PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Help me pin my character's alignment.



Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 05:58 PM
I've been flipping through the various sourcebooks I have in search of a decent prestige class to make use of, and it occured to me that a rather startling ammount of them have alignment requirements. This got me thinking about my character's alignment

When I first made the character, he was Chaotic Evil. But as I worked on his personality, he really stuck me more as Chaotic Neutral. But futher contemplation has made me think that the guy is really just using the alignment grid as a breakdancing mat.

-----

Here's the rundown of who he is:

The character's name is Vorin, a young Gnoll and worshipper of Kord (with the understanding that Kord is the patron diety of strength and competition) who is a member of a Chaotic Neutral tribe who moved to the Northlands (coldest place in the world that could still be called habitable) in hopes that the harsh environment would force them to become stronger. (Basically, Spartan-level training is more or less compulsory for the entire tribe simply by virtue of the climate requiring it to NOT DIE.) Vorin grew bored of his father's occupation as a hunter (his father is a 3rd-level Ranger) and decided to leave the tribelands and live amonst humans as a mercenary. (The tribe doesn't approve, but he's still welcome in their ranks.)

Another important point might be the fact that the tribe is Chaotic Neutral instead of Chaotic Evil like most Gnolls is that the tribe, while largely self-sufficient, wants to take advantage of the trade route that the humans have set up and diplomacy is simply less likely to get you wiped out than raiding.

Anyway, Vorin. He is by anyone's standards bat**** crazy. His primary idea of "fun" is "fight to the death." He became a mercenary because he could actually get paid for rampant slaughter, which to him is win-win. However, Vorin has rather strict rulings about who he can attack:

1) He will not attack anyone who has not yet acknowledged him as an opponent.
2) He will not fight anyone who refuses to fight back.
3) He will not fight anyone who is unarmed... unless they attack him first.
4) In a duel, he will not attack an opponent who has lost conciousness or is otherwise unable to fight. He is not, however, obligated to help them.
5) "Duel" means "A fight for sport." He is more than willing to finish off an opponent in a real fight.

For example, in an incident in which the party's sorcerer got in an arguement with Vorin, Vorin grabbed the sorcerer and held him over a cliff as a threat. When the insults continued, Vorin let go and in the resulting stuggle the sorcerer managed to pull himself to safety and Vorin fell off the cliff. Upon reaching the top of the cliff Vorin knocked out the sorcerer and was about to throw him off the cliff before a much higher level NPC stopped him.

Beyond violence, Vorin is simply a fan of adversity in general. When he was thrown off the cliff, he declined to make use of the rope that was thrown to him despite the understanding that the fall was gaurenteed to kill him (the cliff was high enough that some debris that was knocked loose was heard striking the ground below... a minute later) and proceeded to scale the cliff by punching handholds in the ice with his bare hands instead. Though the scenario hasn't come up yet he would also likely refuse conjured food and water and castings of endure elements, simply because it would make things too easy.

Vorin has zero respect for arbitrary authority. As far as he's concerned, until you've proven your dominance over either him or someone dominant over him, you aren't an authority figure. He's also of the opinion that he is an authority figure over anyone he's proved dominance over (i.e., beaten them in a fight). Therefore, the party's ranger and the sorcerer mentioned previously are both subject to his commands, although he has not yet informed them of such.

There is, of course, a difference between "an authority figure" and "master." Vorin is currently masterless, but if the situation ever arose in which he met an individual worthy of his respect and obediance, an entirely new facet of his personality would be revealed. When it comes to such a person, Vorin's loyalty is almost fanatical. As long as he maintained his respect for the person, he would follow any order given by them unflinchingly, never offer up a dissenting opinion, and wouldn't hesitate to slaughter former allies at their command.

And finally, Vorin's opinions on helping others; if Vorin came across someone who needed a problem solved, and the solution involved violence, he'd help in a heartbeat. Despite his gruff personality (CHA 6) and violent hypercompetitive streak, Vorin is actually eager to help in any scenario he believes his particular skillset could actually assist. Even if his skills don't lend themselves to the solution, he'd still likely try to help... just not nessicarily in the way that help was needed.

