| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 24 Sep 2002 : 06:06:21
What is your favorite alignment to play?
I suppose a better question is: all abilities and character quirks aside, if you had to play only one character for the rest of your life, what would their alignment be?
And no, I don't mean alignment as in who your character hangs out with....I mean chaotic good, neutral evil, etc. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Scot Storm |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 01:27:48
My favorite is actually Lawful Good and Lawful Evil because in a sense they both serve a higher power which gives them purpose in life. Of the two mine is Lawful Good. |
| Drummer Boy |
Posted - 25 Dec 2002 : 01:36:06
quote:
Originally posted by Frey
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor_Karnil
(...)So why doesn't your alignment change and not just your reputation when you do bad deeds?
Well, that might be the case in BG1 (i didn't play it), in roleplaying your alignment certainly can change! The 3e Players Handbook discribes several times what the consequenses are if f.i. a paladin changes away from good.
Perhaps the AI of BG's DM is just a bit too dumb?
In Baldur's Gate your alignment doesn't change but you just lose reputation. However, if you are a paladin or ranger and your reputation drops too low, you lose your abilities as a ranger or paladin and basically become just a fighter (I think.) |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 24 Dec 2002 : 16:52:59
In BG1, they couldn't put alot of things in there. The game was already 5 disks (6 if you count ToSC) long. They couldn't do everything.
And thanks Mumadar, for the tips on editing statements. |
| Frey |
Posted - 24 Dec 2002 : 08:31:17
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor_Karnil
(...)So why doesn't your alignment change and not just your reputation when you do bad deeds?
Well, that might be the case in BG1 (i didn't play it), in roleplaying your alignment certainly can change! The 3e Players Handbook discribes several times what the consequenses are if f.i. a paladin changes away from good.
Perhaps the AI of BG's DM is just a bit too dumb? |
| Feanor_Karnil |
Posted - 24 Dec 2002 : 04:29:24
I've noticed that in BG1 you chose your alignments and some people like to have fun and kill the villagers. Alignment is practically affected on the way you act if you notice and on your reputation. So why doesn't your alignment change and not just your reputation when you do bad deeds? |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 23 Dec 2002 : 19:36:30
Salius, there is a little icon on top of your message with a pencil symbol. This allows you to edit your post and correct any spelling errors you might find or put additions to your message.
On the other hand, putting children and cerial (or was it cereal) killers in one sentence does look comical in a way 
disclaimer: serial killers and children in one sentence is not comical... |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 21 Dec 2002 : 02:44:40
Ok, I would like to apologize to everyone for having to read that last statement. I didn't realize I spelled half of the words wrong until I already posted it. |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 21 Dec 2002 : 02:42:24
I thought of something semi-intelligent to say about having alignments of just doing away with them, so here it goes.
I think alignments are important. I think it would be best for a character to choose an alignment in the beggining of the game. But their nor restrictions. If your lawful good and you see a weapon you want but have no oney, theres no barrier stoping you from taking it (unless you suck at stealing). You can still do what ever you want but the alignment just sums up the tota of your actions. And who says they shouldn't be able to change? A child might be born lawful good, but that doesn't mean it wont grow uo to be a cerial killer or something.
Well, that about all i got. |
| Feanor_Karnil |
Posted - 20 Dec 2002 : 01:50:40
Lawful Neutral would be my favorite, it is because neutral characters aren't forced to choose sides. Neutral characters usually follow people with the most money, but they usually bend towards good or evil.
-Feanor Karnil The Moon-Star |
| sabre |
Posted - 19 Dec 2002 : 11:37:04
alignments are restrictions if you follow the rules by the book.
Ý think they got to be just examples not rules.of course you can't say "Ý am lawful good but i like to do evil deeds".
Ýn my games i don't use alignments much if there is no classes like paladin or monks.
My players usually make their own reputation themselves.Do they like to play evil;kill everyone and steal everything,fine by me they have some really nasty encounters with goverments and also other evil groups...they built their own future themselves free from tymora:)
Ý usually play chaotic good because i don't feel i am evil and i don't like law and justice much...But when i help others who are in need of help i feel very good and happy.some kind of robin hood spirit ý guess... |
| The Defence Minister |
Posted - 18 Dec 2002 : 21:23:10
I like either Chaotic evil or Lawful good characters.
