PDA

View Full Version : So what alignment would this character be? (3.X)



Shpadoinkle
2009-12-29, 07:27 AM
He's a talented warrior who travels the world to seek and combat the forces of evil. If one were to ask him, that would literally be his stated goal- "To fight the forces of evil."

He doesn't do this out of any moral or ethical obligation, nor does he really expect to be able to be successful in much of anything more than a temporary, localized scale- his stated goal is simply too vast to be accomplished by a single person (unless that person's an epic level caster, but that's not the point.)

He doesn't do it to "make the world a better place" either. It's actually mostly an excuse to travel and look for new challenges. He doesn't try to dominate the landscape or murder everyone or rob the countryside blind because there's no challenege in it. At least, not enough to make it worth the hassle. Plus, people tend to like heroes better than they like villians anyway.

Not that he's completely altruistic, either. He doesn't like to exploit people, but he won't trek halfway accross the country to pass out blankets to people in the middle of a blizzard either. He'll rescue a village being threatened by bandits because it'll probably involve a fight, but any reward aside from an opportunity to find more people to fight is pretty much secondary, unless he's in need of money for traveling or a new sword or something. Most of the time he'd just ask for people to spread his name and send any more such jobs his way. If he fails and the entire town is slaughtered by bandits, he'd look for and help any survivors, but i wouldn't weight too heavily on is conscience. He'd be frustrated with himself for being unable to meet a challenge, but the loss of life wouldn't weigh heavily on his mind. The world's a dangerous place, and the possibility of dying violently is just another facet of life that happens every day.

He doesn't enjoy murdering people- he beleives in the warrior's code and won't strike down someone who's defenseless (unless he or an ally put them in that state during a fight) or unwilling to defend themselves, and he'll accept an enemy's surrender (unless it's the second time they've surrendered, after the first being a trick to get him to let his guard down.)

ex cathedra
2009-12-29, 07:32 AM
Lawful Neutral.

sonofzeal
2009-12-29, 07:55 AM
By my definitions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205), he's probably Lawful and somewhere between Neutral and Evil.


Here's a question. Let's say he was in a fight, and accidentally killed some innocent townsperson who happened to stumble into the line of fire, but nobody saw and nobody will ever find out and there's no damage to his reputation. How bad would he feel?

Saph
2009-12-29, 08:02 AM
Well, he can't be Good, because he isn't really trying to follow any kind of moral principles or make the world a better place.

He can't be Evil, either, because he's not particularly malicious or selfish, and while he kills people, he's pretty much doing the same job that Good-aligned adventurers do, just for a less altruistic reason.

And he definitely can't be Chaotic, since he's much too consistent and has a fairly clear code that he lives by.

That leaves either Neutral or Lawful Neutral. You could make a good case for both.

kamikasei
2009-12-29, 08:11 AM
And he definitely can't be Chaotic, since he's much too consistent and has a fairly clear code that he lives by.

I disagree, though the Law/Chaos divide here is one of those things that never gets properly settled in discussions. He's just wandering around looking for fights, because he likes to fight, picking targets that people will praise rather than condemn him for because it makes his life easier to be liked than hated. That sounds Chaotic Neutral to me. The kind of "warrior's code" described seems to me perfectly compatible with a chaotic alignment.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-29, 08:15 AM
So he's (something) Neutral. If you plan to use Dictum, Chaos Hammer, or similar effects, you can decide where he stands on Law/Chaos. For an NPC, there's not much need to painfully determine their exact alignment reading.

The "warrior's" code described sounds suspiciously honorable, and "honor" has traditionally been Lawful.

Saph
2009-12-29, 08:34 AM
I disagree, though the Law/Chaos divide here is one of those things that never gets properly settled in discussions. He's just wandering around looking for fights, because he likes to fight, picking targets that people will praise rather than condemn him for because it makes his life easier to be liked than hated. That sounds Chaotic Neutral to me. The kind of "warrior's code" described seems to me perfectly compatible with a chaotic alignment.

A warrior's code may be compatible with a chaotic alignment, but the thing about this guy is that he doesn't do anything particularly chaotic. Chaotic characters are supposed to follow their consciences, favour new ideas over tradition, resent being told what to do, only do what they promise if they feel like it, and generally be unpredictable, none of which particularly describes this character.

robotrobot2
2009-12-29, 09:30 AM
I might actually go with lawful good. Especially in D&D, the intention behind actions don't always affect alignment, such as summoning a demon to save a bunch of innocents. Since the character is mostly committing acts with good effects, he could qualify for being good.

sonofzeal
2009-12-29, 10:01 AM
I do think it's possible for someone to be "incidentally good", that is, someone who has no inclination towards good but ends up doing many good acts anyway. One of the reasons I think this is because it follows from the reverse.

