PDA

View Full Version : The Content of One's Character: A Character Trait/Alignment Discussion



MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-18, 09:45 PM
"A man should not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.
-Martin Luther King Jr.

I am creating a chacter, a Mul (half-dwarf, half-human), who grew up facing prejudice due to his mixed parentage. This developed a personality quirk, which is basically what the quote was for. It is the perfect definition of this trait. The character, Hrothgar, does not judge nor assume anything from a creature no matter their race's history and predispositions. He will see a Bugbear, a Human, and an Elf equally in his eyes till one of them does something to change his opinion. His default attitude to everybody he has not met before is completly neutral. My question to the Playground is: what kind of alignment is this quirk? Is it good, evil, chaotic, lawful, or just plain neutral?

Here is two examples of how I will play this quirk for reference and clarification:

Example 1: Hrothgar is traveling the Underdark alone (ignore that this is a terrible idea). He spots a Mind Flayer. The Mind Flayer spots Hrothgar as well and immidiatly flees. Niether of them had made any threatening actions. The typical character would give chase because Mind Flayer's are typically Evil and they typically work in groups so a single Mind Flayer fleeing means a swarm of them will be back, generally. Hrothgar had no indication (other than percieved stereotypes) that the Mind Flayer was Evil or had any intent to harm him. Even if he could tell he was Evil (Detect Evil for some reason) he still wouldn't persue as being Evil is not a justification for Hrothgar.

Example 2: Hrothgar is in a the bad part of a big city. It is widely known that a brutal theives guild operates in this area of the city and attacks anyone who does not have their "protection", and Hrothgar has not payed for protection. A trio of known guild members approach Hrothgar. They are empty handed but weapons are clearly visible on their person. Hrothgar does not draw his weapon and attack preemptivly nor will he assume that they are there for a friendly chat. He knows full well that they may be a threat but until they reveal their intentions, he will not act aggressivly towards them.

Two more quick notes: this is a discussion on the morality and ethicality of this personality quirk. Please do not let this devolve into flaming, I don't want this thread locked. And yes this is inspired by The Giant's webcomic on this site but this thread is not to discuss the comic or The Giant's artistic, or writing abilities. Thank you all in advance, I'm eager to see the discussion that this produces.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-18, 11:47 PM
I think a little more information is required.

How does Hrothgar treat people once he knows more about them?
Refusing to immediately murder strangers does not make you Good; declining to immediately add random passers-by does not make you Evil. How Hrothgar acts once he's able to make an informed judgment of an individual is a big indicator of who he really is on the Good-Evil spectrum.

Does Hrothgar always insist that the rest of the party follow his refusal to act?
If Hrothgar lets others follow their own course, leaving their souls in their own keeping, then he's probably more on the neutral or chaotic side of the street. But if Hrothgar keeps making a stink when another adventurer runs down that Mind Flayer and stabs it until the sweet, sweet XP comes out, then he's probably veering more on the lawful side.

I imagine that one of the problems you'll run into while playing Hrothgar is that, if he adventures long enough, his refusal to admit that Evil creatures do Evil things will start to strain suspension of disbelief. Or, folks will just get tired of having to justify -- again! -- their decision to kill the Devil-Trolls of Cannibal Island.

I say this not as a criticism, but as a point for consideration if this is intended to be a long-term character.

For example, maybe you're playing in a social-heavy metropolis game, where adventurers can't just attack anything in sight. I imagine he'd be a fascinating character under those circumstances.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-19, 12:15 AM
I think a little more information is required.

Ok, fair enough.


How does Hrothgar treat people once he knows more about them?

Depending on how they act really. Say guild members make it clear they intend to harm him, he will defend himself. He wouldn't kill them unless they try to do the same. If he meets the same guild members again, he'll more likely to try to intimidate them down but still won't open with direct hostility (unless the guild members do so in turn). If some one makes it clear that they don't really care about Hrothgar, he will more or less ignore them. I'm trying to aim towards LN so anyone who displays lawful tendencies he would be friendlier to while those who display chaotic tendencies he will treat them a bit coldly but again not out rightly hostile.


Does Hrothgar always insist that the rest of the party follow his refusal to act?

Yes and no. Will he suggest and ask the party to do so? Yes. If (and when) they enevitably ignor him, he will follow along and engage in a fight the party starts, but he won't be the one who throw the first punch so to speak.
Will he suggest it at every turn? Yes. But he knows not everybody sees it that way and doesn't force others to think that way. He will only get adamant about it when he believes it to be the better option (ie. finishing a fight with words than with swords if possible, saving resources and time and all that). At best, he will ask to simply try first.

