Hardest Alignment to Play

[carrdrivesyou]

Another player at my table and I were going over some of the characters we have played and we found out that we both seem to prefer certain alignments over others. Personally, I tend towards Lawful characters overall. Its not that I haven't played neutral or chaotic ones, I just normally go for the law abiding adventurer. My friend stated that lawful alignments are more difficult to RP than others. Which got me thinking as to why he would say that. Not that I particularly disagree.

So my question is this: Are the different alignments more difficult to play because of who we are as people, or are certain alignments just more difficult to play in general? Let me know your thoughts Playgrounders!

[Unoriginal]

We don't play alignments, we play characters. Alignment is a description of a part of personality, like "Flaw: think people always try to shortchange you during deals" or "Bond: my ancestral household".

Some people will have more troubles playing some characters because it doesn't "click", while most will just avoid playing characters they aren't "feeling", so to speak.

[Naanomi]

I personally have a hardest time with characters I’d classify as chaotic evil... I tend to good alignments in general, and can/have done dogmatic Lawful Evil and self-serving Neutral Evil in the past... but the sort of cruel/disruptive/impulsive evil of Chaotic doesn’t seem to come naturally to me

[Laserlight]

I have a hard time seeing LN as compatible with being strongly motivated enough to make an interesting character. Although Ashok Vadal from Son of the Black Sword is as Lawful Neutral as you could possibly ask for, so it certainly can be done.

[RedMage125]

I personally have a hardest time with characters I’d classify as chaotic evil... I tend to good alignments in general, and can/have done dogmatic Lawful Evil and self-serving Neutral Evil in the past... but the sort of cruel/disruptive/impulsive evil of Chaotic doesn’t seem to come naturally to me

I agree with what Unoriginal said, but I think the question the OP was posing was "what kind of character, as described and summed up by alignment, would be the most difficult to play?"

And in that, I'm with Naanomi. I don't find LN hard to play. Largely because if I lived in a world with D&D alignment, I would likely be LN myself. I've played LE and NE on occasion. I've even done CN very well. But CE, followed by CG, are the most difficult for me. CG simply because my character would end up, to me, feeling more like CN or NG, as those are things I understand better.

[carrdrivesyou]

I definitely feel what Unoriginal is saying about playing a character as opposed to an alignment. But that being said, alignment is definitely part of the character. Call me a bit old school, but I remember when alignments had their own languages.

I am really just curious about why we choose the alignments we do. I currently have a LN wizard who is a sort of magic detective. He doesn't much care about law causing misery or some sort of euphoria. Just as long as things are orderly and structured.

The character before that was a Light Cleric that was involved in a war with the Drow. Just seems to be a pattern.

So what alignments do you tend to and why?

[Speely]

True Neutral and Chaotic Evil. Any of the others I can understand on a human level even if I don't relate to them personally.

True Neutral is tricky and I can't imagine playing one without becoming a boring blank slate. I am sure others can just fine, but I would never even try.

Chaotic Evil is just too unhinged and dark. I guess I could play a Joker analogue, but I can't imagine a party I would have fun in doing that.

Edit: I tend to play LN, NG, CN, and CG. Love the sorts of personality traits they suggest for various character types.

[JakOfAllTirades]

As much as CG appeals to me, my attempts at playing it always turn out closer to NG. So apparently CG is really difficult for me. I've played LG and LN without much difficulty. CN is something I haven't even tried for many years; I'd really like to see it done right, rather than used as cover for "I want to be a jerk for 4 hours." I'm not sure if I could do it, tho. It might be even harder than CG.

[terodil]

Judging from my past experiences, in RPGs I tend to gravitate towards chaotic evil with strong tendencies to true neutral. I see the alignment as the overall average of properties/behaviour, and my characters often show behaviour that is outside of the drawer I chose on the character sheet. E.g., whatever the alignment, my characters almost always value friendship and loyalty with their family or closest friends, even though they might feel no compunction about kicking a kennel's worth of fluffy puppies. In-group vs. out-group tends to be a leitmotif with them, and that muddies the waters considerably. It incidentally also makes this alignment much easier to roleplay in the context of a party.

True neutral can be fun to play if you consider that alignment as somewhat of an extremist guardian of cosmic balance, which is anything but apathetic.

I personally find lawful good to be the most difficult alignment to play. I honestly couldn't play a by-the-book-Jedi Knight or the classic golden paladin. It evokes all sorts of feelings in me that I don't appreciate, boredom, revulsion, etc., so I don't.

[Arcangel4774]

For me true neutral is hardest. Followed by chaotic neutral.

With true neutral the only way i could imagune playing it is somebody devoid of emotion but even then it doesnt feel quite right.

Chaotic neutral, i find hard to make as chaotic evil and chaotic good overflow into it too much. I guess its because i use evil as purely self serving, and if your chaotic tendencies dont stem from trying to change the world for the better i see it as doing it for yourself.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I've started doing to better gauge the "Alignment Wheel" is by determining how that person thinks of the common person or the common law.



If the average person is worth investing in and sacrificing for, you're Good.

If the average person is a resource that's only worth to benefit you, you're Evil.

If you don't care much about the average person, you're Neutral.


If you encourage more law to further the world in your vision, you're Lawful.

If the standard law hinders the world and your goals, you're Chaotic.

If the standard law is obeyed just to avoid conflict, you're Neutral.



The thing is, a lot of real people think the common person is crap.

Many of us are more cautious when driving near police. Why? Because we care more about getting in trouble for a crime we didn't commit than making sure the law is upheld. If people knew they obeyed the law, they wouldn't drive slowly around cops.

Most of the people you've ever met are True Neutral. Most of us don't have a "cause". Most of us don't donate to charity, or fight for the weak. Most of us just do our jobs and try to live life happily. There's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong or complicated about an adventurer thinking the same thing.

