@Richard Haegeler Given that it falls on the "selfless" act, i would argue that depending on who you do it to, it could be considered "good" or at least "neutral". Again, depends on if you´re hurting an asshole or not. Chaotic characters in general tend to make mistakes even if they had a good purpose in mind.
@Richard Haegeler yes and no, for example, are you evil if you say... Put half of the third Reich in traction to help people? You are violent yes, but in most cases not actively malicious. Its all very noble to say the only good path is one of no suffering. But its also unrealistic in either DnD or real life. If there is any conflict, one side wins and one side loses, especially if the conflict cannot be talked through, for example possession of a priceless relic, or even simple food stores during a lean winter. And no matter how many meals the paladin skips, he cant feed a city If your goal is helping people, and the powers that be seek to obstruct you, either through corruption or just cumbersome rules. Those who enforce this prove themselves not interested in helping others. In order to help people who need it, these other people must be dealt with. They don't have to suffer, or die, but they must be removed. For example, guards who bar castle gates against refugees fleeing ahead of an orcish army. Lawful good would give them directions, maybe toss supplies down. But would obey their orders or rules. A chaotic good would deck their commanding officer flat on his ass, and whoever else tried to stop him and open the gates. If they had decided to. Now, all choices carry consequences, if the gates are barred because there could be spies in the peasants, or the castle simply doesn't have food stocks to feed so many during a siege. Then you could cause more people to suffer. But then again maybe not, situations vary, the refugees could have what crops they could harvest from their farms before they were torched. However if the lawful good characters oath was to never abandon civilians in need, he would likewise be compelled to act, though he might instead forsake the castle and leave with the refugees and a small company of like-minded people. If escape was reasonable. As that only directly costs him. Alignment doesnt guarantee results, only where they would draw their lines and what actions they're more likely to take. An evil character can still save a country, even if only because they refuse to let someone conquer it before they do.
Two of the alignment tropes i just adore are "the chaotic neutral loose canon who values his own happiness over everything else no matter what" and "the smooth talking lawful evil salesman giving people cursed items in exchange for their souls"
@@tartarustrommler5454 no actually thats the defenition of neutral, evil would be actively wanting others to suffer in some way while good means actively supporting (innocent) others
@@trutyatces8699 yes i watched the video (several times actually) i just simplified it the issue with the alignment chart is that its incredibly vague resulting in it having no actual meaning which is what a good part of his puns are about so while the fully selfish thing would certainly tend towards evil i would still put it into chaotic neutral as the intend isnt focused on others and rather themselves but of course if the character commits massmurder to achieve that goal they would be evil
@@TezcatsGhost I am ignoring your tangent about the actual value of these alignment charts because there was never a point in bringing that up. As for what actually matters, if you are doing it for the world or the broad many its good. if you are doing it for yourself it’s Evil. If you are doing it without even the slightest thought and without you or anyone else standing to benefit from it, *that’s* neutral. Neither Good nor Evil actually care how many people you hurt. Your hypothetical Lawful Good Paladin could kill hundreds without changing alignments because the number you kill doesn’t actually matter to it. That’s what you seem confused by.
The way I approach the alignment chart is as follows: -Lawful: Follows a code / set of beliefs. This may be strict adherence to a law, but it often is simply a kind of lifestyle and self-discipline. -Chaotic: Acts in accordance to one's whims and in-the-moment impulses. While lawful considers a set of principles, chaotic judges each situation on a case by case basis with little or no regard for a more encompassing or consistent approach. -Neutral (between lawful and chaotic): Has principles, but very vague and/or easily shifted ones, and likely follow those principles because "it seems right" rather than any deeper or more thought-out reason. -Good/Evil - I took an approach somewhat inspired by MTG's color pie, and see the good and evil alignments as selfless vs selfish modes of thinking. Acts and motivations valuing the well-being of others, of society or the world in general are for the good alignment, whereas an approach that cares about one's personal goals first and foremost. One might ask "what about villains that are acting for the good of the world in their view, they are a dime a dozen these days", but motivation alone isn't the mode of thinking/mindset. I believe a villain that is doing what they are doing relunctantly, seeing every step as a sacrifice, trying to minimize the damage and such as a good aligned character, even as a villain. But if the villain is willing to trample on anyone and anything for the sake of their goal, and only cares for the pursuit of it, not in finding good means or even second-guessing themselves, then if that is the most benign goal ever, that is an evil character. As for where neutral falls on this, I would say self-centrism, character's with notions of live and let live or whose ambitions are too mundane and moment to moment to properly fit into the other categories.
As someone who has played a character who shifted from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil, I do like focusing on changing my characters mood from “I’ll do whatever makes me have fun” to “I’m gonna be an asshole because it’s funny” it’s a minor change but an important one
I'll always be a massive fan of Chaotic Good or Neutral Good It's basically just "I'll do whatever it takes as long as [Insert Important Thing in Person's Life] is happy"
One of my favorite examples of alignment was actually a double act. My best friend and I worked together on characters that would oppose each other on a narrative level. I was playing a Lawful Good Fighter and he was playing a Lawful Evil Rogue. In the strictest sense, we had the same endgoal. We were working for a Princess (well I was; he was her brother) and while both characters wanted to make things better, my character would be the one going out of his way to do the upstanding thing and he was willing to do more morally questionable acts that needed to be done so any negative blowback would land on him and not his sister. It was a very fun campaign.
The main character I played shifted his alignment. I started him out as a Lawful Neutral soldier type. And overtime this shifted to a more Neutral Good Alignment that leans towards the Lawful bit. It looks like he is going to round out to Lawful Good in a bit though once his character arc lines up. Or he might stay Neutral. You never know, D&D is fun like that.
Chaotic good. Still all the natural instincts of being a good person with "I don't care how many f***ing guards and soldiers I gotta beat to a pulp, I am helping those people."