I'd like to note that he doesn't believe evil creatures do not do evil things. He simply doesn't assume something is evil because society (I.E. the source book) says its evil. If he sees that an individual is evil, and a threat to himself or something of his interest, he will act accordingly. Whether thats with violence, reporting to a higher authority or what have you really depends on the situation.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-19, 01:03 AM
A good trait taken to such extreme that it becomes willful ignorance in some cases and can hurt whoever exhibits it. But still good.

Now, whether the character is good or neutral is a different case entirely, but we're just talking about this one trait so I don't see how is that relevant.

Lemmy
2012-03-19, 04:41 PM
Just from the info in this thread, I'd say NG. maybe TN.

However, I don't know how Hrothgar would react to some behaviors. You say he friendlier to lawful people, but depending on how much (or how little) it affects his attitude, IMO, it doesn't necessarily mean much about his law/chaos alignment, but it could make him LG or LN.

Also, what does he think about creatures who are evil incarnate? What would he do when faced with a Demon?

Would he give a succubus a chance to parlay even though that'd probably mean she would trick him into doing something evil? What if he does give her the chance to parlay and ends up being manipulated and suffering for it. Then months later, he meets a different succubus altogether, would he give her the same chance and risk the consequences again?

Depending on how extremely he follow the "A man should not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character." filosophy, I'd say that is a NG character with a low to average Wisdom score.

Edit: Now that I think about it, a character like that with a high Wisdom modifier would not judge others just for their appearance, but he would predict their most likely intentions and behavior. And if tricked a few times (by the succubus of my example) it would generate a great RP opportunity, as he struggles between his convictions and lessons learned from past experiences.

Heh... I'd love to be in your group just to see how that turns out... Maybe with a CN cynical rogue just for the discussions we could have! :smallsmile:

Sutremaine
2012-03-19, 05:48 PM
I imagine that one of the problems you'll run into while playing Hrothgar is that, if he adventures long enough, his refusal to admit that Evil creatures do Evil things will start to strain suspension of disbelief.
I'd say that depends on the universe he's in. If it's one where Evil-aligned creatures can do Good things and Good-aligned creatures can do Evil things (and the DM plays it this way), then disbelief can remain suspended.

If he's in a universe where Evil-aligned creatures can never do Good things and Good-aligned creatures can never do Evil things (and the DM plays it this way), then a smite-on-sight attitude becomes the most sensible option.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-19, 06:27 PM
Just from the info in this thread, I'd say NG. maybe TN.

However, I don't know how Hrothgar would react to some behaviors. You say he friendlier to lawful people, but depending on how much (or how little) it affects his attitude, IMO, it doesn't necessarily mean much about his law/chaos alignment, but it could make him LG or LN.

Thank you for your imput.


Also, what does he think about creatures who are evil incarnate? What would he do when faced with a Demon?

For some reason I hadn't thought about that. I would say he keeps the standard "smite first, ask questions later" mentality of most adventurer's when it comes to beings of pure-[opposing alignment]. But at the same time, he will be willing to stop if given a good reason (Faustian deals are so fun to RP).


Would he give a succubus a chance to parlay even though that'd probably mean she would trick him into doing something evil? What if he does give her the chance to parlay and ends up being manipulated and suffering for it. Then months later, he meets a different succubus altogether, would he give her the same chance and risk the consequences again?

In an instance of "Encounters stereotypical evil-creature, trusts it, gets bitten in the butt, meets a different one later" scenario, it would definatly be a RP moment of "do I hold to my morals or do I fall into the stereotypes?" Basically his reactions to such a situation is not set in stone and it really depends on what has happened to him. He will evolve as a character, and an event like this would contribute to the evolution.


Depending on how extremely he follow the "A man should not be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character." filosophy, I'd say that is a NG character with a low to average Wisdom score.

Edit: Now that I think about it, a character like that with a high Wisdom modifier would not judge others just for their appearance, but he would predict their most likely intentions and behavior. And if tricked a few times (by the succubus of my example) it would generate a great RP opportunity, as he struggles between his convictions and lessons learned from past experiences.

Heh... I'd love to be in your group just to see how that turns out... Maybe with a CN cynical rogue just for the discussions we could have! :smallsmile:

Stats aren't rolled yet but Wisdom is his 3rd priority (after Con and Cha) so he should have a moderate Wisdom (plus Mul's get a bonus to Wis). And yes, that kind of (internal) conflict is what I'm hoping to experience for this character, like I said above. And there is a CN (I think) Rogue but he's more of the "silent loner that rarely talks" than a cynical one.


