Which alignments do you play? How do you play them?

[DarkHin]

There seems two be two types of players when it comes to alignment: those who see it as an afterthought, a sticker to be slapped onto a character after his or her personality has been determined, and those who define their character by alignment (think Vendrin's Barid). I am definitely one of the latter, though I understand and appreciate players who employ the former.

Why do I define my characters by alignment? Ever since reading Michael Moorcock's Sword and Sorcery series, I have been fascinated by the law/chaos axis, and I definitely favour the latter, though I make the odd foray into law.

My favourite alignment to play is chaotic evil. There are three types of characters I tend to create with this alignment: the first is a simple selfish disposition, even a sociopathic one (although I like to avoid this extreme), where the character is willing to dole out suffering to meet his needs (although I like to play this a bit of a struggle, i.e. the character is callous in general, but there are some acts of depravity, which, while being rare, invoke an inner turmoil, and these acts tend to echo, or even directly stem from, the character's past); the second is an agent of entropy, one who embraces the natural (natural to the character, that is) degradation which besets the world, and embodies this decay: the third is a Comedian-type character, an homage really, though with ample personal flavouring, who sees the world as a sort-of cosmic joke, who believes every good action is undone by an evil action, that every push receives an opposite shove, that good is a vain pursuit. This last character isn't an agent of evil, but is indifferent to morality, and thus indifferent to the morality of an actions, although he may at times suffer regret, complications from the past, etc.

These archetypes obviously overlap, especially one and three, but one of them tends to define the character over the others.

Anyway, that's me, but tell me, what alignments do you play, why do you play them, and how do you play them?

[FoamBats4All]

a sticker to be slapped onto a character after his or her personality has been determined

This. Though, with less obvious preference put on the phrasing.

For one thing, alignments are two independent scales, not nine archetypes to filter your character into. I prefer to come up with the personality, then ask myself, "on a scale of 1 to 100, how good are my character's morals? What about their ethics?" The character determines the alignment, not the other way around.

Granted, there are many exceptions to this. For example, I may want to "roll an evil character" or "design a paladin" -- in which case, well, at least part of my alignment is determined for me.

It'd also be interesting to hear opinions on classes. That is, do people start with "hey, I want to play a rogue" and then design a rogue character? Or do they go "hey, I want to play this character, I guess rogue fits their skills best"?

[DarkHin]

a sticker to be slapped onto a character after his or her personality has been determined

This. Though, with less obvious preference put on the phrasing.

I was trying to reflect the attitude a player might have to alignment if they preferred this method.

I also want to not that I realize that this is not a dichotomy, and some players may fall somewhere in the middle.

[DarkHin]

It'd also be interesting to hear opinions on classes. That is, do people start with "hey, I want to play a rogue" and then design a rogue character? Or do they go "hey, I want to play this character, I guess rogue fits their skills best"?

I didn't even think of this interesting parallel. I think in regards to class I have the opposite disposition. For instance, one previous character of mine was a libertine, and thus rogue seemed like the most appropriate, with a splash of fighter, since I envisioned him being combat oriented.

Another example, I've been recently drawn to the idea of the "elegant barbarian." Think Egill Skallagrímsson, a 10th century Scandinavian warrior-poet. This led me to the conclude that the most appropriate classes would be bard with a few splashes in barbarian. I have yet to roll this character, but look forward to playing him on BG. I suppose barbarian was predetermined, but the bard class wasn't, which is the class defined by the character.

Thus, I also encourage you to discuss your opinions on classes in this regard to, and thanks Foam for pointing out this parallel.

[Adanu]

I can play any alignment well.

Would I enjoy playing every alignment? Depends entirely on the character and how the DM views actions for shifts.

[Heero]

My characters all tend(ed) to be a variation of Mongo. Heero only pawn...in game of life. That sort of thing. Thus chaos seemed the likely choice. I suppose I simply like(d) my characters to be somewhat a representation of me, and, well, Heero like candy. Now point Heero to sunken treasure and Heero take chance.

