>What alignment do you usually play?
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
I'm the only person I know who thinks Lawful Neutral is the best alignment.
Lawful Evil.
Lawful Evil.
Because the word "Chaos" seems to mean "lol so random!" to people.
>>47555494
I play Lawful Evil. I feel like neutral good is the best for party cohesion however.
Chaotic is edgy because no one plays it right including me. When I do it I wind up being a violent schizophrenic so I stopped trying.
>>47555494
>What alignment do you usually play?
Eh... Lawful Evil, I'm not proud of it but yeah, it's fun.
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
Chaotic Good, because I have always wanted to play a swashbuckler/fencer with a heart of gold.
>Why are all of the chaotic alignments so edgy?
Sperglords who don't know the difference between "I don't give a shit" Chaotic Neutral s and "I WILL STAB YOU SO I CAN SELL YOUR ORGANS!" Chaotic Neutrals.
Chaotic Neutral (mainly the apathetic type)
Chaotic Good
>implying the Javert wannabes aren't the edgiest
>>47555543
Wouldn't Lawful Neutral be best for party cohesion, because a Neutral Good leader with a Chaotic Neutral party member isn't necessarily going to get much done, whereas a Lawful Neutral character could easily pull the "follow me and the Law or I'll turn you over to the authorities" card.
>>47555494
>>What alignment do you usually play?
I play real characters instead.
>>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
Refusing to list one, because all the complexities and nuances of human behavior can't be simplified down into 9 neat little squares, at least 5 of which are unplayable (anything with "chaotic" or "evil") and don't reflect the behavior of anyone except psychopaths and mentally unstable people.
>>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
Because "Chaotic" basically means "I don;t have to play by anyone's rules! Fuck society!", which is what edgelord power fantasies usually boil down to.
>>47555592
It would be great for unity, at least until they decided to slit your character's throat in his sleep.
>>47555628
It may be a bit simplified, but just because you pick an alignment doesn't mean that your character has to just be that alignment unless you decide to make them one-dimensional. An alignment is really just a guideline or a 'stamp' of what you've chosen as your character's personality.
>>47555494
>What alignment do you usually play?
Any, if not required by class/character options, often a flavor of neutral
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
In 3.5 likely any evil because blasphemy is probably the most often encountered variety of the alignment-word spells and evil opens up vile feats which can be strong.
5e dropped alignment restrictions and alignment-based spell effects, so there is no "best alignment" in 5e. In fact I have no fucking idea why is there alignment in 5e when there are no mechanics working off it, for example "detect evil" works off creature type rather than alignment.
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
I don't think CG are, while CE's entire shtick is to be edgy.
>>47555672
>I don't think CG are
CG are pretty edgy, dude. "Look mom, I'm a vigilante! Fuck the Law and the police, I do good things my way."
In my experience people who enjoy playing lawful evil turn out to be legit Nazi's.
>>47555494
True Neutral.
True Neutral.
Chaotic isn't edgy if you play it right. Edgy isn't a thing anyway.
>>47555706
>CG are pretty edgy, dude. "Look mom, I'm a vigilante! Fuck the Law and the police, I do good things my way."
Law's can fail, Police can be corrupt, and bureaucracy can enable all of that. Being Chaotic Good or hell being Chaotic at all doesn't necessarily mean that you fucking hate all laws and authority with a burning passion. I don't get where this straw man comes from.
>>47555745
It comes from the kind of people who play Lawful Evil and uphold Judge Dredd as a social model.
>>47555718
But anon... I swear we aren't!
>Hitler worship intensifies
>tries to make all captured enemies slaves
>tries to feed the Dragonborn degenerates
>purges elves
>does nazi science with dwarven allies
>tfw you've actually done this before
feels good senpai.
>>47555757
"edgy" lost all meaning because of that.
Now it's just a buzzword
I first try to come up with the character and then based on it approximate alignment.
No real favourites, although my favourite character was neutral evil.
>>47555494
One of my more favorite characters was chaotic evil. She had no sense of honor or fair play, and was absolutely ruthless, but nevertheless deeply attached to her comrades in a way that none of them were to each other. She would happily betray anybody else for even a modest gain, but they were her family, and the only thing that could convince her to turn on one of them was if it were necessary to save another.
