PDA

View Full Version : What Alignment?



Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 12:21 PM
I have recently created a character whose basic drive is forging legends. Under different identities she(or he) does remarkable deeds to be remember for generations to go.

But they don't have to be heroic. If she's doing something to be "he who stole the sacred portable potty of the high priest of the god of betrayal", then he's going to be as ruthless as it takes.
If she's announcing to a village that she'll bring the cruel Duke to justice, then she's going to do so in a manner worth of a paladin.
If she's just traveling alone and needs some food, she can either play as a noble hero in need of support or a pitiable old man begging for food.

I noted that as Chaotic Evil, as her noble deeds are made for the image they represent, which happens the same way for the evil deeds.
So far she doesn't feel any particular glee with either good or evil, but the other guys aren't sure if that means CE.

Opinions?

Yora
2010-07-05, 12:23 PM
The character is probably more than just that one trait. If you think the character will act in a CE way, make her CE.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-05, 12:27 PM
I'd say neutral evil. So far I don't see anything to lawful or chaotic. This also gives you more fluid movement between pretending to be more lawful or more chaotic as they forge legends.

Evard
2010-07-05, 01:05 PM
The thing about this is that you could play that character as ANY alignment... Just pick one out of a hat and away you go :P

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 01:08 PM
The thing about this is that you could play that character as ANY alignment... Just pick one out of a hat and away you go :P

Not any. She doesn't have moral quandaries and when she shows such traits, it's literally all for show.

Coplantor
2010-07-05, 01:11 PM
Well, as Xykon said, being evil is about how low you are willing to go, if, for the sake of a legend (wich I see it as a sort of selfish act anyway), the character is willing to commit heinous acts, then she is Evil. Also, this erratic, everchanging sort of nature seems pretty chaotic to me.

So I would say she is CE. But remember that CE does not mean "LOL! I'm gonna eat that puppy in front of a kid!"

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 01:14 PM
Well, as Xykon said, being evil is about how low you are willing to go, if, for the sake of a legend (wich I see it as a sort of selfish act anyway), the character is willing to commit heinous acts, then she is Evil. Also, this erratic, everchanging sort of nature seems pretty chaotic to me.

So I would say she is CE. But remember that CE does not mean "LOL! I'm gonna eat that puppy in front of a kid!"

Definitely. It's what I thought when I wrote "CE" on the sheet. I'm going to go to the limit to see how much a smart CE can be played.

But i'm still wanting to hear opinions :o The more material I have the better.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-05, 01:17 PM
I'll add another vote for chaotic evil. Ruthlessness pretty much nails down the evil part. And while the emphasis on the chaos-law axis remains fixed while pursuing any particular legend, the fact that it will change for a new legend means the basic thrust is chaotic.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-05, 01:35 PM
Hmm, Lawful Good paladins can be just as ruthless in their goals.
So, perhaps a chaotic neutral?

Evard
2010-07-05, 01:38 PM
Not any. She doesn't have moral quandaries and when she shows such traits, it's literally all for show.

So? Even if its just for show.. Its the actions that count... By what you say.. If someone rescues the children from a burning orphanage just to impress a lady what he did wasn't a good deed?

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 01:38 PM
I'm going to be different and suggest neutral, but not for reasons of matching ambigiously-worded alignment descriptions to a well-thought-out characters' personality. Let's say your character wants to go down in legend as the slayer of some mighty demon. Wouldn't it be nice if he did it wielding a Holy longsword? You don't want item alignment restrictions/penalities to interfere with the roleplaying of your character. And it's anyone's guess what alignment your character "actually" is, so trying to guess doesn't really achieve much.

Just an idea, hope you'll give it some consideration :smallsmile:

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 01:40 PM
So? Even if its just for show.. Its the actions that count... By what you say.. If someone rescues the children from a burning orphanage just to impress a lady what he did wasn't a good deed?

The deed is good, but she didn't do it because she wanted to save the children. She wanted to impress the lady.
She'd also torture criminals to almost death over the span of weeks so that every criminal in town fears commiting crimes.
And she'd also bring a tyrant to power so her picture would be on the castles, and written in the books about how said tyrant came to power.

Shademan
2010-07-05, 02:15 PM
true neutral?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 02:24 PM
true neutral?

How so? Isn't it a mistake to consider an alignment a zero-sum of deeds? And if it isn't, why?