[/exploding Candygram]

[Ithildur]

This explains why Heero never gets past lvl 2.

j/k I would consider a RL lvl2 Ranger/barbarian person like you completely awesome btw.

[chalksoul]

I usually decide what I like to play first, things liek stats, aligment and class comes after what suits best for my visioned person

[Ithildur]

It'd also be interesting to hear opinions on classes. That is, do people start with "hey, I want to play a rogue" and then design a rogue character? Or do they go "hey, I want to play this character, I guess rogue fits their skills best"?

I didn't even think of this interesting parallel. I think in regards to class I have the opposite disposition. For instance, one previous character of mine was a libertine, and thus rogue seemed like the most appropriate, with a splash of fighter, since I envisioned him being combat oriented.

Another example, I've been recently drawn to the idea of the "elegant barbarian." Think Egill Skallagrímsson, a 10th century Scandinavian warrior-poet. This led me to the conclude that the most appropriate classes would be bard with a few splashes in barbarian. I have yet to roll this character, but look forward to playing him on BG. I suppose barbarian was predetermined, but the bard class wasn't, which is the class defined by the character.

Thus, I also encourage you to discuss your opinions on classes in this regard to, and thanks Foam for pointing out this parallel.

A lot of 3.x folks I think view this as one of the differences between 3.x edition/d20 and other forms of DnD (at least earlier versions). People come up with character concepts and tack on classes to try and fit them without regard for what the names of the classes may or may not imply; taking levels in Rogue doesn't mean the character is a Thief or even really 'Roguish' necessarily anymore, whereas in earlier editions if you were a Thief you were pretty much a Thief and played/perceived as such. Multiclasses in earlier editions were obviously more set/defined than 3e... I think this is one of the divides between more old school folks and players who prefer 3e... or even more so if the player views 3e DnD as simply another variation of the d20 system rather than something more unique.

Alignment... hoo boy. I prefer to keep it simple, I don't think the 9 alignment system is designed with deep philosophical takes on morality in mind. CE allows me to PG everything that moves under the sun at a whim, so is the obvious choice every time.

Apologies, this question is way too deep for me to answer properly in the frame of mind I'm in.

[Brokenbone]

Candygram for Mongo. So good.

[Castano]

I have always played NG as it seemed the easiest alignment to allow a mostly good PC to fit into. I dislike DnD's alignment system. I think it only works well for paladins and diabolical evil types *rubs palms reflexively*. Anything in the middle sorta gets lost in the clutter of neutrals and there's is no moral behavior other than good/evil and that weird true neutral thing.

[dergon darkhelm]

I often lean into chaotic-netural as an alignment. ---That's becaquse I love to play rogues.


My most enjoyable experiment, where I took alignment quite seriously, was with my Cleric of Helm RathalanWhitsword.

He was lawful neutral, emphasis on LAWFUL.

I found it interesting that most chaotic PCs reacted to Rathalan as if he was L-Evil while most other lawful PCs saw him as L-G.

(( He was also a perfect foil for any PC who wanted to thumb his/her nost at authority in general...which made for lots of fun RP))

[Galadorn]

I dislike the "after thought sticker" or "just pick one to move on in PC creation" thought and act whatever way you want at the moment (if we USE alignment and stick to it). In this place, I think alignment, if taken seriously at all should almost define your RP with that PC in 99% of your RP situations. I also think sometimes it should be completely removed from the game. But it is fun sometimes to even counter your own RL intentions and desires to try and keep in character based on background, history, and alignment. It gives us a chance to be different in an interactive way too. And for some, "do" things, even if in a game, that would be impossible without major repercussions in real life. CE anyone? lets go murder someone for a cheese sandwich. Yay. No real jail for me even if i do get caught.