In order not to alienate her comrades or offend what she saw as their endearing but foolish sense of idealism, she moderated her behavior in their presence. But she saw it as her duty to protect them by doing what was necessary when the others were too squeamish to do it. That meant acting behind their backs with some regularity and occasionally even showing them a brief flash of her true colors when subterfuge was impossible. But most of the time, she put on a fairly convincing act of being a great deal more virtuous and compassionate than she really was. This made the occasional acts of ruthlessness her comrades knew about look like aberrations, as if she were a basically good person with a dark side that sometimes got the better of her. This fact, combined with some willful blindness on their part (as they refused to let themselves think badly of their friend) allowed her comrades to tolerate the alignment differences between them.
Essentially, she started out as a challenge to myself to play a non-disruptive chaotic evil character in a mostly good party.
I would argue that both Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are chaotic neutral done right. They work as a team because they like each other, and because they have similar worldviews.
>all these children claiming to play Lawful Evil
>>47555494
My favorite character will always be my CE evil idiot drow. She was the absolute worst at being evil and also being chaotic, but she damn well intended chaos and evil.
>>47555628
>real
>characters
>>47555494
>What alignment do you usually play?
True Neutral and Lawful Neutral
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
Lawful Evil
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
Because people take Chaos to mean "do whatever I please" rather than "the natural force of Freedom, as opposed to the natural force of Law and Order"
Neutral good because I play self-inserts.
Fuck you I have fun
Depends on what you're playing.
They arent if you do them right.
>>47555628
Literally the only intelligent reply in this entire topic.
>>47556293
I would argue that she was Neutral Evil rather then Chaotic; the sense of duty to her friends, the ability to moderate her behaviour in their presence most of the time would indicate a greater degree of restraint than a truly chaotic evil character would be capable of
Any lawful alignment is best. When someone tells me they're lawful, especially lawful neutral or lawful evil or a non-paladin lawful good, I know they got some ideas. They've put some thought in.
Chaotic is, without fail, the absolute worst. If someone tells me they're playing chaotic, I know that they don't want to be a team player and that they just want to do whatever the fucking hell they fucking want. Especially chaotic neutral.
Neutral alignments are, unsurprisingly, neutral.
Funny how this works out, hey?
>>47555494
Chaotic Party
>>47559263
This, right here. Screencap this.
>>47555628
would you say that a banker that benefited from fraud that robbed 10000 retirees from their pensions is evil?
>>47559372
>not playing True Party
>>47555628
>all the complexities and nuances of human behavior can't be simplified down into 9 neat little squares
They're not supposed to.
>>47555628
Alignment is just another stat used for the purposes of fucking spells and shit. You people are fucking retarded.
>>47555745
The first character I ever played was CG, he just did things unconventionally, by mostly throwing things, like people.
>>47555494
>ITT: if you play anything other than LG, NG, or TN you're an edgy, disruptive faggot
>tfw this is STILL an opinion
>tfw people still don't understand alignments.
Look niggers, I'm gonna break each Alignment down for all of you, but first I'll remind you problems are caused by players, not Alignments. You can have a LG paladin in the group and he'll cause nothing but drama, and you can have a CE rogue and he'll be the most constructive and engaging player in the whole party.
The problems with Alignment, like when the CN thief goes "I stab the guard lel", comes from people using Alignment as a justification instead of a description. A good character, no matter their Alignment, will ever have to justify their actions OOC.
Lawful Good
>The world would be a better place if everyone played by the rules.
Neutral Good
>The world could be a better place and we need to make it better.
Chaotic Good
>The world could be a better place and I'm going to make it better.
Lawful Neutral
>The world sucks and it's my job to keep it from getting worse.
True Neutral
>The world sucks and I don't care/don't know it/am an alien
Chaotic Neutral
>The world sucks but I'm gonna live through it.
Lawful Evil
>I'm gonna make the world suck more for some people so it sucks less for others
Neutral Evil
>The world sucks and I'm going to come out on top because of it.
