Favorite alignment

[Sto]

A friend and I were debating good and evil as they exist in D&D. He brought up that his favorite alignment is Neutral Evil, and that caused me to think about how I have more fun as lawful characters. So what about the rest of you? I want to know what your favorite alignments are from both a Roleplaying perspective and an optimization perspective.

[Inevitability]

I've played about everything, and interestingly enough don't really have a strong preference for alignment. That said, I do tend to stay away from the NG-CG-CN corner.

Irl I'm probably somewhere on the Lawful side of things (big surprise, right?). Law is incidentally also the alignment I find most interesting from a theoretical perspective.

Optimization-wise, I don't think one can claim some alignments are strictly better than others. That said, for any given build there is probably a 'best alignment'. If I had to pick one over all others, I'd go with Neutral Evil, because that lets you enter Ur-Priest (a strong contender for 'most bonkers class in the game') without removing your ability to cast Chaotic and Lawful spells.

[Boggartbae]

RP wise, I like playing NE and CE toons that play well with others, but still do evil stuff when no one is looking. For optimization, it's the same. I think that evil options are probably on average stronger than good options, but I agree that no alignment is head and shoulders above the rest.

[GrayDeath]

Most Characters I really enjoy are,s trangely, Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil.
I cant really get into CE Characters and have fun at the same time, and NE if played "fully" tends to only work in VERY special Groups.
I dont think I ever played a neutral Good Character outside of a PCRPG, as its just TOO good for most fun things, imo.
THe unnamed Alignments come in at a loong distance behind.

IRL I probably fall somewhere in the Neutral Category if I am honest (on one hand I have some core values I follow, on the other I really abhor "Rules for Rules Sake" societies, sooo, yeah, probably around tN with some Good/Evil tendencies), though various D&D Alignment tests ping me almost exclusively Chaotig Good or TN.....

[noce]

My first char was basically myself as a dwarf (not that I'm much taller).

Then I discovered to be lawful neutral, and that playing as one felt very natural to me.

[VincentTakeda]

Chaotic good for about a decade, then neutral good for about another decade. Now I play palladium instead and pretty much feel at home in 'unprincipled'

[Malphegor]

Lawful Neutral. I roleplay it as the glorification of rules, civilisation and the organisation of things.

Being in a city, you're happy. The gears of commerce are greased, and you feel most at home in the hustle and bustle of people doing things towards a common purpose. For the sum is greater than any individual part.

Good? Evil? Bah. A child's folly, barely grasping the power that we all possess, not as individuals, but as groups. What matters the workings of good, when the undead can be chained to an endless treadmill to beget life far greater in quantity than their accursed existence, through the food they produce via the mill they power?

What good is evil, when a properly organised justice system will place all in their proper place. What crookery you plan can be useful, and thus no longer be crookery as you knew it.

The world is a gear. And you are but a single tooth, one of many. You will interlock with everyone else.

Or we will break you.

And that makes interactions with external influences fascinating. How much are the fey an anathema to such a person, who worships civilisations? Do demons insult them by their very nature? Do they admire the complexity of a devilish pact, even if they think the evil nature is juvenile pranking at best?

I love exploring lawful neutral characters. (also, weirdly, a lot of WOTC stuff seems to completely ignore the concept of a lawful neutral character for some reason in official books. It's... actually kind of weird. Lawful Good? Sure. Chaotic Good? Basically the default. Chaotic Neutral? Have some spells! Lawful Evil? Sure. Chaotic Evil? At least 3 books focus on that to be honest...
But Lawful Neutral? We're the Hufflepuffs of alignments. We get stuff done, but nobody really thinks we have much going on. Damn neutrals, to quote Zap Brannigan.)

[Mike Miller]

Lawful Neutral. But alignment is basically ignored in my games...

[PunBlake]

I have the most fun with the diagonal line of CG-TN-LE.

CG: Makes being in a city more fun than a Lawful alignment.
TN: Ambassador and agent of balance.
LE: Scheming. Always. Best poker face.