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

As to the heart of the question, probably Lawful Good.

Unlike the other alignments, sometimes Good and Lawful can't mix, and it forces you to make an active choice. Lawful Evil makes life a puzzle, seeking the best way to drain the value out of every possible resource around you. Chaotic Good is just simply taking something from those who don't need it, and giving it to those who do. But Lawful Good sometimes means you have to sometimes turn in someone you like and watch them hang. Or you have to break the law and all of your morals. I don't really see any other alignment having so great of a conflict that Lawful Good does.

[Misterwhisper]

When it comes to alignments I think of them like this:

LG: You are the shining light of virtue and goodness, think old school boy scout Superman.

Not hard to play, do the right thing and help others when you can and generally be a good person.

NG: Similar but you do great things to help out the world around you regardless of what the laws say.

Pretty easy to play but tends to drift a little lawful or chaotic time to time.

CG: You do the right thing in general and will stand against the law to do it.

Think Robin Hood, not too hard.

LN: The law is the law.

Pretty easy, you follow your own code, or the law and it is the right way in your mind.

N: This one can have a lot of interpretations I think of it as Passive and Active
-Passive Neutral is more that you do not really think about good, evil, law or chaos, you just do what you think is good at the time and go with it.
-Active, you try to create balance, to even out the other 4 alignments.

CN: You just do whatever you want, whenever you want and don't care what happens.
This is BY FAR the most common alignment in my play group, other than me, it is the "I don't have to have a reason, I am CN" alignment. In my opinion the most disruptive of alignments.

LE: You follow your code or law, and will punish those who don't and you follow it to the letter and will bend it as needed.

Think Dr. Doom, the law is the law and to go against it is death, or a lawyer you will bend and twist the law as you need without breaking it.

NE: You are just evil to the core.

You do evil, because you enjoy making others suffer, you are the worst kind of evil. This does not work in the group most of the time.

CE: You are evil without reason and without remorse.

This almost never works in a group, because you enjoy being evil and you are very chaotic.

[Resileaf]

Good alignments are generally not hard to play... Unless your GM takes pleasure in playing storylines with no good solutions to problems. If you tend to gravitate towards good actions in all cases but you encounter a situation where nothing good seems to be able to come out of and you don't have enough information to do anything but a guess, that can certainly put you in a situation where alignement just doesn't give you an answer.

[xroads]

For me, evil alignments tend to me the hardest to role-play. I usually end up playing a comically evil character on the few occasions I choose this alignment. Think Dr. Evil.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm pretty surprised that chaotic evil is often listed as a difficult alignment, through I wonder if it comes with the caveat that it is hard to roleplay at many tables or hard for DMs to really get some plot hooks going. Then again, I also wonder if most would classify a character that does what they want when they want as neutral evil.

I should probably be worried that for me, Lawful Good is really hard. Trying to balance both law and good while trying to maintain a character is actually kinda difficult for me and I fear I often dip into 'Neutral Good with some Lawful Imagery' territory a bit.

[Resileaf]

I'm pretty surprised that chaotic evil is often listed as a difficult alignment, through I wonder if it comes with the caveat that it is hard to roleplay at many tables or hard for DMs to really get some plot hooks going. Then again, I also wonder if most would classify a character that does what they want when they want as neutral evil.

I should probably be worried that for me, Lawful Good is really hard. Trying to balance both law and good while trying to maintain a character is actually kinda difficult for me and I fear I often dip into 'Neutral Good with some Lawful Imagery' territory a bit.

Chaotic evil is hard to roleplay because it implies a lack of cooperative element that is vital to a group. If a character wants to do whatever it wants, the group is at risk of falling apart due to lack of cooperation and teamwork towards a common goal.

[carrdrivesyou]

I once watched a YouTube video by Bacon Battalion RPG that handled evil PCs. It listed them sort of like this:

Lawful Evil is your typical Hitler-esque types that want things done their way on a large, orderly scale. They have a strong sense of what they are doing and do not see themselves as villains. They believe that they are the good in the world and have strong beliefs.

Chaotic Evil is just wild, uncontrolled chaos. This is more about following your own code and doing what you believe in; think more on a quest for revenge and will do whatever it takes to get it, even if they have to do some good to achieve their evil intents. They realize what they are doing and may feel one way or another about it, but the ends justify the means.

Neutral Evil is the most evil. They are evil for the sake of being evil. They know they are evil. They know they are hurting people. They enjoy it. This is more your psychopaths and other crazies.

At least that's what I took away from the video. They've got some other interesting vids regarding alignments and how to play them.

[Honest Tiefling]

Chaotic evil is hard to roleplay because it implies a lack of cooperative element that is vital to a group. If a character wants to do whatever it wants, the group is at risk of falling apart due to lack of cooperation and teamwork towards a common goal.

It doesn't have to, especially if the chaotic evil character has decided that saving the party is a part of their goals. I mean, what's the point of carving a mountain into the image of a god to confuse local religions if you don't have someone to tell about it! Granted, I feel like this is a point lost on many people who roleplay evil, but let us not forget Belkar, the Sexy Shoeless God of War and his character arc.

[Trampaige]

A tidbit about TN, which several people have said they feel is the hardest or one of the hardest...

Second edition has the famously terrible quote about druids backstabbing people ...

True Neutral: 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 people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either 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 are 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 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.]

3rd edition suggests TN could be either someone who isn't heavily committed either way, rather than a scion of balance. Though, it still offers believing in balance as a philosophy.

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil — after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion]

5th just says says "Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to
steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most
druids, and many humans are neutral."

