PDA

View Full Version : I have a serious alignment quandary.



Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 01:36 AM
According to the background of my Elven Wizard, who is quite brilliant -an intelligence of 20 at level one- he values his family, friends, and homeland above anything else. He is just now leaving his homeland, which, in my DM's backstory, is a really, really busted up ruin of a city in the middle of a swamp- I don't have all the details yet, but apparently the elves screwed up something and are now trying to scrape by until they can rebuild their civilization.

We are playing in a Good campaign- the dm will not allow anything evil. Neutral and Chaotic are ok, just no evil.

My question is can my elf be basically racist and good at the same time? Willing to manipulate and potentially destroy anyone who threatens his homeland, regardless of whether they might be good themselves, and still be seen as good? Can he see other races as inferior while still recognizing his own elder's stupidity, and still be seen as good?

His number one motivation is to rebuild the Elven Empire, and ensure that they don't screw it up again. I want him to be pretty free to act on what he feels needs to be done as long as it benefits his country. There wouldn't be wanton slaughter or anything, but perhaps he mind dominates someone with a shipment of valuable materials, so that they take it to his elven home city instead. Things of that nature.

Can he do that and not be evil?

This is for pathfinder in a homebrew setting, if that makes any sort of difference.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8839082&postcount=13

Kris Strife
2010-07-03, 01:38 AM
All elves are racist, don't worry about it. :smallamused:

More seriously, he needs to remember to plan ahead. Elves have ridiculously long life spans, and he has a high Int. He can probably see when its better to give up a short-term advantage or let an opportunity pass, in favor of a better one further down the line.

Remember, nice does not equal good. Have him be willing to help strangers without any concrete benefit to him, though it might be grudgingly, and have him work to help them solve their own problems rather than having him fix them.

And make sure to talk with your DM, make sure your character concept fits in with what he's wanting to do, and be willing to make changes if needed.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 01:42 AM
But not really malevolently so, and my character would cross that line whenever opportunity struck.

Prodan
2010-07-03, 01:44 AM
Short answer: yes

Long answer: affirmative

Baalthazaq
2010-07-03, 01:46 AM
I'd actually say no to your question "Can you be good and racist", but I don't think you quite have racism there.

Does he "like his people" or "hate other people".

If I had to pick between saving my child, or saving someone else's child, there is an easy decision there.
I don't hate other people's children or anything, I'm not evil.

If you'd end the world for one countryman's life though, you clearly don't respect their life to a degree that you should probably be considered evil.

So far though, this character seems like he could easily be good to Neutral.

Zovc
2010-07-03, 01:48 AM
I imagine Lawful Neutral could suit the description you provided, "Whatever advances the Elven cause."

In other words, his 'personal code' ('lawful qualifier') is Elven interests.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 01:49 AM
Let's say that someone built a farm on ground that used to be in an elven city. He'd ask them to leave, and if they didn't he'd make sure they were all gone- forcefully or otherwise- then burn it down. Then he'd hand them a sum of gold and tell them to get away. He wouldn't kill them, though.

Or perhaps, he learns of something that would really help his people, but couldn't afford it. He'd steal it and send it to where, he feels, it could be better used.

He doesn't hate other races, he just feels their needs are secondary to his own. After all, they all reproduce much faster than elves, and elves need all the help they can get at the moment in order to survive.

Skeppio
2010-07-03, 01:50 AM
According to the background of my Elven Wizard, who is quite brilliant -an intelligence of 20 at level one- he values his family, friends, and homeland above anything else. He is just now leaving his homeland, which, in my DM's backstory, is a really, really busted up ruin of a city in the middle of a swamp- I don't have all the details yet, but apparently the elves screwed up something and are now trying to scrape by until they can rebuild their civilization.

We are playing in a Good campaign- the dm will not allow anything evil. Neutral and Chaotic are ok, just no evil.

My question is can my elf be basically racist and good at the same time? Willing to manipulate and potentially destroy anyone who threatens his homeland, regardless of whether they might be good themselves, and still be seen as good? Can he see other races as inferior while still recognizing his own elder's stupidity, and still be seen as good?

