D&D General Players' Poll: Which Alignment(s) Have You Played?

[Oofta]

My issue with evil PCs is most players just play them as "really selfish", which IMO is NOT actual evil.

The one time in college we played an "evil" campaign, after about 3 sessions I felt sick to my stomach and during the 4th session I just had to stop. It was getting into the realm of real evil and not comfortable at all.

I don't even enjoy playing truly evil villains as the DM, so I can't image anyone who really wants to play evil PCS at this point. Power-hungry, murderous evil is one thing, sadistic is truly another IME. shudder

If they're not really evil, I make them neutral.

I've been in games with people that played evil and enjoyed describing their actions way too much. I quit the game after a session (the DM had no problem with their buddy) and started my own group.

 

[schneeland]

I think I've played everything except for Neutral and Chaotic Evil. But the dominant portion of my characters where either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good (and some Chaotic Neutrals were bordering on Chaotic Good). And characters with evil alignment happened within dedicated evil campaigns.

 

[el-remmen]

In order from most to least common: NG, CG, LG, N, CN, LE

 

[overgeeked]

I've been at this a while so I've played them all by this point. I answered based on my most frequent picks. NG, TN, CN, CG, and unaligned. I also DM a lot. I avoid LG because it's so often Lawful Stupid. And I avoid LE and CE as it's not any fun playing the evil character in a heroic fantasy game. Though I vastly prefer the older version of alignment with only Law, Neutral, and Chaos. In that setup it's Neutral and Chaos all the way.

 

[tetrasodium]

They absolutely do not have to be. There's nothing about those alignments which compels you to play them in any way antisocially (to the rest of the party, at least). It's trivial to think of examples of totally obnoxious LG and even NG PCs, and friendly and helpful CE ones. There's a ton of advice on this on the internet, for example: How to play Chaotic Evil and be the Party Favourite

You're confusing correlation and cause, in the end. Players who want to play antisocial or difficult characters often pick Chaotic alignments because they (mistakenly, in my view) perceive them as an opportunity to be be antisocial/difficult based on the vague/limited descriptions of those alignments. Some editions of D&D have been much worse at describing alignments, too, of course. Anyway the alignment is merely an excuse for behaviour, not a cause of it.

Equally, players want to player a character who is antisocial in a bossy, pushy and/or bullying or pigheadedly stubborn way (often correlating with their RL personality to a greater or lesser degree) often pick the Lawful alignments, particularly Lawful Good, which combined with who Paladin rules used to work, lead to a lot of "Lawful Stupid".

(When I reflect on the worst behaviour I've seen in person in D&D groups, where alignments was cited as an excuse, it's LG and CN. LG because people want to be totally pig-headed (why isn't it like, mule-headed? Surely they're less cooperative? Mulish is a thing I guess) and anti-cooperative, CN because some people believe it gives them an excuse to be sO r4nd0m LoLzzz and just do whatever ridiculous thing comes to mind. Almost all of it was from players under 20 I note!)

I agree that LG & CN are generally the worst used "my character is x and would do y" alignments, the LE/NE alignments ironically tend to be a bit more self restrained with an expectation that they will get smited by someone if they act the same & as a result often wind up being more of a moderating element of pressure for good in the party since they still have lawful & neutral safety rails. CE has no rails & no safety net with chaotic encouraging dubious behavior. CE just creates too big of a hazzard when you mix all of that with the tendency for players to play evil as "selfish" "murdering" and/or "sadistic" monsters because "evil takes a lot more work than people realize" as people have pointed out through the thread so far.

Yes Dr smith may have been a bit CE, but in the original lost in space that was mainly used as a mix of comic relief & to get the ball rolling downhill so everyone would have an episode of time catching it, there's no way to relegate a PC to that shy of expecting some kind of omniescent elevated being bordering on maxwell's demon/roko's basilisk as the GM

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't know where I got this or who wrote it, but I found it online years and years ago. I found it helpful and would give it to players to help them cultivate their personality based on their alignment.

I find most of those descriptions agreeable but have definite issues with the CN description (reads more like lol just do whatever crossed with unaligned) and to a lesser extent TN (emphasis on ‘for the balance’ is what lead to the infamous ‘stupid neutral’ alignment that would flip-flop changing sides on a dime because ‘‘‘maintain balance’’’) and CG (this is just lots of little issues with most of the points given)

 

[R_J_K75]

I find most of those descriptions agreeable but have definite issues with the CN description (reads more like lol just do whatever crossed with unaligned) and to a lesser extent TN (emphasis on ‘for the balance’ is what lead to the infamous ‘stupid neutral’ alignment that would flip-flop changing sides on a dime because ‘‘‘maintain balance’’’) and CG (this is just lots of little issues with most of the points given)

Been awhile since I read through it so IDR whats on it exactly. But it's a decent guideline if nothing else, better than the descriptions in some the editions of the PHB/DMG. Alignment has always been open to interpretation and the subject of many debates and arguments, which is most likely why its slowly being phased out of the game from what I can tell. As a DM I don't enforce it anymore, my players use it as a very loose basis for playing their characters. Only thing I really use it for nowadays is running NPCs and monsters.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

yes

 

[Nightfly]

I only played a Chaotic Evil character once, as a kind of joke, but she was a blast to play. Her hook is that she thought of herself as Lawful Good, in the same way that evil people in real life tend to think of themselves as the good guys. I discovered made her playable at the table without derailing the party: whenever she'd suggest doing something horrible, the party could easily talk her out of it.

"Why don't we just set the children in town on fire until the mayor gives us what we want?"

"You know, murdering children is a big cultural taboo in these parts. So that might be a bit of a faux pas."

"Oh, hmm, good point."

 

[CreamCloud0]

My personal overview of the 6 alignment types

Good: i want and act for the betterment of as many people as possible
GE-Neutral: i put getting my own betterment before other people’s, but not at the cost of other people’s well-being
Evil: i want betterment for myself and will put my own wants even over other people’s well-being

Lawful: i hold myself to a set of rules or principles, even if they occasionally oppose what i personally want or think is right
LC-Neutral: i usually follow rules but will not actively enforce them, I may break rules if I feel i have a good reason to or that it’s not that important to follow them
Chaotic: personal freedom is the most important, i will not be tied down by any rules or promises or even my own previous actions but that doesn’t mean I am incapable of following them if I choose to do so