2nd edition was wildly known for having terrible alignment depictions (Chaotic neutral as insanity, the druid example), 3rd reigns it in and gives two perspectives, and 5th simply says trying to sidestep morality or having to actually commit to something. I remember one description (I thought it was official, but I can't find it) that most farmers are TN, same way 5e says a lot of humans are TN.

I think that a lot more people in the world are TN than people realize. I mean, the average person just trying to get by in society, who focuses only on their family and friends and "doesn't pay attention to politics" or other similar statements is pretty much TN. For an adventurer, it would basically be keeping your head down, taking care of your own, doing what is necessary, but not going out of your way with altruism or malicious acts.

[carrdrivesyou]

It doesn't have to, especially if the chaotic evil character has decided that saving the party is a part of their goals. I mean, what's the point of carving a mountain into the image of a god to confuse local religions if you don't have someone to tell about it! Granted, I feel like this is a point lost on many people who roleplay evil, but let us not forget Belkar, the Sexy Shoeless God of War and his character arc.

Hehe, I remember that! And yes! Evil people need friends too! Whats the point, otherwise?

[Nifft]

Another player at my table and I were going over some of the characters we have played and we found out that we both seem to prefer certain alignments over others. Personally, I tend towards Lawful characters overall. Its not that I haven't played neutral or chaotic ones, I just normally go for the law abiding adventurer. My friend stated that lawful alignments are more difficult to RP than others. Which got me thinking as to why he would say that. Not that I particularly disagree.

So my question is this: Are the different alignments more difficult to play because of who we are as people, or are certain alignments just more difficult to play in general? Let me know your thoughts Playgrounders!

The most difficult alignment is the one with the definition that is least agreed upon by your group.


Alignments are very nebulous and flexible. You can use them as broad-strokes factions, or as implausible cartoon personality-veneer.

Since they're subject to so much interpretation, the most difficult one to play will be the one where your interpretation doesn't agree with the rest of your table -- and if the others don't even agree among themselves, then you can add the task of pleasing mutually contradictory visions on top of your already impossible job.

[Honest Tiefling]

Since they're subject to so much interpretation, the most difficult one to play will be the one where your interpretation doesn't agree with the rest of your table -- and if the others don't even agree among themselves, then you can add the task of pleasing mutually contradictory visions on top of your already impossible job.

Nifft is probably right, but this answer doesn't lead to funny quips so I choose to acknowledge it's accuracy but complain about Lawful Good anyway.

Then again, we could ask which alignment is the hardest to agree on. I would say that True Neutral, being the haven of min-maxers, animals, people with weird ideas of 'Balance' and those without strong feelings is going to get slapped with this a lot. Then again, I really don't care for this idea of 'balance' in RPG settings unless done very well.

[clash]

I found an alignment system here in the homebrew section that I have been using in my games and really like. I cant find the thread but I found it works way better than the traditional good/evil law/chaos wheel.

Basically no character will say "I am evil" Instead a character has a primary and secondary value (or one extreme value) from:
Power
Freedom
Knowledge
Compassion
Community

Their values shape their decisions and aid in roleplaying the character. When the values fall in line with that of the greater society they are considered good and evil when they dont.

[Resileaf]

It doesn't have to, especially if the chaotic evil character has decided that saving the party is a part of their goals. I mean, what's the point of carving a mountain into the image of a god to confuse local religions if you don't have someone to tell about it! Granted, I feel like this is a point lost on many people who roleplay evil, but let us not forget Belkar, the Sexy Shoeless God of War and his character arc.

Sure, but it's made clear that without Roy to keep him in line, Belkar is incredibly vicious and dangerous for the party. Without Roy, Belkar did whatever with no regards for how dangerous or dumb it would be (setting tents on fire in the bandit camp, revealing the group or killing the gnome outside Azure City without provokation just to get a mule). I mean, his current arc is pretty much him slowly playing away from his evil alignment, and that's what's made him a better team player.

[Jamesps]

I avoid good and evil characters. Most of my characters are motivated by something that doesn't fall very well on that spectrum.

I tend to focus on the Law/Chaos aspects of my alignments. It helps that the difference between law and chaos is a lot less subjective to me.

[Honest Tiefling]

Sure, but it's made clear that without Roy to keep him in line, Belkar is incredibly vicious and dangerous for the party. Without Roy, Belkar did whatever with no regards for how dangerous or dumb it would be (setting tents on fire in the bandit camp, revealing the group or killing the gnome outside Azure City without provokation just to get a mule). I mean, his current arc is pretty much him slowly playing away from his evil alignment, and that's what's made him a better team player.

A better team player, sure, and he has gained empathy for Mr. Scruffy and a few others. But I don't think that makes him less evil, just directing that evil in more efficient ways. I mean, you could consume an entire orphanage and then go home to your lovely spouse and give them some lovely flowers, but that really doesn't cancel out the eating of an entire orphanage thing, does it? Hilda is another example since her first concern in lighting a bunch of people (including possibly children) on fire was the damage to her young son, not the morality of it.

[Resileaf]

A better team player, sure, and he has gained empathy for Mr. Scruffy and a few others. But I don't think that makes him less evil, just directing that evil in more efficient ways. I mean, you could consume an entire orphanage and then go home to your lovely spouse and give them some lovely flowers, but that really doesn't cancel out the eating of an entire orphanage thing, does it? Hilda is another example since her first concern in lighting a bunch of people (including possibly children) on fire was the damage to her young son, not the morality of it.

Belkar has been showing signs of changing over time without him even noticing. Hell, he gives a speech about that very change he's been going through, not even realizing that he's talking about himself. Sure, he's still evil, but there is a non-zero chance that he actually genuinely stops being capital E Evil at some point in the near future after this arc.