His number one motivation is to rebuild the Elven Empire, and ensure that they don't screw it up again. I want him to be pretty free to act on what he feels needs to be done as long as it benefits his country. There wouldn't be wanton slaughter or anything, but perhaps he mind dominates someone with a shipment of valuable materials, so that they take it to his elven home city instead. Things of that nature.

Can he do that and still be good?

I would never consider that a good-aligned character. Racism, hypocrisy and a willingness to mind rape and steal much-needed materials is more than a few points on the evil scale IMO.

Bloody arrogant elves...

Of course, I'm not your DM so it's up to them to decide.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 01:52 AM
The only reason he'd do all that is because the entire elven race is in survival mode at the moment. Similar to a child stealing bread to eat, but on a far more massive scale.

And he would try other avenues first- purchasing goodwill with his own actions and demanding repayment through favors is more along the lines of the norm.

2xMachina
2010-07-03, 01:52 AM
Good might be a little tough with those parameters.

Neutral should be easy though. Just make sure your motivation is FOR the GOOD of your people.

Oh, and racism? Rangers takes the cake. They hate your race so much they get bonus damage on you.

Eronai_Jantig
2010-07-03, 01:58 AM
You've taken the general idea of racist elves, and extrapolated some seriously polarizing material, there is certainly a chance for modification to where you simply are a very snide person when dealing with non-elves but in the end help them because you transcend your background and are better than that in your heart. But your descriptions are at best neutral with evil leanings, and at worst quite plainly evil. I'd say lawful accurately describes most of it's qualities, although perhaps Neutral/Neutral Evil is more appropriate.

Edit: Just saw your last post, that description was pretty much your standard adventurer, although they usually contain the caveat that they will accept your quest if it's for good, and you legitimately don't have anything that can be given as a reward (Thank god for loot pools and DMs with WBL charts :P)

lsfreak
2010-07-03, 02:01 AM
That strikes me as solidly Chaotic Neutral. You have your personal beliefs that you will do anything to uphold without concern for what society says is right/acceptable (chaotic). These things might harm innocent people and you are aware of this (not good), but you try and go about it the best way possible, only inflicting greater harms after such things as negotiation or bribing have failed (not evil).
EDIT: And for non-selfish reasons. I'd say Chaotic Neutral with Good leanings.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 02:09 AM
So, if he were Lawful Neutral with his "law" being "Anything for the rebirth of the Elven Empire, my friends, my family, and my people", I could justify the following actions-

Working for repayment (adventuring)
Plundering/looting (taking the contents of an empty house)
Practicing a trade
Vengeance (harm Family, friend, or elf without a very, very good reason, you die)
Extortion ( Do this for the elves or I will report your evil deeds to X person)
Theft (redirecting a shipment to an elven city)
Murder (you trespass, you die)
Mind Control (You won't help- now you will)



The list is mostly in order- from most likely to least likely course of action.

mucat
2010-07-03, 02:12 AM
Why are you so concerned whether he's good-aligned or not? If he's a character you would enjoy playing, if the other players look forward to playing alongside him, and the DM feels he's a good fit for the campaign, his alignment doesn't matter at all. Play the character, let your DM label him with whatever alignment he likes, and have fun.

(Personally, I would want to know a lot more about him before assigning an alignment, but from what little we know about him so far, I lean toward true neutral.)

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 02:17 AM
I care because the DM wants this to be a good campaign. Too many evil acts will have "Dire Consequences".

So I need an alignment that will help my case, and allow me to justify acts that might be questionable.
He is a very nice person- just concerned more for his people than anyone or anything else. His own existence is not a priority, so he is pretty selfless. Which is definitely not an evil quality.

Eronai_Jantig
2010-07-03, 02:22 AM
Just being selfless alone doesn't make you good, ignoring the needs of what could now be 90% of the population of the world could well be considered evil. I don't think you'll find an alignment to "help your case", but you may find one compatible with the game world. Perhaps you should speak to the DM about the sort of character you want to play, and how his utter devastation of your chosen race has made it much more difficult to play under the "No "Evil" character's mandate".