I love True Neutral. How many times i can't remember has my PC done things (I think is) TN, that makes others jaw drop, or just plain hate my PC... /because/ most to everyone seems to think (unless they reflect deeply enough) that if you're "not evil" then you ARE "good". TN is not "good" at all in fact, or better yet, it's just as "evil" as it is "good". At least for me.

<the-most-common-example:>
"Hey Bu, there are Orcs over there. Lets go KILL EM!!! RARRrr..."
"...um.. no."
"Huh? WTF D00D? they're Orcs! They all deserve to die."
"They are part of the balance, that keeps our worl-- *sigh* Forget it."
*wanders off*
</example>


Plus I always scored exactly 50%-good/50%-evil, or plainly just exactly "True Neutral" IRL whenever I try those silly "What's Your Alignment?" internetz surveys online. Usually with a splash of Good sometimes since the questions (comic relief) that ask:

"You see a little girl walking towards the road, and car coming hastily towards where she is walking."
Do you:
A) Watch.
B) Push her in front of the car.
C) Grab her and save.

In all honesty, i'd probably not just "A) Watch" and allow destiny/her-fate/and or my "stay out of everyone's business as much as I can" attitude own that scenario... so I would take C), save her, ( of course) which for some reason these silly surveys equate to you being "extremely good" - when your decision is one based upon many factors that seem obvious to MOST "GOOD" people - or at least to those people, who will not reveal their true selves in 99% of situations that are public?.... so my "good" rating in those surveys is always higher than i think should be.

Mostly speaking in a "gaming" sense here, as IRL, I do think i'm "gooder than neutral"... but alas, what goes on the true hearts of men is sometimes not revealed (or sated?) by society's hold on our conscience... and our untimate desire to be accepted... ...maybe deep down I WANT to push the girl under the car and watch her head pop and the colorful splash of red and pink, maybe a few bones cracking... get her candy, check her pockets and move on.... but naaaah...

[HEEGZ]

I play all types of alignments really. It gives some direction, but I don't play off of it heavily.

[thinkpig]

I think the alignment system is flawed due to moral subjectivity; but we are playing D&D, and alignment is the tool with which the structure of morality in our story is represented, so it is our duty to conform to its representation if we wish to faithfully represent the setting.

I only play evil characters in ALFA because I feel that most of our 'good' characters lack the depth of moral inquiry I possess as a human being necessary to be cognizant of the actual moral implications of their beliefs. My perception has been that it's enough for most players of good PCs to assume that because they are a Paladin or faithful servant of a good deity that their moral judgments automatically consist of unquestionably 'goodness' which is, to me, hopelessly childish.

I'm not a big fan of Socrates, but he used to say Knowledge was the only good and Ignorance the only Evil. While I don't totally agree with that, I feel very strongly that the requisite faith and devotion of any (relatively) devout PC has a tendency to undermine moral inquiry processes.

The length of our stories and the level of immersiveness provided by our game allow for much greater depth of moral debate and discussion than the average tabletop game or didactic novels our canon derives from-- and indeed IC arguments about moral values are commonplace. This is one of the highest values of our game, I think: That it might make us question what we believe about conceptions of moral values.

But not if you're up on your high horse feeling a bigoted rush of unquestionable moral superiority because you follow a 'Good' deity.

Faerun is supposed to be a place where good and evil is cut and dry, black and white. Real life is nothing like that though, and if you think it is then I believe you are probably a religious fanatic or an otherwise bigoted jerk, although there is the off chance you have a doctorate in philosophy and came by such an opinion after years of careful contemplation and study--

but I doubt it.

Our game can't help being somewhere in between the two-- Canon and RL-- in terms of morality.

Nongood characters are the only ones who seem realistic to me, who seem like real people, and that I resent the binary 'is of identity' aristotlean moral value system as deeply as any false dilemma either/or fallacy. Which is to say: DEEPLY, GUYS.

Most Paladins and the like make me want to puke.