Lawful Neutral. Fairness and Balance matter the most to me, good and evil are irrelevant.
I usually drift toward something with an N in it -- I like NG best because doing good in the end can completely justify getting there by any means whatsoever. Follow the law when it's convenient, go off-roading when it's not.
I try to be bad but it never sticks for long
LN mostly.
Probably mostly CG, but I really am a different sort in that I actively play way different alignments all the time. I currently play a NE cleric of Norgorber, a CG slayer, A LG paladin, and a CE witch. I usually pick my alignment first and everything else afterwards and don't like playing the same alignment a lot in a row.
Generally I always end up on the N to NG spectrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NG by average. I usually play Good characters because in my heart I am a hero. I will do the right thing without a second thought. That isn't to say I have always played good... I do mix it up from time to time. But it is more of a conscious effort to find the evil option.
Follow up: I rarely change alignment in game. My character's usually know themselves well enough not to be swayed by the little things... Although my Paladin Archer fell. She fell hard, straight to Black Guard. But I don't blame her I mean you try adventuring in her circumstances and staying paladin level pure! It would be like joining a pirate game with a paladin. She was doomed to failure.
I tend to default to Chaotic Neutral. The role of a spontaneous, opportunistic, go-with-the-flow kind of personality comes very naturally to me. Not necessarily bad people, but look out for themselves first and foremost. Bards, rogues, mercenary fighters etc.
Recently I've been playing a lot of Lawful Neutral characters. It takes more of a conscious effort for me to play someone who is more logical and calculative, but it's fun to try different approaches to an alignment that's often considered to be restrictive.
I almost never play Good characters, they usually start to bore me after a while. I do like playing Evil characters, but I don't get many chances to actually do so. So Neutral it is.
I tend to play Neutral characters, all across the Law-Chaos spectrum. Contrary to the above post, I tend to find more useful character building concepts in law and chaos than I find in good and evil.Hm, interesting! Is law/chaos more clear to you than good/evil, or is law/chaos just more interesting?
For sure, it's difficult to play a truly Good character in a For Gold And Glory! kind of campaign, while it can be...tiresome for others to play an antihero in a Save The World! kind of campaign.
I think it is more interesting to me. Looking at my recent characters, the following examples stand out to me.
In my 'lawful' character I enjoy the rock-solid codes/creed that he lives by, this is most often how I express my 'lawful' characters. He was never following 'the rules' as defined by the local society/government, but rather 'the rules' of his own personal creed. My 'lawful' character tended to place their goals of his personal code above the goals of others, and in that conflict, I find interesting character development.
The chaotic character of mine alternatively is mutable(not random), he tends to be able to bend without breaking. Often times that means they approach similar situations and get different results based on their own particular whims, what is at stake, or how much he likes the particular parties involved. He isn't necessarily impressionable, he has his own preferred way of doing things, but that doesn't mean he wont be an opportunist.
Lastly my 'True' neutral character was in a state of entropy in a lot of ways. Having fought for his beliefs and lost, he was forced to re-evaluate his position after being burned by both ends of the law and chaos spectrum. He learned to be measured in some regards, he used his wisdom to guide his hand more than abstract concepts. Anything was worth doing if the reason was good enough. That is not to say he was selfish, he mostly did things for the benefit of others. If harsh tactics were required in order to ensure his side benefited, so be it.
depends on the class, concept and DM. i will almost never play Lawful Good because a lot of my DMs use that as a straight jacket and tack on this stupid and suicidal concept called honor.
my favorite alignments to play are Lawful Evil, because i like creepy manipulative individuals with complicated legal systems, such as Devils and Fey or Chaotic Evil, because there are certain grotesque and disturbing concepts a lot of my DMs only allow you to explore if you are Chaotic Evil and can get away with it, such as the trophy hunter whom hunted for sport and to prove herself, or the Skinwalker whom consumed the flesh of creatures she found attractive in an attempt to make herself more attractive by gaining access to their form.
i don't go the one dimensional "kill children and eat puppies for the Lulz" kinda evil. i go with the more subtle evils you can actually work alongside with, or characters whom are somehow beyond what the concept of alignment can grasp, such as Fey and Aberrations.
i have had a great many paladins want to smite me when i ask them, "is a human evil for consuming the flesh of cattle to sustain themselves?"
or a great many paladins want to smite me when i tell them; "i want to take down the tyrant too and if we work together and i become Empress, you can be one of my loyal knights. just because i may be a bit suspicious doesn't mean i desire the world to end. i want to improve it just like you do. remove all the irksome crimes of standard human life."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good, even on non-paladins.Same.