Chaotic Evil
>The world sucks. You suck. I suck. We all suck. I will remind you of this constantly.
>>47559803
Wow, you're a fucking dum dum. Those are terribly off base, dummy.
>>47559596
I think that might be backwards.
>>47559884
How do you mean?
Let me expand on what I mean. Alignment, in D&D, with a competent DM, is just a status of your character used in determining how your character is affected by certain spells, possibly how gods or other outsiders might interact with them. People who think an alignment system is bad, are retards who are over thinking it.
>>47560052
I'm assuming first the alignments were given to monsters, then spells were made that affected alignment.
>>47555628
>being so narrow minded that he thinks there's only one way to play each alignment
>being so narrow minded that he thinks Chaotic only means edgy sperg
also, see >>47558468
>>47555757
>Judge Dredd
>LE
>not LN
>>47555592
What if the other PCs don't follow you but haven't broken the law? You gonna arrest people who did nothing wrong?
>>47555494
Neutral Good
depends on each person. new players that are 'good guys' should stick to LG, murder-hobos should stick to TN
"edgy" has evolved to meme status, so it has no meaning anymore
>>47560503
>blindly follows a police state and issues summary executions because the law says he has to.
>not Evil
>>47560568
yes, you're right.
if he was evil, he would manipulate the law to his own advantage every chance he got while still staying within the law. basically, use his judge status for personal gain.
Dredd has hardly ever, if ever, done that. He's basically the paragon of blind justice, an almost perfect incarnation of Lawful Neutral.
if you can't see this, then you either have no clue what you're talking about or being contrarian for the sake of bait
>>47560638
I definitely agree, but I can understand the point made for lawful evil. People interpret alignments differently. To many, lawful doesn't mean the laws of land or the laws of man, but a personal code, and Dredd is so brutal and uncaring that he seems like an evil cunt. But I agree with you, because the law is Dredd's law, and there's nothing else for him, and to me that's lawful neutral. It's lawful evil when it's malicious.
>What alignment do you usually play?
True good.
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
Lawful Neutral. I usually try to play lawful neutral characters, but inevitably wind up true good because I'm an ethics fag.
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
Rules are important. Having "lulsorandumb" as your defining characteristic is childish. I personally find it more fun to succeed in spite of the rules that are in place than intentionally ignoring them for some selfish reason. I like things to be ordered and logical, which means me and chaos do not get along very well.
This is the first alignment thread I've been to where there was no need to educate fools.
Carry on, /tg/.
>>47555494
>>What alignment do you usually play?
I tend to skew NG for no real reason.
>>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
The one that fits the character.
>>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
They aren't.
>Does this alignment make my character seem edgy?
>Does this dress make my ass look fat?
Qualities can be showcased more by certain things than others, but an edgy character's edginess is not dependent on alignment.
>>47555494
Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral, but I can play any of them except Chaotic Evil. Dunno how to do that without being too disruptive.
>>47555628
>(anything with "chaotic" or "evil")
I once played a "Scorcher Druid" of neutral evil alignment. She was a druid that believed that nature had to be destroyed to feed the land for the next generation. Even if this slaughtered animals and razed towns, their bones and ashes would feed the earth for new growth. She had a somewhat malicious streak and applied her druidic philosophy to urban settings, believing that the old should be destroyed to make room for the new. No respect for tombs, the bones of the dead, or ancient historical ruins. The world changes, and her order's job was to bring that change about right-fucking-now.She wound up being the de-facto leader because of her ability to get shit done
>>47560532
Then you kick them out.
>>47560928
he's a lawful neutral character in a lawful evil socieity
I feel like I need an education.
>>47563566
On what, specifically?
>>47563774
On Lawful Evil. I want to be cool like /tg/ in my next PC run.
>>47563819
A malicious cunt who follows particular guidlines in most things they do. Some examples could be: a cop who's in it to beat the shit out of people, but he has no want to beat the shit out of those that don't break the law. A banker who will use any trick he can find to worm money out of people, without putting him at odds with the law. It's not just those who follow written laws, though: most serial killers could be reasoned to be lawful evil. A mercenary could be considered lawful evil. A person who would kill anyone, except those he gives his exceptional loyalty to. Any devout follower of an evil god.