I'd say that depends on the universe he's in. If it's one where Evil-aligned creatures can do Good things and Good-aligned creatures can do Evil things (and the DM plays it this way), then disbelief can remain suspended.

If he's in a universe where Evil-aligned creatures can never do Good things and Good-aligned creatures can never do Evil things (and the DM plays it this way), then a smite-on-sight attitude becomes the most sensible option.

The DM does not do expansive world building, and honestly we (the Players) do not know a whole lot about the campaign setting or the campaign itself. She is very secretive about that. She does definatly have a plot for us but generates the world as we go and takes stuff from our backstories to help create the world.

MonkeyBusiness
2012-03-19, 07:07 PM
I had a character with a similar philosophy. It can be fun to role play than kind of dilemma as long as the character's alignment (whatever that turns out to be) is compatible with the alignments of the others in the group, and all are played as such.

Based on your original post and responses to replies on this thread, I'd say your character is closest to True Neutral if the defining quality is mindfullness that people are themselves, not our perceptions.

But if the motivation for acting out this philosophy is based on compassion for others (due to the character's own experience) then an alignment on the "good spectrum"makes sense. I could envision this character being Lawful Good if the adherence to the rule and the philosophy behind it is as important as not judging others; if the character adheres to this rule primarily as a way of liberating himself from past judgements of others and rising above those prejudices, then I would consider chaotic good.

If the character's motivation is balanced between a neutral awareness of others and the urge of compassion, then I'd consider Neutral Good as the alignment.

Have you settled on a class?


.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-19, 07:23 PM
I had a character with a similar philosophy. It can be fun to role play than kind of dilemma as long as the character's alignment (whatever that turns out to be) is compatible with the alignments of the others in the group, and all are played as such.

Based on your original post and responses to replies on this thread, I'd say your character is closest to True Neutral if the defining quality is mindfullness that people are themselves, not our perceptions.

But if the motivation for acting out this philosophy is based on compassion for others (due to the character's own experience) then an alignment on the "good spectrum"makes sense. I could envision this character being Lawful Good if the adherence to the rule and the philosophy behind it is as important as not judging others; if the character adheres to this rule primarily as a way of liberating himself from past judgements of others and rising above those prejudices, then I would consider chaotic good.

If the character's motivation is balanced between a neutral awareness of others and the urge of compassion, then I'd consider Neutral Good as the alignment.

Have you settled on a class?


.

His motivation for this philosophy is to be the opposite of those who teased him as a child. He resovled to not fall into the same illogical philosphy (illogical to him) as his tormentors. I'm not sure where to put that. Its not neccesarily fueled by compassion to others but more fueled by the desire to not become what he hates (his tormentors). I peg that motivation as a neutral trait but the philosphy I wasn't sure of and thus why I made this thread.

He will be a Battlemind (this is 4e). Sturdy in mind and body. Its a psionic class if that makes any difference.

MonkeyBusiness
2012-03-19, 09:19 PM
That's interesting. I'm not familiar with the class, but the body/mind balance and the emphasis on logic narrow it down quite a bit. I'd say either True Neutral or Lawful Neutral.

I get the impression Lawful Neutral might make more sense for this character, particularly if part of the role of a Battlemind is to create strategy and to plan. This could also make sense if the discipline of a Battlemind is in any way spiritual.

True Neutral seems like a good option as well, but the idea of *opposition* to a way of thinking (or refusing to think, really) strikes me as a more lawful trait.

I'm interested in other takes on this.

.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-19, 09:37 PM
Like I said, I was aiming for LN. Battleminds are not startegicly oriented by default but Hrothgar is. He isn't particularly Intelligent (aiming for Int 10-13 when stats are rolled), but he has decent wisdom (aiming for 13-16) and has impressive charisma (aiming for 16-18). So he has leadership potential and can bring up logical plans. Whether the party listens is a different story of course.

He also worships Moradin, because he's the chief Dwarven diety. He isn't pious (When I say pious, I mean Cleric level worship), but he does pray to him daily and when in dire need.

EDIT: And theres a bit of fluff where most battleminds aren't religious because they have some sort of superiority complex over the gods. But I threw that out as it didn't work for this character.

Anxe
2012-03-19, 09:50 PM
Right now it seems fairly TN to me. Just wait and see how it plays out. My players started off as N, but have since moved to G.