Thirding this. I do play characters of other alignments... but not very well.
I try to be bad but it never sticks for long
Oh, man, is this true for me. I suck at being a bad guy; I suck so, terribly much.
Me: "Hi! I'm a chaotic evil murder-mage!"
GM: "Okay, so, you've finally cornered your foe, the one who murdered your parents and drove you to ruin, forcing you to delve into dark bargains, and selling your soul! He is now completely at your mercy, his wounds oozing blood and pus, and your dark magic cursing him terribly! He holds a blade in his hand, and you have him dominated, so he can't fight anything you tell him to do, even suicidal orders..."
Me: "Oh, that poor man! Well, first of all, I have him give me the dagger and put him in manacles. Then, I dress all his wounds, remove all the curses, and force him to write an honest confession of all his illicit crimes. After which, I use excessive diplomacy (not the dominate effect) to convince him of the error of his ways, and to convert to the worship of Sarenrae and to take in orphans and widows and widowers, using his vast wealth to help uplift them."
GM: "Uh... but... his 'vast wealth' won't take care of everyone."
Me: "Oh, that's okay! I'll donate... hm, let's say I'll donate 50% of my treasure. I have all the crafting feats anyway, and that's like free money. So together, after calculating, we have more than enough, especially since I donate my time and money to make all those orphans, widowers, and widows lots of rings of sustenance with constant endure elements and keep watch spells, as well as at-will scholar's touch!"
GM: "... scholar's touch is a 3.5 spell, not found in PF."
Me: "Oh... right! Well, I research the closest variant of it in PF and then put that in."
GM: "... and how do you do all of this in a timely manne-"
Me: "Oh! I get a scroll of create greater demiplane and permanency, and hallow the whole thing to... oh, let's say Erastil. Then I use all the extra time, plus my own at-will scholar's touch, and my special masterwork magical-speed spell-research library that you'll notice I spent money on right... there... to practically instantly research the spell! Then I give it the orphans, widows, and widowers! And I set up a dating and adoption service for the widows and widowers and orphans, respectively - getting those with broken families together for a positive social environment! After which, I work within the system of the local government to initiate a sweeping, orderly social-change that yields a communal outpouring where the individual - while respected - is fully embraced into the whole social environment for the health of each person and the health of all, both in mind, body, and spirit. Also I set it up so that they have every opportunity afforded to them, but are guided along a path by their community so as to achieve maximum fulfillment, both in their talents, but also in their satisfaction."
GM: "I hate you."
Me: "I play great evil characters! (:D)"
My non-LE characters are exclusively good-aligned of one kind or another. Then again, I don't often get the chance to run a PC (only ever had 2 characters that lasted more than a single session).
To put out another question to follow-up:
How often does the alignment of your character change mid-campaign? When it does change, is it typically your choice (you feel this is what you've become) or the GM's (you've done a lot questionable stuff, you're shifting from NG to N)?
See the above for how things play out. Almost. Every. Time. (Unless I'm GM.)
A question for the people that use them, at least a roleplaying tools. In my neck of the woods, alignment doesn't come into play much beyond helping people roleplay and providing some good ol' party friction, so mechanical/spell benefits aren't a deciding factor for me, but for you:
What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?
For me it's gotta be Lawful Evil. I've always been a "planner" and it's a nice release to be able to cut loose and use that part of my self for completely selfish reasons without actually hurting anyone IRL. In other words, let's me be the ruthless, methodical villain I always could be but never would.
Really glad you are enjoying LE. I had a few great characters in my LE days.
Now, got to say as much as I don't like being the maverick all the time, CN.
Trying to balance that out, I am playing LG a bit more, and my LG monk at the moment has been stuck being the voice of reason, enlightenment and calm discipline. I actually wanted him to be a bit brash, but that slot has already been taken by the raging ranger. Ha ha.
One more thing to you specifically, if the stakes are high LG can actually seem a bit LE at times. Especially if you are ruthless towards evil or cause casualties stomping out evil.
A question for the people that use them, at least a roleplaying tools. In my neck of the woods, alignment doesn't come into play much beyond helping people roleplay and providing some good ol' party friction, so mechanical/spell benefits aren't a deciding factor for me, but for you:
What is your most commonly played (or favorite to play) alignment and why?
For me it's gotta be Lawful Evil. I've always been a "planner" and it's a nice release to be able to cut loose and use that part of my self for completely selfish reasons without actually hurting anyone IRL. In other words, let's me be the ruthless, methodical villain I always could be but never would.
