D&D alignments

[Thatoneuser]

What alignment do you usually assign to your character?

[aileron]

Alignment doesn't seem to be a huge a thing in 5e as 1e (sorry if that's a weird comparison, but it's my experience. Heavily played 1e and a bit of 2e, then nothing until a moderate amount of 5e), so I'm a little surprised there's interest in this. Back in the day, it was explained that the default human was True Neutral, i.e., basically self interested, not striving towards ideals, usually other worldly ideals, just getting by as best they knew how. I don't know if that description made it into 5e or not, you've made me curious enough to check... But anyway, I figure I'm not the greatest "role" player and my character is going to act a lot like the way I would act in a similar situation, so True Neutral or Neutral Good for me would be the most I would get away from the center/default.

BTW, in the previous paragraph I'm not at all talking about True Neutral as in deadicated to neutrality itself as an ideal, e.g., like Druid of 1e was. Some have said *that* kind of True Neutrality should be a separate alignment from the default True Neutral.

[Thatoneuser]

Although it is a fairly small element I like it because it can show the reoccurring personality traits that D&D players set for their characters

[aileron]

It was always a shortcut/shorthand for a character's personality. It's a starting point. 1e didn't really have any other formal parts of the character's personality except maybe languages and class, and you could always play against the stereotype of that class.

[Distant Persona]

I would disagree that alignment isn't as big a deal in 5e. Alignment is only going to be as big a deal as your GM makes it, however there are still spells that trigger off of alignment, so it will always be something of a consideration. If the bad guy casts Protection Against Good, the paladin ain't going to be hitting him

[aileron]

Maybe it just wasn't a big deal in 5e with the group I played with, although I played a bit of AL with random people and it didn't make a difference there either. Good point about the spells though.

[Distant Persona]

Like I said, how big a deal alignment is will always depend on the DM

[Gray]

I typically have characters fall into one of three alignments. Neutral good, chaotic good, or lawful neutral. I tend to like neutral good the most though.

I see a lot of people misuse alignment. On the DM side of the problem, something I've noticed is a tendency to be very narrow-minded and try to control what a players character can and can't do based on the alignment they are. On the player side of the problem, I've noticed players restricting their actions because they think they can act only in accordance with their alignment. I've also noticed a lot of players will pick chaotic neutral because they wrongly think that it is a free ticket for their character to do whatever they want without consequences.

What I do for alignment is let people be whatever they want, and do whatever they want. But I keep track of those actions and shift the characters alignment bit by bit based on their actions. Then if character dies, they end up in a plane that corresponds to that alignment. That's the absolute most basic way I use it.

[Distant Persona]

The thing I did last time I ran a game of D&D a long time ago was assign alignment based on player action rather than letting the players choose. If players acted like regular people, they fell within the Neutral spectrum. If they were murder hobos, they were almost always evil. If they went out of their way to help people, they fell inside the Good spectrum

[ethansito]

Chaotic Neutral is the most popular choice right now

I see how you people like to play, haha

For my characters, I like to choose chaotic good or neutral good. I like to play good characters, but I don't like to follow the rules when doing good things. I like playing eccentric or curious characters that choose the most exciting and adventurous options rather than what's practical or expected.

[ryan_]

I almost always pick chaotic good. I think most of the time I'm just making fantasy me.

[Sovendovah1]

I play a chaotic good cleric. Gotta have that blind faith support!

[TheTuque]

[Tamanous]

I can't pick just one as it's bound intimately with the character concept. I will say I do enjoy Chaotic good through Chaotic neutral the most. I've played a few Chaotic Neutral (very difficult to work well in nearly any party).

My favorite all time character (and longest running) is a Rifts (currently Savage Rifts) Crazy gunslinger. She literally has several insanities and although the game has different alignments, it's basically Chaotic Neutral.

My current D&D character is a Paladin Swashbuckler (yup ... as strange as it sounds) and is Lawful Neutral. We just played today actually.

[JackofTears]

I've always imagined myself to be "Neutral Good" but when I take those online "what is your alignment?" tests, I always come back "Neutral Evil" - and once "Chaotic Evil". I never come away from those tests with a good alignment.

[aileron]

Yikes I hope I never meet you in a dark alley

I didn't know online alignment tests were a thing, but of course they are, so I just tried one. True Neutral, just as I described above!

[JackofTears]

I think it rates me as "Evil" because I'm a bit more pragmatic in regards to whom I should worry about first ... selfish, I'm selfish. "Neutral" because I'm not really one for talking up causes, I mistrust people with causes as a matter of course. And I get "Chaotic" a lot because I have trouble with authority.

Amusingly, I'm a pretty nice guy.

[Chloe]

CN takes the technical lead, but it's a real close race for ALL Neutrals for me! Most of my characters have been out for themselves (in some way, not always the obvious one), but ultimately know what's best for the party is typically best for her, and wouldn't be travelling with them if she didn't trust them somehow (only one has been with the party purely for her own reasons involving gold and such, and even that was to save her wife from slavery)
I hate it when people say CN is only for really selfishly-minded characters, but that's what helps set it apart from NE, which I've played because a character FELL to that level for self-importance and elitism.
CN isn't for you to do whatever tf you want for whatever reason you want, which is how a lot play it, unfortunately...

[aileron]

Glad to see majority good vs evil. I think a lot of evil chars makes for a difficult and less enjoyable game. The high number of CN is a bit disturbing. I liken CN to almost insane rather than merely self interested, but it's probably not treated that way by most people.

[JackofTears]

Evil groups can be a lot of fun to run but unless you have a good player, evil characters in a mostly good campaign can cause problems. It is important to always remember that there are repercussions for one's actions, so if they play chaotic-evil-stupid, they probably won't live long.

[Chloe]

Any alignment can have their wackos lol

[Cloud Seeker]

None. I do not use alignment.

[Henry09376]

Back in Ad&d 1st Ed. It was important depending on what class you played. Paladins for example had to adhere to their Lawful Good alignment to maintain their class abilities. I have never accepted the philosophy that paladins can be any other alignment than Lawful Good. I know in more recent editions this is not the case.