what alignment would you say this is.

[morkendi]

I am playing a gnome diviner/ shadow mage. Everything he gets, he invest in spells. A good amount are evil, but all he cares about is power. In regards to community, most of what he sees, he would consider week. Power is for those that find it, notice i didn't say take it. He believe true power comes from work. He will not waste his time ruling or killing the weak. He follows the law, but will use it to his advantage if able. Breaking the law would be more of a inconvenience that interrupted his studies than a worry. In regards to the party, he will play his part to the best of his abilities. He realises he needs them as much as they need him. He will help them however he can because the better they are, the more he will be able to get. He does not want to adventure with evil people because he sees the benefits of what he has going. People who will watch his back instead of stab it is a good thing. He has risked his life to save the party several times.

I ask this all because another character has gone to exalted. He sees me as evil. I told him I may not be as goodly as you, but what have you ever seen me do to make you believe this? I am willing to help you with your goals to serve your god as long as my needs are met along the way as well.

[LTwerewolf]

Sounds chaotic neutral the most to me. Out for himself, a free spirit that'll obey a law if it suits him, not if it doesn't.

[morkendi]

Probably doesn't help i shadow welled the pally in our party. He was down and about to die.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I'm getting a vibe somewhere between True Neutral and Neutral Evil. The willingness wield the law to his benefit slightly suggests Lawful, but the reasoning implies that his adherence to the law is largely self-serving and out of convenience rather than conviction. The lack of any apparent firm convictions to any personal codes or even to the local law, but at the same time no apparent dedication to freedoms is also somewhat suggestive of Neutral.

The thirst for power implies Evil without necessarily saying so. The condescension towards others for being weaker than himself doesn't help much either in that regard. The description of his relations to his party imply a detachment, as though they are more useful for what they can help him achieve than for any other intrinsic value. Yet he has risked himself to save them, so perhaps he is not thoroughly Evil...
I might say True Neutral, with something of an obsession with power. The purpose that power is intended to be put to could rapidly shift that balance. However, if it is a matter of power for the sake of power, I think I would stick to True Neutral.

At the same time, I could see it as Neutral Evil. Helping others so they can return the favor later does not scream of altruism by any means. Just because he prefers the company of non-Evil people doesn't mean he isn't Evil. It would seem he has realized that people with moral fiber are less liable to kill him if he becomes inconvenient. Coming to that realization and acting on it doesn't make one a better person, it makes him interested in his own self-preservation.

Forced to choose, I would say True Neutral. But I'd be sure to stay valuable to that gnome for as long as I am in his company.

[pyromanser244]

you're ultimately in it for yourself, that's neutral to evil.
you do what you like but aren't really opposed to the idea of law, that's the neutral end of chaos.

you're definitely in the chaotic evil end of things which is probably what he's picking up on. that being said I'd peg you at true neutral more than evil or chaotic. you simply don't seem to take any real moral or ethical stand that'd indicate extreme views.

[demigodus]

Chaotic or Neutral, and Evil or Neutral.

Where you are placed between the four possibilities is dependent on personal definitions of the two axes (if you try to use the "official" definition, between all the splats, you will quickly run into contradictions, so you have to rely on personal/DM definitions here). Heck, if you define alignment by actions rather than intent, you might even ping as Lawful.

Personally I would put you as Lawful Neutral in terms of actions, Neutral Evil in terms of intentions. The shallow, almost-Neutral end of evil. Where the line is gray enough, and since the player gets to dictate their intentions, that you would get to choose whether it was really NE or True Neutral.

[morkendi]

I am starting to like this character more than any other i have played. His thirst for power is just that, a thirst. He wants to gain everything he can. He doesn't see a spell as good or evil, it is a tool driven by the being that uses it. Would he protect a child? Yes he would. Would he protect a grown man? Not without a good reason.

If he walked by a group of beggars, he would not give a copper to them, but he would come back inviso to put a few coins in the pockets of women and children. He is practical, he knows that men would take from them if they knew they had it. Nothing will change it. And if he did try to do something about it, it would happen again when he moved on.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Seems to me he's hovering right on the line between true neutral and neutral evil.

Not that it matters. Good characters, even paladins* and the exalted, can associate with whom ever they choose. They just can't condone or commit evil actions. As long as your gnome is discreet, there's no need for a conflict unless the other player pushes the issue. If he does push the issue, and the rest of the group is okay with your character, he's the one being a dill-hole and needs to change his character.


*Note that the Associates section of the paladin class description is seperate from the CoC. Nowhere in either the CoC or the ex-paladins section does it make mention of associating with evil characters. The thing about not associating with evil creatures is RP advice and can be completely ignored by RAW.

[Deophaun]

Don't see anything remotely evil about him. Neutral with lawful tendencies.

Yes, he wants power. But his way of going about it sounds more like enlightened self interest than any kind of nefarious dealing. If he views ruling the weak beneath him, I'm not even sure what trouble he will cause. He sounds a bit Doctor Manhattan-ish. He'll gain what power he can and then leave everyone alone because they're no longer worth his time.

[hamishspence]

The fact that "a good amount" of his spells are evil is a little tricky- but still compatible with Neutral up to a point.