Really glad you are enjoying LE. I had a few great characters in my LE days.
Now, got to say as much as I don't like being the maverick all the time, CN.
Trying to balance that out, I am playing LG a bit more, and my LG monk at the moment has been stuck being the voice of reason, enlightenment and calm discipline. I actually wanted him to be a bit brash, but that slot has already been taken by the raging ranger. Ha ha.
One more thing to you specifically, if the stakes are high LG can actually seem a bit LE at times. Especially if you are ruthless towards evil or cause casualties stomping out evil.
Generally though I play LE as "I'm ruthless and methodical when it comes to my goals for me", which I think is specifically evil. Ruthlessly pursuing a goal for what you believe is in the best interest of order is morally ambiguous, and I think can go either way depending on what exactly you do, and what the effects of your goal are.
Burma the PC certainly believes she's inflicting pain on her enemies will help them become enlightened, but at the end of the day she's hurting people and she enjoys doing it, so evil.
By far my most played alignment is Neutral Good, with Lawful Neutral as my back up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good, even on non-paladins.Same.Thirding this. I do play characters of other alignments... but not very well.
I try to be bad but it never sticks for longOh, man, is this true for me. I suck at being a bad guy; I suck so, terribly much.
Me: "Hi! I'm a chaotic evil murder-mage!"
GM: "Okay, so...
This is me every single time I attempt to play an evil character. I'M NOT ALONE ANYMORE!
|
I usually run the gamut of good. I love paladins, I love fighters that are more paladin than some other peoples paladins. . . though most of my casters of usually neutral and my skilled thieving sorts chaotic good...
I have played evil twice. It was hard, but im sad to say I was good at it... like almost too good at being evil. I blame my time in the army for those two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Good for all the reasons BigNorseWolf, Hama, NIghtrider, Eryx_UK and Valantrix1 mentioned.
Chaotic good is so flexible. As long as you stay the course and your dm is fine with you being a maverick, all is well. Smooth sailing.
|
Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. For mostly the same reasons everyone else gives. I dabble in Lawful good on occasion, too...but usually prefer something a little more flexible. So, basically, Good characters. Period.
I basically never play Neutral characters...I mean, Good characters can have goals that are selfish, as long as they aren't dicks about it and try to help people while they're at it. I like helping people...so why be Neutral? I just can't see the appeal.
I've actually only done one Evil character in Pathfinder (though I've dabbled in relatively Evil characters in other systems)...but unlike some other people here, I don't have a problem playing a legitimately Evil character. I've got enough of a dark side that my Evil characters are nasty pieces of work, actually. Makes a good change now and then...but Good characters are still generally more fun.
Well neutral can flip sides if the needs demand, neutral is good for mercenaries, neutrality works for druids or those with a druidic philosophy and neutral ideally presents you from siding with any of the fanatical sides if your game has extremist factions.
So a neutral adventurer wouldn't entirely side with genocidal humans or elven terrorists. The sometimes vicious law or the wild barbarians of the frontier. Neutrality is the alignment of the wanderer and the vagabond (which leans to NE).
For those that prepare to fight the warriors of good, such as your enemies, being neutral can protect you from some spell effects. Also, if you are neutral, detect evil and detect good don't ping for you, bloody fence-sitter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well neutral can flip sides if the needs demand, neutral is good for mercenaries, neutrality works for druids or those with a druidic philosophy and neutral ideally presents you from siding with any of the fanatical sides if your game has extremist factions.
I don't consider 'being a generally nice, helpful, guy to random people' to be extremist behavior. But it's enough to make you Good aligned most times. And the kind of character I enjoy.
So a neutral adventurer wouldn't entirely side with genocidal humans or elven terrorists.
...neither would good ones? Genocide and terrorism aren't generally Good actions.
The sometimes vicious law or the wild barbarians of the frontier. Neutrality is the alignment of the wanderer and the vagabond (which leans to NE).
This is true...I just have no desire to play those characters (okay, I totally play wild barbarians, I just lay relatively nice and thus Good aligned ones).
For those that prepare to fight the warriors of good, such as your enemies, being neutral can protect you from some spell effects. Also, if you are neutral, detect evil and detect good don't ping for you, bloody fence-sitter.
Oh, there are certainly mechanical benefits. Those weren't what I was talking about, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a neutral adventurer wouldn't entirely side with genocidal humans or elven terrorists....neither would good ones? Genocide and terrorism aren't generally Good actions.
