|
I haven't played many characters, since I'm just getting back into playing RPGs, and I was usually the DM for our group back in the day. But when I do play, I'm almost always a good character. And I tend to avoid lawful alignments, because I like being able to lie and cheat my way out of situations, without having to worry about acting honorable. So I'm usually NG, and I'd consider CG, but my current barbarian character in Pathfinder Society is CN, just for something different.
What about the rest of you? Do you usually gravitate towards a particular alignment or vary it wildly depending on the character?
As someone with a strong distaste for the alignment system, I almost always play Neutral. Basically, what is important to the character is important because of personal reasons, loyalties, experiences, etc. Not because of some sense of morality.
I also tend to like more morally ambiguous characters. Elric, Kain (Legacy of Kain), Tyrion and Jaime Lannister. Intelligent, thoughtful, and cynical. They are, I am, and it's hard to play THAT much against type :).
I've had fun playing LN and CN characters though.
My top choices are NG, CG, LN and LE. I find them the most capable of functioning in a group without conflict.
I find CE, CN, LG and some interpretations of NE or true Neutral the hardest to work with in a cooperative game.
Sounds like the way I like playing LN. I'm with my companions out of loyalty and genuine emotional bonds. But they're naive, and someone has to do the dirty work. They don't have to know about it, though. :)
Depends on interpretation of it. But I prefer True Neutral.
Not in the 'everything is balanced' way, but in the regular human working for himself way.
Not evil, and given a black or white option will probably do the good thing, but pretty easily swayed into inaction or twisting the rules for his preferred outcome.
I also enjoy CG an awful lot.
When using alignment I generally gravitate toward the top-right of the alignment grid (NG, CG, N, CN), but like to dabble everywhere every once in a while.
|
Lawful Neutral is my go-to alignment. NG see some use too, but LN is my favorite, as it allows me to be somewhat of a jerk and snarky, but loyal. That being said, I rather fancy a cheerful/affable Lawful Evil too, but I would never be Lawful Good without playing a Paladin. CN can be fun too, but I don't like Neutral very much, as I believe they lack convictions.
Neutral Good, the law doesn't matter when there are lives at stake, but I can't help people if I've gotten myself thrown in jail for acting like an idiot.
Sometimes I like to start with one alignment, and roleplay slowly adopting a different one as the campaign progresses.
For example, I once played an elven wizard who was an academic, setting out into the world to study it objectively (Neutral/Neutral). As he saw more and more destruction caused by supernatural evil (that's what the overarching story of the campaign was about), and cast more good-aligned spells to fight it, his alignment slowly changed to Neutral/Good.
As much as I like to play with every alignment, I'd say that LN, loyal to a cause, is the alignment that make me invested in the character the most and give me proper motivation. That said I enjoy playing with every alignment.
Except for CE, or as I like to call it, the "LOL I just raped a puppy" alignment.
I tend towards either CG or CN chaos beckons me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why Lawful Good is the Best Alignment
I am a stalwart, honorable, champion of light and justice. I do not attempt to force others to my philosophy, but I lead through example. I show everyone that doing the right thing is always the best course of action. I am true to my word, I can be trusted in all things. Sadly, while I understand the reasons behind many who feel that they must break the laws of God and our Liege, there are other ways, other methods. Punishment for transgressions must be firm, but fair, and I shall tolerate no harsh treatment of those in my custody. There are those who must pay the ultimate price for their actions, but I can not and shall not turn to acts of evil in order to punish them.
Master Arminas
I honestly do not roleplay alignment that much and just play my character without doing evil or jerk things. What I put in aliagnment as a placeholder is chaotic good or neutral good or neutral.
It's hard for me to play chaotic. Actively difficult.
Personally I consider the law-chaos axis to be stronger and more relevant than the good-evil axis. Yes, yes, no one else thinks so, it's an opinion. But it's easier for me to play good than it is for me to play chaotic.
