#character alignments

[rainysofsunshineao3]

No thoughts just them...

[thephilosophersapprentice]

I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about how D&D memes have damaged the understanding of what chaotic neutral is and how it functions in the context of the game. Sit back, relax, and pour yourself a hot drink; this is going to maybe get intense.

Disclaimer: This is not a vagueblog, just a mindset I've seen around, both on Reddit and Tiktok. It's my intention to aid understanding, not sound accusatory.

For those who've never played, or who only have a passing concept of character alignments, D&D uses a system not unlike a political compass, just replacing the economic axis with a good-to-evil axis and reversing the direction of the libertarian-to-authoritarian axis.

Let's break down the two components (the two axes) that make up a character alignment.

Lawful to chaotic is a measure of how much you value your personal freedom over the law. However, there are different ways to spin lawful vs. chaotic characters; a chaotic character may believe, for instance, that the law limits the true scope of what one person can do to help another, while a lawful person may be lawful because they believe that the law exists to make everyone equal and protect them all. On the other hand, a lawful character may not care about the laws of the civilization they're in so much as a personal moral code. A chaotic character isn't 2014 Tumblr Random because they're chaotic; the Randomness is a character trait, not the result of the alignment.

Good to evil is a bit harder to define. Red from Overly Sarcastic Productions defines evil as "causing harm unnecessarily," but also goes into the fact that any definition breaks down under specific circumstances, all in her excellent Trope Talk on the subject. Basically, a good character tries to minimize the harm they cause others, while an evil character may not care or outright cause as much harm as possible because they think it's fun.

A neutral character (on either scale) is hard to define as well. Roughly, a neutral character has situations in which they act chaotic and situations in which they act lawful, situations in which they act moral and situations in which they cause harm needlessly.

Dear reader, you may have already grasped an idea of why "chaotic neutral" is so misunderstood. There are players out there who use the chaotic neutral alignment to justify acting like a chaotic evil character and avoid the associated bad press. I'd argue that you can't play this style and keep your alignment chaotic neutral unless you chaotically do roughly as much good as you do harm.

Why does it matter? Gameplay-wise, in 5e, it doesn't. There were editions in the past where there were consequences to your alignment choices, but no more. But from a storytelling perspective? From the motivation of not being terrible to your fellow players? Understanding the alignments (and table etiquette as well) can make or break the experience.

Please, if you want to do terrible things, just go ahead and play any flavor of evil--chaotic, lawful, or neutral. Following table rules and player etiquette, there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing an evil character. There's not even any gameplay mechanics to make it uncomfortable, and being evil in the game does not equal being evil in the real world. Look at the DM--they're probably portraying evil characters so you have a villain to fight, and it doesn't make them any less a good person or any less a good DM.

As a personal example, I have a chaotic neutral rogue/artificer/bard (I haven't decided which way I want to multiclass.) Said character is chaotic neutral because she has seen the men in charge fail the people they were supposed to serve (therefore chaotic, valuing personal freedom) and because she's seen and done things that make her believe she isn't a good person (though she doesn't believe she's a bad one, either.) She might believe that the ends justify the means, but there are lines that she still won't cross.

Alignments are nuanced. They're highly dependent on the situation and the group you play with. As a DM, if you have a justification for why your character alignment is what it is, I'll listen and allow it, but bear in mind that how your character acts will affect how people around them react to them. (For instance, if your character has been a jerk to everyone in the vicinity, I'll probably set the persuasion DC at 25--which, unless you're a level 20 character, is very high.)

Also, fun fact--if you play chaotic, you're kind of sharing the same half of the political compass with the libertarians. 😊

Go forth! Have fun!

[recycledoj]

This old bit came up in a Discord server.

[skoopedy]

Just realized that I never posted my best meme chart yet -

MURDER VS. FEELINGS CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

[lumpofwhump]

For your alignment chart ask game, Lenavee, Radu, and Barclay?

-verkja

Thanks for the asks (these and the yet-unanswered ones lol…)

Lenavee is Neutral Good, tending toward the Chaotic end of the order spectrum and down toward the Neutral part of the morality spectrum.