I like having a high reputation and being popular but I also liek killing whatever the hell I like
TDM |
| Ghost |
Posted - 18 Dec 2002 : 19:31:34
Although most of my characters have had a Lawful or Neutral Good alignment, I recently played a Lawful Evil rogue.
He styles himself an assassin, and is very strict and efficient. Since the other people (PCs) he meets are mostly Good, he is more Lawful than Evil. He is in fact very keen to keep NPC's to the contracts they arrange, if more to the letter than the spirit. Even more so than some monks he encountered.
My character isn't interested in pure bloodshed (mostly because he doesn't get paid for the extra corpses), he is just from a grim stretch of the pathways of life.
Of course, he doesn't see himself as Evil, he is just "harsh but fair", and not "walking with his head in the clouds".
|
| Kitira Gildragon |
Posted - 18 Dec 2002 : 12:34:47
Everyone of my characters has always been chaotic good. I really wanted to play a Chaotic Evil character and kill everyone in the towns (hehe) but I've resisted temptation so far.  |
| Salius Kai |
Posted - 17 Dec 2002 : 18:59:03
I'm going to have to say that my favorite to play as would have to be chaotic neutral. My character can go along with whatever it is he feels like doing. Its very entertaining. |
| Artalis |
Posted - 17 Dec 2002 : 18:44:44
I know this is an old topic but I just found it and wanted to contribute my 2 cp as it were.
I agree wholeheartedly with Frey (big suprise there eh Frey?)
I am disappointed that so many people see no merit in playing good characters. I find Neutrality tedious in the extreme and Evil to be completely undesirable in my campaign.
There is nothing epic or inspiring about a bunch of self-serving children running around hunting for money and magic items.
The game was meant as a chance to be a hero/heroine,to be larger than life, and to give us a break from the hazy shades of grey that dominate the real world. A chance to overcome impossible odds agains terrible evils.
I also think character design needs to be taken a step further in the cases where people choose CN and lower. The player should realize that the Characters life would have shaped his alignment not the desires of the power/money hungry player. The game's purpose is to have fun as well so I am not telling anyone to go out and only play alignments they hate, but rather to look at them a little differently.
I don't consider myself "limited" I would characterize my own personal alignment as Neutral Good. I am not "restricted" there are simply certain things I would not do. I will not break into someones house and steal their DVD player just because I want one. It's wrong, and I don't want to do it. I am not just worried about the repercussions of that action either, it's a simple matter of what is right and wrong to me. It's the same with characters, we need to get "into character" and stop looking at the alignments as straightjackets and view them for what they are, a handy label/tool.
All this talk of freedom of action and liking CN and Evil alignments bespeaks to me people who are only playing half the game IMO. I'll give you an example of a well developed character who "chose" his own alignment. You will see that when the character was built and his history considered the answer was laid out clear as day.
Take Nighteyes my longtime favorite character, for example; He was raised in Evereska by the clergy of Hanali Celanil (LONG LONG STORY), he loved his surrogate parents but was often disappointed by their flighty nature. He was sent early to an academy of magic there and did his best to learn everything he could get his hands on as quickly as possible. Shortly after that he was inducted into a Bladesinger lodge (almost abducted, really), where he was taught about the code of the Bladesinger. The Defense of the Elven Way.
To defend something at the risk of one's own well-being is generally a "good" trait IMO. Adherance to a "CODE" is Lawful behavior (loosely, most elves are CG, but I would hazard a guess that most bladesingers have some lawful tendancies), Nighteyes was dissapointed by flighty people, so he would want to be as steadfast and strong of mindset as possible.
(In my experience we tend to overcompensate to keep from becoming the things we dislike)
Thus it was not hard to figure out that Nighteyes is Lawful Good. Keep in mind that I am simplifying the process but the steps are the same.
It's the character's personality and experiences in his/her formative years that shape the alignment not the desires of the one who plays them.
|
| The Great Drizzt |
Posted - 14 Oct 2002 : 07:19:45
Hmmm....