-----

And here's the various arguements in my head as to each alignment:

Lawful Good: Unlikely. While Vorin is eager to help and does have a strictly codified set of ideals, they don't exactly go hand in hand. If he had this alignment, it'd be more "Lawful AND Good," as opposed to "Lawfully Good."

Neutral Good: Possible. Vorin's disrespect for what the PHB would call "legitimate authority" might make him incapable of being lawful, but his almost fanatical devotion to someone he consideres "master" and his personal code of honor might make him unable to be chaotic. Again, his eagerness to solve problems is what lends him towards goodness.

Chaotic Good: Also possible. Vorin is selfless when asked for assistance, and he isn't exactly about to let legality get in the way of him doing what he thinks is right.

Lawful Neutral: Possible again. Vorin has a well-established set of personal rules, even if they have little to do with society's rules. His desire to help and his love of violence may balance him between good and evil.

True Neutral: A strong possiblity, but he dives so FAR into the various alignment axis it seems off to place him as True Neutral, which brings to mind someone who is moderate. Vorin is by no means moderate, he's simply a radical in several diametrically opposed directions at once.

Chaotic Neutral: Another good possiblity. Vorin desires to help, but he's not exactly interested in the "dignity of sentient beings," especially considering his desire to kill any of them willing to fight. Vorin's lack of interest in society's established rules strongly lends him to Chaos.

Lawful Evil: Vorin is of course, a violent person. He relishes bloodshed and suffering, including his own. But he holds standards to who he gets to cause pain and death unto.

Neutral Evil: Vorin is out for what he wants, and won't hesitate to kill for it. This is largely because killing for it is exactly what he wants.

Chaotic Evil: Vorin is a bloodthirsty nutcase with little interest in what society thinks about that. This is a character who would gleefully slaughter the entire city guard if he actually thought he could pull it off. Not counting his desire to help others and his devotion to those he respects, Vorin is practically the posterchild for Chaotic Evil.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

Starbuck_II
2010-01-21, 06:08 PM
However, Vorin has rather strict rulings about who he can attack:

1) He will not attack anyone who has not yet acknowledged him as an opponent.
2) He will not fight anyone who refuses to fight back.
3) He will not fight anyone who is unarmed... unless they attack him first.
4) In a duel, he will not attack an opponent who has lost conciousness or is otherwise unable to fight. He is not, however, obligated to help them.
5) "Duel" means "A fight for sport." He is more than willing to finish off an opponent in a real fight.

For example, in an incident in which the party's sorcerer got in an arguement with Vorin, Vorin grabbed the sorcerer and held him over a cliff as a threat. When the insults continued, Vorin let go and in the resulting stuggle the sorcerer managed to pull himself to safety and Vorin fell off the cliff. Upon reaching the top of the cliff Vorin knocked out the sorcerer and was about to throw him off the cliff before a much higher level NPC stopped him.



So which is it?
Is unarmed okay to fight or are throwing off cliffs a exception to rule?

Toliudar
2010-01-21, 06:13 PM
Given his general bat****ness, and his willingness to break his own rules (in the one scenario you've given, he violated all three of his first three "rules" of conduct, and the last two didn't apply), I'd peg him as chaotic neutral, possibly chaotic evil. Since his loyalty to someone is contingent on them remaining "worthy" of his respect, he can presumably withdraw that respect at a moment's notice, and do whatever the heck he wants. Since violence is his thing, he helps other people if it gives him an excuse to be violent ("his particular skillset").