I find it hard to place your character directly at evil, but at the same time he seams to zealous to be neutral as well.

mucat
2010-07-03, 02:24 AM
I care because the DM wants this to be a good campaign. Too many evil acts will have "Dire Consequences".

So I need an alignment that will help my case, and allow me to justify acts that might be questionable.
He is a very nice person- just concerned more for his people than anyone or anything else. His own existence is not a priority, so he is pretty selfless. Which is definitely not an evil quality.
Then you're getting things backwards. Presumably there's a reason the DM wants a good campaign; alignments is just a shorthand to lead you toward the types of characters he wants in his campaign.

Since you've got a specific character concept in mind now, you can skip that shorthand and cut right to the important question: describe your character to him in detail, and ask "Do you want this guy in your campaign?" He might propose some changes to his personality, you counterpropose some alternate changes, and with luck, you converge on a character you both really like.

Hague
2010-07-03, 02:44 AM
Outright prohibiting an alignment seems dumb to me. Evil characters are fine to me so long as they aren't Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid.

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-03, 02:56 AM
All elves are racist, don't worry about it. :smallamused:

Really all that needs to be said.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 02:57 AM
He prohibited evil because there is someone in the group who, if given any leeway, would be really, really stupid about it.

We are going back and forth through email, but I won't really have anything concrete until I meet with him in person again.

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 03:17 AM
Then you're getting things backwards. Presumably there's a reason the DM wants a good campaign; alignments is just a shorthand to lead you toward the types of characters he wants in his campaign.

Since you've got a specific character concept in mind now, you can skip that shorthand and cut right to the important question: describe your character to him in detail, and ask "Do you want this guy in your campaign?" He might propose some changes to his personality, you counterpropose some alternate changes, and with luck, you converge on a character you both really like.

This is 100% true, and absolutely what you should do.

As for the alignment, your character could be anywhere from LN to CN to NE depending on how the concept plays out in relation to the campaign world. Normally I'd say even Good is on the table. Set some boundaries on how far you'll take your rationalization, and that'll determine your alignment with respect to Good and Evil. In this specific case, I'd say your boundaries extend past Good if you'd steal rather than trade, or kill for trespassing. Then determine why your character has those boundaries, and that helps establish his position on Law vs. Chaos.

For example, a CN character might lie, steal, cheat, and even kill under extraordinary circumstances in order to achieve the goal of elven empire reestablished. He had a good life when the elves were strong, and he wants that life back. But he'll try his hardest to avoid sliding down the slippery slope of "I will ____ for the sake of my country", because he can't return to his good old life if he's forever haunted by what he had to do for it.

A LN character might have the same goal, and the same level of resistance to blind patriotism (for lack of a better term), but the motivation might be different. Say, he thinks it's his duty, and the duty of every elf, to reclaim the glory days of their society. But a society of lawless murderers is worthless no matter its wealth, so this character won't readily betray the values of the old society. (Of course, that just means the character's alignment on the Good-Evil axis tends towards whatever alignment you'd assign to the old society--a racist and isolationist, but restrained and peaceful society probably fits the LN bill here).

By contrast, a LE character would probably try to dominate the surrounding area in order to funnel its resources towards the elven restoration--the supply stealing you had in mind, on a larger scale. A CE character might tear apart the civilization in the area in order to feast on the ruins and send back a glut of supplies--so, a bandit on a larger scale. A LG character might aim to become legitimately wealthy and renowned in a foreign civilization in order to fund elven rebuilding--sacrificing his racist principles for the greater good of elvenkind. For comparison.