[crookedtree]

I have the easiest time playing True Neutral characters. Personally, I think I have trouble going to either end of the spectrum because I feel like I'm penned in. We are definitely supposed to play the character rather than the alignment, but that kinda gets lost for me when I start thinking "Hey I'm supposed to be a good guy" or "Hey I don't feel evil enough".

[ToastyTobasco]

Judging from my past experiences, in RPGs I tend to gravitate towards chaotic evil with strong tendencies to true neutral. I see the alignment as the overall average of properties/behaviour, and my characters often show behaviour that is outside of the drawer I chose on the character sheet. E.g., whatever the alignment, my characters almost always value friendship and loyalty with their family or closest friends, even though they might feel no compunction about kicking a kennel's worth of fluffy puppies. In-group vs. out-group tends to be a leitmotif with them, and that muddies the waters considerably. It incidentally also makes this alignment much easier to roleplay in the context of a party.

True neutral can be fun to play if you consider that alignment as somewhat of an extremist guardian of cosmic balance, which is anything but apathetic.

I personally find lawful good to be the most difficult alignment to play. I honestly couldn't play a by-the-book-Jedi Knight or the classic golden paladin. It evokes all sorts of feelings in me that I don't appreciate, boredom, revulsion, etc., so I don't.

I also gravitate towards Chaotic Evil and Lawful evil (By complete accident most of the time). One of my favorite characters was a CE sorceror who dreamed of nothing but casting Meteor Swarm onto an unsuspecting town. The party valued the power he brought to the table and laughed off his threats (though for one party member, they were very well deserved). He was almost cartoonish but he cooperated with the goodie-goodies as they served his needs and kept him from dying as well as paid. He was nice to those that showed him courtesy but he would go off the rails if you crossed him. See the sorcerer/warlock from the LFG comic for this kind of co-operative CE.

As long as you arent disrupting the party or burning orphans in daylight, it's not really that hard to play. Play Evil, not stupid. Law and chaos dictate what lines you will or will not cross. Dont use CE or CN to go for the lulz. Make your character twisted in a fun way. Find a foil within your party to bounce things off of.

Paladins of Devotion would be the hardest for CE to play alongside as a clever Paladin player of any other oath could see the CE as either a charity case to be reformed or a necessary evil or tool to use when there is a line they cannot cross themselves.

I actually seriously struggle with playing Good/lawful good. Currently playing a Paladin and boy oh boy do I have a hard time roleplaying the nice guy without going all Ned Flanders.

[Tawmis]

We don't play alignments, we play characters. Alignment is a description of a part of personality, like "Flaw: think people always try to shortchange you during deals" or "Bond: my ancestral household".


Same, and that's something I love with 5e - it's really put aside alignment, and now makes it based on the character's personality.

[Sigreid]

Chaotic evil is hard to roleplay because it implies a lack of cooperative element that is vital to a group. If a character wants to do whatever it wants, the group is at risk of falling apart due to lack of cooperation and teamwork towards a common goal.

I think lots of people find CE hard because they have bought into the idea that it has to be a cartoonish caricature of self serving evil instead of a person whose only real loyalty is to themself and a penchant for using the expedience of horrific brutality as the shortest, quickest path to what they want.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Putting aside the (very valid) statement that alignment isn't that important in 5e compared to the rest of the personality...

Personally I'm type-cast as the top-left corner of Lawful Good. Old-school paladins are my gig. I'm currently playing a CG person, but even that's on the neutral side of chaotic. Chaotic evil is just right out. I'd play lawful evil as more "for a good cause" evil than machiavellian power-seeking.

For table dynamics Chaotic evil is the hardest to work well because it only works if the rest of the party is willing to put up with the shenanigans. LE can be calculating and "do evil by doing (outward) good" much easier. Of course, I've seen more Chaotic "Neutral" characters who are actually full on CE...

[RedMage125]

Same, and that's something I love with 5e - it's really put aside alignment, and now makes it based on the character's personality.

That was never precluded by previous editions, really. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Misterwhisper]

That was never precluded by previous editions, really. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

In older editions though there were spells and items that specifically interacted with certain alignments a lot more than they do now.

[Tawmis]

In older editions though there were spells and items that specifically interacted with certain alignments a lot more than they do now.

^ This.

With 5e, it also helps develop the character by having Bonds, Flaws, Ideals.

So now if they have a specific Flaw ("I can't resist gems!"), and the party sees a gem on a pedestal - that they're sure is a trap - but the rogue can't seem to find it - said character, would, probably still try to get the gem. (No matter their alignment).

[Sigreid]

^ This.

With 5e, it also helps develop the character by having Bonds, Flaws, Ideals.

So now if they have a specific Flaw ("I can't resist gems!"), and the party sees a gem on a pedestal - that they're sure is a trap - but the rogue can't seem to find it - said character, would, probably still try to get the gem. (No matter their alignment).

Yeah, but so would I. 😁

[Naanomi]

In older editions though there were spells and items that specifically interacted with certain alignments a lot more than they do now.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[Spore]

Chaotic evil.

But not because it is random or stupid evil. But because chaotic evil invokes demons for me. And I go full hog on its most debased attributes of demons. You can't usually roleplay a chaotic evil demonologist because of poor taste and/or table restrictions on the topics of human trafficking, sexual abuse and so on.

Take a Conan novel and turn it up to 200% and you have what I consider truly despicable CE behaviour.

[Jophiel]

TL;DR Probably (strong) Chaotic Evil

I personally still view alignment as fairly important but then I grew up with 1st Edition AD&D. I think it's a very useful guidepost to keep my characters from just being ethically muddled -- "Just play them" sort of works but I'm only actively playing my character maybe a couple hours a week (and that's party time, not just 'my character' time) so it's not as though I'm often collecting a bunch of defining moments. Knowledge of my alignment helps me focus. I'm also talking about actively playing your alignment as principle. Standard Orcs are chaotic but passively so: They're not actually interested in personal liberty as an ethos, they just don't have rules beyond being the strongest.