MonkeyBusiness
2012-03-19, 10:01 PM
Mesi, you've created quite an interesting character in Hrothgar. I do think he sounds like a LN character, so if that's what you are comfortable with, and it seems to suit him, you should go with that. But whatever you decide I hope to hear more about his escapades somewhere on this forum. He sounds pretty cool.

Darkomn
2012-03-20, 12:23 AM
I would say it's a lot more important what he does once he judges people then whether he prejudges them.

Does he give everybody one chance and then make up his mind about them?


If they do turn out to be evil does he immediately fight them, run, try to join them on team evil?


Does he give people second chances?


Really the same questions as you ask about every character, just he doesn't make up his mind based on race.

Also how does he feel about voluntary group affiliation? Those gang members probably join voluntarily (not always the case but most of the time) does he allow that to influence his opinion? What about members of Always Evil(tm) races, does he expect them to live apart from and not participate in their evil society?

Coidzor
2012-03-20, 12:37 AM
Example 1: Hrothgar is traveling the Underdark alone (ignore that this is a terrible idea). He spots a Mind Flayer. The Mind Flayer spots Hrothgar as well and immidiatly flees. Niether of them had made any threatening actions. The typical character would give chase because Mind Flayer's are typically Evil and they typically work in groups so a single Mind Flayer fleeing means a swarm of them will be back, generally. Hrothgar had no indication (other than percieved stereotypes) that the Mind Flayer was Evil or had any intent to harm him. Even if he could tell he was Evil (Detect Evil for some reason) he still wouldn't persue as being Evil is not a justification for Hrothgar.

Seeing a very probable hostile (anything that is not you or your immediate allies that you know for a fact haven't been subverted or replaced by illusions) go running for reinforcements in an environment where it is by nature kill or be killed outside of a very, very limited set of places where there's some semblance of law but even that law is the kind in which life is very, very cheap, isn't justification enough to either incapacitate, kill, or otherwise neutralize the threat such as by vacating the premises so that a posse of them couldn't find him or establishing actual contact? :smallconfused:

I mean, sure, it's technically possible he could make it into the Underdark completely on his own and never find out anything about conditions down there, but it's still rather far-fetched. And even in such a far-fetched situation, I'd expect him to at least want to try to get the lay of the land.

Saph
2012-03-20, 05:33 AM
His motivation for this philosophy is to be the opposite of those who teased him as a child. He resovled to not fall into the same illogical philosphy (illogical to him) as his tormentors. I'm not sure where to put that. Its not neccesarily fueled by compassion to others but more fueled by the desire to not become what he hates (his tormentors).

I'd peg it as very definitely Neutral on the Good/Evil axis, and probably Lawful. LN would be my guess.

The fact that it's motivated by not being illogical (as opposed to trying to be compassionate) suggests Law rather than Good to me - the character's trying to impose a universal one-size fits all rule on all his social interactions. That's a very Lawful attitude. Chaotic types would be more pragmatic and more willing to bend the rules ("I don't care if only 99% of Mind Flayers are evil, I'm not waiting 'til it wakes up!")

As a side note, this is a very anti-survival trait for an adventurer, so you'll probably have some highly entertaining interactions with your party members. :smallbiggrin:

Serpentine
2012-03-20, 07:15 AM
The trait, as described in the first post, taken alone and in isolation, I'd probably list as probably True Neutral, possibly leaning towards Chaoticish Goodish (because I would consider an emphasis on the individual's personality, rather than taking the individual as one of a characterised group, to be in line with Chaos, and assuming benevolent intent until proven otherwise to be in line with Good).
Now, even if it were decided that this trait is Chaotic Good, that doesn't mean the character has to be, nor that this might change if put into a specific context. I must admit that the context you've given doesn't really cry out as Lawful to me, but that doesn't mean he's not.

hamishspence
2012-03-20, 07:48 AM
The trait, as described in the first post, taken alone and in isolation, I'd probably list as probably True Neutral, possibly leaning towards Chaoticish Goodish (because I would consider an emphasis on the individual's personality, rather than taking the individual as one of a characterised group, to be in line with Chaos, and assuming benevolent intent until proven otherwise to be in line with Good).

Savage Species calls it "chaotic-accepting":


With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)
In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

One of LE's traditional traits is "judging by race/species/etc rather than by actions"- and this guy is the opposite.

However, this character seems to have primarily the "don't pre-judge" aspect of it. Plenty of room for them to be Lawful, or nongood, and yet still hold it.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-20, 08:40 AM
:smallbiggrin:Wow, thanks for all the responses. I'll only quote a few key things to avoid unneccesarily long post.