Serpentine
2010-07-03, 03:25 AM
I think Neutral would be the easiest route to take. Hell, if you do that, then you have room for character development as he learns that other races have value too.
If you particularly want him to be Good, then just consider that a flaw of his. It is possible to be Good but imperfect. Just make sure that it's made up for elsewhere.
Oh, and racism? Rangers takes the cake. They hate your race so much they get bonus damage on you.Eh, most of the time I don't think of it that way (although my first-ever character did). One of my current characters has Favoured Enemy (animal), because it's a hunter. It's practiced and learned all about animals to make it better at hunting them. It doesn't hate them, though - in fact, it has some fascination and affection for them.
It makes as much sense to me for a character to select a Favoured Enemy they have a particular liking for, as they go out of their way to understand them, which happens to also make them better at killing them.

Harperfan7
2010-07-03, 03:42 AM
He sounds pretty lawful neutral to me, maybe even lawful evil.

No "good" person puts a country above being good (and remain good). If he's willing to do anything to preserve it, then he sometimes takes evil actions for a good and/or lawful end, then I'd say he's just neutral (that is, something neutral, probably lawful).

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 03:46 AM
It makes as much sense to me for a character to select a Favoured Enemy they have a particular liking for, as they go out of their way to understand them, which happens to also make them better at killing them.

Agreed. My CN Druid, who gains FEs through variants, has FE: Human at first level because he's peculiarly interested in the Nature of humanity, as it were.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 04:01 AM
Neutral by definition can commit some evil acts, correct?

Raistlin1040
2010-07-03, 04:03 AM
Well it can be both. One of my friends is playing a Ranger in my campaign, and he has three favored enemies. The first is Evil Outsiders. In his backstory, his best friend was an Half-Celestial, and he died saving her son from a Devil. He hated them and studied how to kill them for the purposes of hunting them. Since, he's realized that he needs their help sometimes, and so is a bit more case-by-case. Magical Beasts is the second, and that's because they fascinate him. Dragons is the last one, and in his words "You never know when you're going to fight a dragon. I'd rather be good at killing something that could kill me, rather than something that can't."

And in response to the OP, if you're designing characters from the beginning, but don't have a backstory/personality, Alignment is a good starting place. "Alright, I'm a nameless Elf Wizard. Elves are usually Chaotic Good, but I don't think I fit in very well, because I'm so disciplined and studious. I think I'm probably more pragmatic as well, less idealistic, so let's say Lawful Neutral." And then work from there. You have a character idea already, complete with backstory. Write down whatever you want. If your DM takes issue, he'll tell you. Or, alternatively, give him your personality and have him give you an alignment.

Grumman
2010-07-03, 04:11 AM
Or perhaps, he learns of something that would really help his people, but couldn't afford it. He'd steal it and send it to where, he feels, it could be better used.
Then he is evil.

A good character can be racist only in the sense that they give their own race first priority when it comes to helping out. In other words, he can be neutral towards everyone else but he cannot be evil towards everyone else.


Neutral by definition can commit some evil acts, correct?
No. Unless they're trivial acts, evilness is a one-way street.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 04:15 AM
Then there really would be no neutral alignment on the good-evil axis.

Raistlin1040
2010-07-03, 04:17 AM
One instance of theft doesn't make him evil. Even killing someone in cold blood doesn't automatically shift your alignment, you just need to be reasonable about it. If you describe yourself as someone working for Good, don't kill three people because it's easier than talking to them. If you do, don't be indignant when your DM tells you that you've fallen to Evil. Intent has a lot to do with alignment, so if you're really trying to be a Good person, and IC, this manifests as helping those in need, feeding the poor, standing up for the weak, that's Good. Even if you fall off the wagon a few times, and are Evil and cruel, you're still going to be a Neutral character, maybe even with Good leanings.

Say you're in a tavern. A poor Elf is trying to get something to eat, but he doesn't have money. A local band of humans is trying to rough him up. He's outnumbered and weak, and hungry. If you stand up for the Elf, and beat up the humans, that's fine. If you steal from them to feed the Elf, you're still probably okay. If you pay for his meal yourself, you're fine. If you kill all the humans, instead of just knocking them out, and then march the Elf up to the bar, and demand that the bartender feed him without payment, or you'll burn the tavern down, you've gone too far.