This character is exactly what makes me leery of chaotic neutral, even more than LE or NE.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 06:13 PM
What would he do in situations where adhering to his personal rules would result in his detriment? For example, if one or all of the following happened:

1) a rival mercenary routinely humiliates him, steals his quarry, and considers him unworthy of even basic respect, never mind crossing blades;

2) He is forced to fight someone to the death in a gladiatoral competition to win his freedom, the contest is plainly biased in his favor, and refusing to fight will mean he stays imprisoned;

3) His tribe requests his assistance - they are being attacked by a band of orcs, but going back will result in losing a very lucrative mercenary contract. His tribe has no way of knowing if he received their message for aid or not.

Then what would he do?

Tengu_temp
2010-01-21, 06:17 PM
Sorry, but the character's description is inconsistent. Just to give an example other than what Starbuck_II said, you said that he'll never attack anyone who hasn't acknowledged him as an opponent, but you also mentioned that "this is a character who would gleefully slaughter the entire city guard if he actually thought he could pull it off". These two are self-contradictory, and whichever one is true is one of the deciding factors of whether his alignment is CE or CN.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 06:21 PM
1) a rival mercenary routinely humiliates him, steals his quarry, and considers him unworthy of even basic respect, never mind crossing blades;

He would probably interpret the humiliation as an assault (which is largely why he attacked the sorcerer) and attempt to kill the rival.


2) He is forced to fight someone to the death in a gladiatoral competition to win his freedom, the contest is plainly biased in his favor, and refusing to fight will mean he stays imprisoned;

Care to elaborate? If it was, for example, a plainly weaker opponent, he would either offer the opponent a weapon, fight unarmed, or both, as a ways to keep the fight entertaining.


3) His tribe requests his assistance - they are being attacked by a band of orcs, but going back will result in losing a very lucrative mercenary contract. His tribe has no way of knowing if he received their message for aid or not.

He'd help his tribe. His family is more important than money to him; indeed, the money from being a mercenary is simply a bonus to being able to fight for a living. Either way he'd get to fight something, but being able to help his tribe on top of in cinches the deal.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Yes, he'd slaughter the city guard if he thought he could pull it of... because he'd try to incite a fight with them. For example, insulting a guard, commiting a crime, whatever... just to get the guard's attention. He wouldn't simply randomly attack a guard, as that'd be rude.

Felyndiira
2010-01-21, 06:26 PM
This is entirely my opinion, as alignment can be quite subjective at times.

First of all, I dislike the specific descriptions given for the nine points (namely, chaotic evil is not CE, but is simply neutral-superevil), so I'll use the definitions of the good-evil and the law-chaos axis by themselves to judge your character. By D&D's rulings, a character's standing on the good-evil axis depends on her respect for the life of others; a character that is good recognizes other people as deserving to live and views life as a valuable thing, while a character that is evil tends to disrespect others and view them with belittlement, if not outright contempt.

It is pretty apparent, from your descriptions, that Vorin is not respectful of life. He may have his own rules and regulations about who he's willing to fight, but he does not have scruples about ending the life of anyone, even his own party, for his own benefit. Because he looks upon most weaker people with such belittlement, it's pretty easy to peg him as evil - respecting those that are strong does not mean that the character values life, but that he values strength - which does not push him any closer toward the neutral alignment.

His standing on the law-chaos scale is a bit tougher. As a preliminary view, I would peg the character as lawful, since he has his own principles of honor that he abides by, making him somewhat similar to an evil knight. His disrespect for established authority is not significant here - a person can be a wanderer, yet still be lawful by virtue of a strict way of life; should Vorin actually follow his own guidelines, his respect for strength and battle honor would make him pretty lawful, making him Lawful Evil overall.

I'm not certain to what extent, if at all, his argument with the sorcerer violates his own commandments: does he believe that "magic" counts as an opponent being armed? Does he consider throwing someone off the cliff as fighting? Did he willingly break his own code during that scenario, and if so, how much does he do this? A character with a code of honor that she follows in most cases, but understands that there are situations where he'd have to act against the code is most likely neutral; if he has no respect for his own code, he is probably chaotic.

As is, though, I would say he is closer to lawful evil.

