PDA

View Full Version : Complicated Alignments



Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 04:14 PM
Woot, another alignment thread. To quote GIR: "YAY! We're doomed!"

Anywho, what are some characters you've encountered (or played) in your roleplaying career whose alignments were particularly hard to pin?

I'm asking because I was looking through some of my old posts and saw a thread concerning my currently active character, a Gnoll whom I thought was CN, but when asking the Playground based on his personality, he breakdanced over 2/3 of the alignment map before finally settling down on LE. And every single non-Good alignment had a completely valid arguement as to him being that one.

So again, what's a character you've played/encountered whose alignment was extremely difficult to pin?

Marriclay
2010-06-10, 04:18 PM
I once had a jerk character who essentially hated all the people around him. nobody was allowed to see each others sheet, so they got into a big discussion about it, as my character would go out of his way to save others then give a perfectly valid excuse as to why he did it that any neutral and sometimes even evil character would do, sometimes even dipping Evil rather than good. They couldn't figure him out, and when the campaign ended and someone asked to see my sheet, it showed them that he had been a self serving Neutral Good the entire time. Man, I loved that character

Stompy
2010-06-10, 04:24 PM
I once had a person write his alignment as "Neutral ?" on the sheet.

This prompted my friend's next character to be "Chaotic ?".

Needless to say, it breaks the rules, but it was oddly funny.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 04:31 PM
Hm. I don't feel I was clear on subjecty type deal. Anecdotes are only half the equation. Y'also gotta explain WHY the alignment was so hard to pin. For example, allow me to quote the thead I was referring to in the OP:


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.

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 04:48 PM
Hellbred Necromancer :smalltongue:

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 04:52 PM
Hellbred Necromancer :smalltongue:

I can has explaination? :smallconfused:

Severus
2010-06-10, 05:43 PM
I've got a character that I currently play that is Lawful Chaotic Good.

He's the son of a Duke. The nation is threatened so he is defending it and doing as his superiors tell him too.

But he doesn't _want_ anybody to tell him what to do.

So the exterior expressed alignment is lawful good (maybe with some neutral to it). The interior alignment is chaotic good.

I had another character who was Lawful Good Evil.

His nation had been overtaken by demon worshipers who were trying to destroy the world. He rebelled to save his people and the world at great personal sacrifice (lawful good), but the horrors that the bad guys did to his family pushed him over the edge so he went up to and including killing the not really guilty sons of his enemies under rules of vendetta (lawful Evil).

Optimystik
2010-06-10, 06:11 PM
I can has explaination? :smallconfused:

The cliffnotes version: Hellbred have an ability that lets them cast evil spells and use evil items without penalty.

Necromancy is generally evil, but they get a free pass - so you can't tell his alignment from what he does.

Lev
2010-06-10, 06:15 PM
Characters who are skitzo, then you have to go into something like [CG/TN] as a solid alignment, and then it gets really tricky when their characters are effected by magic, because it forces the DM to consider how someone's morality actually does anything.

mucat
2010-06-10, 06:18 PM
Hm. I don't feel I was clear on subjecty type deal. Anecdotes are only half the equation. Y'also gotta explain WHY the alignment was so hard to pin. For example, allow me to quote the thead I was referring to in the OP:
*Descri[tion of character snipped*

I would rate the gnoll you describe as Neutral Evil. Neutral on the law-chaos axis, not because he believes in balance as an abstract ideal, but simply because he has too many chaotic traits (fierce individualism, idiosyncratic life path, tendency to invent his own codes of conduct rather than accepting those offered him from the outside) to be called Lawful, and too many Lawful traits (believer in strict dominance hierarchy, holds strongly to a code once he adopts it) to be called Chaotic.

The good-evil axis, to me, is easy to decide. There are few to no good traits in that description (his willingness to help out when his skillset is needed seems more like a chance to prove himself and meet a challenge, then a sign that he actual values anyone else's wellbeing.) And while not everything he believes is evil, a good fraction of it is.