[gr8artist]

I would say neutral, but my viewpoint is a little skewed.
I'm against creatures from the material planes having non-neutral alignments unless they really earned it. Start an orphanage... or burn one. Then I'll say you're abnormal enough to have an alignment.
Alignment doesn't determine how you play. You determine how you play and put whatever alignment label you think fits best there. Your alignment, mechanically speaking, is to determine how you react to spells and supernatural effects.
Does the paladin do extra damage when he hits you?
Do protection spells help against you?
Can the antipaladin over there detect you?
I would say that the vast majority of people living in the material plane are neutral. They lean one way or the other, but for the purposes of being aligned enough to react to magic... I don't think so.
Hitler gets his butt whooped by a paladin. Random nazi soldier guy not-so-much.
Mother Teresa gets her butt whooped by an antipaladin. Random preacher probably not.

Just my two cents. Disregarding all that, I'd say you're traditionally True Neutral or Lawful Neutral.

[Seharvepernfan]

Neutral.

Technically, casting evil spells is an evil act, but other than that, he sounds almost exactly neutral.

[mistformsquirrl]

Here's how I see it:

I feel like most Neutral people still have some measure of concern for others and society, if only because that's how sentient beings* are generally wired and they do recognize that these things are necessary for them to continue to live their lives. They may not be willing to go particularly far out of their way to help someone (or at all), but a Neutral character will, upon hearing of something horrible, at least think or say something to the effect of "Oh, that's a shame."

Likewise, using Evil spells is considered an Evil act. That means every time you cast one, you're doing something Evil. You can offset that Evil with good intentions, and come out somewhere grey; but if you cast evil spells continuously with entirely self-interested intentions, you're probably leaning toward the deep end of the alignment pool simply by deeds. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree that spells - at least most spells that have it - should have the [Evil] tag, I'm just going by the rules as they are.)

On top of this, being Evil doesn't mean you have to be a cackling villain who wants to lord it over everyone and spends all their time kicking puppies. Evil can be petty, banal, and entirely self-interested. In fact I'd argue that's how most evil characters ought to be; just being so self absorbed as to not consider anyone else beyond their own desires and needs. It means you'll happily use people to your own ends** without any consideration for them; which is the vibe I'm getting from your description.

Essentially, if it weren't for the Evil spell usage, I'd probably consider the character an unpleasant variety of Neutral; but combined with the Evil spell usage, you seem to be more along the lines of a less-troublesome Neutral Evil.

Ultimately though it's up the the DM to really make the call though; that's just how I'd personally rule it if I were DMing.

All that said - I don't really like the alignment system as-is, because there are a lot of subtle things that can mitigate evil to neutral, or even neutral-sounding behavior to good; it just depends on context.

----

*Well, humans at least; and from the description of Gnomes in the PHB, they seem to be even more wired for it than humans; though of course there's no accounting for disorders and just being an unpleasant person.

**I want to add - this doesn't mean "Make someone do something for you at daggerpoint" nor does it mean "After they've been useful to you, you kill them" - being Evil doesn't mean being a supervillain. It's more like getting someone to do a favor for you through some sort of manipulation, and then not caring whether they get hurt (physically or emotionally) in the process.

Neutrals, while capable of doing similar things, are probably going to at least feel a little regret or feel like they had a decent reason for doing so (even if that reason is actually not particularly good) - while an Evil character is going to do it without a second thought.

[Twilightwyrm]

Lawful Neutral/Evil. Allow me to explain:
Lawful: You say that he invests everything eh gets in magic, and has a very consistent, studios work ethic with regards to his work. He believes in his work as his highest calling, and goes about accomplishing this in a methodical and structured manner. This indicates lawful. Further, lawful evil characters are describes as working within the law specifically because it is advantageous for them, and his tendency towards maintaining the status quo (not adventuring with evil characters, because he had a good thing going here) also indicates lawful. His somewhat flippant attitude towards the law might suggest chaos, but all other signs point elsewhere, so while his lawfulness won't impress Wee Jas, he is still lawful.
Neutral/Evil: This is a tough call, and it would be ideal if I had more information regarding him to analyze when making this call, but as things stand, this is about where he is. On the one hand, he is willing to risk his life to save his companions, even if it is for a pragmatic purpose, and the fact that he recognizes the importance of others in this endeavor helps slightly (Empathy tends towards Good). On the other hand: he sees almost everyone else around him as simply weak, and thus unworthy of his time, he feels power only belongs to those who are able to grasp it (crass disregard for others, and Machiavellianism tends towards evil) . Further, he seems to operate on the notion that the ends justify the means, which is a further putting him on a slippery slope towards evil. Mind you, both these things only put him on the slippery slope, (keeping in mind that the moment he meaningfully acts upon them, he will likely be justifiably evil). So in this case, these good and evil slopes he balances upon generally make him neutral. I would personally say you could be either lawful neutral or lawful evil, and it would be quite justified either way. I suppose the main difference would be the extant to which you act on the aforementioned "slopes".