>>47564066
Thank you anon-sama.
Does he have to be malicious? Would personal gain(pleasure or simply money) be considered malicious?
>>47564397
I don't consider being greedy or self centered evil, but I wouldn't begrudge a player who wanted to play it that way. People who treat him accordingly though: not as evil, but as a simple dick.
Enjoying killing a guy for money is probably evil. Killing a guy for money isn't really evil, just not very nice (unless he's more not nice than you). That's how I play it.
>just always write down Neutral
>don't worry about alignment
>just focus on roleplaying the character
Why choose anything else?
>>47559142
I don't think a chaotic character has to be a slave to her emotions any more than a lawful one does. And I wouldn't say she felt a sense of duty to her friends, as duty was a bit of a foreign concept to her, but rather a fondness / love for them. It's not so much that she was obligated to help them, but that she *wanted* to help them due to her affection for them. That might be a fine line to thread, but trying to convince her she *should* do something because it was somehow right or proper would be a lost cause. And in any case where her friends weren't involved somehow (even if just in the sense that they might learn of her actions), she acted in a completely immoral, honorless fashion. I would call her ruthless and conniving, which I think fits nicely under the rubric of chaotic evil.
>>47563774
Well, shit. Now I need an education too.
>>47563819
A lawful evil character follows the basic rules of society and generally behaves in an "honorable" though not just fashion.
>>47564630
>Killing a guy for money isn't really evil, just not very nice
Killing a guy for personal gain is absolutely evil. You don't need to get some sort of thrill out of doing wrong for it to be wrong.
>>47564630
>Killing a guy for money isn't really evil
It's absolutely evil.
Hell, even if you turn down hits on anyone that isn't a sick, dirty bastard, it'd still be generous to put that on the dark side of neutral.
>>47564873
>>47563819
It's simplistic to think of the legal code of the land as the thing to which lawful characters must adhere, since it's just something enacted by those in charge and can contradict the values and expected behaviors of the people. Good is about what's right in the sense of compassion and people's welfare. It's results-oriented. Lawful is about doing what's proper in the sense of honor and obligation. It's method-oriented.
Alignments are training wheels for novice roleplayers. Not everyone takes naturally to making decisions as someone else would.
There's nothing wrong with using alignments if you have those people in your group, but once they get better it's time to take the training wheels off.
>>47564929
That gets way too sticky. If causing someone's death is evil, then being negligent and not preventing someone's death is also evil. If not preventing the deaths of others is evil, then you are implicitly evil every time someone starves and you have food that could have been given to them.
This is why moral scales like the trolley problem and other shit completely tear the ass out of alignment systems. Morality can't be localized into one person and then hold them accountable for the existence of evil.
Especially in D&D, where all kills result in personal gain through XP or gold directly, regardless of the intention. If intention is all that matters, then someone who BELIEVES they're doing good should be good, since that's the only defining characteristic at that point.
>>47564873
>>47564929
Well, aren't most players essentially killing people for money? Sure there can be other motivations, but most parties will take the time to loot everyone they killed when combat ends, and players get pussy if they don't find at least some gold coins on the bodies.
That doesn't make the party Evil; it's an intentional mechanic. Hence why killing is, within the the confines of Player Agency, not an exclusively evil act.
>>47564983
An expert duelist challenging a nice man with no combat skills to a gentleman's duel to the death because he's in love with his wife and wants her for himself is lawful but evil, at least if he must accept the challenge or be disgraced (leaving him little recourse). The duelist followed the rules as far as honor was concerned, but killed an innocent man for his own gain.
>Lawful Good
>Lawful Good
>Wish fulfillment
>>47565198
>This is why moral scales like the trolley problem and other shit completely tear the ass out of alignment systems
Morality games like the trolley problem are shitty no-win scenarios conceptualized by people who just want to make you uncomfortable. They have no real moral weight and only 3deep5u armchair philosophers put any weight to them.
Morality isn't a hypothetical. It's the actions you take, the reasons you took them, and the effect they have on others.
