What alignment is my character [3.5]

[Fortuna]

Yes, I know there was another thread like this recently. Still.

My character is something of an oddball. He prioritizes the good of everyone over Good, and is unafraid to do whatever is required for the good of everyone. His priorities are 1) the good of all intelligent beings as a group, 2) the good of humans as a group, 3) the goals of Pelor, and 4) his own good, all other things being equal. Now, notice that he classes himself being alive as fitting with all four goals, because he follows all four goals.

Now we come to the tricky bit. Although he won't kill humans unless required, he has no qualms about risking lives without asking their livers, as long as it furthers one of his goals. To the point that he used someone as bait for a group of devils. To give him credit, he had back-up plans ready, but they weren't perfect (and he knew that).

Oh yeah, and he won't lie. He will sometimes tell only part of the truth, but he won't lie.

So, what alignment? I say LG/LN, but what does the playground say?

[Foryn Gilnith]

So he's utilitarian, a Pelorite, interested in self-preservation, not bloodthirsty, ruthless, and somewhat selective in his deception?

I really can't tell given the details. Probably not evil, given that you've stated him as LN/LG (i.e. not perverting these listed values). But that's all I can tell, really. If you think he's LN/LG, go for it.

[Dr.Epic]

Sound like he's LN to me.

[RebelRogue]

So, his philosophy is akin to the zeroth law of robotics, I'd say.

I'd classify him as Good (Lawful or Neutral), although it's possible some things he might choose to do in the name of the "zeroth law" could change this. It's hard to say in general.

[Drakevarg]

I'd say Lawful Good. After all, he's more interested in the betterment of those he has considered under his protection (intelligent beings, humans in particular) more important than just arbitrarily following whatever code he has. He's Good because his motivations are primarily benevolent (work to make life better for people) and he's Lawful because he's got his own set of standards.

Even if he's willing to kill to do these things, I don't think that loses him the ability to qualify as Good. Neutral on the Good-Evil axis denotes looking out for oneself over looking out for others, which he clearly does not. (Evil would be looking out for oneself whilst crushing everyone else.) Not that these are hard-and-fast rulings, just a general rule of thumb.

[Riffington]

So far we have no reason to call him anything other than N.
He's too willing to risk innocents to be Good.
He has too many compunctions (as far as you've described) to be Evil.
He has a code, but it's really a fairly personal one. Closer to C than to L, but still at the Neutral point.

Of course, if you describe him better (or differently) he could move from there.

[Fortuna]

Yay, someone noticed my source of inspiration!

Yes, I built this character on the laws of robotics, although I left out the first law and changed the second to being Pelor instead of a human. I thought it would be interesting.

Shoot. I just realized that I left out some things that could be very important.

He has incredibly strong emotional tendencies. For those trekkies amongst you, think of a Vulcan: incredibly strong emotion, but well-hidden. He is like that, but devoted to his code instead of logic. Also, he has a personal vendetta against Evil outsiders because he believes that they were responsible for his temptations (which had unfortunate effects) in his youth. In fact, he was prone to extreme parties (no, not just wild, but extreme to the point of depravity), which he only cured himself of by getting an abbot to lock him in a cell for three days. During that time he received direct contact from Pelor and emerged with his emotion hidden beneath an extremely strong mask. Not impenetrable, though: it has been broken once or twice by enemies. Those enemies rest in pieces.

[Kylarra]

Eh, whatever. I'd say LG, so long as he's not a paladin, or if he is, heading towards GG.

[RebelRogue]

Yay :smallsmile:

Anyway, to clarify: With this strong dedication to the principles of Pelor, I'd say initially strongly NG, but with the danger of "falling" to N or maybe even NE when invoking his "higher principle". Once again, it is very situation-dependent.

[Siosilvar]

Somewhere in the "top left" [LG, NG, LN] corner.

[Fortuna]

Eh, whatever. I'd say LG, so long as he's not a paladin, or if he is, heading towards GG.

GG? What's that?

[mikej]

GG? What's that?

Good Game or Good Guy?

[Flarp]

LN with LG tendencies - utilitarianism, while awesome, doesn't mesh with the whole LG ideal of dropping everything to save the old lady who doesn't really add much to society from certain doom.