Disclaimer: The Neutral/Evil selection may suffer from a bit of YMMV. While most of what I said may be more or less consistent with the D&D alignment parameters, groups with a less...critical, shall we say, view towards a more "objectivist" or "Nietzschian" characters may need to adjust accordingly.

[Andreaz]

I am playing a gnome diviner/ shadow mage. Everything he gets, he invest in spells. A good amount are evil, but all he cares about is power. In regards to community, most of what he sees, he would consider week. Power is for those that find it, notice i didn't say take it. He believe true power comes from work. He will not waste his time ruling or killing the weak. He follows the law, but will use it to his advantage if able. Breaking the law would be more of a inconvenience that interrupted his studies than a worry. In regards to the party, he will play his part to the best of his abilities. He realises he needs them as much as they need him. He will help them however he can because the better they are, the more he will be able to get. He does not want to adventure with evil people because he sees the benefits of what he has going. People who will watch his back instead of stab it is a good thing. He has risked his life to save the party several times.

I ask this all because another character has gone to exalted. He sees me as evil. I told him I may not be as goodly as you, but what have you ever seen me do to make you believe this? I am willing to help you with your goals to serve your god as long as my needs are met along the way as well.Neutral² or any evil will fit.

And please, in the name of all that is holy...
"He follows the law, but will use it to his advantage if able." is a dangerous statement. If you want to tell how he veers on the lawful/chaotic axis, use something else. Try "orderly". Try "methodical".

[hamishspence]

I would say neutral, but my viewpoint is a little skewed.
I'm against creatures from the material planes having non-neutral alignments unless they really earned it. Start an orphanage... or burn one. Then I'll say you're abnormal enough to have an alignment.
...
I would say that the vast majority of people living in the material plane are neutral. They lean one way or the other, but for the purposes of being aligned enough to react to magic... I don't think so.

The rulebooks generally don't follow this though. "Humans tend toward no alignment- not even Neutral"- PHB. DMG society (power center) alignment distribution isn't massively biased toward neutral.

Nor is Population (city) alignment- in Cityscape.

[Yora]

I would go with Lawful Neutral.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well based on what you wrote, I'd say you're clearly not Good. You use Evil magic, but don't seem that Evil otherwise.

Seeking out power isn't Evil. It really depends on how you go about it.

On the Law vs Chaos front, you don't seem to sway in either direction at all.

So my analysis indicates that you are True Neutral, with a mild inclination towards Evil.

It kinda makes sense that a Paladin might want to keep his eye on you in case you stray too far with your Evil magic, or even try to help you redeem yourself to the side of Good, but you're not so far given to Evil that he needs to shun you or, in the worst case, smite you.

[nedz]

There are people who see selfish=evil.

I think Neutral tending NE for this; though you mention some altruistic acts which are good.

So, all in all, probably Neutral.

[Slipperychicken]

I am playing a gnome diviner/ shadow mage. Everything he gets, he invest in spells. A good amount are evil, but all he cares about is power. In regards to community, most of what he sees, he would consider week. Power is for those that find it, notice i didn't say take it. He believe true power comes from work. He will not waste his time ruling or killing the weak. He follows the law, but will use it to his advantage if able. Breaking the law would be more of a inconvenience that interrupted his studies than a worry. In regards to the party, he will play his part to the best of his abilities. He realises he needs them as much as they need him. He will help them however he can because the better they are, the more he will be able to get. He does not want to adventure with evil people because he sees the benefits of what he has going. People who will watch his back instead of stab it is a good thing. He has risked his life to save the party several times.


Neutral Evil. I would say TN if it wasn't for the malignant narcissism and Evil spells, but those things push him into Evil.

[Deophaun]

OP only says he has evil spells. He didn't say that he used them (if the character did use said spells, I would like to see an actual example). I have several books by Very Bad People in my personal library. I have them to aid in my studies, which is not unlike the description he wrote. Doesn't make me evil.

So, it seems all the evil verdicts are based on facts not in evidence.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just chiming back in to point out that the concensus appears to be that you're on the line between true neutral and neutral evil.

See my previous post for a -very- important (at least IMO) point. Your alignment matters less than you think.

[hoverfrog]

Alignment is tricky. Pick one and then justify your actions to fit the alignment.

The prisoner must die
He is an evil goblin and has broken the law. The punishment is execution - LG
He is an evil goblin and freeing him would put others at risk - CG
If he were of any use I might spare him but he cannot be trusted to serve me. Kill him. - LE
I don't care about the stupid goblin. Just kill him. - NE
I want to see him squeal - CE

I stole your potion of healing and used it myself
My need was great and I will replace it as soon as possible. - CG
I've given you potions in the past and it is only fair that you give me potions. I'll pay for it. - LG
What potion? Oh that potion. It was mine anyway. You were just carrying it for me. - LE
My potion. Mine. I wanted it, so I took it. I put a vial of poison in its place so you wouldn't notice it was gone. - CE

[Ammutseba]

I'd say your character is squarely neutral evil, Morkendi. Evil, but not malicious, and not particularly active. Or particularly evil, for that matter. On a scale of 1 to 10, you're about a 2 or maaaybe a 3 on what kind of a priority you would be to a "good" person. Yeah, not really that dangerous and in fact even helpful to have around, but still pretty deep into that morality zone.

