Which alignment is your favorite to play?

Which alignment is your favorite to play?

Chaotic Neutral here.

True Neutral, of the esoteric "does what must be done, no matter what" variety.
Torture a dude? Rescue an orphan? Steal from the king? Raise undead? Raise the dead? Slay the evil dragon? Slay the good dragon? Solve a puzzle? Meet a giant fish? Fuck his brains out?
What must be, shall be, and woe betide all who stand in the way of it being.

Chaotic Evil is the alignment that most reminds me of myself - intelligent, nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humour.

Are you boo?

Sounds like neutral evil to me
True neutral would probably have some scruples about torturing orphans

I checked my sheets, 50% of my characters are Lawful, and 50% are Good. So I would say LG is my favorite alignment.

>Sounds like neutral evil to me
You'd be wrong. Neutral evil wouldn't do good unless you paid them a hell of a lot. Neutral evil doesn't enjoy doing good things.
>True neutral would probably have some scruples about torturing orphans
True Neutral is the odd man out of the alignments, in concordance and opposition with the other eight. It can do anything the other eight will, and it can oppose anything the other eight will. In some editions it is contrasted with Unaligned, which is under its banner in other editions, being the alignment that doesn't wanna do anything and just be left alone.

Lawful neutral. Just making deals and following through with them keeps things simple, and you'll have less ethics debates than your good or evil counterparts

True neutral mostly just has no real identity out of context like that. A TN druid might be all about "balance" or some bullshit, but a TN farmer would probably just be committed to staying near his dirt farm as much as possible. To say a true neutral character would be okay with anything is a stretch though.

Nothing that can't be solved by giving some water to beggars to ward off the evil mojo. It's all about the checks and balances; much like how a paladin must do constant good to keep their powers, a TN must do good in order to keep their ability to do evil without being...well, evil.

Basically, a TN falling into NE is pretty similar to falling.

Depends on my mood.

Preferred are CG, NG, CN, LE, and NE, in no particular order. I actively dislike CE, LG, and N, while LN is just impossible to play because sooner or later every decision is either made for the good of others or for evil purposes. LN can't exist outside a vacuum.

Alignments are at their best when they describe general patterns of behaviour and not prescribed personality types. Prove me wrong.

>A TN druid might be all about "balance" or some bullshit, but a TN farmer would probably just be committed to staying near his dirt farm as much as possible. To say a true neutral character would be okay with anything is a stretch though.
Here we see the three faces of "Neutral". The first is True Neutral as Concordance, which views everything that isn't neutral as extreme and to be avoided, bringing about balance by avoiding that which would unbalance anything. The second is Unaligned, which just wants you to go away so it can live in peace. (Sometimes it's Neutral, in 5E it's not.) The third is True Neutral as Opposition, which defies everything and brings about balance on its own terms.

LN can exist, but it's either a transitional alignment or you have to be Judge Dredd where the setting actively focuses on keeping your actions on-rails.

That, and there's an awful lot of lawyers that are probably LN that get confused for LE.

We don't use alignment.
At all.

@49054921

>make chaotic neutral character
>first session
>kill a merchant that passes us on the road and take all his stuff
>party looks at me weird, explain to them i have to break the law
>party camps for night ,i have first watch
>slit all their throats silently, take all their wealth
>explain once again, i'm a role-player not a roll-player, just doing what my character would do
>tell them i'm gonna go back to town to hire more adventures, and that they can be those adventurers
>they try and metagame and don't let me take night watch, kill them all again anyway
>my character hears a noble call a female peasent a slut (not okay)
>torture him and cut off his fingers and limbs one by one keeping him barely alive with healing magic
>bring the young woman home and feed her a bowl of eggs

campaign continued for few more sessions, its just me now though (im also the DM)

You are a shit DM - you should have fallen the moment you killed the first party member if not the merchant...well, unless they were all varying shades of evil alignment, but even then, that was a dick move OOC.

If anything, a N character committing an evil act should have a higher risk of falling to E than a G character because they have less karma padding to deflect E actions.

Lawyers, merchants, or anyone mostly motivated by personal goals rather than good or evil (for example wanting to make a magic sword) could easily be lawful neutral. They might get tested in some way, and an answer might be described as good or evil, but I don't think that necessarily makes them become good or evil from that act alone.

I'm just assuming you're replying to yourself here for even bothering with that

>perform multiple chaotic evil actions
>I'm totally neutral
>it was my DMPC all along!
I'll take "things that never happened" for $400, Jack.

...

I like chaotic neutral.

I find it about the most believable, Alignment is a shitty system anyway and dnd is a blight.

I make a character first and assign an alignment after that fits their traits. Picking an alignment first is stupid.

The only alignments I actively avoid are CE and NE, and I only very rarely play LE where if I do it's closer to "Mild Evil".

Palladium's Unprincipled. Basically Han Solo.

You got a pretty dumb definition of evil

Evil alignment characters dont get severe allergies if they accidentally do a good act, they just have their own selfish reasons.

And someone with 0 scruples about hurting others is not neutral.

>You got a pretty dumb definition of evil
>Evil alignment characters dont get severe allergies if they accidentally do a good act, they just have their own selfish reasons.
You've got a pretty wrong interpretation of D&D alignments, there. Doing good is a generally unpleasant act for an evil being. It does, in fact, offend their sensibilities and generally make them uncomfortable. Good and Evil are not abstractions in D&D. They are objective orientations that oppose each other, and to be Evil means that Good is repellent and vice versa. An Evil person would receive negative feedback at performing Good acts.
>And someone with 0 scruples about hurting others is not neutral.
Good aligned folk hurt people all the time. Violence is unaligned to the extreme. Everyone can hurt. Alignment only matters when it's who you're hurting and why.

LE, LG, NG.
My favorite is by a wide margin LE, but I'm currently banned from playing it because I almost always become a scheming SOB trying to establish what my associates call "My fascist utopia: freedom is slavery".

Neutral Good, the alignment I would probably be if I weren't cripplingly lazy.

CG, if I really have to use alignments
Gives enough space for both chivalry and being a punk

I mostly kekked from people who took you seriously

True Neutral. As in, the character makes decisions based on the situation at hand and his own moral compass.

As a DM I just ignore it entirely except on extraplanar cratures like fiends or aligned characters like clerics.

I guess I kind of ignore it too as a DM.

I second this, then if I need to I can morph to something to suit the direction of the party or campaign.

>Pic related is my Chaotic Good

Neutral Good

I like being the good guy, the really good guy.