>>47564397
>>47563819
>On Lawful Evil. I want to be cool like /tg/ in my next PC run.
If you are serious, I wrote something up about a Lawful Evil character largely motivated by love rather than anything malicious.
>>47565293
>Morality isn't a hypothetical
That's completely bullshit. There's no such thing as an unbiased, objective morality scale that isn't incredibly influenced by the culture that it stems from.
They're not intended to be shitty no-win scenarios, but rather vehicles that encourage discussion for *exactly* this reason. People always start to chirp about morality before they even define what it is and come to an agreement on what it is that they're even arguing about.
>>47565203
Yes, but they're killing monsters, which is okay. Or at least that's the rationalization. Also, in harsher circumstances, more extreme actions are acceptable. But let's say you're in a civilized place--a city where there is every expectation of safety and civility--and see a woman walking down the street with a valuable necklace you covet. If you kill her to obtain it, that's evil whether you get off on shanking her or not.
>>47555494
Lawful Neutral
Neutral Good
Chaotic stuff usually seem to be more along the lines of an Anarchist or a person who just does as he pleases whether he's able to live with himself or perfectly fine with opportunities that are generally immoral. Also people don't really know when to stop being a dick with them, so there's that.
>>47565407
>There's no such thing as an unbiased, objective morality scale that isn't incredibly influenced by the culture that it stems from.
Well sure. Morality is a construct in real life (though that doesn't mean it is without value), but we're talking about D&D here, where good and evil exist as objective, fundamental forces.
>>47565198
Accidents are not relevant to alignment.
If someone is about to die due to circumstances you didn't cause, but it would take a significant self-sacrifice to save them, letting them die would not be an evil.
Likewise, if the scenario above happens but it would not be a self sacrifice to save them, THEN letting them die would be an evil act.
If someone in Africa starves while you have plenty of food, that's not an evil act because it would require a significant self-sacrifice to feed him. If someone outside your door begged for food and told you that he hasn't had a meal in a week, and you ignored him and went back to grilling cheeseburgers, that would be an evil act.
It's all about whether or not the act of preventing someone from dying requires a sacrifice on your part. That's why the vast majority of people in most any setting are neutral, because they might help strangers but won't stick their necks out for them.
>>47565203
No, just because you're looting the bodies after you win, that does not mean the players are killing for money. Money does not motivate your actions until after the fight is over.
Killing an enemy who has surrendered because you want his gold would be an evil act, because now money is the primary motivation.
>>47555494
>What alignment do you usually play?
Different variation of Lawful and neutral for usually neutral and good.
I never played with a GM that considered that evil could be something else that a baby-eater or an ultracorrupt sociopath, so I never adventured in the land of "evil".
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
None. The character is interesting, not a two word description. So I can't say that an alignment is better than another.
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
Because people confuse chaotic with lolrandumb.
>>47565454
That's some of the problem with D&D though. They don't actually define Good and Evil before throwing them into the game, which opens an entire can of worms. On top of that, they actually make good and evil tangible things that you can Detect at will as well.
>>47565457
I don't see how sending some African charity $5 online to feed some starving child requires any more effort or sacrifice than opening the door, walking outside and giving some hobo food. If anything, it's less effort on your part to click a mouse. That makes morality subject to distance.
>They're too far away, so it isn't evil
>>47555494
Lawful Neutral sounds like the worse alignment because unless you're a Modron that can claim that anything is lawful so long as Primus said so, you're locked to an arbitary set of programming via your code of conduct; you might as well just be an NPC.
>>47562121
I would personally peg that under chaotic evil. The combination of "RULES OF NATURE" being chaotic of its own right and directly opposing the laws of civilization makes me think CE but I suppose that depends on how you run it.
>>47565520
I'd totally have to disagree. Being Lawful Neutral doesn't mean you're a machine only made to take orders. You could be a Guard with a personal or philosophical problem with another Guardsmen but as he outranks you, you unconditionally adhere to his commands. Hoping that anything bad he could want you to do is for the greater good somehow. Still you support him and respect him til you're relieved.
