I'm sick of Neutral Good! - or, how to play alignment well?

[StalkingBlue]

Hi randomling - mind if I chip in, seeing that I know two of your PCs? (Not to mention look forward to meeting a third one on Thursday.)

I've seen you play Jez and Cailin, and I can't believe that you say you're playing them too similarly. They are certainly very different to me, heck, you even speak in different voices when playing in-character! To me Cailin has a much rougher, world-weary voice than Jez does, not to mention her speech mannerisms.

For example, I do remember Cailin calling our dusty old wizard "darling" rather disdainfully, when asked to use some wand or other. As in "Sorry, I don't do that, darling. I shoot and I open locks." That really characterised her for me. Jez would never speak like that I'd think.

OTOH Jez standing alone with Zana to face the orcs charging over the crest of the hill when all the guys were down on their faces in the grass, Jez running to protect the channeler from more orcs in the night ambush, and Jez still fighting back when the wolves had her down to 0hp with the only healer dead - those are some of the mental images I have of her. A completely different cup of tea from Cailin, at least to me.

Both are memorable characters to me already, although neither has been in play for longer than a few sessions. Also, although both seem good-aligned to me, they differ. I'd have said Cailin is the neutral to chaotic one and Jez probably lawful - but what the heck, so maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe someone noted the wrong alignment on their character sheets ...

So, er, I guess I don't have much advice to offer. Except that if you want to play individual, memorable characters, I think you're already doing it. I can't see that that you'd override what one of your PCs would do with what *you* would do when there's a difficult choice to make, just because I experience the two of them as very different, I'd expect them to make their own (different) choices.

Of course I may be completely off, so feel free to ignore me.

 

[Chronosome]

I have to say: A lot of great advice here. It's nice to see players with a good grasp on alignment.

Another guideline you may want to use is playing up what the character is against, alignment wise. Neutrals are shruggers when it comes to their neutral axis, but "extremists" are very into their L/C/G/E component. And those components have an opposite--just as you'd play a Good guy feeling antipathy for Evil, try it with Lawful vs. Chaotic.

Hope there's some inspiration in there for you, Randomling.

 

[kigmatzomat]

but if you're adventerous, you could go for LE or NE. I've seen such character blend in with good-aligned parties while keeping the good characters clueless. They're willing to go along and help out on "good" quests, but for entirely different motivations.

LE & NE are great for parties as long as you aren't too contradictory. Think "honorable villain" or "evil lawyer" when playing LE; you keep your word but play *very* ruthlessly, exploiting loopholes that are in your favor. Dr. Doom is an excellent LE character.

NE are more pragmatic and in my game they are called "NEcessary evil" because party-friendly NE characters do the things that are necessary but harsh. They often take pains to conceal some of their actions so the Good characters aren't bothered. Many NE characters wish they were NG but just can't convince themselves to see the best in people. Ever see the episode of Buffy where Giles kills Glory's human host? That was a perfect example of NE logic.

Need to kill an evil monster that happens to be inhabiting a child? The NE will handle it. Have a problem with a minor official with no real power other than bureacracy throwing his weight around? The NE will handle it.

 

[Sejs]

Cailin White, 12th level rogue. Neutral.

If it doesn't involve you (your property, your associates, etc.) then you don't care. Walking down the street and see a man in an alley way getting mugged? Wow, sucks to be him. He should've learned to defend himself, otherwise that kinda crap is bound to happen. Keep on walking. Enemy army invading the city? Focus on getting you and yours out of harm's way. Other people can take care of themselves. As for the invaders, let the army handle it, that's what they're there for after all. Be shrewd - don't do something out of the goodness of your heart, do it because you have a motivation to do it, not just because it's the right thing to do, or you've got an altruistic stirring. Screw that; altruism won't pay the bills. Find an orphan in the wilderness? Drop 'em off with the nearest outpost of civilization, wagon caravan or whatever and forget about 'em. The kid is no longer your problem.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As others have said, don't try to roleplay the "alignment." Roleplay the character and check the box you think his or her alignment fits into today. If that's Neutral for the first, LG for the second and CG for the third character, don't worry that they may not be paragons of their alignment (unless of course they're trying to be that).

 

[pawsplay]

Remember that anything other than Neutral is an extreme. Many real people are probably LN or NG, either they act on positive impulses or they do what's expected of them. But most are simply neutral. They might do the right thing; they might do something selfish, if it's something they feel strongly about. They set their personal opinions above right or wrong. They aren't terribly consistent about being either principled or free-wheeling.

So the NG character is the guy who basically acts in a reasonable, normal fashion, apart from his quirks. But when the chips are down, he would risk his life for just about anyone, even a bad guy who is potentially capable of reform.

