what's the most overplayed alignment?
>>43975119
Awful Stupid
chaotic good
>>43975130
Seconding this. Paladins alone make it a fact.
After that, Probably Chaotic "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT!" Neutral.
>>43975119
True Stupid
>>43975149
This or NG probably
>>43975119
>Overthinking Stupid
>>43975150
I had a guy in my old group who was always chaotic neutral, so was his room mate
all their characters boiled down to 'MEHHH I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING HELPFUL'
>>43975119
Lawful Mad.
>>43975150
>Seconding this. Paladins alone make it a fact.
>After that, Probably Chaotic "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT!" Neutral.
If you fail to understand what makes LG an enjoyable alignment for the whole table, when done well, you deserve to have your games filled with CN rogues who steal everything that isn't nailed down.
>>43975119
Chaotic Neutral, probably. The stable alignment of That Guys since the dawn of the alignment system, it's been misinterpreted as the 'lol random' I-can-do-anything alignment and is thus prime for assholes, betrayers, and Han Solo wannabees.
>>43975149
This. It's the easiest for newcomers to play, and what most people ideally want to be irl.
>>43975119
Chaotic anything, really.
Players just use the "chaotic" tag as an excuse to not have to commit to any particular ethos one way or another.
>>43975238
>Posting shitty meme screencaps without actually understanding what they're saying.
It's not that I don't understand what makes LG an enjoyable alignment, it's more that my players do. Lawful Good does not mean be a "No fun allowed asshole who threatens the party members with death for not living up to the tiniest details of their personal morality code." However, this is how 90% of Paladins act in practice, both in my group and others I've seen. It ends up making the game less fun for other players who don't start off as paragons of justice and want like... some actual character development or flaws along the way.
Furthermore, this topic was about what alignment is the most overplayed, not which one is the worst (any flavor of evil is far worse for the game than Lawful good, unless you're playing an entire party of evil characters... and even then, that really only works for Lawful Evil). Lawful Good is the most overplayed alignment by far.
>>43975119
Yes
>>43975119
I propose four new alignments:
Paranoid <----->Randumb
and
Method Actor <-----> Facebook Poster
>>43975328
You're just fucking wrong about everything ever. Your whole life is a lie.
>>43975238
>>43975328
>>43975374
This will certainly be an intellectual discussion for the ages.
>>43975387
Nah, I'm smart enough to recognize bait when I see it. If this "discussion" continues, it won't be because of me.
>>43975327
This.
>>43975327
Thats how I feel about "neutral-anything".
>>43975119
FIST
>>43975328
>Overplayed
You know, come to think of it, I'm the only one in any of my groups that ever plays lawful good. I'd say CN is the most overplayed, either because players think it's the only alignment that lets them do what they want or because they want to play an edgelord who goes on heroic quests but uses evil means.
>>43975552
So basically CN players are roleplaying as themselves.
>>43975119
Chaotic Neutral. Most players don't like playing alignments that restrict their options so they pick the alignment that allows them to play from a strategic perspective and not from a character based one. Unfortunately, this almost entirely removes roleplaying from their equation as they act based on efficiency and rationality alone. Most people choose it it so they can play "with" their character instead of playing "as" their character.
>>43975552
Edgelords are nowhere near as bad as people who play Lawful Good because they have *ahem* strong personalities and are convinced their own views on everything are always right and playing Lawful Good somehow legitimizes that.
Not the guy complaining about paladins. Although they're huge offenders, I've seen this happen with other classes too.
>>43975267
Chaotic evil is more like that, they could be talking to people kindly and opening doors and then all of a sudden throw an old lady out into the street to get hit by a car and just continue their business like nothing happened. They do what they want like it makes complete sense to them, they have no detection of right and wrong or lawfullness and chaos they just do what they think makes sense.
>>43975618
My real issue with alignments is that they're supposed to be an objective standard when nobody can fucking agree on what standard to hold them to.
If there was some sort of points list where lawful/chaotic/good/evil actions could be charted, I'd be much more solid with it, but there isn't and it's always bugged the shit out of me.
From my experience, I've seen a lot of Chaotic Good or Neutral. Mostly people seem to enjoy a bit of freedom and randomness to their actions, but also tend to otherwise play fairly cautiously - in some cases, with barely any real character aside from a theme they worked out beforehand that acts as a goal.
Though I'd hazard that Neutral Good ends up getting played a lot.
>>43975644
Sure, they PLAY like Chaotic Evil but they WRITE Chaotic Neutral on their character sheets. After all, wouldn't want any pesky Paladins smiting them on sight.
Seriously, I don't get the whole "Chaotic Neutral means I do a bunch of random shit" most of the time I play Chaotic Neutral because I dislike my character being someone else's lapdog and are motivated by their own goals. They're in charge of themselves and only themselves, if you want more than that "fuck you, pay me."
>>43975794
I mean, that is kind of the way to play Chaotic Neutral, but it doesn't endear you to party members.
You'd have to do a good job with it.
