Personally I prefer an interpretation of TN that makes it a playable alignment.
Basically yeah this is what I'm saying although he seems to have given up talking to me about that after the whole 'words have meaning' thing.
Most of your arguments boil down to "No, you're wrong, because that's not how I play/how it was written in '88."
Yes, it frequently seems that I'm attacking you on these boards, and that is mostly because you phrase things that are pretty open to debate as "I'm always right/there is no way but my way", and it kinda gets under my skin, I admit. But that doesn't mean my arguments are wrong or false.
Yeah I get the same impression and have the same reaction. You're not attacking him you're disagreeing with him. Its different.
Most of my players have years of experience under multiple GMs. Most of them won't play with GMs anymore that aren't me or one of the other people in my group who has a similar style to mine. My players aren't fans of sandbox. They are fans of narrative stories where they feel epic and where they get to accomplish things.
They like that they can get into almost cinematic situations where their characters have a clear arc that has a beginning, middle, and end. When, usually, character death means something and isn't the result of a bad die roll. One player, who played in one of my Star Wars games still recounts with pride his character's main arc.
My players like that the world is a world that their characters were born into rather than one that they created. It isn't a matter of someone else doing all the work for them, it is a matter of the game feeling less like a game. You don't get to pick the history of the United States when you are born in the real world. You don't get to pick how physics works when you turn 16. The world, when it has a strong framework, feels like a real world.
Anyone can make a great character when they can warp the world to suit their needs. It takes real work, real effort, to make a character that fits into an existing framework and is just as impressive.
See this is the reason people have a problem with the way you put across your opinion.
First you imply you can't have an epic feel in a sandbox. Not true.
Then that their can't be a clear character arc and character death won't mean something unless someone plays your way. Again not true.
Then the ridiculous implication that that games can't have verisimilitude if players have input into the world. Having input is not the same as making up world history, unless every town and every city and every cave and every mine and every castle and every important family on every country of every continent in your world is already written in stone their is room for player input.
If you could somehow find away to put across the strengths of your style of play or campaign setting without simultaneously implying that everyone else's was inferior you'd probably find people would be much less likely to pick apart/disagree your posts.
This one got way off topic.
It did, sorry. It started with HWalsh stating that Paizo shouldn't have changed alignments, and we are all in the wrong for using paizo definitions instead of 2e ones.
Ontopic, I find alignment flawed and more of guidelines rather than straight-jackets. Also in the camp of disruptive players, rather than disruptive alignments, although the ones I've seen tend to be chaotic-idiotic, rather than lawful-stupid. Evil characters I've seen played (even one CE) tended not to be disruptive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Kileanna wasn't even involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, got late to this one.
I still can make all paladins in this thread fall, if you need of my services.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, doing the opposite of what my nature tells me to do, I am getting the thread back to the rails by posting my ranking.
It is based on my experience and on my habitual players.
And, as I am chaotic, I have written it beginning by the less conflictive to the most, even if the title of the thread told me to do it the opposite way.
Lawful good: I never had a single issue with players with this alignment, as all the problematic players I've ever had hate both Lawful and Good characters. All my LG players had a good understanding of this alignment and played it in a non conflictive way.
Neutral Good: Same than with LG. Most of my NG players choose this alignment do it because they want to do the right things and be just good willed and helpful people.
Lawful evil: I don't allow evil characters unless I really trust the player or I am doing an evil campaign, so this alignment is also one of the most safe ones for me. All my LE players are like Count Dooku or Darth Vader. My worst players refused to play lawful for Way of the Wicked and went neutral.
"I can sign this infernal contract and then just do whatever I want, right?" <- real words.
Lawful Neutral: Rated lowest just because I don't have a lot of players who want to roleplay this alignment. Actually, I think I never had a single LN character in a party. Theoretically, I know that my players who like to play LE and LG would do fine being lawkeepers. The potential issue I could have with this alignment are my two players who hate anything Lawful and might pick on a LN character just for having lawful written on the sheet.
Chaotic Good: The real issue with this alignment has come often attached to rogues and bards. Rogues who want to steal to the party and their allies and bards who want to be obnoxious pranksters. Also, a lot of players trying to convince me that stealing without more reason than greed is a good act becaue they aren't causing any harm.