Grumman
2010-07-03, 04:28 AM
Then there really would be no neutral alignment on the good-evil axis.
Why not? Not all acts are good or evil. Someone who does not make any significant sacrifices to help others and does not cause any significant harm to innocent people through malice or callous disregard would be neutral.

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 04:33 AM
Why not? Not all acts are good or evil. Someone who does not make any significant sacrifices to help others and does not cause any significant harm to innocent people through malice or callous disregard would be neutral.

And someone who does both? There have to be situations that allow for evil acts without an Evil alignment, or else it's the paladin's code all over again.

Yora
2010-07-03, 04:49 AM
I'd say make the character neutral an go from there.
For one thing neutral is "safe", as it's hard to contradict it. Secondly it seems to fit the character quite well.
If it turns out that the character leans to a certain direction during actual play, you can still adjust his alignment accordingly.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-03, 05:39 AM
I think what is muddying the OP's conclusions is that he's mixing "Liking something" with alignments. It's perfectly fine for an evil character to absolutely love his homeland and family. His alignment doesn't tell how much he wants to save his village, just how he'll mostly do it.

So, if your elf is doing 'ewull' things to save it, then he's being evil and saving it.

Jinn Master
2010-07-03, 05:42 AM
I don't really see it as evil if he tries to do other things first. It's not like murder and theft are his first choice.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 08:05 AM
And someone who does both? There have to be situations that allow for evil acts without an Evil alignment, or else it's the paladin's code all over again.

Champions of Ruin and Heroes of Horror emphasise that it's only when evil acts by the character are the norm rather than the exception, that they finally cross the line into Evil alignment.

HoH: "A character who does evil acts for a good cause is probably neither Good or Evil but a flexible Neutral"

CoR: "Certainly many of those acts are present in a standard campaign, and even good characters could be driven toward them from time to time. But the repeated, deliberate use of many of these is the mark of an Evil character. They are often the Evil character's first choice rather than last resort, because committing an evil act can be easier and faster than acting in a moral way"

That said- an Evil character can easily believe their evil acts are "for the greater good- so not evil".

"Racist elves" is quite a common trope- but the more extreme kind (the Eldeth Veluuuthra, who not only hate humans but consider half-elves abominations, and kill them when they get the chance) fall all the way into Evil, even if they believe their acts are Good. And they are shunned by the rest of their people- though some secret sympathisers funnel money and resources to them.

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 11:33 AM
<good stuff>

Do we agree with each other? I think we agree with each other. :smallbiggrin: The opposing argument is Grumman's contention that committing any Evil acts is Evil, and the only way to remain Neutral is to avoid both Good and Evil acts.

John Campbell
2010-07-03, 11:40 AM
Oh, and racism? Rangers takes the cake. They hate your race so much they get bonus damage on you.
Both of the 3.x Rangers I've played "hate" their own race so much they get bonus damage on themselves.

In the first case, it was simple recognition that what we were fighting, more than any other single favored enemy category, was evil humans.

In the second case, the character is a half-orc who was raised by an orc tribe. He's actually more racist against non-orcs, but has favored enemy (orc) because, given the way orcish society works, the bonuses (including, yes, the combat bonuses) are really useful for gaining and holding social position.

Next level, when I get my second favored enemy, I'm most likely taking human, which is the other half of his heritage - for pretty much the same reasons as the first character. (Um, except less "evil humans" and more "humans that kind of annoyed me". I've got "Chaotic Neutral" written on my character sheet, but I'm not sure I could adequately defend the position that the character isn't Evil. About all I can say in his defense is that he isn't malicious; he just has a really low threshold for when it's appropriate to employ lethal violence.)

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 11:46 AM
There isn't much in the system to support that. Even BoED only suggests that evil acts will cause an Exalted character to slip toward Neutral alignment.

Slipping from Neutral to Evil through committing Evil acts is possible, but will probably take a while- especially if the Neutral character is routinely committing Good acts as well.