The exalted guy in your party would be out of line for trying to attack or persecute him, as long as your character's actions weren't unnecessarily harmful to other people (from a lawful neutral perspective). It wouldn't be out of character for him to keep an eye on your character or try to get your character to change his ways somehow, though.

[Novawurmson]

Without some example of how your character actually acts in play, I would say True Neutral with a serious risk of falling into Evil; it all depends on what your character actually does in his pursuit of power. If he gets to a certain point and realizes "I would do almost anything for power, but I won't do that," then he's probably TN. If he eventually has the choice between serious harm to innocents and/or people he cares about and goes for it anyway, he's probably Neutral Evil.

[kitcik]

Iwhat alignment would you say this is.

"This" is a pronoun and, as such, can represent any noun. Therefore, I would say "this" is neutral.

[Anxe]

If someone existed in the real world whose only goal was power, with no goals for that power, and sought it using evil means... That person would be evil. I don't see a strong lawful or chaotic feel in your description, so I'd put him as NE. Could be TN I suppose. Has he been helping the party do heroic and righteous things? That might shift him from NE to TN.

[ahenobarbi]

Without some example of how your character actually acts in play, I would say True Neutral with a serious risk of falling into Evil; it all depends on what your character actually does in his pursuit of power. If he gets to a certain point and realizes "I would do almost anything for power, but I won't do that," then he's probably TN. If he eventually has the choice between serious harm to innocents and/or people he cares about and goes for it anyway, he's probably Neutral Evil.


This. Your description sounds like TN ( IIRC evil enjoy hurting others in by d&d definition and your character description says nothing about this), but without knowing how it actually behaves I can't say for sure.

[Siosilvar]

Just because he aids his friends and allies doesn't mean he's not evil. Given the OP and the immediate follow-up, I'd say definitely Evil. I'm not sure where on the Law/Chaos axis you'd stand; I could see arguments for both, keeping in mind that "Lawful" is not "follows the laws".


"This" is a pronoun and, as such, can represent any noun. Therefore, I would say "this" is neutral.

How wonderfully helpful.

[Knaight]

I'd argue true neutral here, with a slight slant towards law. The character is self absorbed, and their drive to power is far from noble, but there appears to be an unwillingness to actually harm others simply to acquire power. The distinction between trying to gain power and trying to take power is important here, and it would be a shift from the former to the latter that would push this character into evil. As of now, he is merely extremely unpleasant.

[ahenobarbi]

Just because he aids his friends and allies doesn't mean he's not evil. Given the OP and the immediate follow-up, I'd say definitely Evil.

What makes you think so? Remember we're not talking about real-world evil but about D&D evil


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

I saw nothing in the description that would ping "evil" by the D&D definition of it.

[hamishspence]

D&D evil alignment, depending on the setting, can be fairly loose. Sometimes it just takes a little "hurting others" "oppressing others" etc. to qualify.

[Novawurmson]

I saw nothing in the description that would ping "evil" by the D&D definition of it.

That's why I went with "not evil...yet." However, he's said that his character only cares about power and once he gets power "[h]e will not waste his time ruling or killing the weak."


Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

It doesn't sound like he's actively killed innocents to date, but it sounds suspiciously like he has "no compassion" for "the weak" and will kill them when it "is convenient."

If the OP's character gains power and then uses that power to murder people, that's basically the definition of LE; if the character realizes his standards before he reaches that point, then I would call him LN/TN. From what he's said about giving money to the poor, it sounds like his character is softer than he lets himself believe.

[hamishspence]

The LE and NE alignment descriptions do have bits that, depending on the character's history, may fit:


Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

[Knaight]

The LE and NE alignment descriptions do have bits that, depending on the character's history, may fit:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.
Truncated.
I'd disagree with both of these. The aversion to taking power was explicitly spelled out, which means the "without regard for whom it hurts" in the lawful evil section is conspicuously absent. Added to that, tradition, loyalty, and order all appear to be irrelevant details to this character, as is playing by the rules. As for the neutral evil section, the killing for profit, sport, or convenience is rather critical, which is again in contrast to the aversion to taking power.

[Karileth]

Everybody's saying true neutral, but in my games you gotta earn that shiza. your character doesn't try to be true neutral, therefore he's not. Evil??? Eh, not demonic evil by any means, more of a villain by the sounds. Risking the life for the party doesn't make you good, even if it's a good act. Not when the underlying reason for doing so is self-preservation, to see that you could rely on the party ever more heavily in the future. I know someone's said that already on here, but it looks like someone's said just about everything by now. But no, not true neutral....evil with neutral tendencies. enough to convince someone your'e not evil I should think, but the ever zealous are exactly that. Perhaps your best alignment is old school, with a tendency. That seems right to me. Chaotic neutral to encompass all the not being one or another, with lawful and evil tendencies. That being said, I'd say watch your character and make a more involved choice from now on in how you deal with things. Chaotic neutrals for loons and people who cant make up their minds.

[ahenobarbi]

Everybody's saying true neutral, but in my games you gotta earn that shiza. your character doesn't try to be true neutral, therefore he's not. Evil???