My first character held the alignment that I found the most interesting. Lawful Evil: Strict to their principle and selfish in terms of what they think they deserve. The character would see the party as their children (they were a drow) and often confided with the law to ensure they were in the right, whether through persuasion, bribes and whatnot.
Had a character with two alignments (Cleared it with the DM). When not raging, he wants to help people, yet also doing so to help himself, such as accepting the deed to Trollskull Manor to clear it out of anything nefarious before handing the deed back, since Volo can't handle his Dragonfire Liqour. However, when he's actively raging, he sees the problem, and goes through everything he can to eliminate said problem like an anti-hero vigilante. He does this to prevent further danger and property damage, despite how he might be the one breaking a chair, table, floor, chandelier, or even a full on wall, while Raging. My DM agreed with me that outside of Rage, he's LG, yet inside Rage, he's CG.
The Punisher is a perfect example of a Lawful character that does not fallow the law. He is LN. Every version of the Punisher has a code of who he will kill, and who he won’t kill often written out at some point.
Never play DnD but my favorite alignment is Lawful Evil. all lawful is by the end is following strict rules and Morals that YOU set. And Lawful Evil feels like an amazing way to have word games and play with Technicallys. "technically I said I wouldn't kill you, but that pit of snakes isn't me. I never said anything about your companions tho. I know I told my contractor that I'd make them vanish, but they don't have to die, they can serve me instead"
I once played a Tempest Cleric named Arden. He was a LG himbo trying to make up a sordid past as a pirate. My DM was throwing a lot of demons and undead our way in that campaign (some obviously evil, others more morally grey) but this led Arden to constantly be on edge. Between that and the fact he was always lowkey desperate to earn some measure of redemption, he made some very rash decisions that pissed off some very powerful NPCs and started a few fights. It was a blast. He probably solved more problems than he started, but man is it fun to play a character that will throw themselves face first into trouble!
my first ever character was a chaotic good rogue assassin with morals. he only took jobs he thought were morally defensible but was a contract killer, so a robin hood assassin concept.
I love one campaign I play in where alignment doesn't impact your choices but the inverse. My PC is a human monk with admittedly stereotypical tragic backstory who started Neutral Evil but now is a follower of Lathander and is now Lawful Neutral
That’s one way to think of it, but I’d honestly consider that more a “pragmatic lawful neutral” than “lawful evil”, and there are many other lawful evil archetypes that never have to stray from their code of “honor” to be evil. 1. Their code itself could be inherently evil, such with the follower of a totalitarian regime carrying out government-sanctioned atrocities or someone following a devilish contract with a minimum baby sacrifice clause. In otherwords Lawful Evil because their Law IS Evil. 2. The honor code might not be evil in and of itself, but may involve obedience to someone who IS evil, like an honorable knight sworn to the service of an Evil Queen who won’t break that oath even though they know her orders are wrong. IE they want to be LG or LN, but are Lawful Evil because they put the Law OVER Good in their personal priorities list, so the good gets cast aside whenever there’s a conflict between the two. 3. As Skell said, the code might be fine, but the character is evil, and intends to exploit the code and its loopholes as a tool to get what they want, like a corrupt lawyer-generally these follow the Code either through compulsion (geas or other cosmically enforced contract) or as a political tactic reason to avoid punishment, but would be NE or CE if they thought they could get away with it. IE they are LE because their Evil TWISTS Law. Or (4) Usually only seen with the more “mastermind” BBEGs or Javert-style idealistic villainous cops, they are so obsessed with maintaining order that they believe no injustice is too great to use to enforce that code for the “Greater Good”. The kind of folks who legitimately believe petty theft deserves the death penalty and noise complaints deserve public floggings because “good people wouldn’t do those things”. IE they are LE because in their mind Law REPLACES Good.
Although I don't play D&D, my mental reference for Chaotic Neutral is Suction Cup Man, who only does anything because he likes annoying anyone he thinks is too uptight. He's not allowed to climb a businessman's tower? F**K YOU I'M CLIMBING YOUR TOWER! He learns of a missile that could start World War 3? F**K YOU I'M CLIMBING YOUR MISSILE AND STOPPING YOUR WAR! Someone he indirectly injured is recovering in a hospital? F**K YOU I'M CLIMBING YOUR HOSPITAL FOR A NOT-SO-FRIENDLY VISIT!
My favourite DnD experience was playing as a Lawful Good Dragonborn Paladin. The stereotype would have had me as an uptight, goody goody who ruined everyone's fun. It quickly turned into the paladin being an Eternal Exasperated Team Dad as the druid was chaotic good and eternally hyped about being in a big city, the Bard was a chaotic good paranoid conspiracy theorist and fourth player's character never lasted more then a single session. Constantly keeping those crackpots from wandering off or doing something stupid eventually lead to moment of sanity slippage where he tore down a gate with the intent of taking it home for use as raw materials by his blacksmith dad.
IRL I lean towards Lawful Neutral. When I write my fiction stories (not related to DnD), most of my main characters are Neutral Good, but usually end up being thrown into circumstances where they are forced to make a choice outside of their alignment, for one reason or another. Most of my villains are Lawful Evil, but some of my favorite ones I’ve written were good Neutral Evil. One of my favorite main characters went through an arc where she started True Neutral, shifted slowly towards Chaotic Good, and then because of certain plot developments shifted to Lawful Evil, before ending the story at Chaotic Neutral. Fun times.
True Neutral, with a twist. I pick an alignment each session, and have to act that way(even if my character hates it) for that session, for an insane character.
I've had two favorite alignments. First was my Lawful Evil Oath of Vengeance Paladin. He had a really strict code, which generally agreed with our Lawful Good character on what wasn't allowed. But the evil came out in what he'd do about crimes he did catch. And currently I'm playing a Chaotic Neutral Rogue. He's very loyal to the rest of the party, but has a very ah... Well, loose understanding of rules like "don't steal things". On the bright side, he gives everything he steals to the party.