>>43975794
Because that guys think Chaotic = Randumb
>>43975691
Well, the D&D alignments only made sense in the original D&D setting. Lawful Good is seen as the "protagonist" alignment, because the primary antagonist forces the game presents are either out for themselves and screwing everyone else (evil) or actively working to destroy a fragile medieval society (chaotic). Since then they've tried to describe every alignment pairing in terms of an archetype (so CG is like a freedom fighter, or LE is like a corrupt politician) but there are simply so many archetypes around and so many possible interpretations of them that it becomes impossible to pin everyone down into boxes.
It would probably be best to work out with your group what the themes and opposing forces of the game will be and create "alignments" based on that. I remember reading a houserule with alignments based on the colors in Magic: The Gathering which I thought was pretty rad, with each color representing a philosophy and way of seeing the world rather than a list of actions that are and aren't allowed.
>>43975238
>Enjoyable alignment for the whole table
Maybe enjoyable for the person playing LG, but certainly not for the whole table
Chaotic Neutral.
I like playing Lawful Neutral the most. Leaves me with a ton of room for RP while still retaining a moral code
>>43975825
Assuming the party aren't antagonistic fucktards, they usually warm up to the party.
>>43975877
A lot of people seem to forget this, and unless your into a bunch of useless planar bullshit alignments really don't matter much.
Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral.
However, alignment a shit.
>>43975919
You can play LG in ways that are a little more relaxed. You don't have to be a stick up your ass, rule over the entire party sort of LG. You can just have a strong code of personal morals, but you don't have to force it on anyone. You can hold to the law and respect it, but you understand that the rogue will just resist harder if you try to make him follow every rule and you gotta let him do his own thing.
>>43976197
Just remember that alignments are more guidelines, general areas you should stay in, more than strict rules. The actual personality of the character is far more important than a pair of words on the page which are supposed to give you a sense of what they are like - not even a summary.
>>43976005
mildly uncommon enlightenment though,
Why does nobody play neutral good.
>>43976316
I tend to.
Mostly because it's 'vanilla Good', without having to bother with all the baggage of Chaotic/Lawful.
>>43976316
I tend to play neutral-good alot when I'm playing Rogues. Then again all the Rogues I play tend to be "reformed" Rogues who don't really steal for their own personal gain anymore. I like the kind of Rogue who's been saved from their life of crime by a fellow good party member, but their skills still serve a use to the party. There's not much difference between breaking into a castle and stealing gold for yourself and breaking into a fort that's been occupied by bandits and opening the gate for the rest of the party.
Not sure if that really qualifies as Neutral Good (I assume you meant Chaotic Good? Because Neutral and Good are on the same axis) but yeah. Alignments are dumb to begin with and I don't think about them too much.
>>43976427
Neutral Good is Neutral on the Lawful-Chaotic spectrum (not on the Evil-Good spectrum.)
>>43975794
You just described True Nuetral
>>43975119
Chaotic neutral. For some reason, a lot of people just default to it even if their character is clearly good or lawful.
I once was in a game where the party was part of the setting equivalent of the FBI. 5 out of 7 characters were CN. The other two were NG and LG (me). The funny part is that only one of them ever acted even remotely chaotic and all of them acted fairly good. I always got shrugs when I asked them why they were CN instead of TN or CG.
>>43976297
Yeah, but tell that to the folks who act as though alignment is the be all and end all character stat, and that if your character is not an unwavering rigid automaton incapable of any originality they are "breaking alignment."
I KNOW theyre guidelines, a lot of people don't.
>>43975119
Excluding lawful stupid Paladins, chaotic LAWL RANDOM neutral
>>43975587
If by "themselves" you mean "fuckwits".
It's like all those shitheads who thought playing a Malkavian meant painting your face like ICP, wearing a nun's habit and carrying a chainsaw.
"AHM INSANE MUTHAFUCKA"
>>43976970
Well, that too, but I was more referring to the players who haven't grasped the concept of roleplaying yet, and more or less operate on the principle of "what would I do in that situation".
>>43975919
>Maybe enjoyable for the person playing LG, but certainly not for the whole table
There's a big difference between 3.5e paladins and characters who are just lawful good. Characters who are simply lawful good are just that: lawful good. If an evil character is in the party, they may tolerate their presence and talents and perhaps even consider them friends. They'll probably look the other way when the CN murderhobo snaps a guards neck, but stop him when he actually tries to torture a subdued enemy.
On the other hand, a 3.5e paladin simply cannot tolerate those of other alignments, and are forced to play the LN party police. This isn't bad roleplay, 3.5e were designed to be helicopter moms.
>>43975589
This nigga knows what's up.
>>43979351
>This isn't bad roleplay, 3.5e were designed to be helicopter moms.
Another facet of Ivory Tower Design™!
>>43975327
maybe thats because this kind of alignment system is ill-defined and real people are more complex in this matter
and you dont want to argue with a DM how to follow your choosen alignment , since character personality and morality knows no consistent alignment , and i sure as hell planned to roleplay this way
not just as a hunk of stats , but as a person with a personality , and morality can just be as complex
>>43980736
also , this comes from a lawful neutral guy
>>43975119
There are no shit alignments, only shit players. GM's who're sperging about not ever letting anyone play Chaotics or Evil or whatever just need to find better players.