>>47565390
I was serious. I always play neutral, but I think its time to take the wheels out of the bike for a better experience on the ride.
>>47562340
just like the nazis!probably /s don't get mad
>What alignment do you usually play?
Neutral Evil. It's one of the more interesting yet versatile alignments. It allows for both the most human of evils to develop in a logical manner, as well as opens the door to Extremists of all different sorts.
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
Neutral Evil, True Neutral, and Lawful Neutral all have great options. I fee like certain alignments are a bit too constricting or simply illogical. Take CE, it's probably possible to play it in a way that doesn't make the character look like the lovechild of Kharn and Ted Bundy, but I've never seen it. Because it's not a human alignment, no rational human is going to be CE. LE is better, but it doesn't work too great for the adventuring types in my opinion. LG and CG are boring.
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
Pulling off Freedom is hard enough, but being mired by droves of contrarian anti-authoritarian teenagers makes these alignments seem even worse off.
>>47565723
There's a lot of ways to do Lawful Evil without being a dick.
Doctor Doom, for example, easily falls into the Lawful Evil spectrum, but he's not going to go out of his way to kill women and children, and he always honors his word. However, he has little regard for bureaucracy or the laws of the land because he truly believes that he knows what's best for nearly anything/everyone, and he will exert his will and force to achieve this state.
I personally believe the biggest component to lawful evil is the adage of "the ends justify the means". It can be someone who believes they're doing something for the greater good and are willing to do horrible things to ensure that outcome, it can be a doctor with the "can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs" mentality who is willing to kill one guy if he can make a serum to cure hundreds, etc.
You can also play it the other way, where the guy really is an evil dick who will murder, rob and steal, but is hardlined to a code, like a black knight. He's an evil sonofabitch but he obeys chivalry and won't attack someone unarmed or with their back turned, etc.
Die Hard 3 oddly enough has one of my more cherished "LE" quotes in it; "I'm a criminal, not a monster!", when they found out the bomb he placed in the school was a fake, just to distract them, because he'd never really kill some kids for no reason.
Most important thing to remember when being LE with a party, is that these people SHOULD be your friends. And a LE person usually is cool to his friends and allies still. LE should function totally normal in nearly any party that doesn't feature a Detect Evil-happy paladin.
>>47555494
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
because they originated as the designated badguys in Moorcock and Poul Anderson's work
>>47565502
Proximate cause.
Is an African child going to starve SPECIFICALLY because you didn't donate $5? Or are there a lot of other factors at work that make you ultimately not responsible for anyone's death or survival in Africa?
As above, the hobo is at YOUR door, not a shelter or under a bus stop. You aren't responsible for what hard life he's lived that led him to this point, but you're here, he's there, and your cheeseburger is all he needs to make it through the night. Unless you have a reasonable cause to believe he's full of shit, snubbing him is evil.
>>47565632
Bad druids have to be neutral evil. Personally, druids strike me as more chaotic than neutral but YMMV.
>>47565747
One could argue that the nazis were LE in a LN society, since they were a small portion of the population.
>>47565502
>They don't actually define Good and Evil before throwing them into the game
They do. You may not like the definitions, but they exist.
>>47565873
Those are the same thing. So because the African children weren't able to touch my door, it isn't evil to not feed them, but because the hobo managed to get to my house, suddenly now I'm evil for not feeding him. The hobo was somehow able to morally implicate me in his death, like some DM hellbent on making a paladin fall.
>>47565203
Confiscating the resources of enemies doesn't mean you killed them so you can confiscate their resources.
Unless your players begin to furiously plot murder when they hear about a gold dragon ontop of a treasure hoard or are the types to clear out the Keep on the Borderlands once they're done with the Caves of Chaos, they probably aren't killing for profit.
>>47565974
>>47565873
Neither action is evil. However, a good person would likely direct him to the nearest place he can find charity. There are two places within cozy walking distance of my house where you can find free food.
>>47565974
You aren't God. It's only natural that people are going to die outside of your personal domain. For all you know, your $5 could pay for a aid package that gets intercepted by Somalian warlords who now have enough resources to wipe out the village where our African child lives, instead of just raiding it.