Optimystik
2010-01-21, 06:27 PM
Yes, he'd slaughter the city guard if he thought he could pull it of... because he'd try to incite a fight with them. For example, insulting a guard, commiting a crime, whatever... just to get the guard's attention. He wouldn't simply randomly attack a guard, as that'd be rude.

So he'd do whatever he could to make the guard(s) attack first, just to try and satisfy the letter of his code?

Tengu_temp
2010-01-21, 06:33 PM
EDIT: Ninja'd. Yes, he'd slaughter the city guard if he thought he could pull it of... because he'd try to incite a fight with them. For example, insulting a guard, commiting a crime, whatever... just to get the guard's attention. He wouldn't simply randomly attack a guard, as that'd be rude.

So it's not a matter of "only fight those who are actually a threat to me" but "only fight those who know that I want to kill them"? CE.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-01-21, 06:34 PM
So he'd do whatever he could to make the guard(s) attack first, just to try and satisfy the letter of his code?

If the answer is yes, I think he would be lawful evil, (Twist your rules to fit your purpose)

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 06:35 PM
I'm not certain to what extent, if at all, his argument with the sorcerer violates his own commandments: does he believe that "magic" counts as an opponent being armed? Does he consider throwing someone off the cliff as fighting? Did he willingly break his own code during that scenario, and if so, how much does he do this? A character with a code of honor that she follows in most cases, but understands that there are situations where he'd have to act against the code is most likely neutral; if he has no respect for his own code, he is probably chaotic.

Vorin would likely interpret magic as qualfying as a weapon, yes. I'd say he considered the insults the sorcerer threw at him despite repeated warnings a challenge to battle. Futhermore, the sorcerer in question was in posession of a dagger (he may have also had a staff, I can't recall), even though that wasn't drawn.

And yes, Optimystik, he would try to provoke the guards. As far as he's concerned, there are two means of starting a fight:

1) Mutual acknowledgement of hostilites, i.e., beginning a duel.
2) Being provoked into battle, either from direct attacks (which he considers rude and won't do personally), indirect attacks (insults, etc.), or by proxy. (Threatening someone he cares about. Attacking fleeing civilians would probably also qualify.)

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 06:40 PM
I'd throw my hat in with lawful good. Kidding...

It's fairly simple if you want it to be, I of course acknowledge those that want more complex alignment systems but generally ask yourself:

Law: You either respect the rules or you follow your own code of conduct to the letter, plus some combo of the two. You can actually lean more toward society's rules or your own. Often the mistake is made that just because someone only follows their own rules they must be chaotic...well if that was the case then many lawful evil couldn't exist.

Chaos: You follow your whims. Nothing is hard coded. You may still have honor but what was honorable today may not be tomorrow...

Neither law or chaos has to do with selfishness but how consistent you are.

Neutrals may not be sociopaths per se but they don't care for good or evil. They aren't entirely selfish but they sure aren't going to sacrifice much for society either.

Evil: Selfish. How can I beat *everyone*? I am the best.

Good: Group oriented. For the society!

So does he follow his whims (chaotic) or does he follow a set code (lawful?) We know he isn't good already. So is it all about him (evil) or partially about others too like family (neutral?)

Sounds chaotic neutral to me. Might be neutral or lawful neutral though. True neutral is odd though, and mostly for philosophically bent druidic type characters.

Kallisti
2010-01-21, 06:41 PM
Definitely Lawful Evil. Lawful is a misleading word. It means the opposite of chaotic, not "Obeys laws," in terms of D&D alignment. Paladins, being LG, can if they can justify it break laws. They wouldn't break moral commandments--they'd avoid murder (in theory), stealing (from people who they haven't yet murdered), etc--but they're perfectly allowed to disagree with the king and join the Resistance if the ruling body is evil. He's lawful in that he has strict principles more related to honor than morality, is ordered, and is loyal to what he perceives as legitimate authority and expects loyalty from those he believes are legitimately under his authority.

