So how often do you actually follow the character alignments?

My DM once told me that my Chaotic Evil PC was his favorite character in what, at the time, was a mostly neutral to good party.

Same way I follow my hitpoints.

They only matter when they change or hit the bottom?

I treat alignment as something like bloodtype - something my character cannot control and something that influences but does not control him

so my lawful evil character can want to and try to help peasants but I play this as him working against his nature - it's not natural to him and it takes effort

I've usually experimented with this playing evil characters struggling to be good and often failing; the reverse seems a bit pointless ...

... but then kylo ren

I don't often, but luckily I'm decent at basically semantic-ing and bullshitting my way out of "acting out of alignment," but I only do so in order to further myself and the party and in a way that makes sense character-wise. I don't just needlessly antagonize my party members.

No, they have consequences in certain situations but ultimately do not dictate what I can and cannot do.

No, but I do stick to my characters personality

Alignment is a guideline, not a hard rule. It's training wheels for people new to D&D who can't tell a paladin from a rogue, and a vague grouping system that, if you look at it too closely, will fall over like a movie set.

My paladin the traditional lawful good type, but she has some in-character reasons for having an awful temper and getting into bar fights - not outright starting them, but despite having the most lawful bent of my characters so far, she is also paradoxically the most leaning into chaotic. So far, this has not been complained about, and has even been applauded, because of the contrast between her lawful desires and her chaotic nature.

As long as you are at least trying to stay within the vagaries of your chosen alignment, and can justify your actions, it's not something that really should be worried about. The only time it otherwise becomes a problem is in the meta - if a character is hated without good reason just because OOC the player knows that the character is Evil, even if they have done nothing to the party. Too many people have arguments about the best alignment as it is; having actual party conflict over alignment alone is just stupid.

Why do retards on Veeky Forums STILL not understand what Alignment is?

You do not 'choose' an alignment. Starting character alignment is based on pre-game backstory, but alignment itself is not a restriction. Your alignment is based on what your character does.

Your character is Lawful Good, but extorts some money from the villagers he saved to pay for his next project. He shifts down to Lawful Neutral.

Your character is Lawful Good, but breaks a friend out of jail because she was falsely accused. Because he did not prove the friend's innocence using legal means, he shifts to Neutral Good.

Learn the game.

I play Neutral Evil. Since humans are incapable doing anything that doesn't benefit themselves, nothing is out of alignment for me.

Oh great, so now my character has stopped being a paladin because he's no longer Lawful Good, and my barbarian can no longer be a barbarian because he's not Chaotic enough. And all because of one or two actions that could have been argued upon - maybe the Lawful Good character is not basing the Lawful axis of their alignment on obeying the law, but on a strong moral code that in this case does not apply to breaking friends out of jail.

>maybe the Lawful Good character is not basing the Lawful axis of their alignment on obeying the law

wut

I thought that the Lawful alignment could mean following a strong moral code rather than a legal code, but I can't find a source on it now that I actually look. Maybe I'm not checking the right books, but I'll just say I was wrong on that one.

Still, alignment shifts can negatively affect a character, and having one relatively minor thing affect their entire alignment isn't reasonable. Killing a party member, sure. Helping the evil lich, of course. But doing one evil thing (or one good thing, for an evil character) should not an entire alignment change make unless it's big.

I would expect I generally do, given that alignment is an aspect of the character's personality and I try to stay in character

Also post more Amelia

So... is she supposed to be a werewolf, a wendigo? I have never played Bloodborne, and am not familiar with the lore.

>Alignment is a guideline, not a hard rule. It's training wheels for people new to D&D who can't tell a paladin from a rogue
But rogues can be lawful good, too? How does alignment help me here?

Honestly I'd expect a lawful good rogue to be somewhere along the lines of a Thief King type.
>We steal because we must, but remember above all we are kin, and we follow code.

Something like that. Alignment in these cases is an idea you can ascribe your character towards, a general shorthand that informs how they make decisions and see the world, but not being the end all be all of their personality.

The dude is still right though. Your actions in game define your alignment, not the other way around.
How and when an actual alignment shift happens is both up to the player and GM. you're free to ignore the very basic examples that user has given (and I don't fully agree with them either), though the essence is right.