The hobo is inside your personal domain. It's possible that he could still die despite you giving him food, but there's no way to dispute that you are the primary factor at work for whether he lives or dies.
>>47566062
I don't personally agree that you're responsible for hobos that turn up on your doorstep. For one thing it raises the question of what the hell public institutions exist for in the scenario.
>>47555494
>What alignment do you usually play?
Neutral Good.
>Which alignment is the best in your opinion?
Neutral Good, because Neutral Good characters are heroes who act to help people and save lives, not because the law requires it, or in spite of any unjust laws (like LG and CG), but because it's simply the right thing to do. Lawful and Chaotic characters can get into conflict over their philosophies and lifestyles, but the only people who don't like Neutral Good characters are assholes.
>Why are all of the Chaotic alignments so edgy?
Because Chaotic characters, according to the D&D player's handbook definitions, inherently believe that their own moral compass and decision-making is more important than the rules of society. It's the "You can't tell me what to do!" alignment spectrum. This is a correlation to edginess, not a causation - edgy characters tend to be Chaotic because rejecting authority and doing whatever they want is a very edgy character trait.
Not all Chaotic characters are edgelords. Some Lawful or Neutral characters are edgelords. It's just that edgy characters tend to gravitate towards chaos naturally.
>>47565832
>Most important thing to remember when being LE with a party, is that these people SHOULD be your friends. And a LE person usually is cool to his friends and allies still. LE should function totally normal in nearly any party that doesn't feature a Detect Evil-happy paladin.
You get it.
Actually, any alignment can work with any party if they try.
Do Y'all ever Consider how much alignment changes when the main theme of the Campaign is about Dictatorship?
For example, a Lawful Evil person is a morally lacking person who follows his own moral code.
While in a Dictatorship, a Lawful Evil Person is a person who'd rattle out on neighbors, fellow workers, or the party so the government would give him a pat on the back for his loyalty and hopefully move up in the world.
Anybody else got anything to add to how Dictatorship changes Alignment?
>>47563819
>>47565723
Okay, bear in mind this was not exactly written as a backstory for a level 1 PC.
Here goes:
Start with your basic fantasy storyline, but skip to the end.
>Aging, noble, and wise king has found an heir in a young hero who saved his eldest daughter, and the kingdom, from the evil manipulations of the former vizier.
>The young betrothed couple remain in love as they go on adventures saving the kingdom from various threats.
>But who will now serve as vizier?
>A young, handsome, and bright noble steps up to humbly serve, and is very good at his position.
>And what of the king’s younger daughter? She is free to court as she chooses, but somewhat resents her older sister’s permanent position over her.
>The new vizier runs the daily business of the country while the king-to-be continues to have brave adventures, proving his worth as a champion, but never learning anything about how to run a kingdom, and the older princess is only a little better. The vizier grows worried about his future having serve such fools.
>The vizier’s continued efforts to increase the law and security of the kingdom are always thwarted by the Princess’s consort’s “ethical” concerns, citing that measures that could prevent crime and disasters are not needed as HE is always there to stop the crime and disasters.
>The vizier remains loyal on the surface, but endlessly seeks a way out of his fate to powerlessly clean up after this fool.
>>47566362
>The only light in his days of service are the family lunches. More often than not, the Fool and his Princess are absent, off adventuring, usually defeating but failing to kill a local necromancer. These lunches allow him to enjoy the pleasant company of the kind (if somewhat naïve) King and his younger, more charming daughter.
>One day, an opportunity arises after the incredibly gifted, but madly arrogant necromancer once again fails in an attack on the city. While being held hostage, a few choice words plant the seeds in the madman’s fevered mind to attack the Baron of the neighboring allied nation.
>The attack badly wounds the leader, and the vizier suggests a royal convoy to aid their ally. The young Princess leads the reconstruction efforts after the necromancer’s attack, proving her worth and winning the hearts of both the neighboring barony and the ailing baron himself.
>The Baron asks for the princess’s hand in marriage, and the wise King reluctantly accepts, knowing that his daughter’s heart truly yearns for the vizier.
