Im bored out of my mind Veeky Forums so tell me your favorite alignment and why it is the best...

I like them all.

Chaotic Good. It allows freedom without compromising a code of ethics.

I agree with LE being best, its always fun to be someone who is "evil" but not a dick.

I once had a campaign as an LE mage who generally treated his party kindly, he simply wanted to increase his own abilities before all else. He still wouldn't betray his people though, since he made a bond with them. It was a load of fun when the group paladin found out my alignment with detect evil and instead of killing me, we began debating on the idea of what good and evil were. I would go into detail about the debates, but I'm not sure anyone is interested.

I mostly play Lawful Good or Chaotic Neutral characters.

I feel the primary difference between Lawful and Chaotic is a question of motivation. Lawful characters live by a certain code or idea of how the world should naturally be, and chaotic characters are much more means justifies the end.

A Lawful character doesn't necesarily follow the actual law, so long as they stick to a certain code or set of rules or laws. A lawful good character could believe in a strict set of principles, and has trouble going against them. A lawful evil character might believe in a sort of survival of the fittest type philosophy, that drives them to survive and be the strongest at any cost whatsoever.

True Neutral often gets dissmissed as boring, but I disagree. You can have really interesting true neutral characters. They're someone who mostly goes along with the expectations and rules of society, but doesn't really have a problem breaking the rules or going against what they believe in if they need to, but will generally go with the flow.

>What is Neutral Good

I typically prefer Neutral Good or Chaotic Good. Funnily enough, Chaotic Neutral is my least favorite alignment. I would rather play with an Evil party member than a Chaotic Neutral one.

>that chart
Honestly, that's as accurate an alignment chart as I've ever seen done up.

I like lawful good characters the best. I tend to get stuck being the party face due to my more extroverted nature, so I tend to like being someone with moral authority and integrity. Someone that people would flock to in a situation because of a solid code of conduct in addition to bring a good leader. Have to lead the rest of the damn sheep around anyway, might as well be Atticus Finch while i'm doing it.

Frasier and Roz are my go-tos for Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral.

I honestly kinda regret the evil characters, Mel especially, it's unfair against her.

LE/N>LN>LG>CE>NG/NE>CN>CG

Purely based on my enjoyment.
I like how the lawful part ties characters to their settings and gives them a framework to operate in or struggle with themselves. I like how the neutral character can behave in a very organic way. I like chaotic evil as just a extremely self centered character rather than maximum evil. NG/NE I tend to play and perceive as a bit to "optimized" for maximum net good or evil. CN just tends to be contrary or removed from in setting relations, and then statically mire in their own filth and stop changing as a character. CG is bleedover from playing lawful characters , and just to protagonist-y "I will make everything my brand of good, I'll do something someone else deal with cleanup."

Lawful Good.

Because I'm a hero and fuck anyone that says otherwise.

>since some people have different thoughts as to what each one means.
They just need to read the book and stop applying their definitions to what a word means

If d&d tells humans came from centipedes, then humans came from centipedes, if d&d say that white colored people dies if water touches than and that this is a scientifical process, that is what it happens.

Probably LN, because
(1) unlike good or evil alignments, a LN character reveres the law more than they do the embrace/rejection of morality, which would invariably become subjective and disputable (literally the basic for the study of ethics), and attempting to embody one or the other is also an attempt to define and quantise them, and
(2) if the nature of a character must then be defined by their adherence to law, I prefer to follow it, stoically and to the letter (in case you hadn't guessed from this autistic wall of text)

Lawful good.

Law: Abides to societal norm/roles. Respect the title first, the man after.

Chaos: Favors freedom over rules. Respect the man first, the title after (or not at all).

Good: Willing to risk self in order to benefit others.

Evil: Willing to risk others in order to benefit self.

E.G.:
The lawful Good Paladin frowns upon vigilantes trying to take down a corrupted official through intimidation and encourage to expose him to his superiors.