Shademan
2010-07-05, 02:32 PM
How so? Isn't it a mistake to consider an alignment a zero-sum of deeds? And if it isn't, why?

I dunno, I got the impression that the character was doing abit of every alignment (then again, I didnt read it to closely)

hamishspence
2010-07-05, 02:33 PM
If you go by Champions of Ruin, routinely doing Evil deeds is the mark of an Evil alignment, even if you do Good deeds as well.

BoED does suggest "selfish reasons" like hunger for popularity, downgrade "Good" acts to neutral ones.

And Savage Species suggests Evil characters can be kind and generous to people they are close to.

FC2 suggests that most "ordinary people" generally don't do Evil acts- an act has to be quite strong before it registers as Evil. So really petty things, like being insulting, might not be enough to qualify as Evil acts in themselves. It also says most are "only weakly aligned" so its possible an Evil character might be "only weakly Evil aligned" with most of their acts being Neutral, and their generally Evil attitude toward others being enough to push them into Evil alignment- possibly accompanied by "only just Evil" acts.

Maybe an Evil character could be keen on contructing legends- so they commit "good" acts to further some legends, and Evil acts to further others- with their routine use of Evil methods making them Evil-aligned.

Susano-wo
2010-07-05, 03:26 PM
Got a question: Why is the character trying to forge legends? Is there some other purpose, or just getting jollies?

Lev
2010-07-05, 03:40 PM
Are you DMing and using this char as an NPC?
If not slap a TN on it and have the DM change it as you go, seriously, alignment is really only there for spells with alignment descriptors and it's not technically a roleplaying device and because your DM has full control over it anyway just leave it to her.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 03:42 PM
It's my character and i'm not dming :p
And it's her thrill and I'm writing it as part of how she accepted her changeling nature, but such story isn't complete.

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-05, 03:44 PM
You're only as Good as the lowest you're willing to sink. (So Evil seems the right choice.)

The fluid morality and goals seems to suggest Chaotic is the correct component there.

Yeah, CE seems the most accurate.

(Dunno if it's relevant, but always remember that alignment is a reflection of your actions, not a guideline on how you should act. A lot of people seem to decry alignment because they think it's the second.)

Thajocoth
2010-07-05, 03:44 PM
Obviously Chaotic. On the Good/Evil axis... Doesn't have either the high morals or the maliciousness, but will take on either as fits their goals.

I'd say Chaotic Chaotic. Or Chaotic Neutral.

Lev
2010-07-05, 03:54 PM
It's my character and i'm not dming :p
And it's her thrill and I'm writing it as part of how she accepted her changeling nature, but such story isn't complete.
Of course, it's a wonderful concept, but people who write stories who have never played DnD seem to get along fine without using stock para-contemporary morality labels.

Riffington
2010-07-05, 09:04 PM
Neutral Evil.
Evil, as has been said before, because she's willing to sink to that level; that makes her evil. No amount of good deeds can make up for a continued willingness to commit heinous acts.

Lawful/Chaotic: well, Chaotic really is all about your internal desires/goals, and going with what you feel is right. But she doesn't really do that - she seems to give the outside world far too much power. I'll grant that the popular CE exemplar Jayne Cobb has an element of that - wanting to look heroic for the mudders who see him as heroic - but he still fundamentally feels wrong doing the things they expect rather than following his natural impulses.
And yet, Lawful is also wrong: Lawful isn't just following the outside world wherever it goes - but rather having some specific parts of that world (family, religion, tradition are common) that one holds true to. And she certainly lacks this.
So CE is much better than LE, but I'd put her within NE.

mobdrazhar
2010-07-05, 09:18 PM
i would have to say CN

Neutral for the fact that they are willing to do both good and evil acts to forge these legends. And thus it would also cover the Chaotic aspect of it all.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 09:20 PM
Of course, it's a wonderful concept, but people who write stories who have never played DnD seem to get along fine without using stock para-contemporary morality labels.

It's actually the opposite of what I think you're thinking. I'm not playing the alignment. I'm trying to understand what alignment i'm playing.

Riffington makes a good point about neutrality due to "giving the outside world importance", but i'm not sure how much of that is a pattern more than the customary Chaos feature of "reacting to the circumstances". She does plan more on the long run than the usual, which is evident when she goes under the guise of Intrigue.