I mean, let's say you've got Poor Farmer Joe, whose wife and only child are kidnapped by very perverse mobsters, who say they'll brutally slaughter them unless he does a series of evil acts for them (let's say, assassination and robbery). Is Poor Farmer Joe evil if he does those things? What if they keep on blackmailing him, and he does their dirty work for a year (but still wants nothing more than to be safe with his family).

Personally, I wouldn't call him evil, until such time as he starts really internalizing those feelings. If he starts enjoying the evil he does, that's one thing. But being manipulated by circumstance is another.

Similarly, an amoral man could be manipulated by circumstance into doing good on a mid to long term basis. It's entirely feasible they may start internalizing it and enjoying the act of goodness, but I don't think that everyone who volunteers at a soup kitchen is necessarily a nice person inside.



Again, a question: if circumstances were different, would he still generally follow the same sort of path? Is there a "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" where even a subtle change could have diverted him elsewhere? Or is this just a part of who he is, a tendency (which could be overcome, of course) to fall into this behaviour pattern?

ShakeHandsMan
2009-12-29, 10:29 AM
I might actually go with lawful good. Especially in D&D, the intention behind actions don't always affect alignment, such as summoning a demon to save a bunch of innocents. Since the character is mostly committing acts with good effects, he could qualify for being good.

This
In all the discussion threads about good necromancy and the like, the consensus seems to be that in D&D alignment intentions don't matter much, if they did every sociopath who had an internal justification that they truly believed would be counted as good. There is an outside viewpoint from which acts are to be judged good or evil, and this guy would certainly be judged as good.
Fights doers of vile deeds? Check
Defends the weak? Check
Does so without a large inclination to rewards and plunder? Check
Has a code of honor he wont break easily? Check
I really don't see the problem here, if summoning a demon to defend a farmer household against bandits is evil, then fighting evil for the sake of fighting is as good as any paladin.

DonEsteban
2009-12-29, 10:45 AM
Yeah, there's no strong evidence for any alignment here. I'd say true neutral here, but LG, NG, LN could all also be justified. CN would also not be entirely impossible. So just pick any one of those. The one you want him to be...

Optimystik
2009-12-29, 11:20 AM
I'd say mildly NG or CG. You don't have to trek around the world to hand out blankets or deliver babies just because you hear about bad things going on over there. Many good-aligned people limit their good to their local environs without taking an alignment hit.

His wanderlust gives him a Chaotic streak, but he's trying to do good along the way. Sounds like Elan pre-OotS, minus the whole apprenticeship thing.

hamishspence
2009-12-29, 01:35 PM
Sounds a bit like Conan the Barbarian on a very good day.

That said, a case can be made for Neutral Good or Neutral with Good tendencies- after all, Roy Greenhilt's alignment is judged as Good primarily because he "risks his life against the forces of evil without expecting compensation"

Fawsto
2009-12-29, 01:45 PM
My two coppers? LN.

If he had 100 situations where he made a promise, how many of them would he keep it?

hamishspence
2009-12-29, 01:50 PM
A dislike of murdering people and a preference for taking them prisoner is usually associated with Good, rather than Law, in most alignment sources.

At the same time, he has a "Good is not stupid" clause and once a false surrender has been made, won't trust future offers of surrender from that being.

Nai_Calus
2009-12-29, 01:57 PM
I love how this thread has suggested everything but NE and CE. :smallbiggrin:

I'd say True Neutral myself.

ScIaDrd
2009-12-29, 02:04 PM
Sounds quite LN to me, perhaps vith a strong leaning torwards chaos, bacuse you aren t exactlı a contributing member of society, when youre a wandering warrior.
But may I suggest that you use this system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177&highlight=color+wheel) instead? Because,honestly the classical nine point one may be cool but it has it´s problems. Using that one, I think he would be Red/Green.
EDIT: On second tought he is maybe TN. So either LN or TN.

Tengu_temp
2009-12-29, 02:06 PM
Neutral, too little info to decide on the law/chaos axis, so probably true neutral. Has high chances of going good once The Plot catches up to him, though.

Shpadoinkle
2009-12-29, 05:21 PM
By my definitions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205), he's probably Lawful and somewhere between Neutral and Evil.