A belief that once you establish dominance over someone, they are your chattel, may be neutral in the context of a pack of wolves. When one sapient applies it to another, it's evil. His casual attitude toward taking sapient lives is definitely evil. And in the fight with the sorcerer, everything he did was evil (except for heroically saving himself from death, which was neither good nor evil, but simply badass.)

Granted, the sorcerer probably insulted him first, but to react to an insult by threatening to kill someone is an evil trait. To then try to actually kill them because, while struggling for their own life in the face of your aggression, they accidentally endangered yours, is highly evil.

No one of these traits by itself would lock him into evil alignment, but with so many evil aspects to his character, and nothing good to balance them, I don't see how anyone could argue for neutrality on the good-evil axis. Granted, he's far less evil than a lot of creatures out there, and is fully redeemable if he changes his way of thinking. Most of his evil traits are culturally learned, and could be unlearned. But for now, no way in hell is this a CN character.

Zeta Kai
2010-06-10, 06:25 PM
I had a character in a game that was tough to nail down, especially since he was a paladin. He was very neat, clean, & orderly, & he always worked toward the greater good, so it should have been fairly easy. But everywhere he went, he saw how laws failed to help people in need, so he broke them for the benefit of the less fortunate. Altogether, he broke more laws than everyone else in the party combined (including a halfling klepto-rogue). Now, I know that a lawful character need not follow the laws of a particular state, but this was special. He was definitely good, & he was orderly to the point of OCD, but he almost seemed to seek out laws to break.

I was the DM, & he never fell from grace, but it was an interesting campaign. Even his sacrificial death at the end was in violation of the local laws. Rest in peace, Brother Jalkan.

Kyuu Himura
2010-06-10, 06:29 PM
I got a character in a manga campaign with a bad actitude (dead serious, kinda blunt, not too sociable, and sort of jerkish to others in general) but the guy is the first to jump before the bullets so others don't get shot, he would rather die than betray an ally, doesn't believe on using his powers to his own benefit, protects the weak, kicks evil ass (only after he has made sure the ass in question is evil) and takes every innocent people who dies in "his city" (as he calls it) as a personal failure (as a case to point, he went to visit the family of a vampire he had slain, and asked forgiveness for not being able to save him). His alignmet?? Lawful Good, the party still believes him Lawful Neutral, due to him bieng obviously honorable "but that jerk just can't be Good"

Lev
2010-06-10, 06:33 PM
I had a character in a game that was tough to nail down, especially since he was a paladin. He was very neat, clean, & orderly, & he always worked toward the greater good, so it should have been fairly easy. But everywhere he went, he saw how laws failed to help people in need, so he broke them for the benefit of the less fortunate. Altogether, he broke more laws than everyone else in the party combined (including a halfling klepto-rogue). Now, I know that a lawful character need not follow the laws of a particular state, but this was special. He was definitely good, & he was orderly to the point of OCD, but he almost seemed to seek out laws to break.

I was the DM, & he never fell from grace, but it was an interesting campaign. Even his sacrificial death at the end was in violation of the local laws. Rest in peace, Brother Jalkan.
Lawfulness is adhering to a personal code, Paladin is following the Paladin's code... seeking out the injustices in law systems is as much a LG Paladin's course as forcing an evil tyrant to surrender-- it's just unrooting "soft power" injustice instead of iron fist injustice.

Thajocoth
2010-06-10, 06:35 PM
I have a Good-ish aligned character I'm playing right now, but a few things can easily cause him to break alignment:

In his mind, anyone from the Far Realm, descended from someone from the Far Realm or tainted by the Far Realm in any way is Evil and irredeemable. The only solution is to kill them on sight. They are not worth questioning either. Also, most madness comes from the Far Realm as far as he knows. The villain happens to be a goddess specifically OF madness who happened to be involved in initially allowing the Far Realm to taint the two realms my character wishes to protect from their taint, so he has yet to be wrong... But if the DM decided to put a Mindflayer orphanage in front of my character... My character would commit a very evil act, and see it as a good one.