I tend to play LE, LN, or NE. N, LG, or NG when I want to stretch myself.
I can't even imagine what CG is like. What it does.
It's hard for me to play chaotic. Actively difficult.
Personally I consider the law-chaos axis to be stronger and more relevant than the good-evil axis. Yes, yes, no one else thinks so, it's an opinion. But it's easier for me to play good than it is for me to play chaotic.
I tend to play LE, LN, or NE. N, LG, or NG when I want to stretch myself.
I can't even imagine what CG is like. What it does.
Think Robin Hood, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Captain Kirk, Conan the Barbarian, Dr. Cox (Scrubs), Malcolm Reynolds (serenity), Dr. McNinja, the movie version of Iron Man, most of the cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender, and lots of other characters.
Chaotic good is rambunctious, they flaunt the law, but they are helpful to people.
I tend to lean towards Lawful Good, specifically in the vein of "High Ideals and the iron-willed discipline to stick to them in the face of any hardship" rather than the "Proselytizing, intolerant" interpretation.
I have played LN, NG, and CG at varying points in the past.
|
|
It's hard for me to play chaotic. Actively difficult.
Personally I consider the law-chaos axis to be stronger and more relevant than the good-evil axis. Yes, yes, no one else thinks so, it's an opinion. But it's easier for me to play good than it is for me to play chaotic.
I tend to play LE, LN, or NE. N, LG, or NG when I want to stretch myself.
I can't even imagine what CG is like. What it does.
Think Robin Hood, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Captain Kirk, Conan the Barbarian, Dr. Cox (Scrubs), Malcolm Reynolds (serenity), Dr. McNinja, the movie version of Iron Man, most of the cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender, and lots of other characters.
Chaotic good is rambunctious, they flaunt the law, but they are helpful to people.
Mostly good examples, though I'm not sure I agree about all of them.
Indiana Jones might not be a "by the book" guy, but he's not quite as rebellious as most of the others you named. I'd call him NG, though maybe bordering on CG.
As for Kirk, the guy who cheated on the Kobiashi Maru (sp?) test in Starfleet Academy was definitely chaotic. But by the time he became a captain, he was pretty good about obeying the rules, even occasionally obeying orders he disagreed with (ie having the Klingons over for dinner in the 6th movie to try and be diplomatic, despite hating their guts). I'd say he changed over time, going from CG to NG during the course of his career.
Another example of CG, who is also an example of a character who changed alignment over time, would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer. At the start of the pilot episode of the TV show, she just wanted to stay out of trouble and obey school rules, not caring about the fight between good and evil, ie trying and failing to be Lawful Neutral. By the end of that episode, she was breaking rules to go save someone's life, but she continued to try (often unsuccessfully) to obey the rules and stay out of trouble for the first couple of years, so I'd say she was Neutral Good during that time period. But in later seasons, she openly rebelled against authority, even if they were theoretically the good guys (the Watcher's Council, the Initiative), while still placing top priority on saving lives and fighting evil, which would be clearly Chaotic Good.
Interestingly, I'd say the character of Faith on the same show went the opposite direction in her alignment changes (chaotic to lawful... we won't mention the G/E aspect on that one).
I always played CG characters until recently, when I experimented with a Lawful Evil alchemist.
It's so much MORE fun that I'm pretty sure I'm meant to play low-Charisma, evilish characters, and may stick with them for a while. I think it's from wanting to cut loose after having to be good and play by the rules in everyday life.
All alignments except neutral evil and chaotic evil when in a party.
I have had gun with GM'ing evil characters that were played well, but if I don't have good RP'ers I prefer them to not be evil. I have never had a chance to be evil, but one day I will try it.
I generally prefer to play Chaotic alignments because they fit my play style well. Many of my characters often step out of line the moment it helps their goals, whether for good or evil. I do enjoy playing hardcore good and lawful characters occasionally, and I think I make a pretty memorable paladin.