This is why most I play with ignore the Alignments all together, characters are characters, unless they cross a very certain line that would piss off a god (if they are a cleric, paladin or something like that) it really doesn't matter that much any way.
My favorite character was a Chaotic Good travelling circus acrobat and was generally motivated to ensure the health, happiness, and wellbeing of whatever town/city the plot pulled us through not necessarily because of any code of ethics, justice, or morals, but rather because a happy healthy town is generally better business for a wandering indie circus than a miserable one.
My favorite character was a chaotic neutral barbarian, that way, if I wanted to. I could be a helpful person, but if I NEEDED TO, I wasn't required to keep my bar-bar rage in check and could turn people into sidewalk paste if they so much as breathed at him wrong... Needless to say, my party didn't like my shenanigans, but kept me along because I was damn good (or lucky, take your pick) at explodifying the enemies we fought and just claimed that I had random bouts of insanity due to traumatic "distress" whenever I "accidentally" decided that someone needed to be murder hobo'd
Lawful Evil Fun Fact: There was a Mechanic in D&D that I actually like Every time you decide to change your Alignment your Hit with a Penalty usually Weakening or outright losing Powers
In 5E everyone kinda thinks of alignment as a starting point for their characters, and it can and does shift around depending on character development. x3 My Ranger is Chaotic Good. Since becoming the leader of the group by kinda accident, she's shifted closer to Neutral Good. x3
I usually prefer Lawful Neutral since lawful can be a personal code and can still get out of some situations like when a DM I had, wanted me to save someone I just said "I'll take anything as payment to save them" and ended up with a bunch of rocks.
I usually picked TN because my old/boring DM had a hard on for making things as grey as possible but insisting Good characters do GOOD and no evil. So I just pick TN and would be a smartass and say how my goals are beyond your understanding.
I wouldn't say favorite as I only played one campaigne in 5E, started out as lawful neutral, got swung to Evil, (no added addition!) due to relic activation... - a relic of meteor storm. - because someone in the party counldn't leave a gloving eyeball alone!!!... My fighter survived alongside the others, but the entire pop of a village got recalculated from roughly 58-64 to 0, in an instant. Turns out commoners are allergic to meteors, who'd foreseen that!? In any case, by the time I made it to the point my character died (plot and other things allowed him to return a vampire, thanks to a vampire royal party member... who offered my character to get back to life - I had one life-line each day during combat encounters... BUT NOT outside of them - I just said nope, and that's where my fighter ended) - by then personal stuff came up and time management got the better of me. but all in all, I guess Lawful neutral.
The Pathfinder CRPGs actually do Alignment very well. The Alignment is not the start and end of a character. It's a quick overview of how they make decisions and what they aspire to. There is a companion in Kingmaker that is Chaotic Evil Half Orc Magus. He is an angry ex-slave that does not give a fuck about anyone else (with one exception). The character is still capable of doing good. Of loving. Of getting over their own shit. Of listening to stop running after the evil Mage that enslaved him and to release the slaves that are about to burn to death. Yes in the moment his outlook makes him go: "Fuck them, I am killing that guy." But when confronted about it he can see how assholish his behaviour is and maybe even move his alignment a bit. Using Alignment as the end all of your character makes them static and flat.
My Motherly Sorcerer is Chaotic Good she’ll protect those she cares for and is willing to help people, but also doesn’t exactly care about breaking laws to help folk
I personally like to play Lawful Neutral characters; characters that are neither Good nor Evil, but like to abide by/adhere to some sort of moral code. But honestly, I find alignment in general to be more of a base line; a suggestion, if you will, to start with for your character to properly develop a personality.
I'm Lawful Good irl. The three characters I've played so far have been NG, LG and CG respectively. In terms of favourite alignment I think it's NG in terms of playing as.
I gravitate towards Chaotic Good the most, personally. I don't care if you're a politician, a soldier or even a member of the church...if you insult or hurt those I love, heads WILL roll
Personally, I rarely even think about alignment anymore and if I do, its usually an after thought that I fill in once I've finished making the character. I am rather fond of chaotic good because telling the law to shove it while tricking it into taking down a corrupt noble causing trouble for the town I live in is a lot of fun.
Neutral is the best, be it paired with any of the other alignments or stand alone. Lawful neutral mans you choose your code of honor. Chaotic neutral is the passive-aggressive way to say, "I do what I want." Neutral good are that casual kind of good you can believe. Neutral evil is smarter than chaotic, and more sadistic than lawful. True Neutral is the hardest alignment to play. Please comment if you agree or disagree on any of these.
Chaotic good is my go to in regards to alignment, I just like to play good (as in morality) characters, but then again I don`t like being a goodie two shoes, and sometimes the sistem is wrong and you need to break it just a little bit, the CG is perfect for that (at least in my opinion). BUT AS IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY TO EACH THEIR OWN and if you want it the other way around good for you as long as you have fun and are not a obstacle in the rest of the party fun.
Neutral good, or chaotic neutral. At the table I’m at we have a table rule that we don’t play evil aligned PC’s (which I wish we could every once in a while, it CAN work) Neutral good because I’m someone who wants to help, doesn’t want to take away the choice of an NPC unless I have to, and is otherwise ambivalent. Chaotic neutral because I want character complexity (and I’m a push the big red button type of guy) and am tired of having to explain character motivation for alignment and how doing one deliberate evil act shifts my alignment down a notch.