My character is a medium sized humanoid tree who can turn into a swarm of insects. He likes plants and flowers in both of his forms... His room on the airship is full of them (all in soil and growing.) A vase of flowers, however, is similar in his mind to a vase of pig intestines would be to a human. He is not squeamish at the sight of blood, but is a bit squeamish at the sight of exposed internal plant matter of any sort. This effects his view of some NPCs he meets.

He is otherwise 100% what you'd expect from a Good, slightly Chaotic character.

Drakevarg
2010-06-10, 06:41 PM
I would rate the gnoll you describe as Neutral Evil. Neutral on the law-chaos axis, not because he believes in balance as an abstract ideal, but simply because he has too many chaotic traits (fierce individualism, idiosyncratic life path, tendency to invent his own codes of conduct rather than accepting those offered him from the outside) to be called Lawful, and too many Lawful traits (believer in strict dominance hierarchy, holds strongly to a code once he adopts it) to be called Chaotic.

I can see where you're coming from, though I would still peg him as sufficiently rigid in his code of honor (self-determined and warped as it is) to qualify as Lawful. In the original thread most of the swinging was along the Law-Chaos axis as well.


The good-evil axis, to me, is easy to decide. There are few to no good traits in that description (his willingness to help out when his skillset is needed seems more like a chance to prove himself and meet a challenge, then a sign that he actual values anyone else's wellbeing.) And while not everything he believes is evil, a good fraction of it is.

Admittedly, yes. Pretty much.


A belief that once you establish dominance over someone, they are your chattel, may be neutral in the context of a pack of wolves. When one sapient applies it to another, it's evil.

If he didn't posess above-average intellect and wisdom, I'd be tempted to argue that with Vorin, there isn't much of a difference.


His casual attitude toward taking sapient lives is definitely evil.

No arguement here.


And in the fight with the sorcerer, everything he did was evil (except for heroically saving himself from death, which was neither good nor evil, but simply badass.)

I wish "Badass" was an alignment.


Granted, the sorcerer probably insulted him first, but to react to an insult by threatening to kill someone is an evil trait. To then try to actually kill them because, while struggling for their own life in the face of your aggression, they accidentally endangered yours, is highly evil.

No arguement.


No one of these traits by itself would lock him into evil alignment, but with so many evil aspects to his character, and nothing good to balance them, I don't see how anyone could argue for neutrality on the good-evil axis.

I believe the arguement for Neutrality was that he's merely indifferent towards the wellbeing of others, as opposed to actively malicious.


Granted, he's far less evil than a lot of creatures out there, and is fully redeemable if he changes his way of thinking.

Unlikely.


Most of his evil traits are culturally learned, and could be unlearned.

Not really. He's a Gnoll, but his particular tribe has a Chaotic Neutral culture. (Admittedly his Alpha Male mentality may stem from cultural upbringing, but the hypercompetitiveness and the belief that violence is the solution to all domestic disputes is not.)


But for now, no way in hell is this a CN character.

The idea of him being CN was the idea I had prior to actually analyzing his character, and even then it was iffy between CN/CE. That was why I started the analysis in the first place, actually.

mucat
2010-06-10, 07:25 PM
I can see where you're coming from, though I would still peg him as sufficiently rigid in his code of honor (self-determined and warped as it is) to qualify as Lawful. In the original thread most of the swinging was along the Law-Chaos axis as well.
Quite possible. He's got such a mix of Lawful and Chaotic traits that I would have to see him in actual play to decide which ones most strongly shape his behavior.



I believe the arguement for Neutrality was that he's merely indifferent towards the wellbeing of others, as opposed to actively malicious.

I would call that more of an argument that he's not as evil as he could be, rather than that he isn't evil at all. If he were malicious, and hurt people just for the sake of hurting them -- on top of all the other stuff he already does -- then he would be deeply evil and unlikely to ever redeem himself. As it is, he's a moderately evil being who, after learning a few lessons, could easily become neutral.