>Lawful Good

Every damn day, knave

Ok, that's good. However I don't see how this helps me differentiate a Paladin from a rogue. Since the Paladin is also LG, he could have the same traits, right?

You're right. Otherwise any old Evil fag could just manipulate the existence of law for their benefit. The Righteous must strike down the wicked no matter what the codes or compacts of men purport to say about it, since those codes and compacts that do not also oppose the Wicked are the handiwork of the wicked themselves. If you'd attack an Evil minion, you should attack an unjust law, for is it not just a different kind of servant for the Wicked?

Good job phone, meant reply to

I told my charecters that they all start at true neutral or something close to it if they start out with a class that has an alignment requirement.
Later their actions will shift their alignment on the broad term depending on your action.
For example a player steals from a poor man; this is considered a minor Chaotic (;breaking the law) Evil (,making a person in need suffer more) act and it won't shift your charecters alignment out right but will do so if done multiple times in a week.
But if someone kills an innocent for no reason that would be a major act and shift your alignment outright.
Of course I apply common sense to others things like "an LG charecter does not have his alignment change for being a rebel in a tyrannical kingdom" since he is fighting for what he believes is right while the kingdom goes against his ethical code.

Like 80% of the times. The other times are for when acting strictly in-alignment will be straight up suicidal or when it's not obvious what choice is what alignment-wise.

LG chars are not free to ignore the law

if you are using the action-determines-alignment approach and your pally flouts the "wicked laws of wicked men" he won't stay a pally for long if the DM has a sound understanding of LG

LG entails a belief that society is ordered toward good by law - that is the rule regardless pf exceptions ... so even in an evil kingdom, LG char sees law itself as a force for good and will appeal to that regime of order first before finding a lawful way - including warfare - to challenge it

That's an absurd interpretation of Lawful Good that plays right into the hands of tyrants and slavers everywhere, user. Yes, obviously if there's some cozy mechanism for the peaceful removal of the Wicked, that's always preferable, but it's naive to believe that the Machines built and maintained by the cruel and craven will permit you to use them against their Masters. Yes, ideally, you could hold up some fucking signs at Ye Olde Town Hall meeting and miraculously save the day by forcing the Lord of Darkness out of office, but practically speaking, the Lord of Darkness doesn't give a damn. Folks like that can only be removed by force.

>Purz
What's this? google is getting me random shit.

>CG lecturing about LG

nope, LG chars act lawfully and nobly even toward the wicked

paladin is based on the pure knight: he does not stoop to the dastardly level of the blackguards he smites

Lawful good doesn't mean following the law of whatever kingdom he happens to wander through, it specifically refers to following his deity's lawful good code of ethics. Sometimes the city state is a hellish abomination of his deity's vision, is he going to just accept that if he's passing through and sees someone suffering at the hands of evil just because evil is a part of that society's law?

The spoiler free version is that she has a blood plague that caused her to turn into a monster.

This could go hilariously atrocious.

Ain't nothin' dastardly about doin' the right thing just because it's an unpopular choice, son. 'Sides, Chaotic trash don't have ideals, else they'd be Lawful, now, wouldn't they?

no lawful refers to the literal law

LG chars belive society should be structured by law in order to be good

it is not purely religious

yes CG chars have ideals - you know that - stuff like rob from the rich and give to the poor

they hold such ideals higher than whatever the law is

LG chars idealize law as the vessel and structure of righteousness

Robin Hood supported the rightful king and chivalric ideals against a treacherous usurper.

Robin Hood was Lawful Good.

Also, punishing the wicked by depriving them of the spoils of their depraved ways in order to enrich the righteous innocents of the world is about as Lawful Good an economic system as anyone could ever conceive.

LG, son.

>Hey GM. I haven't fleshed out which alignment my character is. Can I base it off of what he does in the first session and then write it down on the sheet?
>>No. Some spells require your alignment to know what damage they deal. Like (Lists a bunch of high level spells).
We're starting at level 2.

I tell people that I don't care about alignments. Just don't act in a way that you can't justify without bringing up game mechanics and don't be a douche to the other party members.

My point was a wandering paladin isn't going to respect the law of an evil society he happens to come across is he? So he would technically be breaking the law by fucking up the evildoers in that society. Or are you now going to argue that he is now CG?