I always saw Lawful Good and Chaotic Good in view of the Spock vs McCoy philosophy. Lawful Good is like Spock. The laws are for a balanced and ordered society, and one my do good in a way that emphasizes that (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). Chaotic Good is more McCoy. One should pursue good in a means that helps people on a more personal level, even in expense of those who would uphold society over the individual (the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many). Some would say Kirk is Neutral Good, which is fair, but his colleagues on the show would debate whether Shatner was that.
Have you played Vampire the Requiem 2nd Edition? It’s the latest edition of Requiem specifically and is more combat heavy just like DND but you get to be the monster!
Admittedly, I am perhaps most attuned to the Lawful Good alignment that many in D&D would hate, simply because...well the start of the Chaotic branch part sums it up. One too many players that just want to be 'lol so random' jackasses that irritate me to no end and...well, LG happened.
One of my friends considers it to be lawful good to commit the genocide of a town as long as the people in that town are criminals, no matter the crime. I'm going to be dming for him soon and I'm very scared.
For reference, most of the time, I can't tell when he's being serious, and he was wanting to be a mass murderer in his backstory while also playing a good character. I flat out told him no.
Neutral or Chaotic Good. Though I am waiting for a chance to play a Lawful Evil character to see how it goes But normally I don't choose an alignment, I just play the character and the alignment eventually shows itself
So far, I've only done Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil, though had more fun with Chaotic Evil tbh because I made a bloodthirsty Assassin Rogue, and was so bloodthirsty the healer of the group I was in had to keep my character on a leash.
Would you believe me if I told you my Rouge is True Neutral but uses all the alignments? He does and it's a roll to see what one he gets. 1d8 for the change of his alignment. And he has to change each session bj l plus if I want, go do another roll after combat.
Oh I don't do alignment. I come up with my character, and then decide, after everything else, what alignment best describes them, not the other way around. My most recent character was a street urchin taken in by a power wizard, learned the art, and now that he's a free adventurer he shows sarcastic disregard for social norms, tries to be pedantic and often makes unilateral decisions for the group because he HAS to be the smartest one in the group in order to prove to others (and thereby himself) that he is no longer that powerless orphan anymore.
I'd still say that jotting down alignment is still important, so long as its treated as a basic framework for a vessel instead of the finished sailing ship.
@@Dragon359 I would say these two methods are, at the fundamental level, the same: have a strong, solid idea for the foundation, then go up from there. My foundation was "Young man taken in as a street urchin to become a wizard," and from there everything else grew.
I love your reaction videos! My fav aligment is lawful neutral. Also idk if you know this butyou are missing the video for the rouge class. Maybe you havent reacted to it yet but Im saying it because you are moving towards the end of the playlist and pass the videos for the classes
Chaotic stupid is my front line blade singer wizard, he tries to good but does to much stupid shit along the way that takes away his good points. My monk is lawful good he has a strict code of what he values and follows that to a T.
I prefer LN. I am not big on chaotic characters usually but I enjoy getting to make good or evil decisions. Think of it like Batman (who you could also argue is CG and yeah he could be that too)
In 1e alignment was important, now in 5e it is not really important. Whether this is a good or bad thing is open to interpretation. I'm old school so I like alignment and try to include it in my games. I also don't write them in stone, not even in 1e. If a player consistently acts in a way contrary to their alignment, I will inform them of their alignment change. This is not a big deal in 5e but in 1e it can have consequences. When I get to play I'm usually CG, occasionally CN and once had a really good time playing a NE.
Unless i'm picking a class that locks you in "be that one specific alignment or you don't get any benefits" situation, I prefer Chaotic Good, because i'll save the effing world even if i have to make half the global populace my enemy to do it!
![Krimson KB Reacts: Jocat's A Crap Guide to D&D [5th Edition] - Races](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZIeGz-d0VCY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Krimson KB Reacts: Jocat's A Crap Guide to D&D [5th Edition] - Races](/img/tr.png)
![Krimson KB Reacts: Jocat's A Crap Guide to D&D [5th Edition] - Goblins](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/700D4YLByXk/mqdefault.jpg)
I like chaotic good. It boils down to "I'll help these people, and I don't care how many laws or people I have to break to do it".
I need to try this.
@Richard Haegeler Given that it falls on the "selfless" act, i would argue that depending on who you do it to, it could be considered "good" or at least "neutral".
Again, depends on if you´re hurting an asshole or not.
Chaotic characters in general tend to make mistakes even if they had a good purpose in mind.
@Richard Haegeler yes and no, for example, are you evil if you say... Put half of the third Reich in traction to help people? You are violent yes, but in most cases not actively malicious.
Its all very noble to say the only good path is one of no suffering. But its also unrealistic in either DnD or real life. If there is any conflict, one side wins and one side loses, especially if the conflict cannot be talked through, for example possession of a priceless relic, or even simple food stores during a lean winter. And no matter how many meals the paladin skips, he cant feed a city
If your goal is helping people, and the powers that be seek to obstruct you, either through corruption or just cumbersome rules. Those who enforce this prove themselves not interested in helping others. In order to help people who need it, these other people must be dealt with. They don't have to suffer, or die, but they must be removed.
For example, guards who bar castle gates against refugees fleeing ahead of an orcish army. Lawful good would give them directions, maybe toss supplies down. But would obey their orders or rules. A chaotic good would deck their commanding officer flat on his ass, and whoever else tried to stop him and open the gates. If they had decided to.
Now, all choices carry consequences, if the gates are barred because there could be spies in the peasants, or the castle simply doesn't have food stocks to feed so many during a siege. Then you could cause more people to suffer. But then again maybe not, situations vary, the refugees could have what crops they could harvest from their farms before they were torched.
However if the lawful good characters oath was to never abandon civilians in need, he would likewise be compelled to act, though he might instead forsake the castle and leave with the refugees and a small company of like-minded people. If escape was reasonable. As that only directly costs him.