I view each alignment as essentially being two alignments depending on where your emphasis is. For example:
Lawful Good: Structure and rule is paramount. Ensuring the well being of people and treating them with kindness is the best way to ensure that structure and rule of law persists.
Lawful Good: Sacrifice and contributing to the weal of others is the most important thing. A strong system of rules and code of justice is the best way to encourage that everyone has what they need and are treated fairly.

When you run into a conflict between the two, this helps guide if you'd rather act a little shadier in the moment to preserve the rule of law or bend the rules to protect others.

For Chaotic Evil, I see:
Chaotic Evil: Destruction of society and order is the optimal way to achieve freedom. As each man should take according to his own needs, who is harmed is irrelevant and in fact drives home among the masses that another's rule of law can not protect them.
Chaotic Evil: My own desires are all that matters. I can reap my due best by contributing to the burning downfall of society, collecting wealth, lust and power from the frightened and lost.

Most people who are trying to play Chaotic Evil via the usual "Random-Stupid Murder Hobo" route are probably closer to Neutral Evil, caring little about the debate between Hierarchy of Law and Personal Freedom and instead just sating their wants. Chaotic evil implies some measure of actively wanting to attack the pillars of society. The Joker, of course, being the common pop culture archetype. It's not enough to just do what he wants, take stuff and kill people -- he wants to drive home why lawful society is a farce. That's not a level I usually see players achieve.

[WereRabbitz]

I like playing Lawful Good, all the others are just a little too messy....


I'm good with Lawful, and i've made peace with Neutral, but Chaotic just baffles me.

Your good or evil but only sometimes? and what the heck is a Chaotic Neutral exactly?

My personality requires me to draw a line in the sand and either hold my side or invade the other.

[Jophiel]

and what the heck is a Chaotic Neutral exactly?
Chaotic Neutral: Personal liberty and freedom are the most important thing. It is up to the individual to decide if they will use their freedom to harm or aid, but their ability to make that choice themselves should never be abridged.
Chaotic Neutral: The balance between good and evil is best maintained by allowing individuals the freedom to find their own path. Laws exist only to stifle the natural balancing that will occur when everyone can do as they please.

[WereRabbitz]

Chaotic Neutral: Personal liberty and freedom are the most important thing. It is up to the individual to decide if they will use their freedom to harm or aid, but their ability to make that choice themselves should never be abridged.
Chaotic Neutral: The balance between good and evil is best maintained by allowing individuals the freedom to find their own path. Laws exist only to stifle the natural balancing that will occur when everyone can do as they please.

Morpheus said you could take the red pill or the blue pill, he didn't say you could mix up in your mouth and swallow both :)

I get the definition of them, but I was simply implying that they don't appeal to my personality. There is something flakey about Chaotic I can't stand. My characters needs Moral Code based on Honor or Blood.

Thanks!

[RedMage125]

^ This.

With 5e, it also helps develop the character by having Bonds, Flaws, Ideals.

So now if they have a specific Flaw ("I can't resist gems!"), and the party sees a gem on a pedestal - that they're sure is a trap - but the rogue can't seem to find it - said character, would, probably still try to get the gem. (No matter their alignment).

I fail to see how even a 3e depiction of alignment has anything to do with this situation. The 3e PHB even explicitly says that a LG person might have a greedy streak. So a LG person in 3e might still go for the gem.

I like 5e, don't get me wrong, but my perception of what you're saying is that you think this kind of thing was somehow "not doable" with pre-5e alignment systems. What I am saying to you is that such is not true.

[Jophiel]

Morpheus said you could take the red pill or the blue pill, he didn't say you could mix up in your mouth and swallow both :)
Morpheus isn't the boss of me! :smalltongue:


I get the definition of them, but I was simply implying that they don't appeal to my personality. There is something flakey about Chaotic I can't stand. My characters needs Moral Code based on Honor or Blood.
I find Neutrality the most problematic from a "real world" perspective. It's fine when you're saying "I don't care how we get there, provided Law/Chaos/Good/Evil is achieved". When you get into the "Balance" aspects, it requires a metaphysical framework that I doubt many people apply to life. It's not really hard to roleplay, "Oh, we must balance the scales between good and evil blah blah" but it's hard for me to really buy into it.

[terodil]

When you get into the "Balance" aspects, it requires a metaphysical framework that I doubt many people apply to life. It's not really hard to roleplay, "Oh, we must balance the scales between good and evil blah blah" but it's hard for me to really buy into it.
It really depends on the setting, I'd wager. If you actually experience the conflict of 'good' and 'evil', their extremes and perversions (provided that 'good' can develop such in the relevant setting), as well as the potentially horrifying effects of losing one side entirely, then it's not that far-fetched. Example: The Eternal Conflict (https://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Eternal_Conflict) in the Diablo universe. I'm not claiming that the Diablo lore is great by any stretch of the imagination, but I quite liked the idea behind it, i.e. that the free will of humans is the sole reason for the continued existence of all three realms. -- Of course, if the setting provides no juicy lore bits to support such a perspective, it's going to be a rather hollow exercise.

[Jophiel]

It really depends on the setting, I'd wager. If you actually experience the conflict of 'good' and 'evil', their extremes and perversions (provided that 'good' can develop such in the relevant setting), as well as the potentially horrifying effects of losing one side entirely, then it's not that far-fetched.
Oh, yeah. No arguments that it's legitimate from a fantasy world perspective. If you actually have divine manifestations of good and evil tromping around and doing things, then a middle ground makes sense. I have a hard time empathizing with it on a personal level though.