I would say it's a lot more important what he does once he judges people then whether he prejudges them.

Does he give everybody one chance and then make up his mind about them?


If they do turn out to be evil does he immediately fight them, run, try to join them on team evil?


Does he give people second chances?


Really the same questions as you ask about every character, just he doesn't make up his mind based on race.

Also how does he feel about voluntary group affiliation? Those gang members probably join voluntarily (not always the case but most of the time) does he allow that to influence his opinion? What about members of Always Evil(tm) races, does he expect them to live apart from and not participate in their evil society?

In order: not so much "first thing they do, thats what I judge" he continues to form his opinion during the entire interaction until something definitive happens (like the creature charging in bloodlust). Whether its evil or good doesn't matter so much as how much of a threat, or boon the creature is to Hrothgar. Is it niether? Then he probably ignores the creature. Second chances aren't unheard of but difficult if the creature in question was hostile to begin with.


As a side note, this is a very anti-survival trait for an adventurer, so you'll probably have some highly entertaining interactions with your party members. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you for your input, it is much apprcieated. And yes I figured as much. I'm planning on playing it mildly and not force (or try to force) the party to ahere to my philosophy. I've talked to a few of the players and they, as players, do not have a problem with it. Whether their characters are ok with it is still to be determined.


Now, even if it were decided that this trait is Chaotic Good, that doesn't mean the character has to be, nor that this might change if put into a specific context. I must admit that the context you've given doesn't really cry out as Lawful to me, but that doesn't mean he's not.

Thank you for your input. And I'm glad you pointed this out. This is a single character trait as part of a whole, dynamic character. I was asking how the playground feels about this one trait and no matter what we determine, it will not be the sole decider in his final alignment.


Savage Species calls it "chaotic-accepties with WotC.

Wow, never heard of that. I don't particularly agree that its an chaotic-default trait but no one always agrees with WotC. :smallbiggrin:

@Coidzor: So your issue is with the unrealistic example?

Calinar
2012-03-20, 01:46 PM
Mostly from what you describe I would put him at TN, perhaps with some lawful tendencies. For the most part I'd say that his lawful tendencies are balanced out by the chaotic ones enough to keep him TN, but leaning slightly towards lawful.

hamishspence
2012-03-20, 02:02 PM
Wow, never heard of that. I don't particularly agree that its an chaotic-default trait but no one always agrees with WotC. :smallbiggrin:

It's more "world model" than "character alignment"-

there were four- Chaotic/Accepting, Chaotic/Rejecting (the traditional "monsters are killed on sight" one) Lawful/Accepting (the monsters are in charge) and Lawful/Rejecting (the monsters are part of society, but an underclass, enslaved, exploited, and so on).

While bigotry tends to be associated with LE, it's compatible with any alignment- LE is just the one it fits most neatly.

Telonius
2012-03-20, 02:32 PM
In isolation, I'd say that the trait falls under "Intelligent and/or Wise" on the good-evil-law-chaos axis. It doesn't take a Neutral or a Good person to hold your fire until you determine whether somebody is hostile. Evil people need allies too, and they won't get them if they keep murdering potential friends. Example: Lex Luthor was an extremely progressive supervillain, welcoming a multiracial selection of associates - even going so far as to include nonhumans like Bizarro, Grodd, Solomon Grundy, and Brainiac - in the Legion of Doom.

Alignment, at least to me, is determined by how far out of the way your character goes to harm or help people; or to obey the law or break tradition. Absent other information, it doesn't sound like he goes too far out of his way to help or hurt people, so Neutral there. Same way with Law/Chaos, though I could see pegging him as Lawful if he's totally devoted to upholding his rule no matter what.

Coidzor
2012-03-20, 03:25 PM
@Coidzor: So your issue is with the unrealistic example?

Well, yeah. :smalltongue: It doesn't demonstrate his ethics so much that he's an incompetent, or grossly ignorant to the point of incompetence, adventurer if he isn't on guard when he's in hostile territory surrounded by enemies and creatures that might as well be enemies.

If that's what you meant to portray, then, bravo. But you're likely going to lose him very early, especially in a place like Dark Sun where even parts of the "civilized" areas are kill or be killed if you're not part of someone's kith and kin or otherwise associated with them.

hamishspence
2012-03-20, 03:32 PM
A trio of known guild members approach Hrothgar. They are empty handed but weapons are clearly visible on their person. Hrothgar does not draw his weapon and attack preemptivly nor will he assume that they are there for a friendly chat. He knows full well that they may be a threat but until they reveal their intentions, he will not act aggressivly towards them.