A CG charcter is different. He is so free-spirited he is at odds not only with society, but with people. He responds to criticism about inconsistency or hypocrisy with a shrug, and says, "That was yesterday, this is today." And is serious. Think of Oscar Wilde, who pronounced he contradicted himself often, just to be interesting. When it comes to himself and others, he tends to behave in a reasonable, normal fashion. He may even spit on a beggar. But when the chips are down, he would risk his life for just about anyone, even a bad guy who is potentially capable of reform.

A LG character is the opposite. In the absence of any over-riding counterargument, it's argument enough that things are done how they are done. He will do extraordinary, often unreasonable things, based on his belief in principles, order, justice, and one's responsibility to society. He believes in things like rank, ownership, hierarchy. In many ways, he is a reasonable, normal person. He may help a beggar, or may spit on him. But when the chips are down, he would risk his life for just about anyone, even a bad guy who is potentially capable of reform. By the same token, though, he will uphold the law or a principle, even if it means dire suffering for himself or even an innocent person. Such a character is torn between duty and compassion. One way to get a handle on such a person is to decide whether he is, overall, more lawful or more good when it comes to each of the following: lying; keeping your word; laws; personal principles; moral character; the proper role of society; roles in the family; relationships with friends; criminal justice and punishment; warfare; chain of command; social caste; commandments of his deity; conflicts between powerful Outsiders; marriage. If you answer either "good" or "lawful" for every one of those things, you have likely misidentified the character's alignment. The classic Paladin is (to the death) lawful in matters of lying; lawful about his word; good when it comes to law; lawful or good in his personal principles; lawful on the stance of good character; favors the Good in matters of society; may be lawful or good with family; is immenently lawful toward friends, true but stern; is lawful in matters of criminal justice and punishment; is good even in times of war; may be lawful or good toward military commanders; may be lawful or good when social caste leads to conflict; is lawful where the tenets of his religion is concerned; is likely to favor a group of Good outsiders over Lawful ones; and is Lawful with regard to marriage and chastity. That's of course my view of the stereotype, and notice that in several areas, a character could go either way and still strongly resemble the stereotype. Another LG character could deal with each in reverse. They would still understand where the other was coming from. And being LG, would neither condemn nor fail to oppose the other if they came into conflict.

 

[Crass]

React to your environment. I had a character, Mariah the archer, who started as NG and ended up as some weird CN/CE type. She made suggestions on courses of action the party could take, and was ignored by the party. She spoke to the rest of the party, and was ignored. She craved attention, and started some bar-room brawls. The party joined the fights... then promptly forgot her. Getting fed up, she started talking to the "bad guys", who paid her some attention. Eventually, she joined a group of the "bad guys" after a disagreement with her party members, and hounded the PCs with occasional pinpricks, assaults and jeers. Thereafter, she became an NPC, who still occasionally dogs the footsteps of the PCs

 

[Darklone]

Neutral Good? I wish I would have more of that. I'm lucky with one PC in my group who plays that alignment... the others are chaotic crazy. The players, not the PCs. Their alignments (Chaotic good neutral) mirror this.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Also joining in with morale boostering personal experiences...

Serena is in the Planescape game, and simmo is playing that it's much more important what you believe than what your alignment is. In that case, Serena is an excellent character. Yes, she's worried by lots of things, confused by things, but you've played her with an absolute iron core. She has tremendous empathy with people in trouble - a capacity to do good regardless of the cost. In that way, she is NG, but I think having Cade (my new CN halfling) around will help draw out her Lawfulness, if you want.

As far as an example of NG goes, I'd like to mention Xiang in the Borderlands campaign. He wants to do Good - but doesn't care about methods. Hence his easy acceptance of what was more or less an asassaination mission recently, his viscious streak in combat and his uncompromising attitude towards negotiations. NG doesn't mean wishy-washy! It means he's concerned with Good at any cost.

I like all your characters, and I hope you can develop as a roleplayer. I think you are developing very fast, much faster than I did when I first started playing. Don't forget, I've been playing for around 13-14 years, and it's only recently that I've begun to really give my characters character. So don't worry too much about it!

 

[randomling]

Thanks for the advice, everybody!

Pawsplay - thanks for the list of issues. I think that just thinking through the different characters' stances on the different issues will help me make them more different from each other. Although apparently I'm not doing as badly as I thought.

Cailin's easy in a way, because I can count on the fingers of one hand the things she actually gives a damn about. They don't even include the whole of the party - just her two particular friends.

Jez is one of my favourite characters - gutsy, rash, and heroic to a fault. Playing that up and forgetting about alignment is probably the way to go.

As for Serena, after playing her lst night, I think she's doing OK.