The Lawful Evil Cleric followed every political step to close the orphanage and open a cigar workshop. He then goes see the newly homeless kids and offer them a low-skill job at the new shop.

A Chaotic Good Ranger ignores the nobleman that came to ask for help and speaks directly to his armsmaster, whose reputation preceded them.

The Chaotic Evil Fightan uses poison in a impromptu duel, because fair fights are for suckers.

> The Chaotic Evil Fightan uses poison in a impromptu duel, because fair fights are for suckers.
And uses a bystander as a human shield.

Chaotic Good for life. Step aside lawfuls

I'm going to be playing a fighter character who is self centred, but good hearted- he will be neutral-chaotic good.
This is because he is going to be young, and he has left his stable family life to become an adventurer. He refused to follow the expectations his family had for him, and thinks he can do more good with bold, heroic actions.
Depending on how his adventuring goes, and how his character seems to be developing, I am either going to have him take warlock levels (embracing the chaos and the rush of irresponsibility and personal power), or shunt his alignment closer and closer to lawful, taking Paladin levels, as he realises that his own ideas are not always the best, and that following a code can help guide him through difficult decisions.

I think this will be fun because I have some idea of what I expect the character to grow into, but it's in no way settled. The future is just potential, and I have more investment in keeping him alive to see what happens to him than just "at level five I get an extra attack!". I'm looking forward to seeing him grow up (or not).

Neutral Good, as it's defined in the PHB. "A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order."

A Neutral Good character will follow just laws, and oppose them when they are unjust. He acts within the legal system when feasible, and outside of it when required. It's better than Lawful Good because doing the right thing matters more than following orders or obeying the laws of the land. It's better than Chaotic Good because Neutral Good characters don't just follow their own personal moral compass, they recognize that laws matter and their judgment is occasionally fallible.

A well-played Neutral Good character is basically the purest form of Good - helping and protecting others not because their conscience or their code demands it, but because it's the right thing to do. They're not hung up on justice, or punishing the guilty, nor about freedom or tearing down the system. They just want people to be safe, and happy, and to live good lives, and to me, that's true heroism.

Lawful Good da bess. You can craft an entertaining character with meaningful development regardless of alignment, but getting shit done for the better is really what I need in a self-insert.

S U B J E C T I V I T Y B O I S

You have one of the most solid grasps of these concepts that I have ever seen. It pains me that we will never participate in a campaign together.

I like the cut of your list.

Some personal evils:
>LE Cleric wants to kill his political rival. He writes a carefully worded letter to an assassin with instructions to kill the man. When the deed is done he outs the assassin, begins an instigation on the murder and makes the letter appear to be from his nephew. The assassin being a criminal and the nephew being of low rank mean they have no protection in upper society, which in the Clerics mind makes his hands completely clean.

>LE Rogue is not smart enough to concoct such plots. Instead he allies himself with smarter and more powerful people, wicked people. He uses their authority for petty personal power which he gleefully uses to justify his terrible deeds. He never has to take responsibility for himself because he's always "just following orders."

>CE fighter sees members of society as mindless parts of larger creatures, without wills of their own. He sees himself as a slayer of behemoths. With his lone will he will gain enough wealth and power to kill one of these creatures for glory and the knowledge of his own superiority. He is mistrustful of others, taking his time to make sure their "real" and not the cells of something else. despite being somewhat intelligent he is paranoid nearly to (or past) the point of lunacy.

>CE bard doesn't consider morality or the bigger picture, he is entirely driven by his desires. He sees himself as neither good or evil, just a guy enjoying life. He will lie, cheat and even kill whenever it's convenient for him because, after all, things like truth, rules or even life are just words people throw around. He doesn't care so they don't apply to him, other people can do whatever they want of course, he doesn't fucking care. Make up your own rules, man. Of course that doesn't he goes out of his way to be "evil." Most of the time he's a pretty chill guy. Actually, he's a chill guy ALL of the time, which is pretty fucking scary.

Depends on the character.

When I feel like killing bad shit, Lawful Good.

When morality is a crutch, Judge Dredd.