(okay, I totally play wild barbarians, I just lay relatively nice and thus Good aligned ones)
I tend to make characters that are neutral some where because they do not fit either extreme. Come to think of it, my chars alignment is often based more on what he isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Good, though I usually play any Good because I see enough Evil behaviour IRL to have my fill of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good, even on non-paladins.Same.
Add another one here.
I don't play non-good alignments - I want to be the good guy / shiny hero. So I have three alignments I play.
Of the last 16 characters I put together, 8 of are LG, 5 are NG, and 3 are CG.
And every single "what is your alignment" test that is out there pegs me as Lawful Good... and I agree that is an accurate description. So it's not really a surprise that I play LG.
My alignment tests peg me at NG with Lawful tendencies.
|
For follow up, I dont change much from my original alignments. I usually have a good idea of what the characetr is going to be like and alignment tends to be easy to follow. That said, I hardly play and am often in the GM chair so changing alignments for whatever reason is not something I have been able to explore much of. As a GM I cant even think of a time I had to change a players alignment. I would if I felt it neccesary, but I never have.
Lawful Good, even on non-paladins.Same.Add another one here.
I don't play non-good alignments - I want to be the good guy / shiny hero. So I have three alignments I play.
Of the last 16 characters I put together, 8 of are LG, 5 are NG, and 3 are CG.
And every single "what is your alignment" test that is out there pegs me as Lawful Good... and I agree that is an accurate description. So it's not really a surprise that I play LG.
I get Lawful Neutral nearly every time.
My characters tend to be idealized versions of what I would like to be, but haven't yet reached/can't reach due to apathy, frustration, or cynicism, which I can typically drop with the rest of IRL baggage when I step into the game world.
Re: follow-up question: Mine don't tend to change, beyond minor shifts. At most, I'll shift one alignment away, then shift back at a later time... sometimes within the same session, or one or two after.
This is me every single time I attempt to play an evil character. I'M NOT ALONE ANYMORE!Lawful Good, even on non-paladins.Same.Thirding this. I do play characters of other alignments... but not very well.
I try to be bad but it never sticks for longOh, man, is this true for me. I suck at being a bad guy; I suck so, terribly much.
Me: "Hi! I'm a chaotic evil murder-mage!"
GM: "Okay, so...
In the past I've more commonly had the opposite problem of players with supposedly Good or Neutral PCs doing decidedly evil things more often than good ones.
Shining example is the supposedly N alchemist who sees a group of kobolds huddled around a fire in a cave and just charges in on his own and attacks them without considering the consequences or knowing anything about kobolds in-character (which are not inherently evil for me). And continues to pursue and throw knives at them when they all flee.
I don't play with this guy anymore for a number of reasons, but these things are one of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the past I've more commonly had the opposite problem of players with supposedly Good or Neutral PCs doing decidedly evil things more often than good ones.
Shining example is the supposedly N alchemist who sees a group of kobolds huddled around a fire in a cave and just charges in on his own and attacks them without considering the consequences or knowing anything about kobolds in-character (which are not inherently evil for me). And continues to pursue and throw knives at them when they all flee.
>:(
I think my most played alignment is Chaotic Good. To me, CG is the perfect game-themed alignment for the wandering hero archetype... Clearly the good is self-explanatory for a "hero". I prefer chaotic as I believe it fits the vagabond style of the wandering hero. I like Lawful Good and Neutral Good as well; however, there are many GM's that don't have the same view of the alignment system as I, and typically we get into disagreements on how LG can be portrayed in a character.
As far as the neutral alignments go... I prefer TN for many of the above stated reasons. I actually really liked the alignment system that D&D 4E presented (one of the few things I actually liked about that edition). I think the 'Unaligned' alignment was an excellent change to the alignment system, but that's not what we are here to discuss.
For evil alignments, I traditionally go the route of NE. I don't play CE characters for the same reason I typically don't play LG characters (see above). For evil characters I find NE fits my character styles the best; underhanded, sneaky, I'll do whatever I want to whomever I want.
I'm also a pragmatist when it comes to the alignment system and prefer GMs who only stick to it as means to an end rather than the defining characteristic of a PC. I understand the need to the alignment system for D20 games, because of the game mechanism, but I personally prefer it to take the furthest seat to the rear of the bus when it comes to the roleplaying.
As a cop, I see good people doing terrible (evil) things all the time. I also see "evil" people doing good things as well. The alignment system has it's place in a game that has rules. And that's all I'm going to say about that.
neutral and neutral good.
My favorite alignment to play is not NE or NG but rather NA ("Not Applicable" -- game doesn't really need them).