Alignment doesnt guarantee results, only where they would draw their lines and what actions they're more likely to take. An evil character can still save a country, even if only because they refuse to let someone conquer it before they do.
I have the Chaotic Good shirt: "Doing the right thing, even if it means I have to kill everyone in the process."
Yes, that is great fun.
Two of the alignment tropes i just adore are "the chaotic neutral loose canon who values his own happiness over everything else no matter what" and "the smooth talking lawful evil salesman giving people cursed items in exchange for their souls"
valuing your own happiness over everything else sounds like it would be evil.
@@tartarustrommler5454 no actually thats the defenition of neutral, evil would be actively wanting others to suffer in some way while good means actively supporting (innocent) others
@@TezcatsGhost Jocat literally tells you in the video what Evil means. Watch the video.
@@trutyatces8699 yes i watched the video (several times actually) i just simplified it the issue with the alignment chart is that its incredibly vague resulting in it having no actual meaning which is what a good part of his puns are about
so while the fully selfish thing would certainly tend towards evil i would still put it into chaotic neutral as the intend isnt focused on others and rather themselves but of course if the character commits massmurder to achieve that goal they would be evil
@@TezcatsGhost I am ignoring your tangent about the actual value of these alignment charts because there was never a point in bringing that up. As for what actually matters, if you are doing it for the world or the broad many its good. if you are doing it for yourself it’s Evil. If you are doing it without even the slightest thought and without you or anyone else standing to benefit from it, *that’s* neutral. Neither Good nor Evil actually care how many people you hurt. Your hypothetical Lawful Good Paladin could kill hundreds without changing alignments because the number you kill doesn’t actually matter to it. That’s what you seem confused by.
that code of goblins is the way of life of every living being in splatoon, literally.
The way I approach the alignment chart is as follows:
-Lawful: Follows a code / set of beliefs. This may be strict adherence to a law, but it often is simply a kind of lifestyle and self-discipline.
-Chaotic: Acts in accordance to one's whims and in-the-moment impulses. While lawful considers a set of principles, chaotic judges each situation on a case by case basis with little or no regard for a more encompassing or consistent approach.
-Neutral (between lawful and chaotic): Has principles, but very vague and/or easily shifted ones, and likely follow those principles because "it seems right" rather than any deeper or more thought-out reason.
-Good/Evil - I took an approach somewhat inspired by MTG's color pie, and see the good and evil alignments as selfless vs selfish modes of thinking. Acts and motivations valuing the well-being of others, of society or the world in general are for the good alignment, whereas an approach that cares about one's personal goals first and foremost. One might ask "what about villains that are acting for the good of the world in their view, they are a dime a dozen these days", but motivation alone isn't the mode of thinking/mindset. I believe a villain that is doing what they are doing relunctantly, seeing every step as a sacrifice, trying to minimize the damage and such as a good aligned character, even as a villain. But if the villain is willing to trample on anyone and anything for the sake of their goal, and only cares for the pursuit of it, not in finding good means or even second-guessing themselves, then if that is the most benign goal ever, that is an evil character. As for where neutral falls on this, I would say self-centrism, character's with notions of live and let live or whose ambitions are too mundane and moment to moment to properly fit into the other categories.
As someone who has played a character who shifted from chaotic neutral to chaotic evil, I do like focusing on changing my characters mood from “I’ll do whatever makes me have fun” to “I’m gonna be an asshole because it’s funny” it’s a minor change but an important one
I'll always be a massive fan of Chaotic Good or Neutral Good
It's basically just "I'll do whatever it takes as long as [Insert Important Thing in Person's Life] is happy"
One of my favorite examples of alignment was actually a double act. My best friend and I worked together on characters that would oppose each other on a narrative level. I was playing a Lawful Good Fighter and he was playing a Lawful Evil Rogue. In the strictest sense, we had the same endgoal. We were working for a Princess (well I was; he was her brother) and while both characters wanted to make things better, my character would be the one going out of his way to do the upstanding thing and he was willing to do more morally questionable acts that needed to be done so any negative blowback would land on him and not his sister. It was a very fun campaign.
The main character I played shifted his alignment. I started him out as a Lawful Neutral soldier type. And overtime this shifted to a more Neutral Good Alignment that leans towards the Lawful bit. It looks like he is going to round out to Lawful Good in a bit though once his character arc lines up. Or he might stay Neutral. You never know, D&D is fun like that.
Chaotic good. Still all the natural instincts of being a good person with "I don't care how many f***ing guards and soldiers I gotta beat to a pulp, I am helping those people."
My first character held the alignment that I found the most interesting.
Lawful Evil: Strict to their principle and selfish in terms of what they think they deserve.
The character would see the party as their children (they were a drow) and often confided with the law to ensure they were in the right, whether through persuasion, bribes and whatnot.
Had a character with two alignments (Cleared it with the DM). When not raging, he wants to help people, yet also doing so to help himself, such as accepting the deed to Trollskull Manor to clear it out of anything nefarious before handing the deed back, since Volo can't handle his Dragonfire Liqour. However, when he's actively raging, he sees the problem, and goes through everything he can to eliminate said problem like an anti-hero vigilante. He does this to prevent further danger and property damage, despite how he might be the one breaking a chair, table, floor, chandelier, or even a full on wall, while Raging. My DM agreed with me that outside of Rage, he's LG, yet inside Rage, he's CG.
The Punisher is a perfect example of a Lawful character that does not fallow the law. He is LN. Every version of the Punisher has a code of who he will kill, and who he won’t kill often written out at some point.
Never play DnD but my favorite alignment is Lawful Evil. all lawful is by the end is following strict rules and Morals that YOU set. And Lawful Evil feels like an amazing way to have word games and play with Technicallys. "technically I said I wouldn't kill you, but that pit of snakes isn't me. I never said anything about your companions tho. I know I told my contractor that I'd make them vanish, but they don't have to die, they can serve me instead"
I once played a Tempest Cleric named Arden. He was a LG himbo trying to make up a sordid past as a pirate.