[Defiant]

I am addicted to the type of character that does evil things to achieve good. I enjoy playing, whenever possible, characters that value good over all else, even their own alignment. Basically a character that does nothing but increase the good in the world, who is "technically" evil. For example, one who would have no qualms in mindraping everyone into good, at the small price of becoming evil due to its use.

[Kylarra]

GG? What's that?
Grey Guard, sorry. The Paladin who isn't so nice. :smalltongue:

[deuxhero]

CN or LN. He's devoted to a cause (yes, 2 seperate example characters give devotion to a cause as reasons for being chaotic and lawful).

[Fortuna]

After an extensive talk IRL with someone who has played D&D for a while, we agreed that he is a) LG and b) bat**** insane. What does everyone else think of those assertions?

[Serpentine]

I would go with Lawful Good, potentially at risk of slipping to Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil if he falls too far into "the ends justifies the means" or "the needs of many outweigh the needs of few".

And probably not bat**** insane (although, again, possibly at risk of slipping there), but very utilitarian.

[Fortuna]

The thing is that he sees nothing wrong with the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or with the ends justifying the means. He believes that following those principles is good, whether or not it is Good. What implications does that have?

[Serpentine]

Nothing, really. What really matters is how he puts that into practice.

[Fortuna]

Well, going through his established history, we have three major events.

First: He begged someone to lock him up to cure him of his hedonism.

Second: He used someone as devil bait to eliminate a group of devils without their knowledge, and delayed allowing help to arrive in the interests of ensuring that the devils were well and truly defeated. Rather than confront the dead person's true love, he left a note and fled.

Third: He busted an attempt by devils to muscle in on organized crime. He did this by informing the mafia-equivalent of their location, sowing discontent among the lesser devils by means of a combination of supplying weapons and killing the few loyalists quietly, and then participating in a surgical strike on the devils' hideout.

So I guess the question is what alignment each of those displays.

[dsmiles]

The thing is that he sees nothing wrong with the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or with the ends justifying the means. He believes that following those principles is good, whether or not it is Good. What implications does that have?

I think this puts him firmly in the LN zone, IMO. Because, "the needs of the many over the needs of the few" is a "Good" trait, but "the ends justifies the means" is a solidly "Neutral" trait. If taken too far, it can quickly become "Evil", but you would have to stray from "the needs of the many..." bit.

[hamishspence]

According to Champions of Ruin "the ends justify the means" is an Evil trope, and characters who embrace it wholeheartedly, even "for the good of the many" risk becoming Evil.

The Tau Empire, if translated to D&D, might be closer to LE than LN, as might the Inquisition.

[Fortuna]

Wow, ends justifying means is Evil RAW? Good grief. I think that the best that poor Solifer can hope to be is LN, in that case, and that might be stretching it.

[Serpentine]

Wow, ends justifying means is Evil RAW? Good grief. I think that the best that poor Solifer can hope to be is LN, in that case, and that might be stretching it.No, it's more when "ends justifies the means" is taken too far, especially when the character gets so caught up in the means that he loses sight of the ends, and/or when the ends becomes an excuse for the means.
So, based on everything you've said, I'd say leave him at LG, but keep an eye on what he does, how he justifies it and to what extent his justification reflects the truth. I think he's borderline between Good and Neutral, but still within the realms of Good.

[Hallavast]

I'd say he sits solidly on the LN bench. He cares for the good of a collective (humanity), however he has little care for life, itself. He willingly disregards indivuals' lives in the name of pursuing the good of his collective. This concern for his collective has further become simply a will to eradicate all threats to the collective's well-being. He isn't necessarily selfish or malicious (and thus not evil), but he does things he knows are wrong like fleeing the scene in guilt for the good of a cause that is noble in and of itself. He has little regard for people as people and life for life. He simply has a compulsory sense of duty in providing security for his chosen people. He's Lawful Neutral through and through.

[Freshmeat]

Personally, I'd rate him as Lawful Good, leaning towards Lawful Neutral. The examples you listed so far haven't been particularly extreme, although a bit sketchy. Enough to warrant a shift towards neutral? Perhaps, but the only notable situation mentioned thus far was the one where he used someone as devil-bait. That one might've pushed him over the edge. The rest... not so much. It seems likely he'll switch back and forth between LG and LN quite a bit depending on how actively he enforces his the-ends-justify-the-means feelings at the time, but for now I'd rate him as LG.
Of course, not all LG characters need necessarily be boyscout paladins, but in D&D terms, it's pretty close.