Here's a question. Let's say he was in a fight, and accidentally killed some innocent townsperson who happened to stumble into the line of fire, but nobody saw and nobody will ever find out and there's no damage to his reputation. How bad would he feel?

He'd feel bad about it, more for the fact that his carelessness caused the loss of an innocent life than the actual loss of life itself. He'd try to find out who the deceased was and offer to pay the funeral costs at least, and send a message to his family if they were in another city or something, but he wouldn't feel bad for a long time, though he would try to be more mindful of noncombatants on the field in the future. His thoughts on it would pretty much be more towards keeping his reputation good and trying to reinforce (gently) to people that someone doesn't know how to fight, they should get the hell away from a battle.

Trixie
2009-12-29, 07:14 PM
Chaotic Evil*.

What? :smallconfused: It fits, and makes a nice subversion.

*Arguably, pretty high on evil scale, almost neutral, but only almost. You can say: Recloak-level evil, not Belkar-level one. Also, it all depends on details. What you have is a rough guideline that can fit all non-good alignments.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-29, 07:18 PM
What you have is a rough guideline that can fit all non-good alignments.

You have a rough guideline that can fit all alignments. Seriously, NE is the only one not yet suggested, and that can fit easily enough. Though this is much more detailed than "O HAI guyz my person lieks to eat caek wut alignment is he??!", it ultimately doesn't point to anything. Just pick whatever alignment you want, depending on how you want him to be perceived.

sonofzeal
2009-12-29, 07:30 PM
He'd feel bad about it, more for the fact that his carelessness caused the loss of an innocent life than the actual loss of life itself. He'd try to find out who the deceased was and offer to pay the funeral costs at least, and send a message to his family if they were in another city or something, but he wouldn't feel bad for a long time, though he would try to be more mindful of noncombatants on the field in the future. His thoughts on it would pretty much be more towards keeping his reputation good and trying to reinforce (gently) to people that someone doesn't know how to fight, they should get the hell away from a battle.
So Neutral then, rather than Evil. He still has a conscience, even if a small one, and that still has an impact on his actions. I still wouldn't call him Good from your description, although he may actually be tending in that direction.

Zaydos
2009-12-29, 07:35 PM
I'd say Chaotic Neutral. For lawful we have: He follows a "warrior's code" and he consistently wanders about looking for random fights.

For Chaotic we have: He wanders about looking for random fights, he doesn't care for rules except those he imposes on himself, he isn't part of society, he's out for personal glory.

As far as warrior's codes go: Kord, and his worshippers, follows a warrior's code (which does include beating people up), all of Ysgard follows a warrior's code (which focuses on beating people up for personal glory), Thor in Deities and Demigods follows a warrior's code (which also includes beating people up). All of these are examples of Chaotic Good (Chaotic Neutral-Good border in the case of Ysgard) because they have a moral code (beat people up fairly) but not a complicated set of "rules of honor" or an emphasis on group action, laws, etc.

If you want more examples of people with a "warrior's code" just look at any good aligned barbarian. Even Conan normally followed a warrior's code and was pretty chaotic at the beginning. He had qualms about breaking his oath, but if the money was enough, if he thought he'd been betrayed, etc, he'd do it.

So I'd say Chaotic Neutral with Good leanings. When he dies if you're using the Great Wheel cosmology definitely headed for Ysgard. It sounds like a default petitioner on that plane.

Trixie
2009-12-29, 07:36 PM
You have a rough guideline that can fit all alignments. Seriously, NE is the only one not yet suggested, and that can fit easily enough. Though this is much more detailed than "O HAI guyz my person lieks to eat caek wut alignment is he??!", it ultimately doesn't point to anything. Just pick whatever alignment you want, depending on how you want him to be perceived.

Yup, but my point is, the things that people suggested:


Fights doers of vile deeds? Check
Defends the weak? Check
Does so without a large inclination to rewards and plunder? Check
Has a code of honor he wont break easily? Check

Can be easily explained by chaotic/evil (as well as by neutral/lawful) portions of the alignment, and they're certainly aren't set in the stone. You can be perfectly evil while fighting evildoers, not caring about reward and having a code of honor. Acting on a whim and not killing people (for example - who you see as a waste of time to kill or important to your future existence, such as farmers) doesn't make you good at all.

randomhero00
2009-12-29, 07:59 PM
Lawful neutral for certain. There's a lot of misleading (so to speak) info there that may make it seem one way or another, but a few tell-tale sentences make it certainly LN (IMO).