If you are a player that comes to the game just to be a fucktard, it doesn't matter if you're Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Good. You're gonna be an asswipe either way.
>>43979351
>a 3.5e paladin simply cannot tolerate those of other alignments, and are forced to play the LN party police.
Does it literally say that anywhere in the rules? Because I don't see why a paladin couldn't do what you described above, especially if for whatever reason his god was okay with him looking the other way.
>>43980736
In its defense, while the LC/GE system is flawed when you examine it closely, it is far superior to not having an alignment system at all, especially when it comes to introducing new characters. It's easy to grasp on a surface level, and it gives a character a general direction to their moral compass. At the end of the day, being able to choose your alignment is the first real step into roleplay each player is offered.
Of course, it is only really meant to be an introduction to roleplaying. In an ideal world, once a player becomes comfortable with the idea of playing about with different alignments, he can start to blur the lines between alignments, as long as it "fits" with the overall character he's going for.
Like various classic DnD roleplaying mechanics, many are just there to give some sort of structure for new players to be able to develop a mentality that goes beyond "this is a game and I have to beat it".
>>43975327
But I am gonna play a chaotic good bard, in my following session.
Am I already that guy for choosing said alignment?
My chaotic good character is just someone who doesn't hold rules to high standards and is willing to compromise on them if it means that he'll be doing something he believes is good. Obviously this means the character has his own moral parameter, but he's willing to adjust as he learns more about the world he lives in. He defines good from personal experiences than what society tells him, which is what I understand law to mean.
So if society has a rule that says killing is bad, kill somebody no matter what, but some dude comes in and starts killing people, he'd be the one willing to make the decision to kill the bad guy. On a less black and white scenario, if his party decided that it'd be wise to keep a secret, but he feels it would be wrong to a third party, even though the majority made a decision, he would still be one to take action against it, because he believes he's acting for good.
Am I played chaotic good, or would I fall into another alignment?
>>43982067
It's "That Guy", not "That Alignment". Just play the character well and nobody will complain.
>>43982067
Unless you're constantly pulling over at every tavern to enjoy every local delicacy, and then stealing everything, and just generally be annoying, you'll be fine.
>>43975119
CN for sure. CN LOOKS like the perfect open-end and the default choice for most newer players, who often want to push boundaries that IRL they'd never think of pushing.
After several years, I decided I wouldn't let anyone make CN (or CE) characters unless they could adequately justify why they act they way they do, and why they would ever bother spending time with a group of adventurers other than plot convenience. Anyone whose justification is no deeper than "he just does what he wants" I tell them to either make a different character or keep working.
>examples
I had a guy make a CE half-orc barbarian, who's justification was that he genuinely did not value anything other than pure combat prowess. Weaklings were worthless, their opinions invalid and distasteful to him. There was some player trust here, I felt he wouldn't go full shitlord, and I was right, "Krunk" (I think he chose this name on purpose to bait conflict) ended up being a really great character who added a lot of interesting conflict to most stays in civilized territory and most important NPCs. The rest of the party had more incentive to put up with him because he won a lottery pre-game and started 1 level higher with (very) slightly better gear.
Lolrandom isn't automatically shit either: an interesting "lolrandom" CN character I had in a game was a "Malorax" a human warlock from 4.0 and later in 5.0 where I decided to test the system we'd do a campaign where all the players dusted off old characters and remade them in the new system, and the player chose this character. Malorax was a self-proclaimed "deviant of fate" and literally randomly determined (using dice) how he stood on every issue, arguing long and eloquently. However, he also nearly always lied, and his grandiose lies really sold the character. Keeping it playable was the fact that he had an agenda that kept him with the party, but his contribution to inter-party disputes was some of the funniest stuff ever.
Everyone in my group plays chaotic neutral because they're Skyrimmers and all they do is collect loot. I always want to play lawful characters or true neutral and it puts me at odds with them. Especially because we have one of those DMs who try to tell you how your character should feel or act because of your alignment. Even when he's not DMing he chimes in with that shit and he's the worst gamerkiddie of them all. Pulling incredibly dumb shit and saying "I'm chaotic neutral that's what my character would do!" They're all psychopaths.
>>43985262
It's pretty tough to get used to an RPG compared to a videogame - even when I thought I was prepared, it took me a while to get used to it not being /my/ story, and it didn't have to be something really heavy on roleplay to be fun.
I've never really gotten the 'collecting loot' thing, personally - I can never decide what to spend it on, so at most it's just a way of proving how much you've progressed. Maybe you can help them get started on doing things with loot, so maybe they can try making zany magical inventions and getting into something aside from wealth for the sake of it?
Lawful Neckbeard.
>>43986523
What, a character that is such a stickler for alignment rules, they will kill a character for acting like how he thinks they shouldn't?
>>43975119
Meme and /tg/ bitching wise? Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral.
Actual real life? Chaotic Good because it's the closest thing to how humans actually fucking act and people are too lazy to put in the effort to variance themselves away from "I'm a good person but I come before others, fuck the police."