You bring up a good point, and I agree, but Drizzt is Chaotic Good, and hes not really chaotic at all, and hes good, both in nature and in the civilized world as well, even when he is scorned because of his skin color.
So there might be "something" in a name at least.
The Great Drizzt |
| Frey |
Posted - 13 Oct 2002 : 20:12:54
Hi there,
Hmm, I've always felt a little awkward about the 'evil' alignments... I can hardly think of any character (in play or IRL) who really thinks of him(her)self as being evil.
Selfish perhaps (wich is opposite to Good IMHO), yes (unknowingly often), but real Evil ... nah.
I've tought about characters who opperate from a very narrow world-vision and will be classified as Evil, but would still consider him(her)self as good. The trick is how one does look upon other races/breeds/families/countries (again very close to real life), even a real fascist would consider himself to be good, wouldn't he?
The PHB is quite handy in discribing activities which would classify you in one or another alignment, and still ... it seems to depent on to whoom you'll act that way.
2 answer your question: I think I'm chaotic good IRL, and to make it myself easy I like playing Good characters (would consider neutral), not nesseceraly chaotic though (but lawful is quite opposite to the way I think so hard to play as well).
One character I created (but never played ... yet) was a Lawful Good Ranger. But his 'Lawful' would mean 'fitting in Natures Laws' and his 'Good' would mean 'good for the forest folk and the natural environment', so his behaviour in civilized surroundings would have marked him as chaotic evil character I gather... What's in a name anyway?
|
| eilinel |
Posted - 12 Oct 2002 : 23:40:07
ok... depending how you play neutral evil. I mean, if you are the evilest you can, it begins to be harder. And above all if you want to play with good guys. The best is to be enterely evil in a group of good players and nobody knows that. I did, it was a great time. I was lawful evil and and the end everyone was against the others. it was a biggest mess i have ever seen before between players. Actually, it was very close to turn in fight between the characters but also between the players!
Unfortunately i died before and by this way they discovered the truth...
|
| The Great Drizzt |
Posted - 12 Oct 2002 : 08:12:59
I think Neutral Evil is the easier of all, you dont have to concern yourself with anything besides, yourself! Which is the way I am in real life, it's all about personal gain! Even though the test I took says im Chaotic Evil, but I guess that might be right as well.
The Great Drizzt |
| eilinel |
Posted - 12 Oct 2002 : 01:06:36
i think the most simple alignments to play are neutral good and chaotic good. they are just good, just one is free and don't want to lte anybody to walk on his feet, the other doen't care about anything except to be good with people. What is more simple?
You can feel this alignment like you live, you are probably not always so good but it's what to tend to.
Well... it's true, isn't it?
|
| Ditalidas |
Posted - 11 Oct 2002 : 14:10:41
Alignment has always been an issue that caused a lot of problems. I believe that the overall alignment is important. Are you lawful good and want to do an evil act? Fine by me... As long as his main actions stay Lawful Good. But if that same character keeps up his evil line of action, he cannot be Lawful good anymore. Which in my opinion is also perfectly alright... Maybe the character has very good reasons to change his or her alignment. In that case it might even be rewarded.
I am strongly against the words: 'You cannot do that because it's not you alignment.' What that matters I agree with mumadar and feel that 'wrong' decisions should be, when needed, have consequeces in the game.
But to get back to the main question: what is my favorite alignment.
I play mostly Chaotic Good characters. Don't ask me why... maybe I played too much with characters with evil tendencies, and my lawful Good characters had always a lot of trouble keeping her companions within the lines of law.
With my Chaotic Good character I feel less the need of keeping my fellow companions from breaking in in houses or beating up the bad people.
|
| The Great Drizzt |
Posted - 11 Oct 2002 : 06:21:21
I either play Chaotic Neutral(usually) or Neutral Evil(if im more or less a character thats looking out for himself) I tend to play alot of Drow characters, so I like those two best.
The Great Drizzt |
| Drummer Boy |
Posted - 11 Oct 2002 : 00:00:34
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Drizzt
I agree, I think you should just play how you feel is right, and not be deturred by a set of guidelines like Allignments.