Well question wasn't "would this character be evil in Karileth's game :smallwink: IIRC its question "Is the character evil by D&D rules".

[Karileth]

that was my way of trying not to tell a lot of people theyre wrong, but thanks

[Deophaun]

Everybody's saying true neutral, but in my games you gotta earn that shiza.
That has to be the first time I've ever heard of someone having to earn neutrality. Apparently it takes a lot of effort to be apathetic.

[Seharvepernfan]

That has to be the first time I've ever heard of someone having to earn neutrality. Apparently it takes a lot of effort to be apathetic.

Ehhh...**** it. I'll just lay in bed all choaticgood-like.

Freedom is awesome.

[nedz]

Chaotic neutrals for loons and people who cant make up their minds.

Some Fey would like to have a word with you, I mean normally they just wouldn't care, ...

[Laserlight]

Breaking the law would be more of a inconvenience that interrupted his studies than a worry.

That means he's not Lawful, IMHO.

I'd say True Neutral. Sounds like he's self-absorbed and self-interested, but that makes him a jerk, not necessarily Evil.

If there are no limits to what he'll do for power--"I hate to sacrifice all these orphans, but I have to do it to get the Great Widget"--that puts him firmly in Evil, but that doesn't appear to be the way you're playing him.

Edit after reading the bit about the chicken: Yeah, now you're evil.

[morkendi]

For one thing i have done. The thugs guild in this town was abuseing the populace. I tried to ignore it, but a kid tried to steal my coin purse. The girl was about 9 or 10. I charmed her and made her take me to her mother. Once there, i confronted the mother and told her this was a good way to get the girl killed. The mother said she has to pay the guild or they will do bad things to her and her children, but they steal from them so noone can pay the fee. I give her enough to pay her fee and hide and wait. The guild comes by and beets her and takes it. I follow them and slowly work my way into the guild house. I get to the leader and use my prescience to add to my caster level and baleful polymorph him into a chicken. I then tell this chicken that he is now going to help these people whose life he has made so hard. I summon some allip with summon undead spell and tell them kill everything in the house. I leave a note in the leaders room saying that much worse will fall on this house if they continue to bleed the city dry. I go back to the house to tell them i think things will change , by the way, i stopped at the market and got you this chicken, i'll help you cook.

The dm does these little solo things some times. The group asked me where I had been, and i said collecting spell components, i needed some feathers.

[Deophaun]

As I think the people you "helped" would be absolutely mortified to learn that you tricked them into killing and eating a person (even in chicken form), yeah, I'm going to switch you to neutral evil. It's good anti-hero stuff, though.

[Knaight]

I'm going with neutral evil here. The whole "feeding them the former person without informing them it was a former person" thing, the needlessly drawn out death of the leader, the gratuitous deaths of everybody in the house without so much as trying to see if there was any other method, and a few other things about that story push the character into evil. It looks like it could be a fun character, but evil is entirely valid at this point.

However - the information the paladin has still suggests neutral.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Seems to me he's hovering right on the line between true neutral and neutral evil.

Not that it matters. Good characters, even paladins* and the exalted, can associate with whom ever they choose. They just can't condone or commit evil actions. As long as your gnome is discreet, there's no need for a conflict unless the other player pushes the issue. If he does push the issue, and the rest of the group is okay with your character, he's the one being a dill-hole and needs to change his character.


*Note that the Associates section of the paladin class description is seperate from the CoC. Nowhere in either the CoC or the ex-paladins section does it make mention of associating with evil characters. The thing about not associating with evil creatures is RP advice and can be completely ignored by RAW.

As of feeding chicken-man to the poor family, you fell off the line. This character is decidedly neutral evil.

Still doesn't matter, though.

[Spuddles]

Wouldn't evil for a good cause make you neutral? As long as the evil balances out with the good, it should be a wash, right?

He helped the woman with her debts, removed the leader of a dangerous band of thugs, and even fed a family!

/Asmodeus' advocate


But really, by dnd rules, doing evil to evil people for the purpose of good IS a bit of a wash. See: ravages. It's poison that exalted characters can use!

If you buy into the idea that evil is always evil and irreedemable and makes you evil forever, then sure, this guy is definitely neutral evil. Maybe even chaotic evil. But dnd kinda works on a point system, and he's got points on both sides.

[hamishspence]

In Heroes of Horror, there is a limited level of "Evil deeds + good ends = Neutral" - mostly for Evil spells and powers though.

In Champions of Ruin it points out that while Good and Neutral characters can be "driven to Evil from time to time"- repeatedly doing Evil deeds is the mark of an Evil character.

And in Eberron Campaign Setting it points out that Evil can be quite mild- the oppressive landlord- the greedy lawyer.

[morkendi]

Ever since I played 2nd edition, I played CG characters. We made these characters after a group wipe in previous game in like 5 minutes. Without time to think, we didn't have time to really plan things out. I took whisper gnome and went with diviner after reading the wizard batman guide. Campaign is set in faerun, post spell pleage, so things are a little darker. I wanted to be a little more sinister with a, " yeah I'll help you , but don't ask me about my methods attitude. " He is not going to kill a town just to get something. He wouldn't even kill a good wizard just to get his spell book. When people do evil, he is going to show them something worse. Kind of the wolverine attitude, " I'm good at what i do, but what I do ain't good. "

Now this other player thinks his character wouldn't associate with mine. I guess I detect as evil to him. In character, I ask him what I've done to make him mistrust me, and all he says is your evil. I tell the guy," Ok, think what you will, but if you try to strike me down, you wont like what happens. The ball is in your court."