My DM was throwing a lot of demons and undead our way in that campaign (some obviously evil, others more morally grey) but this led Arden to constantly be on edge. Between that and the fact he was always lowkey desperate to earn some measure of redemption, he made some very rash decisions that pissed off some very powerful NPCs and started a few fights.
It was a blast. He probably solved more problems than he started, but man is it fun to play a character that will throw themselves face first into trouble!
my first ever character was a chaotic good rogue assassin with morals. he only took jobs he thought were morally defensible but was a contract killer, so a robin hood assassin concept.
Chaotic Neutral is the 'LoL so random' alignment.
Chaotic Neutral. Discard humanity in the face of chaos. Also, Rogues
Who said Neutral cant be rogue tho
I love one campaign I play in where alignment doesn't impact your choices but the inverse. My PC is a human monk with admittedly stereotypical tragic backstory who started Neutral Evil but now is a follower of Lathander and is now Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil... has a code of conduct/honour but fairly cruel when they believe it needed.
They have codr of conduct and they abuse it for their own gain
That’s one way to think of it, but I’d honestly consider that more a “pragmatic lawful neutral” than “lawful evil”, and there are many other lawful evil archetypes that never have to stray from their code of “honor” to be evil.
1. Their code itself could be inherently evil, such with the follower of a totalitarian regime carrying out government-sanctioned atrocities or someone following a devilish contract with a minimum baby sacrifice clause. In otherwords Lawful Evil because their Law IS Evil.
2. The honor code might not be evil in and of itself, but may involve obedience to someone who IS evil, like an honorable knight sworn to the service of an Evil Queen who won’t break that oath even though they know her orders are wrong. IE they want to be LG or LN, but are Lawful Evil because they put the Law OVER Good in their personal priorities list, so the good gets cast aside whenever there’s a conflict between the two.
3. As Skell said, the code might be fine, but the character is evil, and intends to exploit the code and its loopholes as a tool to get what they want, like a corrupt lawyer-generally these follow the Code either through compulsion (geas or other cosmically enforced contract) or as a political tactic reason to avoid punishment, but would be NE or CE if they thought they could get away with it. IE they are LE because their Evil TWISTS Law.
Or (4) Usually only seen with the more “mastermind” BBEGs or Javert-style idealistic villainous cops, they are so obsessed with maintaining order that they believe no injustice is too great to use to enforce that code for the “Greater Good”. The kind of folks who legitimately believe petty theft deserves the death penalty and noise complaints deserve public floggings because “good people wouldn’t do those things”. IE they are LE because in their mind Law REPLACES Good.
Lawful Evil is the only evil alignment I can do and I enjoy it. Keep your promises, torture your enemies, and serve your dark lord.
@@emmittcarpenter1452 Neutral evil works better for me tbh
@@skell6134 Nuetral evil is an alignment I like but don't know how to play. Chaotic evil is the one I hate
Although I don't play D&D, my mental reference for Chaotic Neutral is Suction Cup Man, who only does anything because he likes annoying anyone he thinks is too uptight. He's not allowed to climb a businessman's tower? F**K YOU I'M CLIMBING YOUR TOWER! He learns of a missile that could start World War 3? F**K YOU I'M CLIMBING YOUR MISSILE AND STOPPING YOUR WAR! Someone he indirectly injured is recovering in a hospital? F**K YOU I'M CLIMBING YOUR HOSPITAL FOR A NOT-SO-FRIENDLY VISIT!
My favourite DnD experience was playing as a Lawful Good Dragonborn Paladin. The stereotype would have had me as an uptight, goody goody who ruined everyone's fun.
It quickly turned into the paladin being an Eternal Exasperated Team Dad as the druid was chaotic good and eternally hyped about being in a big city, the Bard was a chaotic good paranoid conspiracy theorist and fourth player's character never lasted more then a single session. Constantly keeping those crackpots from wandering off or doing something stupid eventually lead to moment of sanity slippage where he tore down a gate with the intent of taking it home for use as raw materials by his blacksmith dad.
Most of my party is chaotic good since we're Pirates, but so far we keep forgetting to to pillage.... it's more good than chaotic.
This is why my friend throws out the classic DnD alignment chart for his campaigns and uses MTG color combinations instead for alignment.
IRL I lean towards Lawful Neutral. When I write my fiction stories (not related to DnD), most of my main characters are Neutral Good, but usually end up being thrown into circumstances where they are forced to make a choice outside of their alignment, for one reason or another. Most of my villains are Lawful Evil, but some of my favorite ones I’ve written were good Neutral Evil. One of my favorite main characters went through an arc where she started True Neutral, shifted slowly towards Chaotic Good, and then because of certain plot developments shifted to Lawful Evil, before ending the story at Chaotic Neutral. Fun times.
True Neutral, with a twist.
I pick an alignment each session, and have to act that way(even if my character hates it) for that session, for an insane character.
I've had two favorite alignments. First was my Lawful Evil Oath of Vengeance Paladin. He had a really strict code, which generally agreed with our Lawful Good character on what wasn't allowed. But the evil came out in what he'd do about crimes he did catch. And currently I'm playing a Chaotic Neutral Rogue. He's very loyal to the rest of the party, but has a very ah... Well, loose understanding of rules like "don't steal things". On the bright side, he gives everything he steals to the party.
This is why most I play with ignore the Alignments all together, characters are characters, unless they cross a very certain line that would piss off a god (if they are a cleric, paladin or something like that) it really doesn't matter that much any way.
I have always played a Lawful Good Dragonborn, and that is a habit that I need to break.
Lawful Evil - because I usually end up as the overlord of the region by time I'm done in my campaigns.