The Great Drizzt
I agree with you. That's why I like neutral good the best. That way you start out with a high reputation, you can make some mischief, and if you want, it doesn't affect the game if you have evil NPC's in your party, as long as you don't keep your reputation too high. |
| lowtech |
Posted - 10 Oct 2002 : 19:09:32
I like Nuetral characters, they are the most versatile. I don't mean nuetral in the druidic sense (those guys annoy me) but in the sense that someone cares about certain things (like family, friends or country) more than moral principles. |
| eilinel |
Posted - 10 Oct 2002 : 03:57:54
just a little bit tanned, my dear Drizzt 
You know what? I am also neutral evil. Hell! I didn't know that i was so deeply evil. 
mmmh... if read well, nobody wants to play a lawful. yet, i like lawful evil, they are just too cute.
But i prefer chaotic neutral, it stays the most funny alignment you can ever play. |
| The Great Drizzt |
Posted - 03 Oct 2002 : 06:49:48
Well, I took the allignment quiz today that I downloaded off this site, and apparently im Chaotic Evil.....hmmmmmm......makes me wonder, am I really a Dark Elf?
The Great Drizzt |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 02 Oct 2002 : 08:37:21
I agree with Kahonen. I tend to let PC's do what they want, but I make sure they find out what their actions might cause. In the example sketched by Arion on the Chaotic Ranger and the crippled woman for instance. If they PCs decided to do as described, I'd let them. Yet they would find out that those actions have certain repercussions.
The only way that I try to influence the party is by having them interact with NPCs or ahving them find signs that will direct towards a certain goal. But even then I leave the PCs to decide wether or not they follow up. This does not have to cripple the campaign. |
| kahonen |
Posted - 01 Oct 2002 : 22:48:04
Sorry, Arion but I have to disagree.
Many of the elements in my campaigns are based around moral dilemnas but I don't need to know a PC's alignment to know how the PCs in my party will react - I know my players well enough to know how the PCs they are playing will react.
Your statement "As a DM, part of your job IMHO is to (dare I say it) restrict PCs in a sense that allows you to keep your story line together AND allow for PC freedoms" seems to be contradictory - I can't see how you can restrict PCs AND allow for PC freedoms.
I see my primary function as a DM as being ready to react to a position I am placed in by the party, NOT limiting the party to what I expect them to do. I have never had a problem keeping a storyline together as a result of player actions. You overcome the possibility of this happening by knowing your players and preparing your material.
|
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 01 Oct 2002 : 20:00:27
Yes, that is all true. Alignment should NOT be a restriction...however...
As a DM, part of your job IMHO is to (dare I say it) restrict PCs in a sense that allows you to keep your story line together AND allow for PC freedoms.
For instance, if I had based a campaign around a series of moral choices (like, "do we leave the crippled woman here to die so that we can save the city?" or "Is slaying this entire clan of bugbears justice because they are harboring an assassin"?)that would later SERIOUSLY affect the plot, knowing that I have a Chaotic Good ranger there to further things along helps a great deal. However, if this same Chaotic Good ranger decides that they should rape the afore-mentioned crippled woman, sever her limbs, beat her with them and then ride away on her horse after stealing everything she has so that the party can pawn her valuables, this places a serious monkeywrench into the campaign.
When something like this occurs, I usually take the player aside and discuss their alignment with them. No, robbing the blind priest is not something a true Lawful Neutral cleric of Helm would do. If he does, then he is NOT Lawful Neutral. He is of a different alignment if he cannot find some Lawful way to explain what he did (i.e.-"I HAD to rob the priest of the crystal he carried because I knew he would not part with it, and we absolutely HAD to have it to stop Demogorgon the Terrible from entering the Realms." - a very lawful thing to do).
Now, if the PC wants to play a Chaotic Evil cleric who is masquerading as a good guy, or who has somehow found a way to distort what Helm sees him doing so that he can pursue evil things, then great - in fact, I often encourage this sort of "gaming outside of the box", because if we didn't, there would be no Chaotic Good drow rangers running around....
|
| The Great Drizzt |
Posted - 01 Oct 2002 : 08:40:14
I agree, I think you should just play how you feel is right, and not be deturred by a set of guidelines like Allignments.
The Great Drizzt |