[TuggyNE]

Ever since I played 2nd edition, I played CG characters. We made these characters after a group wipe in previous game in like 5 minutes. Without time to think, we didn't have time to really plan things out. I took whisper gnome and went with diviner after reading the wizard batman guide. Campaign is set in faerun, post spell pleage, so things are a little darker. I wanted to be a little more sinister with a, " yeah I'll help you , but don't ask me about my methods attitude. " He is not going to kill a town just to get something. He wouldn't even kill a good wizard just to get his spell book. When people do evil, he is going to show them something worse. Kind of the wolverine attitude, " I'm good at what i do, but what I do ain't good. "

So, a classic anti-hero? See, here's the thing: some anti-heroes are Evil, they ping on a paladin's radar, the whole she-bang — even if they are, in fact, genuinely working for Good ends.

The correct response to someone saying "but you're evil!" isn't necessarily to say "no I'm not", but to explain why you're a necessary or at least lesser evil.

Of course, if you actually can justify being only TN — which it seems to me is non-trivial here — then you're on much firmer ground. However, you can't simply assume moral neutrality because you have Good-ish intentions; as hamishspence pointed out, sometimes that works, but sometimes it's not a valid justification.

[hamishspence]

BoVD cited Elric as an example of a Evil antihero-

"evil- but mostly because of the culture he comes from. Motivated by compassion and love- but also by rage and hatred. Does good deeds- but uses evil methods".

So- there's room for "Evil-aligned do-gooders".

[Rejakor]

Asocial, or antisocial, True Neutral.

True Neutral = in it for yourself, and will help your friends, family and allies at cost to yourself.

Your character doesn't have many friends or family he is on good terms with, even the party he helps because they can help him rather than cause he likes them.

If he did like people, though, he'd probably help them.

Evil means you won't help people even if you like them.


So yeah, True Neutral at worst, like, y'know, 99.9% of the population.


So what the Exalted player has a problem with is your asocialness, not your 'Evil' ness.

Say that to them.

[hamishspence]

Evil means you won't help people even if you like them.
Not strictly true- there's nothing in the Evil alignment description that says they're incapable of altruism. Savage Species points out that Evil characters can be kind, compassionate, self-sacrificing- toward peers and loved ones- and cruel and exploitative to those they consider "beneath them".



So yeah, True Neutral at worst, like, y'know, 99.9% of the population.

Given that according to the PHB humans "tend toward no alignment- not even Neutral", I'd say it's much lower than that.

[13ones]

I'm getting Chaotic Neutral to Neutral Evil. Doesn't seem like he works well with others, a sort of darker version of Tony Stark, you know?

[Rejakor]

'no alignment' - what

I thought everything was SOME alignment.

Anyway, let me rephrase that absolute into the probability it was based on 'it is very unlikely you'll help someone unless it is in your direct interest'.

And with that thing about the chicken, assuming that's indicative, that's indiscriminate murder and unnecessary torture, and unnecessary cannibalism. Going out of your way to do stuff like that = evil, probably Neutral Evil.

[Libertad]

I'd personally interpret it as Neutral based on the 3rd Edition definition of alignment, but the problem is that said definitions aren't well-worded.

Your character's not actively seeking to make the world a worse place, but you're not trying to make it better either.

Your character pursues power, but that it is not evil in and of itself. Power and the lust for it is capable of corrupting even the best (both in real life and D&D), meaning that a slippery slope down to Evil alignment is probable.

[Deophaun]

And with that thing about the chicken, assuming that's indicative, that's indiscriminate murder and unnecessary torture, and unnecessary cannibalism. Going out of your way to do stuff like that = evil, probably Neutral Evil.
The murder was not indiscriminate. It targeted a gang engaged in an extortion racket. The chicken wasn't torture, unless baleful polymorph itself is torture (it doesn't have the [evil] descriptor, so it either isn't torture, or torture isn't evil).

At this point, he's in Punisher territory. What violence he commits, while absolute (i.e. results in death), is constrained to a subset of "people who had it coming." In D&D terms, this is neutral at worst. There are many a Paladin that would happily smite their way through that house in the name of Good and Justice.

The crossover to evil comes from tricking innocents into carrying out his verdict on the gang leader. That trips the "without regard for whom it hurts" clause and plunges him into evil.

[Rejakor]

Unnecessary murder - he had no idea who was in the house, he just killed them all via allip - hostages, people uninvolved, gang members, whatever, he killed them all without even attempting to find out if they were in the gang/whatever, when he was in no personal danger whatsoever. thus.

Unnecessary torture - told the gang leader about le punishment he was going to receive, turned him into a chicken (Burning Hands is not an Evil spell - however, if I use it to murder orphans, that is Evil), and then kept him alive until he realized he was going to be eaten.