I just wish their was an easy way to justify playing a Chaotic Evil character in a group, but you need such serious backstory setup to keep your character for cutting and running with whatever he can grab first chance he gets.
|
Personally I consider the law-chaos axis to be stronger and more relevant than the good-evil axis. Yes, yes, no one else thinks so, it's an opinion. But it's easier for me to play good than it is for me to play chaotic.
I'd love to see more exploration of the law/chaos dynamic, with more lawful and chaotic outsider types (with traits focused on their specific natures), and chaotic/lawful planetouched, etc.
As the Golarion setting doesn't have an active 'Blood War,' it would be way cool if the big planar to-do was an active war between lawful and chaotic outsiders, with angels and archons occassionally fighting side by side with inevitables, axiomites, formians and *devils,* against swarms of proteans (and the occasional horrific attacks by qlippoth), the one side attempting to 'free creation' from the rigid calcifying stasis of laws and planar boundaries and whatever, and the other side attempting to keep the planar multiverse from dissolving back into the primal chaos of the maelstrom and abyss.
I typically set myself up as N... Not for any particular belief in balance in all things, but simply because my courses of action fall into whatever my mood is at the time. Normally you would think this falls under chaotic neutral (the rest of the players in my group do), but I tend to balance out the chaotic with the lawful (something my DM thanks me for in a party full of CN). I remember one time I confused the hell out of everybody. Went about something in a CE way for a LG reason... I have officially been dubbed "that damn elf" by the party.
In the mean time. I have also dabbled in CG, CN (that later changed to N cause I wasn't chaotic enough by the standards set forth by the party). I have managed to play NE one time, and that game is still going on (A modern super hero game with pathfinder rules, I happen to be the only villain among a mostly hero party, we have a few freelancers between the two (think venture bothers) organizations).
I still have yet to see anybody successfully pull of a pure CE alignment that isn't some ax-crazy psychopath. It's really, really sad.
That reminds me. Is there a True Neutral extraplanar race? Like devils are to LE and Proteans to CN?
|
|
Is there a True Neutral extraplanar race?
Aeons are the first TN extraplanar race. They're in Bestiary 2.
Psychopomps have been added more recently in the last two volumes of Carrion Crown.------
I typically play Lawful characters and generally gravitate towards those alignments, but have enjoyed playing PCs all around the alignment spectrum.
My current characters are a CN inquisitor, who i'll admit was given that alignment just so I can worship Groetus and get the madness domain, and I have a LN fighter who pretty much looks at life the same way I do, ie, there are laws and they must be followed to the letter.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have a tendency for my characters to be either N or LN. I mostly play PFS, so evil characters aren't allowed. I generally don't go with a "good" alignment because I don't want to argue about why it's completely appropriate for a good-aligned character to lift an NPC off the ground by his throat and tell him to stop playing with things that end up summoning demons into the middle of Absalom.
I generally don't go with a chaotic alignment because I haven't quite gotten how to play it right - most examples I see are more like "I'm chaotic so I can say no if I want to", so I don't have much to go on.
So that leaves me with N and LN.
I like chaotic Neutral.
Now, I want to point out that sometimes people misplay it as "LOOK AT ME IM SO RANDOM WOOOO IM CHAOTIC NO ONE KNOWS THAT IM GONNA DO ENXT!"
No.
Chaotic Neutral is out to get his fame/money/whatever in the world, at any reasonable cost.
My chaotic neutral pyromaniac rogue will whine when the lawful good paladin buries a shield +1 with the remains of its owner; or bring it up later when splitting loot. He will find a corpse and look at the party and say "can I cremate it?". He will not go out of his way to do something stupid and get the party killed.
He will cowardly flee if he has to, because of a feeling of self preservation.