My favorite character was a Chaotic Good travelling circus acrobat and was generally motivated to ensure the health, happiness, and wellbeing of whatever town/city the plot pulled us through not necessarily because of any code of ethics, justice, or morals, but rather because a happy healthy town is generally better business for a wandering indie circus than a miserable one.
A good example of lawful evil are devil contracts
My favorite character was a chaotic neutral barbarian, that way, if I wanted to. I could be a helpful person, but if I NEEDED TO, I wasn't required to keep my bar-bar rage in check and could turn people into sidewalk paste if they so much as breathed at him wrong...
Needless to say, my party didn't like my shenanigans, but kept me along because I was damn good (or lucky, take your pick) at explodifying the enemies we fought and just claimed that I had random bouts of insanity due to traumatic "distress" whenever I "accidentally" decided that someone needed to be murder hobo'd
Played a lawful evil character, good lord was that fun
Lawful Evil
Fun Fact: There was a Mechanic in D&D that I actually like
Every time you decide to change your Alignment your Hit with a Penalty usually Weakening or outright losing Powers
My neutral evil character is a psychopathic 12 year old tiefling girl that thinks Asmodeus is her dad.
She's a blast.
In 5E everyone kinda thinks of alignment as a starting point for their characters, and it can and does shift around depending on character development. x3 My Ranger is Chaotic Good. Since becoming the leader of the group by kinda accident, she's shifted closer to Neutral Good. x3
Chaotic Hungry
I usually prefer Lawful Neutral since lawful can be a personal code and can still get out of some situations like when a DM I had, wanted me to save someone I just said "I'll take anything as payment to save them" and ended up with a bunch of rocks.
I usually picked TN because my old/boring DM had a hard on for making things as grey as possible but insisting Good characters do GOOD and no evil. So I just pick TN and would be a smartass and say how my goals are beyond your understanding.
I wouldn't say favorite as I only played one campaigne in 5E, started out as lawful neutral, got swung to Evil, (no added addition!) due to relic activation... - a relic of meteor storm. - because someone in the party counldn't leave a gloving eyeball alone!!!... My fighter survived alongside the others, but the entire pop of a village got recalculated from roughly 58-64 to 0, in an instant. Turns out commoners are allergic to meteors, who'd foreseen that!? In any case, by the time I made it to the point my character died (plot and other things allowed him to return a vampire, thanks to a vampire royal party member... who offered my character to get back to life - I had one life-line each day during combat encounters... BUT NOT outside of them - I just said nope, and that's where my fighter ended) - by then personal stuff came up and time management got the better of me. but all in all, I guess Lawful neutral.
Currently playing a chaotic good cleric and I am having so much fun
The Pathfinder CRPGs actually do Alignment very well. The Alignment is not the start and end of a character. It's a quick overview of how they make decisions and what they aspire to.
There is a companion in Kingmaker that is Chaotic Evil Half Orc Magus. He is an angry ex-slave that does not give a fuck about anyone else (with one exception).
The character is still capable of doing good. Of loving. Of getting over their own shit. Of listening to stop running after the evil Mage that enslaved him and to release the slaves that are about to burn to death. Yes in the moment his outlook makes him go: "Fuck them, I am killing that guy."
But when confronted about it he can see how assholish his behaviour is and maybe even move his alignment a bit.
Using Alignment as the end all of your character makes them static and flat.
My Motherly Sorcerer is Chaotic Good she’ll protect those she cares for and is willing to help people, but also doesn’t exactly care about breaking laws to help folk
Just realized that this guy reminds me a lot of Noble from lost pause.
Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good are really fun
This is my comment before watching: I know you are going to love this. Imo this is one of the funniest jocat skits/videos
I tend to lean toward Neutral Good usually...
I don't really jive with playing evil alignments.
Lawful Neutral is the best, because you can do anything you want, if you can rationalize it well enough.
I personally like to play Lawful Neutral characters; characters that are neither Good nor Evil, but like to abide by/adhere to some sort of moral code.
But honestly, I find alignment in general to be more of a base line; a suggestion, if you will, to start with for your character to properly develop a personality.
I do the exact same thing.
When I play a character Im Chaotic Good. When I DM I am Lawful Evil.
Chaotic stupid as a curse that keeps your int and wis scores at 3 for punishment
Chaotic or Lawful Evil, every time.
I'm either chaotic good, true neutral, chaotic evil, or lawful evil
Damn, I hope I'm not the only one that plays the Lawful Good Paladin...
Usually play Lawful Neutral but my fav alignment is Lawful Evil
Im Neutral evil and most my characters goes by same alingment
But i more lean to True Neutral
I've played basically everything, but my personal fave of the alignments is NG. Though i did have a great NE character i really enjoyed.
Most of my characters are either Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Neutral most characters are warlocks with evil patrons.
I'm Lawful Good irl. The three characters I've played so far have been NG, LG and CG respectively. In terms of favourite alignment I think it's NG in terms of playing as.
I gravitate towards Chaotic Good the most, personally.
I don't care if you're a politician, a soldier or even a member of the church...if you insult or hurt those I love, heads WILL roll
My current character is Neutral evil, but acts good around other people since I belong to the thieves guild
Personally, I rarely even think about alignment anymore and if I do, its usually an after thought that I fill in once I've finished making the character. I am rather fond of chaotic good because telling the law to shove it while tricking it into taking down a corrupt noble causing trouble for the town I live in is a lot of fun.
Neutral is the best, be it paired with any of the other alignments or stand alone.
Lawful neutral mans you choose your code of honor.
Chaotic neutral is the passive-aggressive way to say, "I do what I want."
Neutral good are that casual kind of good you can believe.
Neutral evil is smarter than chaotic, and more sadistic than lawful.
True Neutral is the hardest alignment to play.