If I actually have to base myself more on the D&D alignment system itself, I'd go with a solid Lawful Neutral for putting an innocent life at risk (regardless of circumstances) and not feeling sorry about it. He'd still have Good leanings though. Ultimately, I'd say it's up to you and your DM how you choose to interpret the alignment system.

[Devils_Advocate]

Hallavast raises a good point. What does "as a group" mean in this context? Valuing a group over its members is very different from simply valuing all members equally.

Attempting to minimize harm to innocents is Good.

I'm not sure why there seems to be such a consensus that he's Lawful. It sounds like he could be a fairly Chaotic guy who adapts to changing circumstances on a case-by-case basis, though I don't have enough to go on to say. Rule utilitarianism would be more Lawful Good.

"A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."

Still, you need to be resistant to being controlled to be Chaotic, I think. If he has a normal respect for authority and also doesn't lie, probably he's Neutral Good. I'm guessing that he's too willing to break the rules to be Lawful. But maybe he's not; I don't really know.

Anyway, a list of priorities is not itself a code, if that's what y'all are calling Lawful. A set of objectives doesn't tell you what's required or forbidden in order to achieve them. Pelor and his clergy are devoted to the objectives of alleviating and preventing suffering, but that doesn't make them Lawful.

[faceroll]

Well, going through his established history, we have three major events.

First: He begged someone to lock him up to cure him of his hedonism.

Second: He used someone as devil bait to eliminate a group of devils without their knowledge, and delayed allowing help to arrive in the interests of ensuring that the devils were well and truly defeated. Rather than confront the dead person's true love, he left a note and fled.

Third: He busted an attempt by devils to muscle in on organized crime. He did this by informing the mafia-equivalent of their location, sowing discontent among the lesser devils by means of a combination of supplying weapons and killing the few loyalists quietly, and then participating in a surgical strike on the devils' hideout.

So I guess the question is what alignment each of those displays.

I'd say any good, but from the looks of it, probably Lawful Good. He sounds kind of like the Batman.

[snoopy13a]

According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the ends do not justify the means for good characters. Thus, risking the lives of innocents without their knowledge and consent to achieve a "greater good" should preclude him from being a "good" character.

A good character would use himself as bait or give an honest appraisal of the situation to the person he wants to use as bait and let that person make the decision of whether or not to volunteer. Placing someone in a dangerous situation without their knowledge or consent is evil* even though it may benefit society as a whole.

Thus, probably LN or TN.

*Note, this derives from the ends do not justify the means rationale based from BoED. If you are looking from a purely utilarian outlook, it wouldn't be evil.

[faceroll]

According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, the ends do not justify the means for good characters. Thus, risking the lives of innocents without their knowledge and consent to achieve a "greater good" should preclude him from being a "good" character.

Perhaps it precludes you from being an exalted character, but you can still do things that are not good and continue being good.


Placing someone in a dangerous situation without their knowledge or consent is evil*

It's certainly not Good, but it's not necessarily evil, either.

[hamishspence]

BoVD example- if you knowingly endanger others to save your own life, "that is clearly evil"-

the example given was fleeing from monsters, across a dangerous scree slope which could easily slip and crush a village, when its the only avenue of escape. If you know doing so will put them in danger, and you do so, this is evil, because:

"In D&D, Sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act. Sacrificing yourself to save others is a good act. It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is"

I tend to make an exception to "it's a good act" if the motives are not good- the agents of the BBEG sacrificing themselves to save him, is generally not good, especially if the reason they are doing so is "for The Cause" where "The Cause" is the Evil Plan.

BoED also stresses that normally good acts (charity, self-sacrifice, etc) can be made non-good if the motives are wrong.

[Hallavast]

Anyway, a list of priorities is not itself a code, if that's what y'all are calling Lawful. A set of objectives doesn't tell you what's required or forbidden in order to achieve them. Pelor and his clergy are devoted to the objectives of alleviating and preventing suffering, but that doesn't make them Lawful.

Hmm. I suppose there is not enough info here to determine if he's lawful or chaotic. He could very well be neutral. I based the Lawful claim on the characters unwillingness to lie and resistance to hedonism.