Also, he respects the letter of his code but, the way you describe him, believes the spirit is up for interpretation, he lives for bloodshed, and he feels little or no desire to help others.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 06:44 PM
Right now it seems like the vast group opinion is "Most definately not a good person."

Other than that I've heard Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, and True Neutral.

No Neutral Evil yet, oddly enough...

Rasman
2010-01-21, 06:44 PM
shame he can't be ChaoticLawful XD

I'd peg him as definitely Chaotic considering he threw someone off a cliff because they disagreed.

He doesn't seem to be purely evil since he's willing to help people, but he's not a dogooder either, so ChaoticNetural is probably your best bet.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 06:46 PM
I'd peg him as definitely Chaotic considering he threw someone off a cliff because they disagreed.

Actually it was because the sorcerer insulted him. Repeatedly. Despite the fact that the 7'10" angry wolfman built like a brick ****house told him not to.

Kallisti
2010-01-21, 06:46 PM
Except that he's clearly either a hypocrite or principled and ordered. That points strongly to either Chaotic or Lawful, depending on how well he actually follows his supposed code.

I can't see much argument for him being TN. Or even any N, since those principles of his that line up with Good principles do so coincidentally, and he lives to see other people die.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-21, 06:46 PM
I think that whatever you decide will be right. If you think of your character as, say, Neutral; you will act in subtly Neutral ways. The major personality points, as you have defined them, will remain unchanged; but many of the subtle, minor details you didn't notice will shift slightly to make the new alignment appropriate.

Of course, that doesn't help you decide what alignment to decide upon, but the rest of this thread has that well covered.

Felyndiira
2010-01-21, 06:50 PM
Vorin would likely interpret magic as qualfying as a weapon, yes. I'd say he considered the insults the sorcerer threw at him despite repeated warnings a challenge to battle. Futhermore, the sorcerer in question was in posession of a dagger (he may have also had a staff, I can't recall), even though that wasn't drawn.
That makes the character quite a bit easier to pin.

Lawful

Because he has a code of honor and stuck with it, he has a similar archetype as the knight class in PHB2. Namely, the knight is always lawful because he does not believe in underhanded tactics; if he is evil, he believes that fighting fair makes him all the more feared and respected by others, and fighting dirty sullies his reputation. Thus, despite the fact that an evil knight is perfectly within bounds to provoke and slaughter all that defies him, he is lawful because he uses a code of honor; this is very similar to your character.

Evil

Neutral is defined as a character that has scruples about killing other people. A neutral character is not good because they do not always believe in the necessity to protect or care for others, but what usually separates them from evil is utter disrespect for the rights of others. What makes redcloak evil, despite his care for hobgoblins and devotion to an ideal, is the fact that he is willing to abuse humans without batting an eye; what makes Belkar evil, despite proving that he can be made to work within a team, is because he views other peoples' lives as worthless (that, and he's a murderer). What makes Vorin evil is because he completely lacks compassion for others. He respects and worships power, not the people behind the power; he is willing to commit abhorrent acts without a tinge of morality for his own amusement. Definitely evil.


My opinion: Lawful Evil

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 06:58 PM
I'm liking this theory. Though it will result in some amusing interactions with the party's Chaotic Good cleric... which isn't helped in the least by the fact that the sorcerer is the cleric's brother. (In game, not IRL.)

But hey, Vorin loves adversity!

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 07:00 PM
I like to think of the example of anakin skywalker/darth vader when thinking of a strong lawful neutral. Since many would peg him as evil and maybe chaotic. But you have to keep in mind, he joined the sith because 1. he thought what the jedi were doing to the emperor was wrong 2. to save padme

Yeah, he kills kids, but he does so because he ends up following twisted laws. If he was chaotic the whole mess would have never happened! :P And he's clearly not evil because he's not doing it for selfish reasons.

Pigkappa
2010-01-21, 07:04 PM
I'd say Neutral Evil, leaning towards Lawful Evil maybe. Anyway, since this is a complex character and there could be issues about alignment, before joining any PrC with alignment requirements you should really speak to your DM.