[Elkad]

Either I play very close to my own actual outlook, which makes the character CG, or I flop it completely and go LE.

Pretty much everything else I skip, unless there is a class requirement.

[tadkins]

Chaotic Good here. I tend to practice chaos on a daily basis (without even realizing it most of the time) but I genuinely try to be a moral person and help others, or at least not hinder them.

[Sordahon]

I am Chaotic Neutral with a bit of good, perfect alignment for me, no shackles and limits, morality is still there, passing judgement by one opinion and not by bystander laws.

[Luccan]

I never look at alignment as a thing to optimize. I know you can, but I've never been interested in doing so. NG is my favorite, probably. I like playing good guys and I don't feel strongly enough on the Law-Chaos side of things to see either as superior.

[Buufreak]

By and far my favorite alignments are the non x-stupid alignments. I don't even like them when played accidentally, satirically, intentionally, or really for any reason.

[Nifft]

Really depends on the game's genre.

In a heroic fantasy game, Lawful Good can be awesome -- and best of all, you're not made to feel dumb for being good. That's probably my favorite, but it's not the only one I enjoy.

Other genres reward a different attitude towards morality or authority. In WoD Werewolf, for example, a more Chaotic / anti-authoritarian perspective is how I'd frame the truth of that world -- so I'd gravitate away from Law if I wanted to be Good in that setting.

[Elkad]

Really depends on the game's genre.

In a heroic fantasy game, Lawful Good can be awesome -- and best of all, you're not made to feel dumb for being good. That's probably my favorite, but it's not the only one I enjoy.

Other genres reward a different attitude towards morality or authority. In WoD Werewolf, for example, a more Chaotic / anti-authoritarian perspective is how I'd frame the truth of that world -- so I'd gravitate away from Law if I wanted to be Good in that setting.

It's hard for me to envision compelling people to do something, even if it's the right thing, so I have a problem with LG. It's an irrational alignment. In my mind, if you are compelling them to do Good, you are actually doing Evil.
Lawful Neutral I can make work, by making a jump to an alien mindset.

Every other alignment is fine.

[ExLibrisMortis]

LN for me. And, if not that, then at least not CN. For some reason, CN is worse than CG and CE. Maybe it's because I don't see slaadi as an interesting faction, as opposed to eladrin and demons.

[Nifft]

It's hard for me to envision compelling people to do something, even if it's the right thing, so I have a problem with LG. It's an irrational alignment. In my mind, if you are compelling them to do Good, you are actually doing Evil.

This seems like an unjustified complaint.

Lawful Good doesn't say you must compel everyone to obey your own law.

Here's what Lawful says:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Nothing about compelling others in there. Your campaign may vary, and your DM may have spoiled a perfectly good alignment for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case.

[Elkad]

This seems like an unjustified complaint.

Lawful Good doesn't say you must compel everyone to obey your own law.

Here's what Lawful says:


Nothing about compelling others in there. Your campaign may vary, and your DM may have spoiled a perfectly good alignment for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case.

Sure, if you don't have any missionary urge at all. Which works for the masses. It doesn't work for Clerics or especially Paladins.

[Nifft]

Sure, if you don't have any missionary urge at all. Which works for the masses. It doesn't work for Clerics or especially Paladins.

Involuntary compulsion is not identical to missionary work.

Also, not being a jerk can work great for Paladins and Clerics both -- in fact that's my default, and it's been excellent so far.

[Blue Jay]

I like moral ambiguity, so I chafe a lot at the D&D alignment system.

But, in general, I like playing Chaotic Good and Neutral Good the most. NG is probably the most comfortable for me, but CG is fun for playing alluring and charismatic characters.

I also like playing True Neutral sometimes, because there's more freedom to use different options, but the alignment usually only runs mechanics-deep: I usually end up leaning Good anyway.

But I can't really stomach Evil PCs. I don't like people acting like jerks or bullies in real life, so it's not enjoyable in a game either.