Why do Paladins need to be lawful?

Prince John was not an unlawful usurper ...

No more lectures from you, old timer. You have ealy onset dementia.

Again, part of being LG is assuming that law is a force for good, overall. Therefore, he would respect the laws of even a devadent society up to a point. That point is inherent;y very situational but if he just totally ignored the law in favor of whatever he personally belives is right then yes that would make him CG.

For LG, the larger society establishes the proper standards. CG scoffs at societal rules in favor individual discernment of what is right. LG trusts his elders and social betters. CG trusts himself and maybe his friends.

>if he just totally ignored the law in favor of whatever he personally believes is right

Wouldn't that only be CG if his personal beliefs were CG? Presumably if he believed in the proper ways, and had LG beliefs, then acting in accord with those beliefs would be LG regardless of what the codified law of that place required.

LG subscribes to a Higher Law, essentially. It's not his opinion or Judge Frollo's opinion or any other fuckhead's opinion. It's clear, objective Righteousness. That's the whole point.

Because paladins are a relic from an earlier time 40 years ago when they were the embodiment of a chivalrous, virtuous shining beacon of objectively good morality that took the form of a heavily armored knightly crusader which has since been lost in time due to a collective societal shift in mortality to approaching alignment with grey tinted glasses and heavy analytics. And although the philosophy behind alignment bended with time, the restrictions on the class didn't, leaving them in a weird limbo that is incompatible with the majority of modern players.

Paladin is basically LG in the form of a class: a person bound by a strict code of co duct to protect the weak, vanquish the wicked, and be a faithful and pious retainer.

I wish I could fuck her while sucking on those titties.

You've got shitty friends if none of them understand Justice, user.

well ignoring the law is chaotic

so if he believes in ignoring the law then yes his beliefs are chaotic

How many of you use an alternative alignment grid? Like instead of Law Chaos Good Evil, it's like the 4 elements or humors.

chaotic hot'n'bothered

But how can you justify following an immoral law when Justice demands the defense of the innocent? It would be a crass and Evil act to submit to the coercive whims of tyrants just because they own and operate prisons or courts.

Paladins are the exception to the rule of lawfulness, where their divine code trumps the man made law. They explicitly are not bound and subject to tyrannical reign because it is the established through courts or crown, but instead hold all accountable even the elect to the code of exemplary righteousness that answers to no mortal. They are a tool and enforcer of the unchanging, and blasphemous law; while "law" it may be is of no concern to the law they hold above all else.

remember that I said, up to a point and that findingbthe line is a matter of the specific circumstances

but LG chars start on the obey the law side of that line

not necessarily true

paladins are based on and even named after the retainers of charlemange - they are not just heavy assault clerics or something

...

Charlemagne's paladins answer the question of if said paladin is in service to a legitimate lawful and good respecting authority - he is to respect that lawful authority, but the adventuring "ronin" paladin remains an exception, but he still has a code he has to comply with. If he comes across an unjust land, is he bound to usurp and instill righteous rule? Debatable, but what isn't debatable is that he is not to comply and abet that rule - which technically makes him an enemy of "law" but still a devout follower of the law he holds dear.

Because that's what it says in the rules ya dingus, why else?

I like to use "player alignment" as a kind of shorthand for character motivation.

...

Never, I tell the DM to tell me what the character's alignment is based on how I play it him. I accept what ever he see's the PC as for mechanical purposes.

More?

*

That is NG. All of the shit along those lines is NG. LG is lawful, and lawful alignments see value in order. Order can be a lot of things not just laws. Attack a minion of a evil government ( lets say a group of Town guard) make a unfriend & injustice government weaker. If you do that and then leave you have likely just made things worst for the locals because it means the government will just try to reassert itself forcefully in that area. If you take down that government you better have a replacement in mind, else it will just make things worst for everyone including the neighbors of that state.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Not saying that is always turns out that way but it can easily turn out that way. There is a guy who lived thru a earlier case of that happening and wrote a book on the subject.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

Who said anything about leaving? If there are successor fiends and villains, you drive them out and stomp them down too. The Crusade never ends until all the Evil is gone.

>The Crusade never ends until all the Evil is gone.

