True Neutral for me almost always. I personally find morality tends to get in the way a lot and I just take everything on a case-by-case basis.
That is actually a viewpoint that supports Chaotic Neutral. Neutral - morality gets in the way (I do what is necessary), and Chaotic- Taking everything on a case-by-case basis resists the ordering of the world and using Laws and other guideposts to establish behavior.
Ah but I don't ignore laws because doing so can lead you in a whole bunch of trouble. So they always have to be taken into account.
Aggh! I failed my WIsdom Save!
Right. So that means that you are Lawful Neutral. Laws are an inherent "good" thing, and failing to follow them leads to bad outcomes, so you follow them.
Matt Colville has the perfect example of a True Neutral Character: Garak from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Don't worry - I should have been clearer. Probably a better phrasing would have been: "So they always have to be taken into account" - but not necessarily followed.
i prefer more to be the Evil among a party of LG paladins, i get the job done when it needs to be done. and the paladin can keep there precious little oath.
According to the working definitions here, I am ideologically drawn to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good and that's how I try and play my Characters as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Lawful. I suppose the necessity makes me write that "Lawful Neutral". However, the defining trait of a lot of my characters is the virtue of civilisation and culture. Good versus Evil isn't interesting to me as a concept, especially when you have literal manifestations of good and evil. I mean, we could get into what alignment means. There seems to be at least three parallel systems going on there:
1) You have players, which each pole on each axis, represents an ideal and not exactly an opposing ideal. For example, I see Lawful vs Chaotic as really a question between honour and freedom. Where as good vs evil, to me, seems to be more of a question between alturism and individualism. I'm sure many people disagree, but I don't think evil has to mean devil worshipping or rude or even inconsiderate. Evil, in D&D terms feels like it's more an issue a hunger for power. Of course, alignment shouldn't ... determine your characters, but rather be a tool to help determine a cohesive personality or world view.
2) Alignment for most monsters is not information about the monster's philosophical outlook, but just a quick reference for who your players might oppose without an sort further consideration.
3) Divinely evil and divinely good beings. They are just objectively aligned with "postitive" or "negative" energy. It's not really a question of morality. Their goodness or evilness isn't a description of their actions. Normal persons have to "earn" beign evil or good. These beings are created good or evil.
So, I would say my characters are often Lawful primarily. The other axis varies.
"Honor and freedom" is one of the best ways I've ever heard the Lawful/Chaotic difference described. I was watching Downton Abbey the other day and one of the characters refused to use money he felt he'd obtained wrongly to help save the estate, insisting on giving it away. That's the essence of Lawful Good: it's honorable and objective.
Who remembers the player's manual of the second edition (and maybe the first), with the chapter "how to play your alignment"? 25 hours before the new year, in 2020, I was passing the time by creating a second edition character. I thought long and hard about his alignment, and it was Chaotic Neutral. Then, to confirm, I acted it out in the "how to play your alignment" chapter. I'm not sure what happened when I read this:
The Chaotic Neutral died running over a gorgon.
But laugh all you want, that day is etched in my memory and the Chaotic Neutral alignment has been my favorite ever since. You know when you prefer something because of memories rather than because of the thing itself? Well, that's how I found the cloakers, and I don't regret it.
"Good? Evil? It's all about reputation. I want stuff without paying for it. That's supposedly evil, but if they think I'm good, they're more inclined to just let me have it."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Probably Lawful Neutral. Very easy to play for me personally. I just give my character a set of morals to stick to and it doesn't have to be inherently good or evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
— δ cyno • he/him • number one paladin fanδ — making a smoothie for meta ——————| EXTENDED SIG |—————— Φ • redpelt’s biggest fan :) DM, minmaxer, microbiology student, and lover of anything colored red • Φ
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aggh! I failed my WIsdom Save!
Right. So that means that you are Lawful Neutral. Laws are an inherent "good" thing, and failing to follow them leads to bad outcomes, so you follow them.