>The young princess marries the Baron, accepting that the people of the Barony need her strength.
>Unfortunately, despite the vizier ensuring the King send the "finest" healers, the Baron dies.
>The young Baroness is "understandably distraught," and needs help running the barony, and asks for her father to send the vizier to aid her, after all, her older sister and her consort should be able to manage the kingdom, right?
>>47566407
>The vizier becomes Chief Advisor and Warlord to the Barony. His decisive actions quickly lead to the capture and “rehabilitation” of the necromancer, who now practices his dark art under close scrutiny of mages loyal to the Baroness.
>Aided by new, undead forces, the Chief Warlord finally defeats the rampaging ogres on their far border, but rather than kill them, he unifies the tribes under his chosen ogre, a powerful, yet clever man-beast who is now one of his Lieutenants.
>The victorious warlord is given the highest honor he could ever hope to receive, the hand of the woman he has loved for many years. He donned the sacred, ceremonial black spiked armor worn since ancient times by the Barons of this land.
>He has become a Baron of a fine land, enjoys the love of a beautiful, wickedly clever woman, and can finally put into action the brilliant plans he has held onto to establish order on this lawless, magic torn land.
>The streets are safe in the Barony. No law-abiding citizen need fear any bandit or monster.
>The only ones who need fear are their enemies upon their two remaining borders. He has terrifying plans for those that threaten the flourishing of his people, his land, and his legacy.
>But, his ally, the old kingdom never needs to fear. He would never seek battle with them, just as he would never have risen to power by harming the father of his darling wife.
>Sure, he fantasizes about the day when he finally can crush that fool Prince, but the kind, old King cares for the fool. And his sister in law has never done slight against him. So he waits for the naïve old King to pass and the perfect opportunity to arise.
>For now, he takes joy in the fact that the Barony’s celebration over the birth of his son and heir dwarfed the pitiful wedding of the Fool Prince and Princess.
>>47565832
About your sentence in the "end justify the means". If someone genuinely believes he is doing good by killing a few people, wouldn't that make him good? Or did you by that only refer to people that genuinely believe they are doing good but it itsn't necessarily true?
I liked your Die Hard 3 quote. I think LE can be very fun, and overall thanks anon.
>>47566323
The modern concept of alignments seems to work best with a dictatorship and work worst with a just society (ergo if the law is good then a chaotic character becomes questionable).
>>47566323
A Lawful Good character in a dictatorship will follow all just and fair laws, and will disobey any unjust or tyrannical laws, for just because something is legal does not make it right, and just because something is illegal does not make it wrong. Good comes before law for them.
A Lawful Neutral character in a dictatorship will follow the law whenever possible, breaking it only when necessary and when they can reasonably get away with it. Some extremely Lawful Neutral people may commit crimes out of necessity, then turn themselves in, throwing themselves on the mercy of the courts. But, in general they will not do so, and generally act like normal law-abiding citizens, though they may not be happy about the laws of the land. Ultimately, neutrality comes before law for them.
A Lawful Evil character in a dictatorship will follow the law, so long as it allows them to exploit others and further their own selfish goals. They will act outside of the law only if it prevents them from achieving some goal they value, or if they can get away with it (or better yet, blame someone else for their crime. Evil comes before law for them.
Chaotic Good characters will probably actively try to overthrow a dictatorship, Chaotic Neutrals will do whatever they feel like regardless of the politics, as will Chaotic Evil types. Neutral Good/Evil and True Neutral will probably act like their Lawful counterparts, using or opposing the system on a case-by-case basis, though they'd probably be slightly more willing to break the law than if they were Lawful.
>>47566846
Not that Anon, but it's the difference between doing evil to later do good, or trying to find a good way and not do evil full stop. A LE man would not hesitate to kill an innocent man if he knew 100% it would assist the world/would further his own goal. A LG man would try and find literally any other way to save the man and everyone else effected.
Alignments work fine for what they are in any government of any alignment.
>>47555494
I'm all about Lawful Neutral but I prefer to think of it as Violent Good.
>>47573220
I don't follow, unless your character adheres to a strict code of Violent Good.