Of course, it depends where you draw the lines. I tend to think of a typical human society as being 25% good, 50% neutral, 25% evil. Someone who decides that it's 10%/80%/10% might place this gnoll on the the darker end of the Neutral category.



I wish "Badass" was an alignment.
Badass transcends alignment.

drengnikrafe
2010-06-10, 08:14 PM
In an effort to abolish the alignment system from all of my games, I have allowed extremely loose alignments and installed that expanded alignment, then told my people alignment is not necessary, but is available. I have had people call themselves, and then play, Chaotic Awesome, Lawful Badass, Lawful Woof-Woof (awakened dog monk), and No.

AstralFire
2010-06-10, 08:17 PM
I've never met a character I've had trouble pinning an alignment to. Just people who I had to verbally bust kneecaps with to convince them that I was right.

Harperfan7
2010-06-10, 08:24 PM
The only people who I have a hard time pinning an alignment on are neutral people because it takes a while to realize that they're neutral (not all neutrals, just the undecided ones - balance types tend to be pretty upfront about it).

onthetown
2010-06-10, 08:33 PM
I played with one guy whose characters were all hard to pin an alignment to. We only really enforced alignment in the campaign when it came to class restrictions, and he seemed to only choose those classes. And then proceeded to break restriction and ignore the DM. And confused the hell out of us. His "Lawful Good" druid would indeed act lawful, then break the law, then head on over to CE and start blowing things up, then bounce back to NG and do something not so lawful just for the sake of being good, then acted like a total free spirit for the rest of the campaign. He would not listen when we told him that druids are neutral, and that he was (if anything) TN or CN.

His explanation for acting like a moron? "I'm Lawful Good but I'm stupid about it." Yes, well... We can see the stupid part, anyway.

The rest of his characters were basically the same, except he stopped telling us what alignment they were and made them even more difficult to decipher. We eventually just figured all of his characters were Psychotic Neutral and moved on.

AstralFire
2010-06-10, 08:35 PM
Druids have to be NG/LN/CN/NE anyway.

onthetown
2010-06-10, 08:56 PM
That's where it came in that he was ignoring the DM and just doing whatever he wanted, and woe be to us.

He also played a chaotic evil monk, a neutral good rogue, and a lawful neutral bard. It's like he was completely bent on spiting us.

Granted, none of them acted like their alignments anyway. All of them were basically psychotic neutral, no matter what he said.

Zeta Kai
2010-06-10, 09:24 PM
That's where it came in that he was ignoring the DM and just doing whatever he wanted, and woe be to us.

He also played a chaotic evil monk, a neutral good rogue, and a lawful neutral bard. It's like he was completely bent on spiting us.

Granted, none of them acted like their alignments anyway. All of them were basically psychotic neutral, no matter what he said.

It sounds a lot like he hated the alignment system & was trying to be a spiteful jerk. I've played with folks who hate a particular rule, so when that rule comes up, they get all passive-aggressive like your friend there & try to subvert the hell out of it. As a DM, you can gloss over those rules, or try to enforce them properly. Neither is a totally satisfactory solution.

AntiHeart
2010-06-11, 12:04 AM
I had a CE Wizard that tricked his party into killing off anything more powerful than him. He saved an entire continent from famine by destroying a powerful Lich.

Yora
2010-06-11, 03:57 AM
I've got a character that I currently play that is Lawful Chaotic Good.
It's called Neutral Good.

Severus
2010-06-11, 12:34 PM
It's called Neutral Good.

No, it isn't. Neutral good is when you're most interested in the most good, regardless of how it is achieved. He is interested a great deal in Law and obedience to proper authority, and he wants a great deal of freedom. He acts on one end of the spectrum, and wants the other end of the spectrum. He doesn't want the middle.

This is why alignments aren't really helpful.

Riffington
2010-06-11, 12:45 PM
No, it isn't. Neutral good is when you're most interested in the most good, regardless of how it is achieved. He is interested a great deal in Law and obedience to proper authority, and he wants a great deal of freedom. He acts on one end of the spectrum, and wants the other end of the spectrum. He doesn't want the middle.