Provoking the guards on purpose isn't really Lawful in my opinion, anyway...

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 07:08 PM
Provoking the guards on purpose isn't really Lawful in my opinion, anyway...

It could be if part of his code is to test himself at every turn and destroy the weak. Or if he simply follows some sort of nihilistic philosophy like many lawful evil. Just sayin

Tengu_temp
2010-01-21, 07:10 PM
I don't see him as lawful at all. Chaotic people can have their own codes of conduct too, they just tend to be more flexible and off the bat. You know, like "he will not fight anyone who is unarmed... unless they attack him first". Not to mention his total lack of respect for authority - a lawful character will go against authorities only if he sees their actions as unjust.



He doesn't seem to be purely evil since he's willing to help people, but he's not a dogooder either, so ChaoticNetural is probably your best bet.

Someone who murders a person, then saves a person, is not neutral. They're evil and most likely crazy.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 07:13 PM
Alright, I'm successfuly convinced he's evil (and crazy was never in question). Still iffy on Law vs. Chaos, because both arguements strike me as valid.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 07:16 PM
Alright, I'm successfuly convinced he's evil (and crazy was never in question). Still iffy on Law vs. Chaos, because both arguements strike me as valid.

So was he helping his family for selfish reasons, like to increase his rank/usefulness in their eyes?

Is he more Darth Vader (lawful) or Conan the Destroyer (Chaotic)?

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 07:26 PM
Not really. He's helping his family because it's his FAMILY. Any other thoughts in regard to the side effects of the actions probably wouldn't even enter his mind.

Vorin is fairly intelligent by Gnoll standards (13 INT) and quite perceptive (15 WIS), but such things are often buried by the fact that he's completely nuts and wants to have fun. So his Wisdom score would tell him "Doing X would be a very bad idea." and he would respond, "Shut up Wisdom, I'm having fun."

Vorin is not the scheming type. When he does something, he probably doesn't have any plans beyond about five minutes from now. It's not that he couldn't if he wanted to, but it's just not important to him. He has a code of honor because doing otherwise just doesn't sit well with him. The idea of just randomly axing bypassers in the face doesn't make for an interesting fight, it's just pointless cruelty. He wants to fight, to compete, to have FUN, not to kill for death's sake.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 07:34 PM
Sounds lawful neutral to me, though I'm sure some will disagree. Especially on the neutral part. He's a gnoll...not a human, so his sense of right and wrong will be perceived through different eyes. He still has a sense of family and duty, warped though it may be, which automatically makes him non-evil IMO. So that's lawful neutral to me, the anakin skywalker template. This is D&D not real life, so anyone can love killing and even be good.

Here's another way to think of it. Besides the intelligence issue, would he be comfortable living with devils? Because they're a society of lawful evil. Doesn't sound like he would be. His family would be left behind/slaughtered for being weak in that kind of society or used against him as pawns.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 07:39 PM
Well, devils are widely preceived as the whole "manipulative, subversive" variety of Lawful Evil; one of the big reasons I was iffy about him being Lawful Evil in the first place. But since being a manipulative bastard isn't a necessity for being Lawful OR Evil, it doesn't make sense for the combination to require it.

Vorin is, in essence, a thug. A relatively intelligent thug, but a thug none the less. He is very straightforward with his activities, as one might expect with a Charisma of 6. He's about a subtle as an avalanche. So no, he would not like living amonst devils, as devils are obnoxious manipulative ***holes who can't spit out a single sentance without some sort of scheme being involved.

Vorin may very well be Evil, but he's still for the most part an honest person.

lsfreak
2010-01-21, 07:42 PM
He still has a sense of family and duty, warped though it may be, which automatically makes him non-evil IMO.