Oh so it is just like the war in Iraq

Just subtract that part at the end where they pretended like they were drawing down and replace it with the invasion and occupation of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, all the other godawful Persian gulf shitters, and every other corrupt regime. Folks gonna get liberated.

>nobly
>laughing paladins
Motherfucker, LG is more likely to kill a defeated opponent after combat than a LE or NE one. Justice demands retribution. The LG doesn't need power over anybody, they have their moral code which they know to be true and just and if something flagrantly goes against said code than it must destroyed whether it is a chaotic warband or a lawful janisarrial regimentl

Funny thing about Iraqi "liberation" - the first things locals asked for upon realizing Sadam is gone for good were restored supply of drinking water and statues of Bush to replace torn down statues of Sadam.

>still describing CG

What kind of alignment would suit the commoner better? LN?

Do you actually believe USA "replaces corrupted regimes"?

Because "have you tried not playing d&d?" posters have to whine about the fact that D&D exists at every opportunity or they'll start cutting themselves.

But it's not taking into account the dozens of other Good things that I could have done aside from the one action that shifted my character into Lawful Neutral in his example.

I don't think it's justified that the moment you do one act, you shift alignment, not unless it's an act of serious magnitude. It's not as if the moment that a Chaotic character obeys the law, he becomes Neutral or Lawful.

It's not an issue except with the most theoretically "restrictive" alignments. You can justify almost anything as a NG, CG, TN or CN character. Lawful Neutral had two flavors, one of which is the "personal code" variety where again you can justify almost any behavior as long as you remain consistent. LN of "rules as written, not intended" is restrictive and frequently pedantic.

Lawful Good does not mean you have to always follow the law no matter what. That's LN. A lawful good character only needs to follow the rules as long as they are both Lawful AND Good. If the Paladin thinks the king's rulings are unfair from a legal or ethical standpoint, he's welcome to tell the fucker to shove it up his ass l, since he bows to a higher power.

Alignments are essentially how much your character retains the right to say "Fuck off". Evil characters can do literally whatever the fuck they want, that includes being nice and even helpful to other people. An Evil character will chafe at doing something they don't want to, but that doesn't mean they can't want that do stereotypically Good or Neutral actions.

Neutral characters also generally retain the right to say "fuck you I do what I want", although may need a little more justification beyond "I don't feel like it"

Good characters need a somewhat compelling reason to say "fuck off", generally in the interests of the greater good. Good characters will do something that doesn't benefit them out of a sense of moral obligation, even if they really would rather not.

LG characters will often come into conflict with the law MORE OFTEN than others, if the law of the land is cruel or unjust. Neutral, evil, and chaotic good characters may be willing to ignore injustice for the sake of the mission, an LG character will start shit with corrupt rulers and police states in a flash.

Don't play with alignments, even when I stoop to playing deendee, they're shit.

>I have to whine at a day-old post that wasn't even actually denigrating D&D because I'm so delicate I can't hand even the faintest whiff of what I fantasize is an actual criticism about the most popular tabletop RPG ever made
Get a grip, buddy.

>lawful good rogue

robin hood?

NG or LG

ITT "LG chars ignore law if they personLLY DON'T LIKE IT'

had no idea misunderstanding of LG was so rampant

Lawful characters are not the only ones with strong convictions

it is CHAOTIC characters who hold their personal convictions over and above social conventions like laws

Lawful chars look to social conventions first and foremost

My understanding was Lawful meant you had a strict, internalized code you followed, it can contain things like "obey the law" but doesn't have to as long as its consistent

I build a character's personality first, then decide what alignment they mostly fit in after.

Anything else is dumb.

Can a Lawful character not follow the laws of his Order, or of his deity over the Law of the land? Especially if the two are conflicting?

>sexualizing beasts
youtube.com/watch?v=g3nR_4F1anI

>tfw recognized the artist from the thighs

>Also post more Amelia
I would if I had more pictures of her

no internalized codes are not laws, laws are social - chaotic characters follow their convictions, too, but a chaotic because they are personal rather than social conventions

we can talk about exceptions but let's not let them swallow up the rule - LG organizations are pretty unlikely to thrive and survive as part of LE or E generally societies so this hypothetical is sort of irrelevant