This is why alignments aren't really helpful.

Alignment isn't what you want, it's what you do.
If you act insufficiently consistently chaotically to be Chaotic, and insufficiently consistently lawfully to be Lawful, you're neutral with respect to law/chaos.

Severus
2010-06-11, 01:17 PM
Alignment isn't what you want, it's what you do.
If you act insufficiently consistently chaotically to be Chaotic, and insufficiently consistently lawfully to be Lawful, you're neutral with respect to law/chaos.

That's one opinion. It isn't mine.

Caliphbubba
2010-06-11, 01:18 PM
I used to be in a game with a very interesting Bard, back in AD&D second edition days. His name was: Shag.

Now Shag was a very...hmm what is the nice way to say it? Well he was just surly. Very biting tongue, with quick, barbed tongue. he always described his Alignment as: Neutral Bitter. He tried to do good, and help people but it was always backhanded in one way or another. In later levels he took a lot of sadistic glee in fireballing my barbarian just cause he could. lol

One time he was so upset with me he jumped me in my sleep, with the help of the other party memebers, and basically keelhalled me. They tied me to the bottom of the boat for the whole of a sea voyage, with the mage periodically casting "Water Breathing" on me when needed.

To be fair my Barbarian was sometihing of a "Chaotic Stupid" alignment, but hey I was 14 at the time. That's my excuse for TAURUS BLOODAXE WOLF CLAN BARBARIAN!

lol

2xMachina
2010-06-11, 01:21 PM
A Good person who helps people cause he's tormented by his conscience when he doesn't? Is that considered selfish? Or is he just really Good?

hamishspence
2010-06-11, 01:22 PM
The deva's comment in OoTS

"Using Chaotic means toward Lawful ends strikes me as pretty Neutral."

Same may apply to the reverse- using Lawful means toward Chaotic ends:

Lawful means- "obediance to authority"- "strengthening the rule of law"

Chaotic ends "maximise personal freedom for everybody as far as reasonably possible"

Riffington
2010-06-11, 03:01 PM
That's one opinion. It isn't mine.

Fair nuff. Why is your opinion better than the book's?
Especially since (as you point out) when you use your preferred method "alignments aren't really helpful"...

Severus
2010-06-14, 02:41 PM
Fair nuff. Why is your opinion better than the book's?
Especially since (as you point out) when you use your preferred method "alignments aren't really helpful"...

From the SRD: A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented...

So Alignment isn't just an expression of actions.

From the SRD:Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

This doesn't describe the character. He has a compulsion to obey, and a desire or attitude not to resist. These tensions are the things that bring characters to life instead of being just cookie cutter heroes.

I don't really care if others choose to try to ram characters into 9 boxes, but having been roleplaying for >25 years, I just don't find that it does anything useful. There's probably a reason most other RPGs don't have anything like it. I've heard that some people say that alignment is a useful tool to new gamers. Maybe. But, if attaching a label to something doesn't actually help you describe the thing, why bother?

That's my point of view.

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 12:22 PM
It's not just an expression of actions (personalities also play a part- as per the newborn chromatic dragon, who has never committed an evil act, but is still evil because of their personality).

However, actions matter a lot. The DMG recommends using actions to track a character's alignment- if a good character repeatedly does evil acts, their alignment should change.

Most splatbooks also mention this- Champions of Ruin- if a character is regularly resorting to evil means, they should be given an evil alignment.

So, a character who is really keen on "the greater good" and "the happiness of the many" but whose means are sufficiently evil, should be Evil-aligned.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 12:35 PM
I think an easier way to work with alignments is having it as an intrinsic part of the character(thus, intent), and let slips be just that. If the DM realizes the guy is being a **** about the alignments he can always dope slap him with a pineapple.

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 12:40 PM
Main reason I mention it, is that several NPCs seem to follow this pattern- they are characters who started off Good, slipped to Evil, but are still able to convince themselves that they are Good people because of their good intentions. Some are described as at least subconsciously aware of their fall though.