Please comment if you agree or disagree on any of these.
today i fallowed the goblin code of staby stab a human guard
Chaotic good is my go to in regards to alignment, I just like to play good (as in morality) characters, but then again I don`t like being a goodie two shoes, and sometimes the sistem is wrong and you need to break it just a little bit, the CG is perfect for that (at least in my opinion). BUT AS IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY TO EACH THEIR OWN and if you want it the other way around good for you as long as you have fun and are not a obstacle in the rest of the party fun.
Neutral good, or chaotic neutral.
At the table I’m at we have a table rule that we don’t play evil aligned PC’s (which I wish we could every once in a while, it CAN work)
Neutral good because I’m someone who wants to help, doesn’t want to take away the choice of an NPC unless I have to, and is otherwise ambivalent.
Chaotic neutral because I want character complexity (and I’m a push the big red button type of guy) and am tired of having to explain character motivation for alignment and how doing one deliberate evil act shifts my alignment down a notch.
I discovered the alignment chart from the Shin Megami Tensei games.
I always saw Lawful Good and Chaotic Good in view of the Spock vs McCoy philosophy. Lawful Good is like Spock. The laws are for a balanced and ordered society, and one my do good in a way that emphasizes that (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). Chaotic Good is more McCoy. One should pursue good in a means that helps people on a more personal level, even in expense of those who would uphold society over the individual (the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many).
Some would say Kirk is Neutral Good, which is fair, but his colleagues on the show would debate whether Shatner was that.
Chaotic good is the best alignment
Have you played Vampire the Requiem 2nd Edition? It’s the latest edition of Requiem specifically and is more combat heavy just like DND but you get to be the monster!
It tend to lean to neutral or neutral good
In real life, I am lawful neutral if not neutral good. I follow the law but am often considerate because I have too much empathy for my own good
Admittedly, I am perhaps most attuned to the Lawful Good alignment that many in D&D would hate, simply because...well the start of the Chaotic branch part sums it up. One too many players that just want to be 'lol so random' jackasses that irritate me to no end and...well, LG happened.
Yeah Chaotic Good is more dangerous than the Chaotic Evil
One of my friends considers it to be lawful good to commit the genocide of a town as long as the people in that town are criminals, no matter the crime. I'm going to be dming for him soon and I'm very scared.
For reference, most of the time, I can't tell when he's being serious, and he was wanting to be a mass murderer in his backstory while also playing a good character. I flat out told him no.
im a mixer of chaotic good to neutral evil
Neutral or Chaotic Good. Though I am waiting for a chance to play a Lawful Evil character to see how it goes
But normally I don't choose an alignment, I just play the character and the alignment eventually shows itself
This is the best way and why it's gone in recent versions
Chaotic anything but good
Choatic or evil but I do stay away good at altogether
Neutral good, because lawful good is too strict and will kill if necessary
Lawful neutral for me I do have a sense of morality however I am patient and would rather see how it turns out
So far, I've only done Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil, though had more fun with Chaotic Evil tbh because I made a bloodthirsty Assassin Rogue, and was so bloodthirsty the healer of the group I was in had to keep my character on a leash.
Oh, I forgot about this one.
(Can you blame me?)
LE monk xD
I usually play neutral good.
The correct answer is Chaltic Neutral
Would you believe me if I told you my Rouge is True Neutral but uses all the alignments? He does and it's a roll to see what one he gets. 1d8 for the change of his alignment. And he has to change each session bj l plus if I want, go do another roll after combat.
Oh I don't do alignment. I come up with my character, and then decide, after everything else, what alignment best describes them, not the other way around. My most recent character was a street urchin taken in by a power wizard, learned the art, and now that he's a free adventurer he shows sarcastic disregard for social norms, tries to be pedantic and often makes unilateral decisions for the group because he HAS to be the smartest one in the group in order to prove to others (and thereby himself) that he is no longer that powerless orphan anymore.
I'd still say that jotting down alignment is still important, so long as its treated as a basic framework for a vessel instead of the finished sailing ship.
@@Dragon359 I would say these two methods are, at the fundamental level, the same: have a strong, solid idea for the foundation, then go up from there. My foundation was "Young man taken in as a street urchin to become a wizard," and from there everything else grew.
I love your reaction videos! My fav aligment is lawful neutral.
Also idk if you know this butyou are missing the video for the rouge class. Maybe you havent reacted to it yet but Im saying it because you are moving towards the end of the playlist and pass the videos for the classes
Chaotic stupid is my front line blade singer wizard, he tries to good but does to much stupid shit along the way that takes away his good points. My monk is lawful good he has a strict code of what he values and follows that to a T.
I prefer LN. I am not big on chaotic characters usually but I enjoy getting to make good or evil decisions. Think of it like Batman
(who you could also argue is CG and yeah he could be that too)
Only one left in D&D is Dungeon Master, you are in for a treat and a veritable who's who of DnD UA-camrs.
In 1e alignment was important, now in 5e it is not really important. Whether this is a good or bad thing is open to interpretation. I'm old school so I like alignment and try to include it in my games. I also don't write them in stone, not even in 1e. If a player consistently acts in a way contrary to their alignment, I will inform them of their alignment change. This is not a big deal in 5e but in 1e it can have consequences. When I get to play I'm usually CG, occasionally CN and once had a really good time playing a NE.
Unless i'm picking a class that locks you in "be that one specific alignment or you don't get any benefits" situation, I prefer Chaotic Good, because i'll save the effing world even if i have to make half the global populace my enemy to do it!
Neutral good
What alignment is Batman?
... ... ...
... ... ...
... yes ...
Neutral Good. I just want to help others, no more or less
My elf is neutral
Are you going to react to the rest of his Crap Guide Monster Hunter? You only ever did Greatsword
Yis
Since i'd be considered a furry since I nainky run foxes i like playing the neutral cross.