[Naanomi]

Oh, yeah. No arguments that it's legitimate from a fantasy world perspective. If you actually have divine manifestations of good and evil tromping around and doing things, then a middle ground makes sense. I have a hard time empathizing with it on a personal level though.
I find most ‘keep the balance’ characters would really be Lawful Neutral in the dogmatic sense to me

[Pex]

Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral

Lawful Good: Based on anecdotal evidence that it's so rare for me to find players other than me who would play the alignment. Since my 2E days I've only experienced four players who weren't me play the alignment. They did it well, but the fact those are the only ones tells me others won't or can't.

Chaotic Neutral: Too often players use it as an excuse to be a jerk. They want to play evil without having the word physically on their character sheet or even if they won't go that far just be selfish donkey cavities. Thankfully not everyone who played the alignment has done it, but I'm always apprehensive when someone says that's what he/she will play. Play with your party not against or in spite of them, and it's all good.

[Sigreid]

Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral

Lawful Good: Based on anecdotal evidence that it's so rare for me to find players other than me who would play the alignment. Since my 2E days I've only experienced four players who weren't me play the alignment. They did it well, but the fact those are the only ones tells me others won't or can't.

Chaotic Neutral: Too often players use it as an excuse to be a jerk. They want to play evil without having the word physically on their character sheet or even if they won't go that far just be selfish donkey cavities. Thankfully not everyone who played the alignment has done it, but I'm always apprehensive when someone says that's what he/she will play. Play with your party not against or in spite of them, and it's all good.

I play CN rather a lot. I don't think I'm a donkey cavity about it. The character won't take orders as more than a suggestion but will listen to sense and work with a team he chooses to be part of. He will also care about his friends and family but while he's not going to be rude he also doesn't care about you just because you exist. While he doesn't actually care about the law, he's not going to cause trouble just because. Mostly he will stay out of trouble because he believes in basic politeness.

[Honest Tiefling]

Lawful Good: Based on anecdotal evidence that it's so rare for me to find players other than me who would play the alignment. Since my 2E days I've only experienced four players who weren't me play the alignment. They did it well, but the fact those are the only ones tells me others won't or can't.

I feel like we should gather up everyone who finds Lawful Good from this thread and dump them in with people who play Chaotic Evil just to see what happens.

[Teaguethebean]

a lot of people are saying no characters believe they are evil but I believe many lawful neutral characters may believe they are evil if they enact marshal law but see it as evil but necessary.

[Misterwhisper]

For me:

Easiest to play is LN, I am naturally an extremely orderly person, so I can run a very dedicated character pretty easy.

Hardest for me is a more active chaotic neutral. I can play a passive one, a guy who love the freedom and openness of the world, but I can’t do the active CN like an anarchist or hedonistic guy, just not in my personality.

[MagneticKitty]

I play the neutral spectrum a lot. But I favor nature characters who have a survival of the fittest / adapt or die / I'll save people if i don't have to sacrifice anything type mentality most..
I have a true neutral kobold ranger who's like a little kid. My group says she's chaotic neutral but I think she's just childish.
Before that I had neutral good paladin of vengence.
And I have a neutral drunkard character who just wants to solve problems because he likes puzzles. A mystic. He won't admit to liking the party usually. He can be grouchy but he has a good enough heart usually...

I tried lawful good in a one shot.. but I think I took it too far and the rest of the group was annoyed...

I'm pretty bad at playing evil I'd bet

[MeimuHakurei]

I can attest that Chaotic Evil is hardest to play. But to me the problem is not getting the wrong idea and being uncooperative, but that if you're anything less than a baby-eating, puppy-kicking sociopath with no moral restraints, people at your table will insist you're only Chaotic Neutral.

[Sigreid]

I can attest that Chaotic Evil is hardest to play. But to me the problem is not getting the wrong idea and being uncooperative, but that if you're anything less than a baby-eating, puppy-kicking sociopath with no moral restraints, people at your table will insist you're only Chaotic Neutral.

So, every time they say that sell an innocent young barmaid into sex slavery to orcs.

[darknite]

We don't play alignments, we play characters. Alignment is a description of a part of personality, like "Flaw: think people always try to shortchange you during deals" or "Bond: my ancestral household".

Some people will have more troubles playing some characters because it doesn't "click", while most will just avoid playing characters they aren't "feeling", so to speak.

This. Alignments get in the way of good RPGing. The world typically isn't black & white, it's various mixtures based on context.

[Naanomi]

This. Alignments get in the way of good RPGing. The world typically isn't black & white, it's various mixtures based on context.
Except of course in the Outer Planes of the standard Great Wheel DnD Cosmology, where ‘black’ and ‘white’ are real, measurable, tangible things that frequently involve themselves in the ‘grey’ of mortal life

[RedMage125]

This. Alignments get in the way of good RPGing. The world typically isn't black & white, it's various mixtures based on context.
Alignments don't "get in the way of roleplaying" for people who actually understand them.

Alignment is descriptive, and not prescriptive. That is, there's no such thing as "people if x alignment cannot/do not do y". Alignment is something that stems FROM your character's beliefs, intent, and actions (which includes context). A more correct statement might be "people who do y consistently, and believe it is okay to do so, are, generally speaking, not of x alignment; exceptions may exist". It's a fine distinction sometimes, but one that highlights that one does not "play an alignment", rather, that the way one plays a character is how the alignment is determined.

