themselves have anything to do with it, other than in exposing inexperienced or poor players' lack of understanding of what the alignments mean.

[Shishnarfne]

I'm going to take whichever alignment is most opposed to the general effective alignment of the rest of the party as hardest to play. You have to deal with their actions which go against your alignment and still find ways to keep yourself in the party.

[Overlard]

I don't find LN all that hard to play, but I do find it boring to play.

[SadisticFishing]

LG can be far harder than it seems, as can properly playing CE. LG, for example, there are many situations that put your L against your G - and though most are simple, every once in a while you actually have to think things through.

LN is the easiest alignment to play though, as is NE. Dunno about hardest..

[Emperor Demonking]

Chaotic good.
I find the lawful ones easy.
The neutral ones a challange.
Chaotic evil, I find that pretty easy.
Chaotic neutral, I can do a few of these.

But I find it hard to believe one can be chaotic and good at the same time.

[MCerberus]

If you imagine the alignment system not as a clear set of squares but a circle centered on the origin (being TN), then there are plenty of gray areas and "amosts" that you have to contend with. Say someone is at the 30 degree line. That would, mathematically be the exact dividing point between CN and CG. What alignment are they? Now imagine that the distance from the (0, 0) center is very low. Are they CN, CG, or TN?

I like thinking about alignments like that because it can better describe people between extremes, or whether they are zealous in their beliefs. The system does, however, break down with clerics/druids as the conversion of what they can be in the 9 block and circles need some kind of fudging (but I do think it makes more sense after you do fudge. Clerics of Pelor can't be too lawful or chaotic as it interferes with doing good)


anyway... using that system if you read it, I have trouble playing the fringed zealots who think their way of thinking is the best. Evil ones especially seem to have a short shelf life.

[LordLocke]

I'm inclined to say Lawful Evil. Playing the bad guy who works within the law
of the land and/or their own personal code sounds easy, but sticking to it when things gets hairy... not so much. Especially those law-abusing types, which generally require pestering your DM about a region's legal code every half an hour.

Special 'You're Doing It Wrong' nomination for Chaotic Neutral. Which most players I've seen use as an excuse to do repeated evil things without consequence while still getting to play a 'good guy'. It's rare when I'm DMing a campaign and I don't have to take one of my CN player's character sheet and 'fix' their alignment to their proper Chaotic Evil.

[cupkeyk]

I can't play lawful good, my lawful good characters tend to veer towards genocidal nazis. I prefer lawful evil, because then I can actually be a genocidal nazi. I don't bother with the rules of other lands because Tiamat should lord over all that exists and I abide only by her divine tyranny. Anyone who does not worship her must suffer.

[JaxGaret]

I find it hard to believe one can be chaotic and good at the same time.

Um, why?


To the OP: There is no "most difficult alignment". They're all as easy or as difficult as the others; it depends on the person playing the character. Some people have no problem playing any alignment, and some people have a problem playing any alignment but what they are IRL.

[jamroar]

In your experience, what is the trickiest alignment to roleplay? Obviously chaotic evil and lawful good are incredibly easy, if boring. Chaotic good isn't hard either, you just make sure that you're willing to break the law if its good for everyone.

Lawful evil is what I'm currently working with, and I'm finding it rather tricky.

True neutral. It's difficult to be completely apathetic to everything as adventurer PCs as opposed to NPC characters. Eventually, you begin to show some bias along one axis or another in the course of pursuing the goals of your campaign.

The other kind of nutcase 'dedicated' true neutral where you consciously and actively try to balance lawful, chaotic, good and evil acts tend to make you few allies and hated by all factions.

[MCerberus]

True neutral. It's difficult to be completely apathetic to everything as adventurer PCs as opposed to NPC characters. Eventually, you begin to show some bias along one axis or another in the course of pursuing the goals of your campaign.

The other kind of nutcase 'dedicated' true neutral where you consciously and actively try to balance lawful, chaotic, good and evil acts tend to make you few allies and hated by all factions.

Crossover from the "10th alignment" thread

Spoiler

Show

Or you could go with the Druid example of thinking that the natural order needs to be in balance. You could protect farmers from raiding bandits stealing their crops one day (because that would mean a net loss for the environment with the farmers having to replant without the seeds from their harvest and hunting more in the meantime causing damage) a LG act, and then murder a group of hunters the next who have been hunting too much and have caused some massive ****. CE.