Michael Ambrose from Tome of Magic
Gareth Cormaeril from Waterdeep: City of Splendours
Calais Archwinter from Exemplars of Evil

And so on.

There is a lot of precedent for "the road to the lower planes is paved with good intentions" in D&D.

Though it may help, if the player knows that some acts will lead (eventually) to a change of alignment.

That way, if they're playing a falling character, they won't dispute with the DM that the character is "falling" so to speak.

Aedilred
2010-06-16, 04:37 PM
Our current party offers an example of the different kinds of Evil in contrast to each other, I think. We have two very Evil characters, respectively Neutral and Chaotic evil, without a doubt in either case. They get on pretty well most of the time, and if they have a code of any sort, it's "kill anyone who annoys us- if we remember and can be bothered". Oh, and the CE one hates orcs, goblins and so on, to the point he will attack plot-central NPCs purely because they're of that race. The DM has identified this and used it a couple of times to screw us over already. On one occasion these two, working together, destroyed an entire city while taking revenge on a shopkeeper who was a bit rude to them (they set fire to his shop, and the town was made of wood... yeah). There were only two survivors, one of whom I'd thrown out of town earlier in the day after refusing to execute her.

The problem in my case, with a character conceived as Neutral, is that the CE character has no compunction about attacking any of the other PCs who get in his way (he Bull Rushed one of the other party members off a floating platform after being accidentally hit in a fight), and stopping him from committing evil acts is generally more trouble than it's worth. In order to stop him from murdering a NPC my character was rather fond of without getting attacked myself I had to use about half my spells for the day- to conceal them, and to immobilise him. After a couple of sessions of this, it's got to the point where my character has just stopped asking awkward questions, and whenever he's aware that the two evil ones are going off to do gratuitous evil, he'll absent himself and get on with something useful.

He's also been privy to a number of killings, in particular participating in the destruction of a rival party- the dispute was nominally about treachery but really about share of the loot. He would argue that he's never killed- or even attacked- anyone except in self-defence, with one exception, but that was an affiliate of an organisation known to be even more evil and destructive than the party- at least at that point. Of course, the two evil members of the party are so deliberately obnoxious that we get attacked more than perhaps we need to, so a lot of the self-defence is against people we probably shouldn't be fighting if we're the good guys. Which we are, sort of, meant to be, ish.

To be fair, he's no saint himself. He's helped cover up murders, lied and cheated and stolen, and colluded in the overthrow of the rightful town government- although, again, he would argue that the government in question was planning on defaulting on their verbal agreement with him, and that they had in any case already lost control of the town; he was simply propping up the new, more effective authority. He also can't resist any opportunity to deflate any balloons of pomposity, or nitpick any logical flaws in anyones' arguments, which winds many NPCs up no end and probably leads to his fair share of fights starting.

The DM reckons he's lawful evil, which is probably fair; if nothing else he's guilty of evil by wilful inaction and he's certainly sided with the forces of evil against the forces of, er, slightly-less-evil, in the past- but never against his friends. I was aiming for a more neutrally-aligned character on the moral axis, though, and I'd still like to bring this to fruition. I'm just not sure how it's really possible, given the rest of the party. We do have one nonevil party member, but he's the group buttmonkey (and has been given a beatdown more than once by our CE character), and at least does a very convincing impression of not noticing quite how vicious and spiteful his companions are. I'd rather not send my guy down that path, but I can't see an alternative bar overwhelming the other two with magic- which might be effective for a while but isn't really sustainable- or trying to convert them to neutrality, which I think is doomed to failure.

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 05:12 PM
Trying to move toward nonevilness while still being on good terms with the evil party members, is probably tricky.

Maybe becoming more altruistic, would be a start.

Encouraging the other two to do heroic things "for glory and profit" might help. Not trying to change them, but encouraging them to focus on enemies that happen to be threatening lots of innocent people.

They can still be out for money- but if they pick their targets right, they can gain rewards from grateful townsfolk as well, and have their improved reputations spread, thus making life easier for them.

Giving selfish reasons to avoid doing evil things might also help.