And nothing about alignment precludes "shades of gray", morally, as far as characters and how they are portrayed. "Black and white morality" only comes into play as far as how those characters are JUDGED. To wit: you could have a character who wantonly kills orphans, due to a prophecy that an orphan will one day usher Demogorgon into the world. This character may believe he is doing good, or at least serving the greater good. He may not do any other evil acts. But consistent, repeated acts of evil (such as murdering helpless children), and a mindset and value set that equates such as acceptable, means that said character's alignment is evil. This is because your character is free to act and believe however you, the player, wishes. But the cosmic forces of good/evil/law/chaos are objective, dispassionate, and immutable

This is not my view, this is not an opinion, this has been part of the RAW for as long as I have played D&D (2e). And it's one of the reasons why I'm so adamant that 100% of all "alignment is bad" arguments I have ever seen or heard on the forums stem from people deviating from the RAW of alignment. I'm not trying to tell you to like alignment, or that you need to use it. I have no interest in changing your opinion. But you have made statements, couched as facts, that are factually inaccurate about alignment.



Except of course in the Outer Planes of the standard Great Wheel DnD Cosmology, where ‘black’ and ‘white’ are real, measurable, tangible things that frequently involve themselves in the ‘grey’ of mortal life

Regrettably, most alignment detractors do not understand this distinction. Or at least do not accept how this distinction does not prevent characters who believe in "gray".

[2D8HP]

....So what alignments do you tend to and why?


I'm not sure that I even wrote down an Alignment in my brief time playing 0e D&D, if I did probably "Law" or "Neutrality", though from my dim memories "Chaos" would be more apt.

My 1e AD&D PC's were mostly Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral, though I did have a Half- Orc Cleric/Fighter that I thought of as a non-human Paladin (only humans could be Paladins then just as only Half-Elves and Humans could be Rangers) who may have been Lawful Good, and if he was he may have been the only Lawful character that I've played (despite most "What Alignment are you?: quizzes pegging my answers as Lawful Neutral).

I'm sure that I've never attempted to play AD&D's "True Neutral".

For 5e D&D I've mostly played Chaotic Good, Neutral, and Neutral Good.

I have played a Chaotic Evil PC, for an "Evil" campaign, which I found easy to do but far from enjoyable and I don't think that I'll try that again.


I feel like we should gather up everyone who finds Lawful Good from this thread and dump them in with people who play Chaotic Evil just to see what happens.


Oh, that could be cool!

[Angelalex242]

True neutral, probably. Cause TN's mantra is 'don't get involved.' Why are you adventuring then?

Chaotic Evil, on the other hand.

"I rape the barwench."

"Why?"

"Chaotic Evil, bro! It's how Chaotic Evil rolls!"

You tend to hit lots of triggers on Chaotic Evil. Probably also Neutral Evil.

[KorvinStarmast]

The most difficult alignment is the one with the definition that is least agreed upon by your group. A free beer goes to you. That's so true.

Chaotic Neutral: Too often players use it as an excuse to be a jerk. They want to play evil without having the word physically on their character sheet or even if they won't go that far just be selfish donkey cavities. Thankfully not everyone who played the alignment has done it, but I'm always apprehensive when someone says that's what he/she will play. Play with your party not against or in spite of them, and it's all good. Yeah, CN is a tricsky thing, but I think you nailed it: They want to play evil without having the word physically on their character sheet
In 1e thieves by default were not to have a good alignment. I ended up with N and CN as a thief a lot. I'd rather have been able to go CG, and a few DM's were OK with that if I really worked hard at the G part.

Hardest for me:
Chaotic Evil is very hard for me to do well because I play this game with "we are a team of different characters who each have something to contribute"
CE can fit into that but it takes a very rare table for it to work, and for me CE is still too much work.

[noob]

A free beer goes to you. That's so true.
Yeah, CN is a tricsky thing, but I think you nailed it: They want to play evil without having the word physically on their character sheet
In 1e thieves by default were not to have a good alignment. I ended up with N and CN as a thief a lot. I'd rather have been able to go CG, and a few DM's were OK with that if I really worked hard at the G part.

Hardest for me:
Chaotic Evil is very hard for me to do well because I play this game with "we are a team of different characters who each have something to contribute"
CE can fit into that but it takes a very rare table for it to work, and for me CE is still too much work.

chaotic evil does not means dumb.
if you know your personal interest is to have a team of people loyal to you because that way you have less risks being beaten up by your opponents you might want to keep that team even if you have to do some small efforts such as stabbing the opponents harder when your allies are in danger.

[RedMage125]

There's so much wrong with all of this.

True neutral, probably. Cause TN's mantra is 'don't get involved.' Why are you adventuring then?
I don't know where you get this from. Neutral, in alignment, is not "don't get involved". It's "I don't really care about selflessly helping strangers, but I try not to cause undue harm or detriment myself. And I'm not a super-regimented person, but I don't really tend towards rampant individualism, either." True Neutral people generally prefer Good over Evil (after all, they'd rather have good rulers and neighbors than evil ones), but they're not motivated towards it themselves.

A wizard devoted to his studies of magic, learning new arcane secrets, and amassing more knowledge, could be Neutral.



Chaotic Evil, on the other hand.

"I rape the barwench."

"Why?"

"Chaotic Evil, bro! It's how Chaotic Evil rolls!"

You tend to hit lots of triggers on Chaotic Evil. Probably also Neutral Evil.

That's Chaotic Stupid. A Chaotic Evil person isn't somehow "forced" to do the most abhorrent thing possible in every given situation.

[terodil]

chaotic evil does not means dumb.
if you know your personal interest is to have a team of people loyal to you because that way you have less risks being beaten up by your opponents you might want to keep that team.
Aye. It also doesn't mean you always, exclusively, try to betray, backstab and murder your way to your goals. You are still allowed to have the rare, trusted friend.

[ToastyTobasco]

I find it funny I have had the most fun roleplaying as well as getting into party shenanigans with a CE character and I am struggling to play a LG Paladin.