Chaotic Evil: I've seen a lot of characters playing as stupid CE, but in fact any of them had it as their alignment on their character sheet. They were CN, TN or even NG being played as stupid CE. The only two CE that I had in a game were wonderfully played and non disruptive (they were friendly, collaborative and... with peculiar morals) I haven't ranked this alignment higher because I don't usually allow CE because I know too many players would play it wrong. So it falls this low because of potential conflict rather than real one.
Chaotic Neutral: This is where a lot of the best characters on campaigns that I have GMed belong. I have an unaccountable list of wonderful characters done right... But when done wrong it is just awful. I had some issues with players who just wanted to go on their own and do whatever they wanted without caring about the party or the consequences. I don't remember any specific experiences but I have had quite a lot.
Neutral Evil: This has been the alignment for my two evil characters and they fit well, but my experience as a GM with this alignment is that it attracts a lot of players that just want to be mwahahahaha evil and betray other party members.
And the worst of the worst is... True Neutral: Again, one of my favorite characters ever was True Neutral (even though she ended as NG), but I have an awful experience with this alignment. Too many players choose it as a reason to stay unmotivated and not involve into anything. They refuse to have morals, attachment, anything. It is a pain to involve them into the plot because they refuse all the hooks I throw at them. I am not posting any examples because almost everyting I have posted on my "Players do the darndest things" thread posts was done by TN characters. If I started to mention my issues with badly played TN characters I'd never end.
Said that, I think that a well played TN can be a really good character: keepers of balance, people who refuse to go into extremes because they want to remain impartial or people tempted by two opposite alignments but still undecided. Lots of possibilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why even play the game if you're just going to actively avoid plot hooks o.O
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I cannot understand it either, but our infamous Fire Wizard and Coward Dwarf are both like that.
The Coward Dwarf is really afraid of getting involved with anything as he fears it could be used against him. Like making allies and then those allies asking him to do something. He doesn't want that level of commitment. He just wants to be told what to beat and roleplay his characters wanting to troll PCs and NPCs.
The Fire Wizard has always some major driving goal that is unattainable, like becoming a god, being the best wizard ever, etc. He never works towards his goals, he just wants to think that whenever the campaign ends the next that his character does is attaining his goal (which doesn't fit my GMing style because I set newer campaigns tied to the former and he can see that his character is still not a god and will never be xD).
Yeah, they are two weird folks.
Many players mistakenly think that if they dont involve or attach to anything they have more freedom to do whatever they want. Those are the same who later complain because you don't give them personal story archs, when you have given them a lot of personal hooks and they refused to take them.
Not exactly, but here's what the 2nd edition AD&D Player's Handbook has to say:
True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of the people in the world make judgements, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with either the forces of good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention.
True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they're compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might decide to join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful.
Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
I included the emphasis and link on my own.
As a player I find that characters that are strongly CN are the hardest to get along with. They often have little internal motivation to cooperate with the group and usually are played with poor impulse control. The raging Barbarian or the impulsive Rogue are good examples of what to expect from this alignment.
The difficulty is not motivating these characters but convincing them to not to act on their impulses on a moment to moment basis. Planning and getting them to stick with the plan is not easy. Tactically this can include characters attacking confused or otherwise incapacitated targets simply because it is fun or deciding that they should lead Diplomatic discussion (with their negative CHA scores) because they feel that they should have their say.
I am not saying that every CN is pigeon-holed into playing this way but I see it often as a player.
|
AD&D did get some... goofy interpretations of alignments. I primarily blame the influence of Dragonlance, but that's a whole other discussion. I always saw that "switching sides" bit as more of a large scale (like cosmic, or international) phenomenon. The idea that a TN character should be expected to swap sides in a combat seems laughable. I suppose that some people might read it that way, but it would inform me if how much weight to give any other rules interpretation that person gave me.
PossibleCabbage posed the question
If you're sitting down at a game, to GM or play, what alignment piloted by a different player gives you the most trepidation?
If I were playing for the first time with a group of strangers then my ranked list and associated concern would be:
CE - "I'm going to be a total a*sehole, kill and/or rob all the good villagers and ruin the game for everyone"CN - "I'm going to be a total a*sehole, kill and/or rob all the good villagers and ruin the game for everyone, but I can't put evil alignments on my character sheet so I'm CN"
LG (Paladin only) - "I'm going to be a moralistic a*sehole and get into a strop if anyone does anything 'my character' would not approve of.