He will not actively look for reasons to betray the party and will stick around and be loyal after a while because they're his friends/companions
Alignment is annoying. So I play Neutral whenever possible. Or Chaotic Good otherwise- because it's "good" in a "I do good in the way I like to do good without following orders or authority". Neutral is easiest. I think Alignment is kind of corny and for children- sorry. When reading a novel, you don't hear a novelist refer to a character's alignment- why should our character's be held to lesser standards? So I ignore it whenever possible as a player and as a GM save for game mechanics purposes- this spell is "evil". I like absolute evil and good for angels and demons and so forth, but mortals should not be bound to such standards/categories. The alignment debates on the boards are ridiculous. As if good and evil can be defined, much less law and chaos.
We don't specifically refer to alignment in our game, unless we generally make reference to Evil or something. But I like the alignment system. No, you don't go around introducing yourself as, "Hi, I'm Bob. I'm a Lawful Neutral 5th level Cavalier with the cleave feat." You just play the character and the other stuff is behind the scenes. Alignment is on the sheet as a general example of what you think your character's world view might be like. No one in my group feels particularly constrained by alignment, and no one puts down "Neutral" just as a pouty protest. Sure, many people in the real world might be neutral, because all they care about is themselves and their friends, but they aren't willing to break the law or overtly commit Evil acts. But some people--right here in River City--are Evil, some are Good, some are Lawful and some are Chaotic. Few people may fall neatly into any one particular alignment, but I think a lot of people generally act in a way that is consistent with one or another.
When I was in the Army, I knew a lot of people who seemed very much Lawful Neutral. They *really* valued the rules, damn the consequences. They were honorable and brave but they never said, "Hmm...this is the rule, but is it *fair*?" Which is a fine attitude for a soldier. It is a soldier's duty, in fact, to obey all lawful orders of his or her superiors. IMHO, it is those up the chain of command who should be responsible for deciding whether any particular endeavor is moral.
I think too many people confuse Ethics with Morality. I am a lawyer, and I know plenty of lawyers who really value being "Ethical" in the sense that they follow our code of Ethics precisely, but they believe that relieves them from also considering what is Moral--what is right or wrong, beyond what may be *allowed* by law. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. Consider the Southern U.S. during the 1800's. Frickin' *slavery* was legal--but it was *never* moral. (I'll argue that point with anyone who disagrees). Consider the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and 70's. They were fighting against the current law because they knew the law was immoral, and that only by challenging the law could the greater good be served. Nazi's in WWII followed the laws of their time, but they were Evil with a capital "E." (Lawful Evil).
I wasn't alive then, but I suspect the 60's was also a time with plenty of examples of people who broke the law and railed against the law with no good reason. (Chaotic Neutral). And there have always been those who have broken the law for selfish or nefarious reasons (Chaotic Evil).
I think Malcolm Reynold is the archetypal Chaotic Good character. Which was an easy role for him, given the nature of "The Alliance." He broke the law, not just occasionally, but as a way of life. But he always did what his moral compass told him was right. He was clearly motivated by Good and by always trying to do Good, which was often illegal, or required him to lie or to break his word. Consider, "The Train Job."
I think one would only characterize Alignment as "for children," if one does not personally value either ethics or morality in real life--or if one believes dwelling on such things is for children. Alternatively, maybe those who do not like it do not like fantasy games that deal with the eternal struggle of Good versus Evil, or Law versus Chaos. Personally, I would *not* enjoy a game that did not give me a chance to play the Hero, to try to be not just an example to others in the game world, but also one who fights for Good for its own sake. These are the things that make for Epic struggles. Otherwise, there is little difference between fantasy and real life--with real life mostly involving people who develop conflicts over less lofty disagreements--usually resources or the desire to gain resources--like animals fighting over a kill. I deal with shades of gray for a living, and that sort of grayed, washed out world with nothing to motivate my character beyond personal gain seems uninspired, unimaginative and unmotivating. That's not what I seek in my Fantasy games, though I do not judge those who do enjoy such things.