Most people who run murder-hobo or lulz Chaotic Neutral are playing the demon side of CE and throw out the age-old "bEcAuSe iTs mY aLigNmeNt". These players need to all get stuck in the same games together and let the rest of us do what we do. CN is self preserving, goes to extremes to keep themselves free to do as they please. If someone gets hurt along the way "Oops". CN wont exploit the foolish or weak to get to their goals or revel in the fall of an enemy. CE serves themselves and no one else.


CE takes creativity and I give a serious stink-eye to any DM that holds the "if your character is CE you lose control of them immediately" philosophy. CE is not easy to mesh with a bunch of Chaotic good/lawful stupid people. NG can be annoying if they pipe up all the time about injustices. Dont murder puppies and burn down the nursery.

Just like Lawful Stupid, there is Chaotic Stupid. If you want to play an idiot that dies in less time than it took to write out the character sheet, then do what you do. I will be over at my table passing notes to the DM setting up underground contacts and trying to setup an overthrow of a local government just to watch riots happen. I will always split the loot but I will try to get first dibs. The party is there to keep you alive and fed. You are there to do the real dirty work no one else can stomach. You dont have to keep them on edge. Point out the flaws of the local systems and know all of it's loopholes. Show the fallacy of man's laws and it's corruption and let them see your side of the story. If you find a place with just a bit of corruption, go ahead and wind that Paladin's rage up and let him loose on a "justified crusade".

Dont let your alignment dictate the character themselves. Use it as an extra facet in the gem you are trying to create.

Be creative. You can even twist Paladin oaths to serve various alignments if you get really clever.

[Luccan]

Perhaps if Alignment were presented more as the final choice on character creation, something like: "look back at your choices in personality and beliefs for your character. These should help you inform their alignment. This can change as your character changes and nothing requires you to adhere to a particular alignment" then people might be willing to accept alignment. I absolutely agree that it's a descriptor.



Be creative. You can even twist Paladin oaths to serve various alignments if you get really clever.

That said, I'm not necessarily a fan of this. Certain oaths can certainly cover a great number of alignments (I'm pretty sure just about anyone can be Oath of Vengeance, depending on how you balance it out). But once you start trying to play a CG Oath of Conquest paladin, you might as well call the whole thing off. Alignments are descriptive, but as far as the lore of the game is concerned, they're still objective. In D&D, you aren't ever Good because you think you're good, regardless of what some authors, comicbook writers, and DMs would claim.

Edit: I should say, I'm all for altering your oaths and fluff slightly to match the character you want to play, I just think trying to claim things like "Dashing the flames of hope" and "ruling with an iron fist" can an action of any alignment would be a bit silly. Although reading this again, I would agree most oaths can serve at least 2 alignments and maybe a few more with a stretch. Just not all. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant.

[terodil]

But once you start trying to play a CG Oath of Conquest paladin, you might as well call the whole thing off.
Why? I will conquer you and you will LIKE it!

(That said yeah, as much as I was opposed to people in this thread applauding the paladin for imposing their way of playing on the somewhat evilish rogue, I'd also be against the evilish rogue manipulating the paladin in this way. That whole 'falling' business is gone now (well... kinda. You can still become an oathbreaker) but it's still just a nasty thing to do in a party. As I said above, such things should be cleared up with some OOC conflict resolution so that both players can mold the roleplay or fudge the situations as required so both are happy and don't feel goaded/railroaded.)

[ToastyTobasco]

Perhaps if Alignment were presented more as the final choice on character creation, something like: "look back at your choices in personality and beliefs for your character. These should help you inform their alignment. This can change as your character changes and nothing requires you to adhere to a particular alignment" then people might be willing to accept alignment. I absolutely agree that it's a descriptor.



That said, I'm not necessarily a fan of this. Certain oaths can certainly cover a great number of alignments (I'm pretty sure just about anyone can be Oath of Vengeance, depending on how you balance it out). But once you start trying to play a CG Oath of Conquest paladin, you might as well call the whole thing off. Alignments are descriptive, but as far as the lore of the game is concerned, they're still objective. In D&D, you aren't ever Good because you think you're good, regardless of what some authors, comicbook writers, and DMs would claim.

Edit: I should say, I'm all for altering your oaths and fluff slightly to match the character you want to play, I just think trying to claim things like "Dashing the flames of hope" and "ruling with an iron fist" can an action of any alignment would be a bit silly. Although reading this again, I would agree most oaths can serve at least 2 alignments and maybe a few more with a stretch. Just not all. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant.

"Perhaps if Alignment were presented more as the final choice on character creation, something like: "look back at your choices in personality and beliefs for your character. These should help you inform their alignment. This can change as your character changes and nothing requires you to adhere to a particular alignment" then people might be willing to accept alignment. I absolutely agree that it's a descriptor."

OH MY GOD YES!!!!
I have been struggling to find a way to put this into words. Perfect
--------------------------

I've tried to do CG Conquest. It feels really dumb. It did not last the session. Conquest is kinda a hard Lawful oath. Vengence kinda has free reign. Ancients gets to play Chaotic but Evil takes finagling. Devotion's only issue with an Evil is lying but not terribly difficult to work around.

When I said twisting oaths into alignments, I didnt take into consideration Chaotic/Neutral good. Those two really just monkey wrench Paladin'ing. You do have a good point there and I am glad you pointed it out.

I just wanted to point out that people can spin paladins to work with different alignments. One that my DM and I had fun hashing out was an Evil Ancients Paladin. It's a little fuzzy but it was fun poking at how to make Evil Paladins that werent Oathbreakers. For the Evil Ancients we figured would work best for one that went through several horrors (i.g. Barovia). Less cruel, more broken and desperate.

Sad thing is, I love my Conquest Paladin, but I would love to put an Ancients Paladin through the horrid grinder of Barovia (Wizard of Wines and Yester Hill are a great horror-show for Druids and nature lovers) and have them desperately trying to shelter the last bits of good they find.