She was a petty thief and small-time scammer (if only under duress) for most of her childhood, and will lie, steal and manipulate to protect herself and her loved ones. Even her overly deferential way of speaking to and about people with more power than her is as much part of a submissive act as it is something her captors ground into her for years… and is sometimes incredibly backhanded. The traditions and institutions she respects are those of her culture, and not even as a form of defiance against the occupying forces (as it has become for many Hiukree rebels).

Morality-wise, she’s at a base level benevolent, and is a lot of people’s Mom Friend. She’ll throw herself under the bus for someone she loves knowing that they won’t ever know or recognize what she did. BUT. Put her and hers in danger or anything close, and you might find yourself drinking poisoned coffee or locked inside a washing machine.

Radu is solidly Lawful Good, though not the most extremely so of either quality.

As a heavily-conditioned whumpee (especially post-wipe), he’ll generally do what either his whumpers or his caretaker(s) tell him to the best of his ability, even if it hurts him. There’s quite a bit of fear there, of both punishment and abandonment, but there’s also genuine respect for anyone who protects him… or at least tells him they’re doing so. A significant exception to this is his protecting another, younger whumpee against his whumper… which led to him being wiped.

He’s almost a total cinnamon roll, of the variety that wouldn’t even hurt someone in self-defense. But. His loyalty to people he cares about can push him to do intentional harm. The example of this that’s come up so far is purposely mistranslating someone’s statements about one of his former whumpers’ good actions to say that said whumper had done the speaker harm. Granted, Radu did this to make sure that the person in question couldn’t do any more harm, and he didn’t know that the guy would get tortured because of what he said, but he could’ve guessed that it would’ve ended badly for the person he was framing.

Barclay is True Neutral. He drifts all over the place depending on his circumstances, but he never fully and permanently shifts alignment.

Anyone with power who gives him the time of day has his utmost respect, and he’ll do (or not do) a lot to prove himself and stay in their good graces. Throughout his early adulthood, he’d be the type to say he’s just following orders. At the same time, he does have lines he won’t cross, and will engage in minor, hidden forms of disobedience to avoid doing so. Meanwhile, he’s got huge impulse control problems. This leads him to disrespect authority figures or systems that have wronged or misjudged him, under the logic that if he can’t win, he might as well do whatever he wants and give the haters the finger while he’s at it.

As this suggests, Barclay tends to be as good or bad as the people around him and/or their expectations of him. When he’s working in the labs, both Director Richardson’s expectations that he be ruthless with subjects and the disdain of more ethical staff and subjects lead him to become the worst version of himself - cutthroat, bullying, and explosive in temper. When he’s eventually rescued/released from ten years of captivity and torture, though, his rescuers’ belief that he inherently belongs as a worthy member of his found family makes him act his best to deserve that respect… though still with the occasional reactive outburst.

[bisexualpercyjacksons]

pjo tv show episode 5 alignment:

[dunmeshistash]

Dungeon Meshi - Character Eyes and Profiles

[joncronshawauthor]

Character Alignment in Fantasy: From Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil

Today, we’re going to delve into the captivating world of character alignments in fantasy fiction. You see, fantasy fiction isn’t just all fire-breathing dragons and chivalrous knights, it’s also a grand tapestry woven with intricate character threads. And the tool that helps us sort these threads into a tidy, comprehensive pattern is what we lovingly call ‘character alignment.’ But, what is…

[gabriels-golden-kazoo]

[womp-womp-chomp-chomp]

Tag yourself, I’m anakin

[shyjusticewarrior]

Template made by @kdd-works

[0fps]

JANE DOE ❖ undercover r&b

The big bad daddy who cussed you out every day is gone and yet you still miss him. What are you, a bunch of daddy's boys?

[mhaikkun]

full-time model, part-time thief

[eliotbaum]

Savior.

a scene from our last Curse of Strahd session featuring my cleric PC

[dredgen-dumbass]

[lady-of-the-spirit]

This came to me in a dream.

Edit: you have a duty to more than just love. Think about your duty to the law. To your morals. To the general public. Your duty will not always be to your loved ones.

Think about what you would choose to do if someone you loved had committed some terrible crime and you had the choice to keep quiet about it to keep them safe or to speak out about it (to help the victim of the crime, to prevent more victims in the future, to uphold the law, for your own morals, etc.). Your choice shows the difference between love and duty.