I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree. Looking out for family doesn't really even belong on the good/evil axis. If someone is willing to sacrifice their family at a whim, that's evil. But willing to help family is not neutral/good. It's simply sticking to some kind of personal morals, where the rest of one's morals may be Exalted or may be horrifically depraved.

absolmorph
2010-01-21, 07:42 PM
I don't see him as lawful at all. Chaotic people can have their own codes of conduct too, they just tend to be more flexible and off the bat. You know, like "he will not fight anyone who is unarmed... unless they attack him first". Not to mention his total lack of respect for authority - a lawful character will go against authorities only if he sees their actions as unjust.



Someone who murders a person, then saves a person, is not neutral. They're evil and most likely crazy.
Lawful is a misnomer.
Order is more accurate.
Being Lawful doesn't require following laws or respecting legal authority. It requires doing things a certain way: having a personal code of conduct, honor, etc. Actually following laws has nothing to do with it.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 07:45 PM
Good point about the devils.

Honest, straight forward, has some compunctions about killing, still sounds neutral to me. Kind of like an advance animal. He's leaning more toward evil than good, but still neutral probably.

But of course only you can decide. If you really can't decide just go with whatever is easiest. Its not like the alignment system is perfect. You've obviously gone above and beyond what most players do already coming here and debating.

The other way I think of evil is this; by #s its rare (no way to prove it so IMO) because they tend to have a much higher mortality rate. Plain and simple. Most races that are evil tend to have a lot more in fighting than those that are good or neutral.

Neutral is the most common, then good, then evil being the rarest. So I need a special reason to play evil, like how they've survived as evil, why they're evil, etc.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-21, 08:02 PM
I'm gonna be different here and say TN. If his behavior doesn't consistently fit on either side of either alignment axis, what else could he be? Also, isn't insane supposed to be TN anyway, with the whole, "I'm doing it because I'm not right in the head, not because I think it's what needs doing."

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 08:04 PM
By insane, I do not mean schizo. I mean he's with out a doubt a complete sociopath.

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-21, 08:19 PM
I pretty much peg both psychopaths and sociopaths as Chaotic Evil. So that's how I'd place him.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-01-21, 08:20 PM
Are you sure? He sounds pretty schizophrenic to me.

Drakevarg
2010-01-21, 08:22 PM
He has an entirely clear perception of the world. Schizos, by definition, do not. It's his ATTITUDE towards that perception that makes him nuts.

randomhero00
2010-01-21, 08:40 PM
I pretty much peg both psychopaths and sociopaths as Chaotic Evil. So that's how I'd place him.

I disagree as you can be a sociopath without committing any crimes. A sociopath lacks empathy and concern for others, but that doesn't mean they go around automatically being evil. Much more likely to of course but it doesn't make them insane (in the sick twisted way).

You've probably met a sociopath in real life and never had a clue. I'm pretty sure I've met one or two law-abiding, otherwise normal sociopaths. Just because they don't feel empathy doesn't mean they don't understand the consequences and can't be intelligent about it.

Argo
2010-01-22, 01:21 AM
Congratulations!
You're Lawful Evil!

Following a personal code and murdering for fun and profit.

Easy diagnosis.

Zaydos
2010-01-22, 01:52 AM
It really depends upon how closely he follows his code. The original post seemed mostly LE maybe NE, and the more you've said the more clearly the evil part of the alignment shows up. It depends upon how often he absolutely forgets his code and how much he just twists it for his own good. Then again he's not group oriented and that is the original definition of lawful in D&D and the only one that's stayed. A strong personal code can exist in a Chaotic individual (Robin Hood) but if he insists on sticking with it... If a player brought him before me and asked alignment I'd say put it down as NE and if he really is roleplayed as lawful or chaotic we'll shift him.

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-22, 06:37 PM
Yeah, he kills kids, but he does so because he ends up following twisted laws.
Isn't killing kids in accordance with laws Lawful Evil, just like killing kids because you feel like it is Chaotic Evil? Law + Evil = LE, Chaos + Evil = CE?


And he's clearly not evil because he's not doing it for selfish reasons.
Evil isn't inherently selfish and selfishness isn't inherently Evil. Evil is about devaluing others, not about valuing yourself.