[ericgrau]

Undefined.

[Sleven]

Most people are TN whether they're aware of it or not. Playing with that perspective produces some of the most interesting results if you have the right means to tie the party together.

On the other hand, I've enjoyed roleplaying NG and LE from a party perspective because it's easy to form a group around it. For NG characters it's easier to share a similar sense of morality and develop personal bonds with fellow party members. LE, on the other hand, can be great at staying organized, loyal, and/or committed to one another, while eschewing the morale scruples that hold back good parties. LE parties tend to get stuff done, which can be great from all ends of the table.

In general, I think people get too hung up on the guidelines set for the alignment system and forget that they're just that: guidelines. For example: LN character can have a personal code, way of life, be disciplined, or commited to their nation. They don't have to follow laws that don't agree with those things. NE characters, on the other hand, don't have to be entirely selfish. They can have people or things they care about and would think twice about betraying in pursuit of their goals. Those things might be limited, but they can still be there. Etc.

[Ignimortis]

I used to be staunchly in the Chaotic Good camp, but over time it stopped being a thing I would stand for. These days most of my characters fall into Lawful Neutral category with leanings either to Good or Evil, but not complete commitment. They are either very principled in their own stances and neither cruel nor particularly merciful (minimum collateral, maximum efficiency), or serve the law (not the concept, but the actual enforcement) in whatever shape it exists in the game. I figure I could pull off any of the neighbouring alignments, but Chaotic is kinda incomprehensible to me now.

[White Blade]

Lawful Good, because in D&D you need to stab people and I like playing a good guy. Stabbing people on any basis other than a consistent, clear moral code feels bad.

If I ever played an Apostle of Peace though, I'd probably be pretty happy to play a chaotic good character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Some of the mechanical options I like are gated behind a lawful alignment but past that I'm not really tied tightly to any one alignment in particular though I do like the system as a whole.

[Bohandas]

theoretically Chaotic Evil ought to be the best at destroying evil empires. Carving an erratic path of wholesale destruction would seriously impair any nation's ability to retain totalitarian control.

[Luccan]

theoretically Chaotic Evil ought to be the best at destroying evil empires. Carving an erratic path of wholesale destruction would seriously impair any nation's ability to retain totalitarian control.

Unless said empire has a means of subduing you or minimizing your impact. Then they reframe you as a threat to society only they can defend from and your damage fuels the propaganda machine.

[ezekielraiden]

White Blade said it well.

I like Lawful Good because it's my natural mode of thinking (or at least the closest analogue), and because I feel dirty if I play even a Neutral alignment. I need to be moral in *all* my behavior, even if it's pretend. (Strangely, being a DM has loosened this restriction. Maybe because I don't *identify* with the characters?)

I'm very detail-oriented, exacting in speech, and inclined to trust someone's word as well as established authority. I'm thus pretty Lawful. I also feel compassion and empathy for basically everyone, strongly believe in total honesty and above-board behavior, and genuinely doing everything I can to help anyone I know. It's easy to call yourself "good," but I really work very hard to be. And most people I know agree (I am almost *notoriously* "as close as you get to a real-life Paladin," as a friend said literally this past weekend.) This is then reflected in the people I play. Honesty, integrity, justice, mercy, humility, kindness, service. To live each day hoping to hear, "you have done well, My good and faithful servant." To regret taking any life, even a muderer's or slaver's, because all life is sacred...but knowing that the alternative is unacceptable. To play by the rules in a game where the rules favor cheaters, and yet still win in the end, by persistence and wisdom.

[tadkins]

Nothing about compelling others in there. Your campaign may vary, and your DM may have spoiled a perfectly good alignment for you. You have my sympathy if that's the case.

Not saying all LGs play like that of course (and I would wager the majority don't) but there is definitely a fair share of "my way or the highway" and "repent or die" mindsets among the LG flock. Just have to look at spells like Sanctify the Wicked, which I imagine is a favorite of LG.