Knaight
2010-07-05, 09:37 PM
Call it CE and forget about it. The GM will change it if it occurs to him/her, and is necessary. Really, alignment is largely irrelevant anyways.

mucat
2010-07-05, 10:05 PM
I would call her CE, and I would applaud her as one of the few CE characters I've seen who is actually interesting, rather than "BWAHAHAHA watch me do squicky twisted things."



i would have to say CN

Neutral for the fact that they are willing to do both good and evil acts to forge these legends.

Someone who is willing to do both good and evil acts isn't neutral; they're evil. Good and evil are not two symmetrically-arrayed teams to choose between; they're very different ways of looking at life. If you don't care whether your methods benefit those around you or harm them, then you don't care about those people period, and you're evil.

(Of course, you would be even more evil if you actively sought out evil methods because you took pleasure in hurting people...)

Omniplex
2010-07-06, 02:21 AM
Someone who is willing to do both good and evil acts isn't neutral; they're evil. Good and evil are not two symmetrically-arrayed teams to choose between; they're very different ways of looking at life. If you don't care whether your methods benefit those around you or harm them, then you don't care about those people period, and you're evil.

(Of course, you would be even more evil if you actively sought out evil methods because you took pleasure in hurting people...)
While I agree with you in regards to real world morality, I think morality does work that way in D&D. Willingness to do an evil act now and then doesn't make a character evil, just not good. I would call this Chaotic Neutral, doing Good and Evil not out of compassion or malice, but for the thrill of it.

hamishspence
2010-07-06, 02:45 AM
"Doing evil for the thrill of it" is pretty exceptionally evil.

Possibly enough to outweigh "Doing good for the thrill of it".

The alignment system isn't symmetrical in that respect.

Coplantor
2010-07-06, 07:16 AM
Doing both good and evil things is not neutral. Being Neutral is to not being actively searching for the well-being of others while not damaging others while you search for your own well-being.

That's why I think that Snake's character is Evil, mostly driven by an obsession with forging great stories without a care of what she does to forge them.

And the best part would be the people casting detect evil on the valerous hero who just slayed Drakkarth, the devourer of souls and bringer of a thousand dooms, who had refused any sort of reward, other than building an orphanage and a school for the sons of the victims of said villian, is actually as evil as they come. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-07-06, 07:18 AM
Champions of Valor does point out that sometimes valorous heroes are evil characters who recognize (despite their own evilness) that some evils must be battled, and are willing to do it.

Coplantor
2010-07-06, 07:27 AM
Champions of Valor does point out that sometimes valorous heroes are evil characters who recognize (despite their own evilness) that some evils must be battled, and are willing to do it.

THIS. If everybody accepted this you wouldn't have characters commiting heinous acts "for the greater good" and clling themselves "Chatic Good". CG is not evil lite. As DM I have no problem with the dark/anti hero joining the party, but they have to put the evil tag on themselves.

I think the roblem actually, is that most peoople refuse to accept that some of their heroes fall within the evil category.

I convinced a player of mine (well, now he is my DM) of this, using The Punisher, one of his favourite comic heroes as an example.

hamishspence
2010-07-06, 07:31 AM
BoVD does mention Elric of Melnibone as the "evil antihero" who does heroic things sometimes, but generally uses evil methods.

I recall numerous people insisting Ozymandias (or Rorschach) from Watchmen weren't evil because their various brutal acts (from torture, to the murder of millions) were always being done "for the greater good"

A bit more acceptance of "a character can be evil and still heroic" might mean a bit less alignment disputes.

Coplantor
2010-07-06, 07:33 AM
Indeed, yes, I wholly agree with you.

hamishspence
2010-07-06, 07:38 AM
My liking for the "evil but sometimes heroic" character might come from my reading the Forgotten Realms novels where (if you cross-reference back to the Campaign setting) quite a lot of more sympathetic characters are actually evil.

Jarlaxle, for example, is canonically (from the FRCS and Underdark) Neutral Evil- despite a lot of people insisting that his alignment as going by their reading of the books "ought" to be Chaotic Neutral.

Or Elaith Craulnober, the elven crime lord known as "The Serpent".

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-06, 08:01 AM
Are there not a bunch of feats that let you count as each alignment. Or some ritual of somekind? I don't remember. Consider takeing those if you can find them. At least the good one so you register as good if someone goes to check. Or posibly a magic item that not only makes you nondetectable, but has a good aura itself.