LE - "I'm going to play a tyrant and hide behind the rules when I generally disrupt the storyline"
NE - "I've actually got a cool character concept and some great escapism ideas, shame it's not really compatible with the rest of the group"
N (rarely)- "I want to play CN(CE) but don't want to alarm anyone"
LG,NG,CG,LN - No trepidation.
When GMing and presented with potentially problematic alignments or characters, then I ask the new player(s) for more details on their character's motivations, boundaries (e.g. won't steal from the party) and reactions to certain events. If the character is incompatible then I ask them to redraft, pointing out the problem areas. Once playing I expect the player to keep playing their character as described. This method usually resolves all issues regarding character conflict.
Sounds like an inflexible GM that can't help but railroad his or her players.
Sounds like an inflexible GM that can't help but railroad his or her players.
I suppose you could call it inflexibility, if you like. Personally, I would rather not GM or play in a game were one character, who is on watch, robs (or worse) another whilst they are sleeping. I like my game table to be harmonious where everyone gets along, cooperates with each other and with me and most importantly has fun. If that is your definition of railroading, then yes I railroad.
Sounds like an inflexible GM that can't help but railroad his or her players.I suppose you could call it inflexibility, if you like. Personally, I would rather not GM or play in a game were one character, who is on watch, robs (or worse) another whilst they are sleeping. I like my game table to be harmonious where everyone gets along, cooperates with each other and with me and most importantly has fun. If that is your definition of railroading, then yes I railroad.
Stealing from other players is one thing but I think destroying a village of NPCs is fine. So as players don't mess with other players everything else is up for grabs in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pvp is annoying and not really alignment specific
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stealing from other players is one thing but I think destroying a village of NPCs is fine. So as players don't mess with other players everything else is up for grabs in my opinion.
In 'most' campaigns, i.e. in the general case, a village is a location where the party can rest, resupply, gain information etc in relative safety and in a more convenient location (i.e. nearer the adventure goal) than the nearest city. Killing everyone denies the party of that base and in most non-anarchic states, such genocide is likely to have severe consequences as the state's rulers, probably the church (if the village has had it's church desecrated/destroyed) as well as any influential guilds are going to expend significant resource on the capture, dead or alive, of the perpetrators.
In one swift move, you have removed the party's safe base and made the adventure significantly more difficult. I am genuinely fascinated to understand the rationale behind the thought processes that lead you to believe that destroying a village of good NPCs just because you are playing an evil character is compatible with playing in a group game where the majority of the group tends towards good and the goal is for the party to defeat the BBEG.
|
As a GM, running a game for people I don't know very well, I'd be most reassured to see NG on the sheet, and least comfortable seeing CN on the sheet. (And wouldn't allow CE at all.)
With my regular gaming friends, who have also GM'd plenty, and for various games that don't have alignments, like GURPS and Vampire, anything goes. They can play LE or NE as cooperatively and effectively as CG or LG. None of us particularly like (or get) the notion of CE, so that hasn't really come up.
But, for the most part, I agree with the notion that a disruptive player is going to be a disruptive player, regardless of alignment. I've seen PVP initiated by stubborn players of LG and LN characters far more than by players of CE or NE characters (granted, most GMs don't allow evil characters, so I've obviously played with or run games for a lot more LG or LN characters!).
And yeah, I remember the old Gygax-era concept of true neutral, where you were supposed to support the balance in all things, and if good was getting too much ahead of evil, you were supposed to switch things up and keep them balanced. Fortunately, if that was ever really the way it was intended, and not a misinterpretation, it's been long since abandoned.
Stealing from other players is one thing but I think destroying a village of NPCs is fine. So as players don't mess with other players everything else is up for grabs in my opinion.In 'most' campaigns, i.e. in the general case, a village is a location where the party can rest, resupply, gain information etc in relative safety and in a more convenient location (i.e. nearer the adventure goal) than the nearest city. Killing everyone denies the party of that base and in most non-anarchic states, such genocide is likely to have severe consequences as the state's rulers, probably the church (if the village has had it's church desecrated/destroyed) as well as any influential guilds are going to expend significant resource on the capture, dead or alive, of the perpetrators.