In my ideal Fantasy game, my friends and I get to take on the roles of Big Damn Heroes, who rise up where others fear to speak and boldly challenge powerful and wicked villains--not because we want to raid their treasuries, but because we genuinely want to end their reign of Evil. (If we happen to get rich along the way--which we normally do--so much the better). That's my ideal Fantasy game. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is what keeps bringing me and my friends back to the gaming table time and time again.
We're currently playing the Adventure Trilogy that starts with Crypt of the Everflame and we've just started the second adventure. We're at the part where
Crypt of the Everflame was great fun, because I love a good dungeon crawl (and already had the Flip-Mat), and my character is good at things like Perception and Disable Device. But last session really got my character (who is Chaotic Good) motivated--both as someone who values Freedom from oppression, and as someone who values Good and opposes Evil. Interestingly, both my character--a CG Elf Scout--and a Paladin of Abadar (with whom I don't always see eye to eye--especially since my character follows Ketephys) are both in total agreement about our ultimate goals here.
Some people wrongly see Chaotic Good as "good, but less so." They are mistaken. Chaotic Good is no less "Good" than Lawful Good, it just differs in how the two value Ethics. A Chaotic Good character strives to do Good deeds and to be a Good person and to oppose Evil--but he follows his own moral compass, and not necessarily that of society generally.
Chaotic Good is Chaotic *Great*!
I still have yet to see anybody successfully pull of a pure CE alignment that isn't some ax-crazy psychopath. It's really, really sad.
The problem with Chaotic Evil isn't in the alignment itself, which has a lot of permutations to it (as evidenced by some of the demons) but in the 'general writeup.'
Chaotic Evil is strongly implied to be so unworkable as to destroy every relationship they get into, when that isn't really the case.
The thing to remember about chaotic evil is pretty simple really. The character is Chaotic, meaning it likely has a very strong independent streak among a few other simple chaotic traits, and the character is Evil, which tends to get overblown by most parties in a black and white setting to be as opposed to a more down to earth level of the alignment.
That and Chaotic Evil is horrendously subversive and tenacious in its destructive capacities. I've always thought that the most insidious part of the Worldwound wars is that the crusaders there are having to deal with the soul-crushing emotional fallout of daily having to deal with absolutely relentless, unceasing, glorified destruction. The damage the demons do to the bodies of the Crusaders is nothing, compared to how they're slowly wearing down their fighting spirit.
|
|
I tend to play NG with forays into CG and LG. I generally like playing the nice guy who wants to do the right thing.
Of course that can change based on background. For example I play a NG Inquisitor of Pharasma in PFS. He's not your archetypal Inquisitor. He's friendly, optimistic and is the son of two loving Pharasma worshippers (an Elven midwife and a Human undertaker). He's kind and pleasant.
However when confronted by Undead he becomes a hardened killer dropping into N territory if necessary. He sees the destruction of undead as his primary calling and won't let anyone stand in his way.
So yeah allignment as required IMHO.
NG or LG for me, with more stress on the G than the L in the latter case.
Personally I consider the law-chaos axis to be stronger and more relevant than the good-evil axis.I'd love to see more exploration of the law/chaos dynamic, with more lawful and chaotic outsider types (with traits focused on their specific natures), and chaotic/lawful planetouched, etc.
Personally, I find the RaW Law vs. Chaos axis more ambiguous than the Good vs. Evil axis. Most alignment arguments (read "fights") I had were about the definition of Chaos and how it differs from Evil (often about "chaos = selfish" and "no, selfish is Evil").
Therefore I cam up with my own set of definitions...
'findel
|
|
I serve the Pathfinder Society from the Grand Lodge in Absalom.
I trained hard to be certified as a Pathfinder. I learned the regulations, I paid attention in training classes, I applied myself consistently to regimented physical training routines. I followed the instructions presented to me, because I knew they were time-tested training methods and that adhering to those regimens would bear fruit in the form of superior skill, power, and general aptitude.