Again, motive is important. He did it to punish/hurt the guy. That's torture. If he'd kept the guy alive through inattention or accident, that would be different, but it was purposeful harm to someone in your power/harmless i.e. torture.


If a paladin tortures an Evil guy, that's not Good, or even Neutral - that's Evil. If he tortures an Evil guy to get information to save the world, that balances it out a bit, but it's still unlikely to be a Good act.

Just cause someone is Evil doesn't mean you get to torture them/kill them. For example, an Evil person under a geas to do no harm with no way of removing it - i.e. you can safely posit that despite their Evil they are not going to harm anyone - if you kill them, that's not a 'Good' act.

[Belril Duskwalk]

'no alignment' - what

I thought everything was SOME alignment.

Indeed, everything has an alignment. It's not that humans tend to not have alignments. Rather, it is that humans don't tend towards any particular alignment. They spread across the spectrum without any particular concentrations.

Considering the whole gang leader into a chicken, then cooking said chicken, I am now quite comfortable nudging this case over into the Neutral Evil category. Perhaps an Anti-Hero, but still Evil. The evidence your Exalted companion has might suggest you might be Evil, but as long as you contain yourself, I really see no reason he shouldn't at least tolerate your presence.

[Deophaun]

Unnecessary murder - he had no idea who was in the house, he just killed them all via allip - hostages, people uninvolved, gang members, whatever, he killed them all without even attempting to find out if they were in the gang/whatever, when he was in no personal danger whatsoever. thus.
I'll call this a draw, as we're both citing things that were not discussed by the OP.

Unnecessary torture - told the gang leader about le punishment he was going to receive, turned him into a chicken (Burning Hands is not an Evil spell - however, if I use it to murder orphans, that is Evil), and then kept him alive until he realized he was going to be eaten.
Not torture, unless your argument is that judges commit torture in courthouses every day. In which case, see "torture isn't evil."

[Metahuman1]

If he's evil, he's evil because the DM is enforcing the idea that casting some spells or having some spells cast for/on you or using magic items of those spells or made with those spells can make you evil.


If the DM is throwing this out the door, then he is Neutral and looking out for number 1 in an intelligent manner.

[Knaight]

Not torture, unless your argument is that judges commit torture in courthouses every day. In which case, see "torture isn't evil."
I must have missed the part where judges were in the habit of having people cooked and eaten.

[Sutremaine]

Low True Neutral until the post with the chicken. Then, quite a way into Neutral Evil. He disguised a human as a chicken and fed him to other humans without their consent or knowledge. That's just wrong no matter who you're doing it to. I haven't gone into the rest of the guild house episode, but that's Evil too.

And yes, I would consider the guild leader to still be human even with being in a chicken-shaped body, unless you waited long enough before delivering him that he failed the Will save to keep his memories. If any of the involved parties weren't human, substitute 'sentient civilised creature' or race name as necessary.

[hamishspence]

At this point, he's in Punisher territory. What violence he commits, while absolute (i.e. results in death), is constrained to a subset of "people who had it coming." In D&D terms, this is neutral at worst. There are many a Paladin that would happily smite their way through that house in the name of Good and Justice.

Depends on the writer. For some, violence needs to have specific justifications, like defence of self/others, even when committed against "the evil"- and it's possible to commit Evil acts even against those who "have it coming"

Do Evil acts consistantly enough- even if only to "the not innocent" and a case can be made for, eventually, an Evil alignment.

[sdream]

I think the chicken example shows much more neutrality than his "selfish but mostly law abiding" description. Not neutral as in passive or nonintense, but neutral in balanced.

He has given several examples of going out of his way to make the world a better place... Albeit through means that horrify some of you. Following those thugs into their nest to ensure the elimination of their leader and dissuasion of any replacement was risky and generous.

[Rejakor]

Actually, he would have to be doing Good things, which typically means being selfless etc to be 'balanced'.

According to the player, the character is in it for the powah and fat lootz and saving the world is only an objective because saving the world also means saving himself.

[nedz]

Is still think neutral, but also a little crazy.
Taking out the gangsters, for no real reward, at personal risk is definitely Good.
The business with the chicken, err, not so much.

In D&D murderizing EVIL is GOOD.

[hamishspence]

If its more because they want "personal gratification" than because they want to protect the innocent, slaying Evil beings becomes decidedly less good- and can cross the line all the way into Neutral or even Evil itself.

Demons slay devils- but a demon slaying a devil is not committing a Good act- because the demon's motivations generally aren't Good.

[morkendi]

My gnome will do good things that have to be done, but he doesn't want people to know about it. Just like in the story, yes he did some bad things to the guild, but they are bad people. They deserved to feel fear and pain. But he also helped the family and town, though all he cared about was the family. But he didn't tell anyone what he did. No one knows what really happened, and he wants to keep it that way. Last thing he wants is people knocking on his door saying," please help us...." He will fix what he sees needs fixing, but on his terms so no one can question or know.

[hamishspence]

From Champions of Valor: "Most valorous heroes are good, some are neutral, and a rare few are evil but recognise that some evils must be fought."