In one swift move, you have removed the party's safe base and made the adventure significantly more difficult. I am genuinely fascinated to understand the rationale behind the thought processes that lead you to believe that destroying a village of good NPCs just because you are playing an evil character is compatible with playing in a group game where the majority of the group tends towards good and the goal is for the party to defeat the BBEG.
There's always another village to resupply in. In all honestly though, I guess when it comes right down to the fact that for me and players I run with it really doesn't matter if the adventure becomes more nonsensical or difficult so as long as everyone is having fun. Our definition of fun may be quite different from yours.
There's always another village to resupply in. In all honestly though, I guess when it comes right down to the fact that for me and players I run with it really doesn't matter if the adventure becomes more nonsensical or difficult so as long as everyone is having fun. Our definition of fun may be quite different from yours.Stealing from other players is one thing but I think destroying a village of NPCs is fine. So as players don't mess with other players everything else is up for grabs in my opinion.In 'most' campaigns, i.e. in the general case, a village is a location where the party can rest, resupply, gain information etc in relative safety and in a more convenient location (i.e. nearer the adventure goal) than the nearest city. Killing everyone denies the party of that base and in most non-anarchic states, such genocide is likely to have severe consequences as the state's rulers, probably the church (if the village has had it's church desecrated/destroyed) as well as any influential guilds are going to expend significant resource on the capture, dead or alive, of the perpetrators.
In one swift move, you have removed the party's safe base and made the adventure significantly more difficult. I am genuinely fascinated to understand the rationale behind the thought processes that lead you to believe that destroying a village of good NPCs just because you are playing an evil character is compatible with playing in a group game where the majority of the group tends towards good and the goal is for the party to defeat the BBEG.
What if the goal of one of the players was to befriend NPCs in the village and protect them. Is destroying the village messing with that player then?
What if the goal of one of the players was to befriend NPCs in the village and protect them. Is destroying the village messing with that player then?There's always another village to resupply in. In all honestly though, I guess when it comes right down to the fact that for me and players I run with it really doesn't matter if the adventure becomes more nonsensical or difficult so as long as everyone is having fun. Our definition of fun may be quite different from yours.Stealing from other players is one thing but I think destroying a village of NPCs is fine. So as players don't mess with other players everything else is up for grabs in my opinion.In 'most' campaigns, i.e. in the general case, a village is a location where the party can rest, resupply, gain information etc in relative safety and in a more convenient location (i.e. nearer the adventure goal) than the nearest city. Killing everyone denies the party of that base and in most non-anarchic states, such genocide is likely to have severe consequences as the state's rulers, probably the church (if the village has had it's church desecrated/destroyed) as well as any influential guilds are going to expend significant resource on the capture, dead or alive, of the perpetrators.
In one swift move, you have removed the party's safe base and made the adventure significantly more difficult. I am genuinely fascinated to understand the rationale behind the thought processes that lead you to believe that destroying a village of good NPCs just because you are playing an evil character is compatible with playing in a group game where the majority of the group tends towards good and the goal is for the party to defeat the BBEG.
That's where compromise and perhaps even a vote among players would probably occur. Save the village Yay, destroy the village Nay.
I encountered good and bad players in every alignment. I'd probably be somewhat wary of a person I don't know well rolling up NE/CE/CN/LG, but other than that, I don't think any alignment is better or worse than others.
I cannot believe you seriously just said that.What if the goal of one of the players was to befriend NPCs in the village and protect them. Is destroying the village messing with that player then?That's where compromise and perhaps even a vote among players would probably occur. Save the village Yay, destroy the village Nay.
You don't believe in democracy?
I think the idea of a chaotic character holding a vote within the party as to whether to be chaotic or not is a bit odd.
I think the idea of a chaotic character holding a vote within the party as to whether to be chaotic or not is a bit odd.
What's more Chaotic than democracy? ;P
I've been told by several people that I am HORRIBLE at playing really evil characters. Not because I am bad at roleplaying the role per say, but because I am so GOOD at roleplaying the role. The characters are really, seriously evil, and I guess it rubs off on me somewhat. I think it scares my friends a little bit. They say that when I play evil characters, like my witch Hama, I (the player) turn into a real a#**$%+ and megalomaniacal spotlight hog.
