To start off, I generally play good characters. Not for anything other than the fact that I tend to like my characters to align closer to my own personality and attitude toward others. However, I have recently taken to playing something out of the norm for myself. My current character is a chaotic neutral Dwarven Barbarian. I've been trying to make decisions based not on my own moral compass, but the moral compass of the character I chose to roll. To be honest, I find it extremely difficult to balance what I agree with morally as a player, and what my character would actually do with a chaotic neutral alignment. Kyllgor is chaotic neutral because he was orphaned at a young age, and taken on as a smith for merchant ships. Without much influence from his Dwarven heritage, he succumbed to his greed and a general feeling of "himself against the world".
I guess where this thread is going is to ask; how fluid is alignment at your own tables?
I've always like to imagine that this "me against the world" attitude could be changed by having a few friends and adventuring around with them. Undoubtedly Kyllgor has learned things about working as a group instead of just swinging his axe first, and asking questions later--but at what point would that change a character's alignment?
Is alignment inherent? Is that chaotic neutral bent always inside him? Or can the influence of his comrades change him to be a little more neutral, or even good?
I would say an ideal of "me against the world" in a group becomes "us against the world". They're still selfish or greedy or however you feel your character behaves but it's for the benefit of the group not just themselves - but still at least a little bit for themselves.
That said I try to stay as far away from alignment as I can. My characters behave the way they do because that's how they behave - not because their alignment says so - and that behaviour will certainly change over time based on events that have unfolded.
To me alignment is a tool to use and it shouldn't be a straightjacket or a cage. It's part of the overall, "Here's who my character is and what he believes", it's not a, "My character has to". There are some exceptions to this, mainly clerics and paladins, but even they have some leeway. It is a general guideline and alignments can, and do, change as characters grow.
Alignment is a useful shorthand and works well as general advice, but nothing more.
When you claim that your character is good, evil, lawful or chaotic, these things come with a certain set of assumptions. However, alignments, just like traits, ideals and flaws, are just a jumping off point to work from to create a more fleshed out "personal philosophy" for a character. Once you have something more detailed than the basic "I am good" or "I am evil" in mind, alignment becomes pretty much useless.
I've never been a fan of mechanics being tied to alignments in DnD, and I'm glad that a lot of that bent has been tossed in 5e. I recognize that objective morality is a thing in the DnDverse, but always thinking in terms of alignment is a great way to make your character stupid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PbP characters: Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
I don't use Alignments. The Mechanical attachments to Alignment in 3rd edition were troublesome to say the least. I hated dealing with DMs that insisted on The Paladin Screw. "You must choose between a Good and a Lawful action, either way I'm going to take all your Features away." I will always hate dealing with Stupid Good, Lawful Stupid, True Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, and Stupid Evil Characters. It is better if Alignment never comes up.
I recognize that objective morality is a thing in the DnDverse, but always thinking in terms of alignment is a great way to make your character stupid.
I completely agree. That's another reason why I have difficulty connecting to any evil characters. I feel like being a murder hobo in any campaign regardless of alignment leans you toward an evil alignment anyways. It's murder for the sake of loot, which seems extremely chaotic to me. However, I've seen "good" characters succumb to the murder hobo mysticism. I've always felt that alignments should be fluid. It makes sense from a real-world personality standpoint and makes for great roleplay potential if the stricture isn't placed on a party.
I would add a couple things. Alignment has always had some issues in the game and been subject of much debate how much it comes into play and it's usefulness. It's your DM's call how much alignment affects the game world. If you're having trouble with trying to play the alignment though it's something for you to take note of as a player. Especially if your in a game where the alignment is important, and it is in some.
Talk to the DM about your struggles. He may have some suggestion or recommendations based on how important alignment is for him. Personally I've only had a couple campaigns I've run out of 100's now where alignment really played a role. One came up recently where a lawful good cleric did something that was unmistakably evil. They were punished by their god in the form of not having their spells back after a long rest. The player got the point and has been much more proactive in keeping his god happy. Visiting shrines, praying before battle, etc.
I like chaotic nuertal as an alignment personally. It kind of ties in with some of my own personal beliefs of having freedom of choice and getting authority out of the equation. It kind of reminds me of the Janis Joplin lyric "Freedoms just another word for nothing left to loose" That's how I feel about chaotic nuetral. You're kind of liberated to act how you wish because you're not bogged down by the dogma that goes along with 'good' or 'evil' It's not that you're totally random or only out for yourself, necessarily. You can have attachments and friends and still want to protect or help them because of personal attachments. Alignment is really just a guide. It can help shape your character but (unless the DM is really about alignemts) doesn't have to define it.
I started in the days when Alignment was a hard coded aspect of your character and there were very stiff penalties for changing. As well as a handy graph in the back of the DMG for the DM to plot everybody's alignment on and keep track of the drift.
These days I much prefer t see alignment as a general descriptor of a person's morals, ethics, and personality. Even a person of Chaotic Evil alignment can obey the laws and help little old ladies across the street sometimes without breaking alignment.
I've definitely had no struggles with alignment (with my current DM). This was just a general question for the other players, and DM's out there as to how they handle it. I have one of the most chill DM's I've ever had the privilege to sit down with. He loves the fluidity of alignment and thinks it should be treated with minimal rigidity as the personalities of the characters change, and how certain events within a campaign may affect them.