More likely, they will fit Heroes of Horror's "flexible Neutral" character- if they are sufficiently brave and heroic- it takes either an unusually Evil act, or a change of outlook, for the Neutral character to slide into evil.

FC2's "corruption rules" are more to do with afterlife than alignment- a lawful ccharacter who has done enough evil in life is condemned, even if they are actually Neutral or Good. Until they start trying to truly atone for those particular evil acts- seeking out the kin of those they murdered to apologize, and so on. A bit like Earl in My Name is Earl, on a more serious scale.

A neutral character who does mild Evil and Good acts, is likely to stay Neutral- until they start to commit more serious ones.

2xMachina
2010-07-03, 11:51 AM
RE: Racist Rangers.

I must have read Goblins too much. The ranger there is a racist prick.

hamishspence
2010-07-03, 12:01 PM
There's an element of this in the R. A. Salvatore books, where Drizzt's mentor says:

"Run from orcs? Did I not tell you that orcs are my special bane? Nothing in all the world sounds sweeter than a blade opening an orc's belly!"

and in the short story "Dark Mirror" Drizzt, even when requested to bring back a goblin prisoner alive, it takes all his self control not to kill the goblin once he's captured it.

(He later finds out this goblin wasn't an evil ally of the ogres- but a nonevil slave stolen by the ogres- and the order to take the goblin alive wasn't about getting information from a warband leader, as he was told, but about returning a slave to it's master. He is not happy about this.)

awa
2010-07-03, 10:02 PM
personaly I think you can be racist and not evil. Now if you do evil things becuase their that race then your evil but say for example a farmer whos a good man has been told all his life that dwarves eat babies and belives that to the depths of his heart but never interacts with a dwarf in any way hes certainly not evil.

Riffington
2010-07-04, 01:14 AM
personaly I think you can be racist and not evil. Now if you do evil things becuase their that race then your evil but say for example a farmer whos a good man has been told all his life that dwarves eat babies and belives that to the depths of his heart but never interacts with a dwarf in any way hes certainly not evil.

He can call dwarves short and refuse to invite any over to his farmhouse, as long as he also makes up for that with sufficient good deeds.

The OP is stealing and enslaving; those are a bit harder to balance out.

erikun
2010-07-04, 02:36 AM
My question is can my elf be basically racist and good at the same time?
Yes. Racism is basically hatred towards a race, and your character can still decide to do good actions despite such racial hatred. Perhaps he thinks they are pathetic for needing help, or that they are like children unable to support themselves, but he still helps them.


Willing to manipulate and potentially destroy anyone who threatens his homeland, regardless of whether they might be good themselves, and still be seen as good?
This is a bit trickier. Being Good is a bit more than just not hurting people - it involves doing good things to people. Defending yourself and your country wouldn't be evil, but intentionally destroying people or taking from them for yourself or your country wouldn't be good. How far it is depends on how far the character would go. If he would trick and steal to get what he wants, then he is probably Neutral. If he is willing to murder, destroy organizations, and leave people homeless and desolute in his quest to restore his homeland, then he is probably Evil.


Can he see other races as inferior while still recognizing his own elder's stupidity, and still be seen as good?
His superiority attitude doesn't affect his alignment. As mentioned before, he could view others as incompotent and thus in need of his support to get anything meaningful accomplished. That would make him Good while still retaining his superiority.


His number one motivation is to rebuild the Elven Empire, and ensure that they don't screw it up again. I want him to be pretty free to act on what he feels needs to be done as long as it benefits his country. There wouldn't be wanton slaughter or anything, but perhaps he mind dominates someone with a shipment of valuable materials, so that they take it to his elven home city instead. Things of that nature.
This sounds like a very Chaotic bend, at least. He will always be free to act as he chooses, but Chaotic would more embody the "willing to do anything available" for his future country.

Whether we are looking at CN or CE depends on what you mean by mind domination and "things of that nature." If you mean diplomancy, bribing, forgery, and the occasional Charm Person, then you are looking at a CN person. If you mean literally Dominate Person for enthrallment and running the local extortion guild for the supplies, then it's CE.