Damn shame too. I really loved that character and I will never again be able to play her at our table.
The same is not true when I play more lighthearted "Disney villains" or Neutral/Good characters. My friends describe it as night and day, as if I were two different players.
When it comes to my observations of our group, I guess I'd say the following is true of us:
3) CG, CN, N, NG - Easiest and most common alignments seen at our table.
2) LG, LN, LE, NE - Not typically seen, but sometimes played to an unfortunate extreme when they do appear.
1) CE - Almost never played, and usually causes problems when it does appear.
I feel like the party should come up with a way to resolve conflicts which involve hard boundaries that is mutually beneficial at the "What should we get for dinner?" stage rather than the "should we slaughter the entire village?" stage.
Like "ordering pizza for the entire group" should be a model about how to structure "people with wildly different objectives somehow reach compromise."
You don't believe in democracy?If I was playing a Good character in a group that had one or more members earnestly and legitimately arguing for the group to massacre an innocent village, I'd...
A, kill (or at a minimum imprison) those Evil party members
or
B, leave the party
or
C, leave the party and form a posse to hunt down those Evil party members
Neat! If that works for you and your fellow players don't mind go for it!
Evil campaigns can be a lot of fun, but man do I hate PbP games. It breaks so many of the game's core assumptions and has so much potential for hurt feelings that I don't believe it is really sustainable.
Do you mean PbP or PvP?
This is the order I ban alignments if a player is causing alignment-related problems (have only ever actually banned any alignment for one specific player, though):
- Chaotic Evil, Neural Evil, Chaotic Neural. (The first three to go. Chaos and/or Evil without the restraint of Law and/or Good seem most prone to problems. Not that CG and LE can't cause problems of their own.)
- Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good. (The rest of team Chaos and/or Evil.)
- Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good. (Here we get into the problem of the completely unflexible, uncompromising, overbearing lawfuls.)
- True Neutral. (The unmotivated one, or more rarely: The flippin' insane team-switcher who tries to play TN by rocketing between extremes of good, evil, law, and chaos.)
- Neutral Good. (The hardest one to screw up. I've never had to ban NG, though I've heard of horror-story players who might warrant doing it, and just removing alignment.)
As for what I personally find easiest to play: I follow a pretty simple pattern: LG, LN, LE, NG, TN, NE, CG, CN, CE.
Do you mean PbP or PvP?
Meant to say PvP. The only problem with PbP is that they almost never last long before people drop out.
PossibleCabbage posed the question
If you're sitting down at a game, to GM or play, what alignment piloted by a different player gives you the most trepidation?
If I were playing for the first time with a group of strangers then my ranked list and associated concern would be:
CE - "I'm going to be a total a*sehole, kill and/or rob all the good villagers and ruin the game for everyone"
CN - "I'm going to be a total a*sehole, kill and/or rob all the good villagers and ruin the game for everyone, but I can't put evil alignments on my character sheet so I'm CN"
LG (Paladin only) - "I'm going to be a moralistic a*sehole and get into a strop if anyone does anything 'my character' would not approve of.
LE - "I'm going to play a tyrant and hide behind the rules when I generally disrupt the storyline"
NE - "I've actually got a cool character concept and some great escapism ideas, shame it's not really compatible with the rest of the group"
N (rarely)- "I want to play CN(CE) but don't want to alarm anyone"
LG,NG,CG,LN - No trepidation.When GMing and presented with potentially problematic alignments or characters, then I ask the new player(s) for more details on their character's motivations, boundaries (e.g. won't steal from the party) and reactions to certain events. If the character is incompatible then I ask them to redraft, pointing out the problem areas. Once playing I expect the player to keep playing their character as described. This method usually resolves all issues regarding character conflict.
Mine is pretty similar.
CE and CN are usually big red flags to me, and I agree completely with description.
Generally campaigns my group play are "good" so in general "evil" is not allowed. Although LE usually gets a pass for being able to "play nice" with others.
LG is usually only a problem when a player tries to force everyone to act the way they are, usually it's a paladin when this happens. Of course this is complicated because paladins are compelled to act within a certain confine, so sometimes the party can be suggesting acts which create problems for the paladin and it becomes a tug-of-war. Even if long established gaming groups this can be dangerous.