Lawful is a misnomer.
Order is more accurate.
Being Lawful doesn't require following laws or respecting legal authority. It requires doing things a certain way: having a personal code of conduct, honor, etc. Actually following laws has nothing to do with it.
Law: You either respect the rules or you follow your own code of conduct to the letter, plus some combo of the two. You can actually lean more toward society's rules or your own. Often the mistake is made that just because someone only follows their own rules they must be chaotic...well if that was the case then many lawful evil couldn't exist.

Law is not Order and Chaos is not Disorder. Those are not even moral nor ethical qualities, so they hardly belong in alignment. A Lawful character attempts to consistently adhere to the standards of behavior that some other individual or group wants him to follow, be it his family, clan, society, culture, government, church, leader, superior, god, ancestors, or whatever. Rules, traditions, conventions, duties, honor, responsibility; pick whatever words you want to describe trying to live up to others' expectations, be they explicitly stated formal requirements or unspoken, unwritten understandings. The point is that Law allows itself to be directed by others as opposed to the self-directed Chaos.

The idea that "following a personal code" of your own devising makes you Lawful is ridiculous. Any character's personality can be stated in imperative form. (Failing to give your character a personality is pretty much just bad roleplaying, and certainly shouldn't be considered a particular alignment.) Following the "code" of "Decide for yourself what to do without regard for what anyone else thinks" is Chaotic, not Lawful. And just being methodical will not alone make you Lawful. Nor is planning ahead somehow Law-aligned. Certainly neither organizing nor disorganizing things is inherently Lawful nor Chaotic.
The rules that a Lawful Evil character is expected to follow might well be his own, if he's a bloodthirsty but honorable overlord who established his own government. But not at all necessarily, since that overlord's fanatically loyal, unquestioningly obedient lieutenant is also quite Lawful Evil.


Good: Group oriented. For the society!
Trying to "help society" in some abstract sense to the detriment of its individual members is Evil. Working to achieve the greatest benefit for the greatest number of individuals, on the other hand, is just being efficient about helping individuals.


True neutral is odd though, and mostly for philosophically bent druidic type characters.

True Neutral: A strong possiblity, but he dives so FAR into the various alignment axis it seems off to place him as True Neutral, which brings to mind someone who is moderate. Vorin is by no means moderate, he's simply a radical in several diametrically opposed directions at once.
False Neutral: Incorporating loads of delicious Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil without a marked excess of any one.

Normal, moderate individuals are Neutral, but not all Neutral characters are normal nor moderate. Like how all chickens are birds, but not all birds are chickens.

Rorschach, from Watchmen, is False Neutral. A radical Luddite druid who wants to destroy all technology and civilization -- not thinking that this will be good or bad for anyone, just that it's right -- would be False Neutral.

Vorin follows the "rules" and "authorities" that he personally feels like following. He doesn't respect anyone based on their authority; he regards people (himself included) as authorities based on his respect. He won't fight someone who won't or can't fight back, not so much out of any sense of honor but because he fights for the challenge of it. But when it comes to selecting dangerous challenges, he's eager to pick tasks that will help others to achieve their goals. Neutral, sez I. The sort of Neutral capable of behaving highly Lawful, Good, Chaotic, or Evil without shifting alignment.

He certainly belongs in Ysgard, not the Outlands, though, so it's a good thing that he worships Kord. That's thinking ahead (to his own no doubt violent death)!

He's also not irrational, so I wouldn't call him insane. He just has some unconventional preferences.


I've been flipping through the various sourcebooks I have in search of a decent prestige class to make use of, and it occured to me that a rather startling ammount of them have alignment requirements.
Class alignment restrictions are usually stupid. For most of the classes, restrictions on attitude and/or behavior don't even make sense. And where they do make sense, sensible restrictions usually wouldn't have a one-to-one correspondence with a set of alignments, so it really would be better to lay out a different set of restrictions actually appropriate to the class.