I usually play chaotic neutral because I have authority issues
But none of lolrandom bullshit and acting good and evil at the same time because it "evens out", or is "lol unpredictable" thats retarded and actually thats CE not CN because doing some good DOESN'T even out evil you do, unless that's permanent change and not a faint whim
I actually never played truly lawful character and I'm afraid I'd suck at it badly if I tried.
On good/evil axis it pretty much evens out for me, I had my share of chaotic good vigilantes and gold hearted rebels on one hand and batshit psychos/uncaring self-centered assholes on the other, but still most of my characters were neither.
Still alignments are bit retarded in the first place

Neutral, because fuck alignments. I'm trying to roleplay a person, not a stereotype.

>scary - scary
whoa man, take it easy in here

I like to play evil characters because I don't roleplay to emulate my normal comportement.
And I don't like to be a strict vassal so usually lawful evil is out of the picture.
I play neutral or chaotic evil depending on the game. That doesn't mean I play murderhobos or edgelords.
Chaotic evil is for lying bard/thieves/honest merchants, neutral evil is for fighters or casters in search of glory and fortune.

TYVM. Tried to keep it simple.

>LE Cleric wants to kill his political rival. He writes a carefully worded letter to an assassin with instructions to kill the man. When the deed is done he outs the assassin, begins an instigation on the murder and makes the letter appear to be from his nephew. The assassin being a criminal and the nephew being of low rank mean they have no protection in upper society, which in the Clerics mind makes his hands completely clean.
This is a beautiful Neutral Evil. Hiring an assassin, unless it is an intrinsic part of the local culture and tradition, is not lawful.

>LE Rogue is not smart enough to concoct such plots. Instead he allies himself with smarter and more powerful people, wicked people. He uses their authority for petty personal power which he gleefully uses to justify his terrible deeds. He never has to take responsibility for himself because he's always "just following orders."
Nice.

>CE fighter sees members of society as mindless parts of larger creatures, without wills of their own. He sees himself as a slayer of behemoths. With his lone will he will gain enough wealth and power to kill one of these creatures for glory and the knowledge of his own superiority. He is mistrustful of others, taking his time to make sure their "real" and not the cells of something else. despite being somewhat intelligent he is paranoid nearly to (or past) the point of lunacy.
Very Nice

Neutral evil is my favorite alignment.

Pure, unadulterated self interest. You do whatever it takes to get what you need/want; there is nothing above that, no rigid code to lock your behavior into some shallow stereotype. It's a very fluid alignment that fits into whatever will best suit its goals. All you have to do is ask yourself, "how will this ultimately benefit me?"

>This is a beautiful Neutral Evil.
I agree. This cleric only wants to keep up the appearance of being lawful because it's crucial to his political aspirations. He sounds like he doesn't really give a shit about the law so much as how he can twist it to his own benefit. And when it's inconvenient he finds ways around it.

NE is such a fun alignment for sociopaths.

>Im bored out of my mind Veeky Forums so tell me your favorite alignment and why it is the best.
I like lawful neutral. When you think about it, it's a much more edgy alignment than chaotic neutral, as it's an "order at whatever cost" alignment without fully going evil. I'm also a sucker for loyalty, and love the archetypical knight who will see his master's will fulfilled or die trying.

>Also explain your interpretation of the alignment since some people have different thoughts as to what each one means.
Nothing radically new, but I consider the Good-Evil axis the only moral axis. Law-Chaos is more how an individual seeks to reach his moral goal.

Good means altruism.
Neutral means harmless egotism (won't go out of their way to help others but won't harm others evil. Might help others if there's no disadvantage to his own person)
Evil is actively malevolent.

Lawful means respect for the local laws and traditions. A LG character would be the archetypical good king, whereas LE is an overlord.

Chaotic means disrespect for the traditions and laws of the land and a desire to oppose them for a more spontaneous, individual system. CG characters would be revolutionairies, CE would probably be something like a band of raiders that loots and steals because why the fuck not?