One of my Pathfinder characters, Bentithan Flinteye. He’s an evil, but pragmatic, Aasimar psychic warrior, who considers his actions to be for the “greater good”. He’ll use this to justify a lot of things to himself and others, but make no mistake he’s evil and ultimately just wants more power for himself; after all, wouldn’t he be able to do more good with that power? There would be plenty of people who’d think he’s right.

My halfling wizard. He’s just a silly little guy with a monkey on his shoulder (which is also his dead brother). Don’t mind that time he dropped a psionic nuke on a hex of the continent map as a distraction. Totally Chaotic Good.

Oh BOY. So I’m currently playing an automaton character in a Strength of Thousands campaign (pf2e), and I’m playing her very much like a stereotypical robot: no emotion, strongly rational, all that good stuff. One thing that I’ve made core to the character is her ability to learn and grow, but I don’t like the idea that a lack of emotion is a flaw that needs to be overcome. So, my philosophy is “make her become emotionally intelligent, not emotional”.

Sadly, I think with the way I play her, people would anthropomorphize her hard.

Mine is an entire faction. No, the rebels aren’t the good guys, the leaders are baddies. Theres just a lot of propaganda and in-universe nice people fall victim to it, including the protag. There is no high ground.

My Eladrin Paladin would definitely get interpreted as a himbo, when he’s actually quite intelligent, just a very impulsive thrillseeker. He knows full well every most of the time he walks into a trap, and he delights in it.

My players THINK my kobolds have an elaborate and well-developed society but actually eee he’s just a lil guy omg lookit how cute he is

the ascended mage that realizes reincarnation is a thing and the current world is fundamentally evil. When death is only an illusion then it becomes a very small price to pay for even banal ends, much less glorious ones.