Recipe is too mild so far. Needs a few tablespoons of data.

[Drakevarg]

Given that "good of society over the good of individuals" is largely considered a Neutral outlook, I'd say True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, upon reviewing the comments of others. He's not really lawful, because what code he has can readily be broken "if the need arises." Probably True Neutral, since he's not actively free-spirited, just simply doing what needs to be done.

Neutral on the G-E axis due to favoring society over individuals, Neutral on the L-C axis due to having a flexible code without being actively free-spirited. I'd say he's kinda like :roy: in terms of his L-C axis, trying to have a code but willing to break it to due what needs to be done. So either Neutral or Lawful leaning on Neutral.

[Fortuna]

So what I'm seeing, taking all of the responses here, is that he's not NE or CE, but everything beyond that is open for debate? Wonderful.

[Hallavast]

So what I'm seeing, taking all of the responses here, is that he's not NE or CE, but everything beyond that is open for debate? Wonderful.

Welcome to the D&D alignment system.

If you'd like us to help you narrow it down a bit more, please provide more data.

[RebelRogue]

According to Champions of Ruin "the ends justify the means" is an Evil trope, and characters who embrace it wholeheartedly, even "for the good of the many" risk becoming Evil.
I agree whole-heartedly. Good is a narrow path. It's supposed to be hard! That's exactly why this character is in constant danger of becoming neutral or even evil on the good-evil axis, according to his actions.


Anyway, a list of priorities is not itself a code, if that's what y'all are calling Lawful. A set of objectives doesn't tell you what's required or forbidden in order to achieve them. Pelor and his clergy are devoted to the objectives of alleviating and preventing suffering, but that doesn't make them Lawful.
Another thing I agree with. That's why I pitted him as neutral on the law-chaos axis in correspondence with Pelor's alignment.

[ericgrau]

C-G (means-end).

[Fortuna]

I don't really have any more data to give you. I can link you to my description of him, as well as a full description of two incidents in his past, and his character sheet (if that's important). Description + character sheet (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7740855&postcount=3) and incident 1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763656&postcount=178) and 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763360&postcount=173).

[2xMachina]

I tend to separate The LC from the EG.

G if he does things for other people without benefit to themselves.
E if he harms others.

L if he follows rules at risk
C if he breaks rules at risk

Otherwise, I stick them in neutral (part of neutral for me, is I Don't Give A Damn About Alignment. Another is I Do Both. And Balance Is ALL)

(I further split them to weak/moderate/strong depending on some extra things, but that's besides the point).

Depending on if what he does is actually benefiting him (and he means it to be), I'd put him at LG to TN.

The ends justify the means is actually ethical in certain moral theories. Consequentialism is a theory that does this. (Just starting a Moral course, so...)

[squishycube]

Based on the description, combined with examples OP provided I'd say he pretends (mostly to himself) to follow a certain code pertaining the common good. But to me he seems like a coward, runing away, not telling the martyrs, etc. He might (and in my opinion this is a slight possibility) be good to start with, but as his utilitarianism becomes stronger, he will slip to neutral and if he starts commiting really despicable acts even evil.
His clinging to his code would make him lean towards lawful, but I think he won't actually follow it that well, so probably neutral.
Remember that the D&D alignment system is absolute, evil do is evil be. Saving the world might justify raising undead, but doing so is still an evil act in D&D. The character might be able to justify doing evil things to himself, and in the Real World (tm) might remain a moral agent, but not D&D alignment wise.

In my opinion the two often get confused in alignment debates.

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right- going by both DMG and Champions of Ruin.

Under most circumstances, it takes a pretty big act to result in instant-alignment change, but a long series of acts resulting in alignment change, is pretty normal.

"Murder for utilitarian reasons" seems to be a favorite example of an alignment-changing act- both the PHB and DMG in 3nd edition give such a murder, especially if mass-murder, as an example of an act that "justifies the DM imposing an instant change to evil alignment".

[Oracle_Hunter]

So what I'm seeing, taking all of the responses here, is that he's not NE or CE, but everything beyond that is open for debate? Wonderful.
Alright, time for some text.

To begin with, I would be leaning towards Good, hinging a lot on the details of the "bait scenario." Up to that point, he's textbook Good

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

. . .