One day you could subvert the evil authority figure who is taking too many materials too quickly for a war effort (CG), and other time strike fear into the hearts of some settlers in order to make sure they know not to go too far in getting materials to build their livelihoods (LE).

[Citizen Joe]

You DO realize that you're not supposed to roleplay the alignment. You're supposed to roleplay your character.

[AKA_Bait]

Um, why?


To the OP: There is no "most difficult alignment". They're all as easy or as difficult as the others; it depends on the person playing the character. Some people have no problem playing any alignment, and some people have a problem playing any alignment but what they are IRL.

Agree totally here. Some alignments are easier for some people. Also, must agree with the order of operations for alignment being Character Behavior then Alignment. This includes backstory of course, so that players can have an alignment to start.

Frankly, I think that principle also extends to classes, particularly when there are some classes that have alignment restrictions (most of which I find silly but that's another thread entirely). Make a character first then assign the mechanics, of which alignment is one.

[MCerberus]

Agree totally here. Some alignments are easier for some people. Also, must agree with the order of operations for alignment being Character Behavior then Alignment. This includes backstory of course, so that players can have an alignment to start.

Frankly, I think that principle also extends to classes, particularly when there are some classes that have alignment restrictions (most of which I find silly but that's another thread entirely). Make a character first then assign the mechanics, of which alignment is one.

Excellent point. Yes how an alignment is played does depend much on the class you are playing. Lawful for a Wizard could mean they have the patience and dedication to go through endless tomes for knowledge, while for a fighter it could mean obedience to the chain of command because it is in place to make the unit more effective. Chaotic for a Ranger could mean a desire to see everything and never bee in the same place twice. Chaotic for another Ranger could mean simply going with the flow. Chaotic for a Cleric of generic god of ultimate chaos (TM) could mean bringing about anarchy.

[Sir Iguejo]

I think its better to start a character as TN and dont pay attention to alignment issues. With time, my DM will shape my alignment as I roleplay my character. So I dont have this kind of preocupation concerning LG or CE acts.

mostly I end up being NG, which I think its the easiest alig to play

[AKA_Bait]

I think its better to start a character as TN and dont pay attention to alignment issues. With time, my DM will shape my alignment as I roleplay my character. So I dont have this kind of preocupation concerning LG or CE acts.

mostly I end up being NG, which I think its the easiest alig to play

I take it you don't play clerics, barbarians or paladins much?

[Daze]

I agree with Duke of URL.

Not all Alignments are made equal. One LN may not be the same as another, and the same holds true for all alignments (TN being a possible exception).

I go a step further then major/minor though. I allow 'tendencies" in my game, which allows some more RP flexibility. For instance, a character may be CN, but on his sheet it'd be listed as CN(e). Meaning, while he was basically a CN guy, more than 50% of the time he leant towards the evil side. Now it wasnt enough to make him true CE, but it was enough not to be true CN either.
I think this allows for more variety in what players feel comfortable roleplaying.

Additionally, a note on Lawful...

You may recall The Giant (Rich) saying this in some posts on OOTS.

Lawful does NOT mean obeying the laws of every land you happen to wander through.
Lawful is adhering to some sort of code, rules or laws that the character accepts as valid. It's internal, not external. (of course others may adhere to the same code, but its internal for them as well, even if its written down somewhere)
What these particular rules/codes actually are of course (kindness, ruthlessness, etc), determine the good/evil/neutral side of it.
A LE character will still use his own set of ideals in a LG kingdom... just like a paladin will adhere to his in a NE Kingdom.

And to me LE means the character will use any means neccessary to enforce his ideals. It doesnt make them maniac despots neccesarily. I played an Avenger once who was LE, basically he was a paladin of the God of War... Because the god of war was LE, he had to be too... doesnt mean he killed everyone willy, nilly... but it was conversion by the point of the sword if ya know what I mean.

As far as the most difficult... it'd have to be TN I think. To remain intellectually honest about not taking sides in respect to law, chaos, good and evil is exceedingly difficult to roleplay, especially in a group adventure setting