I figure that the Mind Flayer example is just another version of this- the character might be always on guard- and aware that others may be a threat- but they won't attack others (monster or "civilised race") until hostile intentions become clear.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-20, 07:10 PM
Well, yeah. :smalltongue: It doesn't demonstrate his ethics so much that he's an incompetent, or grossly ignorant to the point of incompetence, adventurer if he isn't on guard when he's in hostile territory surrounded by enemies and creatures that might as well be enemies.

If that's what you meant to portray, then, bravo. But you're likely going to lose him very early, especially in a place like Dark Sun where even parts of the "civilized" areas are kill or be killed if you're not part of someone's kith and kin or otherwise associated with them.


I figure that the Mind Flayer example is just another version of this- the character might be always on guard- and aware that others may be a threat- but they won't attack others (monster or "civilised race") until hostile intentions become clear.

What Hamishspence said. He's more reactive to new individuals than proactive. And this isn't a Dark Sun campaign, though I understand why you'd think that. It's a psuedo-Faerun campaign.

@Calinar and Telonious: Thank you both for your input.

Coidzor
2012-03-20, 07:31 PM
What Hamishspence said. He's more reactive to new individuals than proactive.

In your, admittedly very limited and incomplete, examples he is actually choosing not to react. In the first case he chooses to do nothing, not even try to hail the mindflayer or declare peaceable intentions and in the second he chooses not to double check his awareness of the surroundings to make sure he's not having someone sneak up behind him or other preparations when he knows that he's either going to be shaken down or attacked.

Darkomn
2012-03-20, 10:17 PM
Whether its evil or good doesn't matter so much as how much of a threat, or boon the creature is to Hrothgar. Is it niether? Then he probably ignores the creature. Second chances aren't unheard of but difficult if the creature in question was hostile to begin with.

I think this is the most important part, what he does after he has got a chance to know some one at least a little. Not being a racist can really fit with any alignment, even evils ones, although putting yourself in danger to give some one a chance is probably good.

huttj509
2012-03-20, 11:59 PM
I think this is the most important part, what he does after he has got a chance to know some one at least a little. Not being a racist can really fit with any alignment, even evils ones, although putting yourself in danger to give some one a chance is probably good.

I was about to say something similar. The trait itself could apply to both:

Helping a wounded Orc on the side of the road, even when there's known to be Orc raiders in the area (someone else might assume the Orc was a raider wounded in an attack).

Killing a Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, Succubus, Ogre, and Otyugh in a village inn because he felt like it. Not based on their race, just that they were vulnerable targets.

MesiDoomstalker
2012-03-21, 12:25 AM
Killing a Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, Succubus, Ogre, and Otyugh in a village inn because he felt like it. Not based on their race, just that they were vulnerable targets.

Why would an Otyugh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/otyugh.htm) be in an inn? Better question, what inn keeper would allow an Otyugh into his inn?

Coidzor
2012-03-21, 12:28 AM
outhouse waste disposal?

Krenn
2012-03-21, 11:13 PM
Yes and no. Will he suggest and ask the party to do so? Yes. If (and when) they enevitably ignor him, he will follow along and engage in a fight the party starts, but he won't be the one who throw the first punch so to speak.
Will he suggest it at every turn? Yes. But he knows not everybody sees it that way and doesn't force others to think that way. He will only get adamant about it when he believes it to be the better option (ie. finishing a fight with words than with swords if possible, saving resources and time and all that). At best, he will ask to simply try first.

I'd like to note that he doesn't believe evil creatures do not do evil things. He simply doesn't assume something is evil because society (I.E. the source book) says its evil. If he sees that an individual is evil, and a threat to himself or something of his interest, he will act accordingly. Whether thats with violence, reporting to a higher authority or what have you really depends on the situation.

In hackmaster terms, it would depend on the GM, but he'd probably be somewhere between CG, CN, and TN. Hackmaster tends to define 'Chaos' as being 'Respector of personal freedoms, and opposed to enforced social order by government fiat'. Your characters refusal to believe that all monsters are evil, and insistence that everyone be allowed to demonstrate their morality before being judged, are pretty consistent with a chaotic viewpoint.

Whether you're good or neutral would depend on what you're willing to do once you determine that an enemy is, in fact, evil. You could balance out the remaining questions with a selection of quirks and flaws, as well as choosing to follow a particular religion.