Jinn Master
2010-07-04, 06:24 AM
Probably not dominating anyone except those already evil.

Let's say that there is an extremely corrupt man taking bribes to enrich himself. Well, instead of putting a stop to it, my character would probably force the official to give him the funds.

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-04, 07:13 AM
Does your character see what he is doing as the law, and by that I mean what the other elves say he should be doing, or does he see himself as a free agent helping the elven people, or a mix of both.

It sounds like he isn't far off the dead center axis good vs evil wise. He sounds like he would be good, but his goals just don't allow it and he puts his goals first, so he isn't evil, but he falls short of good.

For the rest he is lawful if he is filling his duty to the elven people. If he is helping them no mater what they think, he is chaotic. If he is just doing the best he can, and can't make up his mind, he is likely one of the rare characters who is TN in the undecided kinda way. It would make for great plot exposition.

You DM is an issue though, and not in a lets sneak something in kinda way. He has said he wants to run a good campaign. This means you need to talk to him in detail before you play this character. Maybe you go out and seek aid from other nations to help the elves by forming aliances, and slowly overcome the racism and see the worth of the other races. There are a lot of ways that you can run your character that are compatable with a good campaign, but you need to decide before hand if your character is destined for good or evil. In the end of the day your character will do what you want him to, so start N and go somewhere. If it is a rocky road, well that is good charcter development.

Hallavast
2010-07-04, 07:51 AM
Yes. Racism is basically hatred towards a race, and your character can still decide to do good actions despite such racial hatred. Perhaps he thinks they are pathetic for needing help, or that they are like children unable to support themselves, but he still helps them.


These things are rather contradictory. Racism means thinking one or more races are inferior to another. Hatred is not required for racism. I don't think seeing humans as childlike and helpless equates to hate.

Yes. A racist might see Humans (or Elves) as inept and unable to live on their own. This person might be a nanny-like benefactor to members of this race and do their best to help them. They do this out of sympathy and compassion, but they are still racist. Such a person is probably also of good alignment.

John Campbell
2010-07-04, 11:14 AM
RE: Racist Rangers.

I must have read Goblins too much. The ranger there is a racist prick.

The ranger in Goblins was also a snake-rapingly over-the-top caricature of Stupid Evil whose hat was racism, in a comic about racist racists and the races they're racist against.

It does seem pretty common for favored enemy to be treated as, "My family/home village got slaughtered by [favored enemy], and so I hate them so much I get bonuses against them!", but there's no particular reason it has to be handled that way.

My Rangers tend to take the bonuses against the things we're fighting most, and it's just simple recognition that they've gotten better for having practice in fighting those opponents specifically. That doesn't necessarily imply any particular degree of hatred for those opponents' race... especially in the case of humans, which are much more likely to be presented as having multiple factions and individuals who are some good, some evil, some neutral, some hostile, some friendly... rather than being the one-dimensional stereotypes and faceless masses of mooks that non-human races are often reduced to, especially when they're the enemy.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-04, 11:23 AM
I care because the DM wants this to be a good campaign. Too many evil acts will have "Dire Consequences".

So I need an alignment that will help my case, and allow me to justify acts that might be questionable.
He is a very nice person- just concerned more for his people than anyone or anything else. His own existence is not a priority, so he is pretty selfless. Which is definitely not an evil quality.

This stands out to me;

I believe this to be the wrong approach.
You have a consistent and interesting write-up for him as a person, just go with that. Ignore alignment altogether, infact. Just leave it blank, or if pushed, write 'unaligned'. (If pushed further, drop to chaotic neutral).

And then play him like a real person. This should include recognising bad ideas and self destructive behaviour, which should keep you from going too far into "Hey you're being (Bad Alignment)!" territory.

And if all else fails, go into it knowing that if the character steps too far in the wrong directions there will be consequences. If that happens, take it with a smile and enjoy the situation out of character.