Matt Colville has the perfect example of a True Neutral Character: Garak from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
https://youtu.be/YgNQ3NXqqiQ
The character's defining feature is cynicism about everyone: Law, Chaos, Good, Evil nothing is trustworthy...not even himself.
Don't worry - I should have been clearer.
Probably a better phrasing would have been: "So they always have to be taken into account" - but not necessarily followed.
Cynicism is a really good way of putting it.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Chaotic Evil, it leads to some good good times.
Also known as CrafterB and DankMemer.
Here, have some homebrew classes! Subclasses to? Why not races. Feats, feats as well. I have a lot of magic items. Lastly I got monsters, fun, fun times.
i prefer more to be the Evil among a party of LG paladins, i get the job done when it needs to be done. and the paladin can keep there precious little oath.
My Spells, My Races, My Magic Items, My Monsters, My Subclasses,
Go to alignment for me, or for my characters? :p
According to the working definitions here, I am ideologically drawn to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good and that's how I try and play my Characters as well.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Lawful. I suppose the necessity makes me write that "Lawful Neutral". However, the defining trait of a lot of my characters is the virtue of civilisation and culture. Good versus Evil isn't interesting to me as a concept, especially when you have literal manifestations of good and evil. I mean, we could get into what alignment means. There seems to be at least three parallel systems going on there:
1) You have players, which each pole on each axis, represents an ideal and not exactly an opposing ideal. For example, I see Lawful vs Chaotic as really a question between honour and freedom. Where as good vs evil, to me, seems to be more of a question between alturism and individualism. I'm sure many people disagree, but I don't think evil has to mean devil worshipping or rude or even inconsiderate. Evil, in D&D terms feels like it's more an issue a hunger for power. Of course, alignment shouldn't ... determine your characters, but rather be a tool to help determine a cohesive personality or world view.
2) Alignment for most monsters is not information about the monster's philosophical outlook, but just a quick reference for who your players might oppose without an sort further consideration.
3) Divinely evil and divinely good beings. They are just objectively aligned with "postitive" or "negative" energy. It's not really a question of morality. Their goodness or evilness isn't a description of their actions. Normal persons have to "earn" beign evil or good. These beings are created good or evil.
So, I would say my characters are often Lawful primarily. The other axis varies.
"Honor and freedom" is one of the best ways I've ever heard the Lawful/Chaotic difference described. I was watching Downton Abbey the other day and one of the characters refused to use money he felt he'd obtained wrongly to help save the estate, insisting on giving it away. That's the essence of Lawful Good: it's honorable and objective.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Find my favourite alignment. Easy.
Who remembers the player's manual of the second edition (and maybe the first), with the chapter "how to play your alignment"? 25 hours before the new year, in 2020, I was passing the time by creating a second edition character. I thought long and hard about his alignment, and it was Chaotic Neutral. Then, to confirm, I acted it out in the "how to play your alignment" chapter. I'm not sure what happened when I read this:
The Chaotic Neutral died running over a gorgon.
But laugh all you want, that day is etched in my memory and the Chaotic Neutral alignment has been my favorite ever since. You know when you prefer something because of memories rather than because of the thing itself? Well, that's how I found the cloakers, and I don't regret it.
My favourites creations :
Half-Cloaker, Cloaker Lord, Potion of the Cloaker
I am looking for advice to upgrade my campaign.
There are troglodytes in my living room and cloakers in my basement.
I tend to play characters who are Neutral Good or just Neutral,
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Probably Lawful Neutral. Very easy to play for me personally. I just give my character a set of morals to stick to and it doesn't have to be inherently good or evil.
— δ cyno • he/him • number one paladin fan δ —
making a smoothie for meta
——————| EXTENDED SIG |——————
Φ • redpelt’s biggest fan :) DM, minmaxer, microbiology student, and lover of anything colored red • Φ