To start off, I generally play good characters. Not for anything other than the fact that I tend to like my characters to align closer to my own personality and attitude toward others. However, I have recently taken to playing something out of the norm for myself. My current character is a chaotic neutral Dwarven Barbarian. I've been trying to make decisions based not on my own moral compass, but the moral compass of the character I chose to roll. To be honest, I find it extremely difficult to balance what I agree with morally as a player, and what my character would actually do with a chaotic neutral alignment. Kyllgor is chaotic neutral because he was orphaned at a young age, and taken on as a smith for merchant ships. Without much influence from his Dwarven heritage, he succumbed to his greed and a general feeling of "himself against the world".
I guess where this thread is going is to ask; how fluid is alignment at your own tables?
I've always like to imagine that this "me against the world" attitude could be changed by having a few friends and adventuring around with them. Undoubtedly Kyllgor has learned things about working as a group instead of just swinging his axe first, and asking questions later--but at what point would that change a character's alignment?
Is alignment inherent? Is that chaotic neutral bent always inside him? Or can the influence of his comrades change him to be a little more neutral, or even good?
I would say an ideal of "me against the world" in a group becomes "us against the world". They're still selfish or greedy or however you feel your character behaves but it's for the benefit of the group not just themselves - but still at least a little bit for themselves.
That said I try to stay as far away from alignment as I can. My characters behave the way they do because that's how they behave - not because their alignment says so - and that behaviour will certainly change over time based on events that have unfolded.
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).
To me alignment is a tool to use and it shouldn't be a straightjacket or a cage. It's part of the overall, "Here's who my character is and what he believes", it's not a, "My character has to". There are some exceptions to this, mainly clerics and paladins, but even they have some leeway. It is a general guideline and alignments can, and do, change as characters grow.
Professional computer geek
Alignment is a useful shorthand and works well as general advice, but nothing more.
When you claim that your character is good, evil, lawful or chaotic, these things come with a certain set of assumptions. However, alignments, just like traits, ideals and flaws, are just a jumping off point to work from to create a more fleshed out "personal philosophy" for a character. Once you have something more detailed than the basic "I am good" or "I am evil" in mind, alignment becomes pretty much useless.
I've never been a fan of mechanics being tied to alignments in DnD, and I'm glad that a lot of that bent has been tossed in 5e. I recognize that objective morality is a thing in the DnDverse, but always thinking in terms of alignment is a great way to make your character stupid.
PbP characters:
Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King
Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth
Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
I don't use Alignments. The Mechanical attachments to Alignment in 3rd edition were troublesome to say the least. I hated dealing with DMs that insisted on The Paladin Screw. "You must choose between a Good and a Lawful action, either way I'm going to take all your Features away." I will always hate dealing with Stupid Good, Lawful Stupid, True Stupid, Chaotic Stupid, and Stupid Evil Characters. It is better if Alignment never comes up.
I completely agree. That's another reason why I have difficulty connecting to any evil characters. I feel like being a murder hobo in any campaign regardless of alignment leans you toward an evil alignment anyways. It's murder for the sake of loot, which seems extremely chaotic to me. However, I've seen "good" characters succumb to the murder hobo mysticism. I've always felt that alignments should be fluid. It makes sense from a real-world personality standpoint and makes for great roleplay potential if the stricture isn't placed on a party.
I would add a couple things. Alignment has always had some issues in the game and been subject of much debate how much it comes into play and it's usefulness. It's your DM's call how much alignment affects the game world. If you're having trouble with trying to play the alignment though it's something for you to take note of as a player. Especially if your in a game where the alignment is important, and it is in some.
Talk to the DM about your struggles. He may have some suggestion or recommendations based on how important alignment is for him. Personally I've only had a couple campaigns I've run out of 100's now where alignment really played a role. One came up recently where a lawful good cleric did something that was unmistakably evil. They were punished by their god in the form of not having their spells back after a long rest. The player got the point and has been much more proactive in keeping his god happy. Visiting shrines, praying before battle, etc.
I like chaotic nuertal as an alignment personally. It kind of ties in with some of my own personal beliefs of having freedom of choice and getting authority out of the equation. It kind of reminds me of the Janis Joplin lyric "Freedoms just another word for nothing left to loose" That's how I feel about chaotic nuetral. You're kind of liberated to act how you wish because you're not bogged down by the dogma that goes along with 'good' or 'evil' It's not that you're totally random or only out for yourself, necessarily. You can have attachments and friends and still want to protect or help them because of personal attachments. Alignment is really just a guide. It can help shape your character but (unless the DM is really about alignemts) doesn't have to define it.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I started in the days when Alignment was a hard coded aspect of your character and there were very stiff penalties for changing. As well as a handy graph in the back of the DMG for the DM to plot everybody's alignment on and keep track of the drift.
These days I much prefer t see alignment as a general descriptor of a person's morals, ethics, and personality. Even a person of Chaotic Evil alignment can obey the laws and help little old ladies across the street sometimes without breaking alignment.
I've definitely had no struggles with alignment (with my current DM). This was just a general question for the other players, and DM's out there as to how they handle it. I have one of the most chill DM's I've ever had the privilege to sit down with. He loves the fluidity of alignment and thinks it should be treated with minimal rigidity as the personalities of the characters change, and how certain events within a campaign may affect them.
As I typically say someone's Good is anothers Evil at some point.
Robert Jordan made a very strong case regarding Alignments in d&d, he was an old school dm ages ago.