LE I've rarely seen be a problem. It's usually the alignment of "I want to be evil, but evil isn't normally allowed". In our group it's the alignment of I want to play well with others but be means to NPCs, when no one else is looking.
NE Has sometimes served as a substitute for CE. In generally we don't play evil campaigns so it's typically right out anyways.
I would say the biggest offenders are CE, CN, and NE with an Honorable Mention to Paladins with a#%!@@@ players.
Do you mean PbP or PvP?Meant to say PvP. The only problem with PbP is that they almost never last long before people drop out.
OK, it made more sense that you meant PvP, that's why I asked.
|
|
LG (Paladin only) - "I'm going to be a moralistic a*sehole and get into a strop if anyone does anything 'my character' would not approve of.
Yah, the sort of paladins I play are generally more easygoing and understanding.
I play a character of such a class as teaching by example, not by forcing his way of life on others. Understanding that the path he has chosen and the demands of his moral code are not something many would be able to follow or even wish to.
Where he may voice his agreement on certain methods, even refuse to participate in actions he feels is wrong. Yet instead of trying to force his will, he will seek to offer other ideas and ways of accomplishing party goals and reason with those he travels with.
He will be the one who fights when others grow to weak or wounded to continue, protecting his part members who could get killed in close combat while offering fierce punishment to those unrepentant in their evil.
The paladin would also understand his party may use more deceptive means, and that at least a couple may lie, cheat, or steal. While he may discuss such things with his party, he will again show how things can be done a different away by his example also accept it if the rest of the party agrees on actions he does not.
Or in other words, I wouldn't play the a&@~$&+$ with a stick in the mud or up his rear end and who wont let others have any fun or is always far to serious.
|
|
LG (Paladin only) - "I'm going to be a moralistic a*sehole and get into a strop if anyone does anything 'my character' would not approve of.
Yah, the sort of paladins I play are generally more easygoing and understanding.
I play a character of such a class as teaching by example, not by forcing his way of life on others. Understanding that the path he has chosen and the demands of his moral code are not something many would be able to follow or even wish to.
Where he may voice his disagreement on certain methods, even refuse to participate in actions he feels is wrong. Yet instead of trying to force his will, he will seek to offer other ideas and ways of accomplishing party goals and reason with those he travels with.
He will be the one who fights when others grow to weak or wounded to continue, protecting his part members who could get killed in close combat while offering fierce punishment to those unrepentant in their evil.
The paladin would also understand his party may use more deceptive means, and that at least a couple may lie, cheat, or steal. While he may discuss such things with his party, he will again show how things can be done a different away by his example also accept it if the rest of the party agrees on actions he does not.
Or in other words, I wouldn't play the a+$$&!@& with a stick in the mud or up his rear end and who wont let others have any fun or is always far to serious.
I like that way of working then you can have philosophical chats with the Paladin, like how shaylean is always have debates with Pharasma
PbP?Do you mean PbP or PvP?Meant to say PvP. The only problem with PbP is that they almost never last long before people drop out.
Play by Post. Essentially, roleplaying on the forums or in a forum-like structure.
For example:
I draw my sword and charge the orc chieftain.
"Have at thee foul orcblood!"
I draw my sword and charge the orc chieftain.
"Have at thee foul orcblood!"
[dice=Longsword attack and damage]1d20+5; 1d8+4
LONGSWORD AM MISSING ORC, AM WHIFFING AND SNAGGING IN TREE.
ORC AM TAKING RETURN SWING, BUT ORC AM SHAMAN AND NOT BARBARIAN SO ORC MISS, CURSE GOD FOR HAVING PUNY ARMS.
AM PLAYER TURN.
My general take as a DM on alignments to watch out for:
(1) Chaotic Douchebag -- "I'm in it to have fun MY way regardless of what the rest of you think"
(2) Lawful Rulebashing -- "I will stop the game for 2 hours until you concede my point. Every night." (You can sometimes redeem these people by appointing them your rules interpreter.)
(3) Lawful Stupid -- see every paladin thread ever, after the first 20 messages. Good is not dumb and should not be played that way. (Warning: can sometimes be the result of good roleplaying and enjoyable all around, but everyone else has to be willing to engage too.)