I follow orders in the field, as well. When the Decemvirate needs a job done, they can count on me to do it. I don't have to know every piddly detail of their reasoning process that led them to give me my assignment. I'm willing to believe that they know what they're doing and I have no qualms with getting my hands dirty to further the Society's aims.
This is not to say that I blind myself to evil. If my missions began to take a dark turn, I would question things. But I wouldn't fly off the handle and jump to conclusions - I would investigate. If I determined that they had indeed fallen into truly depraved engagements, then the Society would no longer have my service. However, it will take more than a whim of displeasure to dissuade me from my objectives.
Personally, I find the RaW Law vs. Chaos axis more ambiguous than the Good vs. Evil axis. Most alignment arguments (read "fights") I had were about the definition of Chaos and how it differs from Evil (often about "chaos = selfish" and "no, selfish is Evil").Therefore I cam up with my own set of definitions...
'findel
No need to come up with your own definitions--they have been fairly defined for decades: The Law/Chaos axis is Ethics. The Good/Evil axis is Morality. If your players don't know the difference, hand them a dictionary--or send them a link to wikipedia, or whatever you kids do these days. (Now, get out of my yard!)
ETA: So, you can be Moral without being Ethical, you can be Ethical without being Moral, you can be Both or you can be Neither, or any combination or location between the two axes. (Axies? That can't be right).
|
|
Anything really, currently I'm running a N Drow Druid. She's N in so much as she really doesn't give a hoot about anyone but herself and her pet dinosaur... and maybe the half orc in the adventuring party.
But I'm fond of shaking things up, I'm thinking of playing NE next run. I liked how TV tropes called it the "A~*$*!% alignment."
Therefore I cam up with my own set of definitions...
'findel
... It's like you ripped the words right outta my mouth. Excellent read and definitely bookmarking it. Definitely need to print it out and take it to my next game session, since my group tends to play most alignments with additional flavorings of stupid (in the vein of Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Stupid[neutral], etc).
Edit: For those that like to play Lawful Good and Paladins, or those that believe in all those old fashioned preconcieved notions that a Paladin is Lawful Stupid.... I redirect all of you here and here
The Law/Chaos axis is Ethics. The Good/Evil axis is Morality. If your players don't know the difference, hand them a dictionary--or send them a link to wikipedia
From Wikipedia:
"Ethics (...) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality"
I know what you mean, but adding the dictionary to our discussion only heated the arguments...
'findel
The Law/Chaos axis is Ethics. The Good/Evil axis is Morality. If your players don't know the difference, hand them a dictionary--or send them a link to wikipediaFrom Wikipedia:
"Ethics (...) is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality"
I know what you mean, but adding the dictionary to our discussion only heated the arguments...
'findel
Precisely. They're both essentially the same thing.
I look at Law vs. Chaos on 2 levels. Personal and social. You can be personally a very lawful person, i.e. disciplined and loyal, without following the law of the land. The actual law being the other way to interpret the dichotomy, law and chaos meaning adhering to an abstract set of ideals (i.e. laws) absolutely on one end and rejecting them or at least not concerning yourself with them on the other end of the spectrum.
Good vs. Evil similarly has 2 distinct levels. There's personal good and supernatural good. Personal good is being altruistic and generally concerned for the good of others over your own safety. Supernatural good vs. evil is sort of arbitrary, just different colored jerseys. If you're fighting goblins because they're evil and you're good it doesn't really mean much.
I've raised being the Token Evil Teammate (warning: TV Tropes) to an art form, basically through preferring to play characters closer to my own mindset. I am all about the Lawful Evil. I'm not on the heroes' side because I am Good, but because they're my friends, and may all the gods help you if you're not.
Neutral Good, the law doesn't matter when there are lives at stake, but I can't help people if I've gotten myself thrown in jail for acting like an idiot.
Exactly. Succinctly put.
My favorite alignments are pretty polarized. I generally favor either characters with a deep respect for the diversity of life that gravitate towards NG or CG, or ambitious schemers and visionaries that lean towards LN or LE.