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Now, setting someone up to be the bait to snag a group of devils is obviously a Not-Good act, but if it is an aberration of his usual mode of operation then he is almost certainly Good. If he does this sort of thing all the time he's Neutral - but from the other details I'd say this was a one-off situation.

On the Law/Chaos Axis, it's a bit more complicated (as it usually is)

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

. . .

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Many people's first response is "Lawful" but I'm not so sure. His extensive actions in taking out the devils sound very "Batman" (as someone pointed out) in that he seems to have cut the lawful authorities out of the loop and used misdirection and personal bravado to do what he thinks is right. The fact that he has a Code doesn't make him Lawful either:

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
His personal Code is just that - personal. He doesn't sound particularly devoted to Pelor (or his Church, anyhow) and instead is devoted to his own particular brand of justice. Truth be told, he sounds very Chaotic - and, combined with the misdirection used in the "bait" example, I would place him solidly there.

So, barring further conflicting information - Chaotic Good

[Draco Dracul]

I agree whole-heartedly. Good is a narrow path. It's supposed to be hard! That's exactly why this character is in constant danger of becoming neutral or even evil on the good-evil axis, according to his actions.


I disagree. Ends justify the means (unless taking to an absolute genocidal extreme) is a neutral stance as the good and evil balance out in the end. I don't view good as any harder than evil as true altruism is just as difficult for a person to achieve as true wickedness. Most people settle to the middle.

[Ire]

Chaotic Evil who thinks he's Chaotic Good, I love playing these guys.

[Superglucose]

His priorities are 1) the good of all intelligent beings as a group, 2) the good of humans as a group, 3) the goals of Pelor, and 4) his own good, all other things being equal.
Then he's good aligned.



Now we come to the tricky bit. Although he won't kill humans unless required, he has no qualms about risking lives without asking their livers, as long as it furthers one of his goals. To the point that he used someone as bait for a group of devils. To give him credit, he had back-up plans ready, but they weren't perfect (and he knew that).
Who cares? Even good people have to make sacrifices. Anyone who says, "Good people can only sacrifice themselves" is flat out wrong. Example: there's a bomb in a (full) building. The only person who can disarm it is a guy with a wife and kids. Do you a) run into the building yourself because you can't sacrifice that one guy, or b) order the guy into the building to save everyone?

It's like that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation when Diana Troy wants to become a bridge officer. She keeps failing the test because she keeps trying to find a solution in which everyone lives, but there isn't one. Eventually she passes when she orders Jordi to kill himself in order to fix the warp core.

The world, especially the D&D books (for some unknown reason) tries to teach us that there are no "tough" decisions. If you're "good" you always sacrifice yourself and only yourself, because "good" people/creatures are never selfish. it's why I love the fluff on Dragons so much: Gold Dragons are extremely "good" but still jealous and if you touch their gold they'll eat you.



Oh yeah, and he won't lie. He will sometimes tell only part of the truth, but he won't lie.

So, what alignment? I say LG/LN, but what does the playground say?
LG. He's good. And a strategist.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Who cares? Even good people have to make sacrifices. Anyone who says, "Good people can only sacrifice themselves" is flat out wrong. Example: there's a bomb in a (full) building. The only person who can disarm it is a guy with a wife and kids. Do you a) run into the building yourself because you can't sacrifice that one guy, or b) order the guy into the building to save everyone?
Good people may sacrifice others when there is no choice - but they don't set up an innocent to die, which is what happened in the actual case.

Second: He used someone as devil bait to eliminate a group of devils without their knowledge, and delayed allowing help to arrive in the interests of ensuring that the devils were well and truly defeated. Rather than confront the dead person's true love, he left a note and fled.
Emphasis mine. This is very much a Not-Good act, but if it is the only instance of this kind of behavior, it doesn't determine the Alignment.

After all, only Paladins fall for Evil acts - everyone else is judged more leniently. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

[Ire]

Although he won't kill humans unless required, he has no qualms about risking lives without asking their livers, as long as it furthers one of his goals. To the point that he used someone as bait for a group of devils.


This doesn't fit lawful to me in any way. That leaves CG CN NG TN NE CE. I really don't think he's neutral, he's definitely working towards something that isn't "balance." So either CG or twisted CE.