So- being evil-aligned, and "fixing what needs fixing"- aren't incompatible- but it's not exactly common.

A pattern of "disproportionate retribution" could reasonably be justified as "causing alignment change to Evil over time" - without any of the character's other habits changing.

EDIT:
I'd say at the moment that either Evil or Neutral could be valid for the character- depending on how harsh the DM feels like being.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If its more because they want "personal gratification" than because they want to protect the innocent, slaying Evil beings becomes decidedly less good- and can cross the line all the way into Neutral or even Evil itself.

Demons slay devils- but a demon slaying a devil is not committing a Good act- because the demon's motivations generally aren't Good.
Actually, every casualty in the blood-war is indeed a good act, RAW. It's just also an evil act for the reason you've stated. Gotta love those wierd corner cases. :smalltongue:

My gnome will do good things that have to be done, but he doesn't want people to know about it. Just like in the story, yes he did some bad things to the guild, but they are bad people. They deserved to feel fear and pain. But he also helped the family and town, though all he cared about was the family. But he didn't tell anyone what he did. No one knows what really happened, and he wants to keep it that way. Last thing he wants is people knocking on his door saying," please help us...." He will fix what he sees needs fixing, but on his terms so no one can question or know.

Emphasis mine

The former is a decidedly evil attitude. They deserve punishment, but pain and terror is torture. Good calls for imprisonment and/or fines, followed by attempts to reform if the evil character can be reformed or death if he can't. The latter is not evil, but it's a bit of selfishness that pulls away from good toward neutral.

[Jarveiyan]

I'm getting a kick out of this discussion.

To weigh in I'd have to say Lawful or Neutral Evil. Indiscriminate killing of anyone is evil(whether they had it coming or not). Paladins have to give quarter if asked for, so no they wouldn't just indiscriminately kill for the sake of good. And no I don't see The Punisher as being a paladin, more a Avenging Executioner.

On top of that you went out of your way for those that are week and beneath you(if it wasn't for the guild incident and having evil spells I'd say good, and good characters usually have no problem with being recognized which tells me either some of your info is all smoke and mirrors or your character is more squirrely than even those Neutrals).

I didn't always agree with divine casters having to worry about casting evil spells, but arcane casters can do it all day long without repercussions. From what I've seen on this and other boards No caster selects spells they're not going to use(so I'm curious why do you have evil spells if you protest so much the exalted labeling you as evil).

Also has this exalted character used a detect evil spell or ability yet? if not why are they accusing you of being evil?

[sdream]

If humans tend towards none of the alignments that means they are evenly distributed, thus fully one third of humanity is evil, and precisely half are more evil than good.

If your character is effective at helping acheive noble goals, reasonable and easy to get along with, you are an ideal companion for exalteds.

By their guidance you will remain allied with the forces of light and make the world a better place... isn't that better than travelling with someone who would be good anyway, and leaving a powerful "swing vote" to possibly switch sides?

[hamishspence]

If humans tend towards none of the alignments that means they are evenly distributed, thus fully one third of humanity is evil, and precisely half are more evil than good.

Or, at the very least- that this is the result you'd expect without a certain amount of interference.

True Neutral is still the "typical" alignment for humans- so it's slightly commoner than the others- but not anywhere near 99% as has been suggested earlier.

Exalted characters can't just "turn a blind eye" to evil acts- but aside from that issue- there's good reasons to stay in the company of a "dark hero"- because they can redeem them. The hero's already got some good in them- it just needs work to bring the rest to the surface.

[Rejakor]

Typical does not mean 'slightly more likely'.

It means 'this is what it usually is'.

[hamishspence]

Actually, in D&D, it can mean "this is what it often is"- where "often" means "between 40% and 50%". And that's for creatures that do have alignment tendencies. For ones that don't- it can be even lower.

The "typical" alignment for orcs is CE- but since orcs are only "Often Chaotic Evil"- that means, according to the MM section on alignment, that 40%-50% of orcs are CE.

So, how common are TN humans? don't know- but a case can be made that it's less than 40%. Indeed, it may be that, in order for humans to not have the alignment tendency "Often Neutral (any)" less than 40% are covered by the three morally Neutral alignments (CN, TN, LN).

[Mechanize]

I say neutral evil or lawful evil. Evil doesn't have to mean you go around slaying people and murdering. I play lawful evil and still fit well into a party of goodies. lawful vs chaotic doesn't have to mean you follow societies laws, it can mean you follow your own laws. A.k.a Discipline. You not wanting to kill your party because you know they are useful for advancement is definitely evil. Evil is greed and selfishness. You keep them around for your benefit, and your rise to power. If you are extremely disciplined and follow a code of conduct or use rules to your advantage you would be lawful. Neutral/evil is more of a mild discipline set, follow the rule when it suits you, ignore them when it suits you type.

Point being... many who play D&D thing that good means self sacrificing and evil means murder and steal. Look around society today and you will see loads of evil people. Many are out to serve only their needs or their family while screwing over any in their way. (example: you know you might not get that promotion, and that bob might get it, so you tell a few stories, or point out a few flaws to your boss to show that he is not the man for the promotion. Evil...) This is the average american way of life these days lol.