Richard B. Riddick

[Otep]

Yes I know that there are most likely 30+ threads on here with a similar concept however I'm more so interested in ideas vs character creation.

Most of what I've read places Riddick along the CN/NE/CE lines. sweet, i agree with the CN or NE aspects. The agreement that he is a ranger of sorts (charming the beasts in chronicles, tracking, survival in the snow area, studying his prey, sneaky & stealthy tendencies). I'd personally pin it down to a ranger/scout with the Champion of the Wild ACF and a no animal companion ACF.

And his Ulriks being either Drow Long Knives or Kukris...

However I ran across an interesting class that seems up Riddick's alley. Battle Dancer (Dragon Compendium pg 26-29)

a chaotic monk? no flurry, simple weapon proficiency (daggers for the win?), full BAB, the monk's AC progression (swapping the Wis bonus with Cha for AC)

So my question for you guys, how do you see Riddick in 3.5 Terms?

[gooddragon1]

Lots of sneak attacks and a way to get them easily against opponents while still making full attacks. He goes for certain organs or areas but I'm not sure whether he uses weapon finesse or not. Maybe he's just a high strength rogue.

6d6 sneak attack against level 1-3 necromongers even with a good con is going to seriously mess them up with even 1 attack. Lots of skill points for stealth and piloting skills... Probably has good con and str from racial bonuses or maybe he just rolled really well or both.

[Emperor Tippy]

I would do Riddick with a Factotum with lots of Font of Inspiration and a few other selected feats.

[Yogibear41]

A combination of Ranger, Barbarian (with pounce), and Sneak attack variant Fighter. He is insulted that you think he is a rogue with a mediocre BAB.

Maybe toss some warblade in as well.


He has Favored Enemy(everyone)

[gooddragon1]

A combination of Ranger, Barbarian (with pounce), and Sneak attack variant Fighter. He is insulted that you think he is a rogue with a mediocre BAB.

Maybe toss some warblade in as well.


He has Favored Enemy(everyone)

Probably favored enemy humans. That's probably all he ever runs into for the most part. Though he doesn't need a high BAB necessarily...

[Fable Wright]

Swift Hunter with Favored Enemy (Humans) gets him precision damage, fast movement, and Travel Devotion to allow him to move and full attack. The rest can be gotten through feats.

[gooddragon1]

Swift Hunter with Favored Enemy (Humans) gets him precision damage, fast movement, and Travel Devotion to allow him to move and full attack. The rest can be gotten through feats.

Yeah, I gotta say that sounds about right (twf, tracking, skill points, full bab, extra damage to humans, martial weapon proficiency, wasteland survival skills, skirmish). How's he getting full attack sneak attacks is the only thing I'm not sure about but there's probably a feat or something for that.

[Zonugal]

This is an old build I put together a while back.

The Fugitive
Male Underfolk, 4th-Level Wilderness Rogue/11th-Level Ranger (Non-Spellcasting)
Size/Type: Medium Humanoid (Human), Chaotic Neutral
Hit Dice: 4d6+3, 11d8+3 (126 hp)
Initiative: +2
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares),
Armor Class: 13 (+ armor, +2 Dex, +1 natural armor), touch 12, flat-footed 11
Base Attack/Grapple: +14/+19
Full Attack: Kukri +14/+9/+4 melee (1d6+2/15-20)
Full attack (Two-Weapon Fighting): Kukri +12/+12/+9/+9/+4/+4 melee (1d6+2/15-20)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Sneak Attack +2d6, Distracting Attack
Special Qualities: Darkvision 30ft., Light Sensitivity, Trapfinding, Wild Empathy (+12), Favored Enemy (Humans +6, Undead +2, Aberration +2), Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, +4 Dex, Con, or Wis (11 minutes; 1/day)
Resistances: Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +1,
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +11, Will +4
Abilities: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 15, Wis 12, Cha 12
Skills: Balance +6, Climb +23, Concentration +13, Escape Artist +10, Handle Animal +9, Heal +12, Hide +29 (+35 in rocky terrain), Intimidate +8, Jump +25, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +4, Knowledge (Geography) +4, Knowledge (Nature) +6, Listen +20, Move Silently +25, Sense Motive +9, Spot +18, Survival +9, Tumble +9,
Feats: Stealthy[1st], Quick Reconnoiter [3rd], Track [Rng], Steady Mountaineer[6th], Two-Weapon Fighting [Rng], Endurance[Rng], Two-Weapon Pounce[9th], Improved Two-Weapon Fighting[Rng], Improved Critical (Kukri)[12th], Greater Two-Weapon Fighting[Rng], Shadow Striker[15th],
Languages: Common, Goblin, Undercommon,
Challenge Rating: 15

I'd probably change some stuff around, but yeah...

[Drelua]

Somehow, I doubt Riddick would be at all offended by the Rogue's average BAB, considering he was based on a drow assassin, Vin Diesel's favourite D&D character. That's where the darkvision and light blindness come from.

I'd probably make him a ranger/assassin, since he had wild empathy and, in the new movie, an animal companion. Maybe come up with a homebrew Ranger ACF that gives sneak attack. You could also make him a rogue with wild cohort and describe the wild empathy as a good handle animal skill, but I don't think that fits quite as well. Getting the sneak attacks in wouldn't be that hard since he's usually catching people flat-footed. You could give him telling blow and a high threat range on his weapons. I guess the stats could be the same as a kukri's.

[Otep]

Somehow, I doubt Riddick would be at all offended by the Rogue's average BAB, considering he was based on a drow assassin, Vin Diesel's favourite D&D character. That's where the darkvision and light blindness come from.

I'd probably make him a ranger/assassin, since he had wild empathy and, in the new movie, an animal companion. Maybe come up with a homebrew Ranger ACF that gives sneak attack. You could also make him a rogue with wild cohort and describe the wild empathy as a good handle animal skill, but I don't think that fits quite as well. Getting the sneak attacks in wouldn't be that hard since he's usually catching people flat-footed. You could give him telling blow and a high threat range on his weapons. I guess the stats could be the same as a kukri's.

I actually agree. for the homebrew ideas, you could rock a human-ish character... lose the bonus feat and skill points for darkvision 60 and light blindness.... it basically equals out...

ranger/assassin also sounds very solid. full bab, TWF and sneak attack via assassin... not to mention the trade mark study your mark for a possible one shot.

[Zonugal]

I actually agree. for the homebrew ideas, you could rock a human-ish character... lose the bonus feat and skill points for darkvision 60 and light blindness.... it basically equals out...

I'd proclaim they do not.

[gooddragon1]

I'd proclaim they do not.

According to how ability scores for new races work... Physical stats are worth 2x as much as mental stats (DMG page 178).


Half-Orc
+2 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.

A half-orc’s starting Intelligence score is always at least 3. If this adjustment would lower the character’s score to 1 or 2, his score is nevertheless 3.
Medium: As Medium creatures, half-orcs have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Half-orc base land speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision: Half-orcs (and orcs) can see in the dark up to 60 feet. Darkvision is black and white only, but it is otherwise like normal sight, and half-orcs can function just fine with no light at all.
Orc Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc.
Automatic Languages: Common and Orc. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Giant, Gnoll, Goblin, and Abyssal.
Favored Class: Barbarian. A multiclass half-orc’s barbarian class does not count when determining whether he takes an experience point penalty.

So actually you shouldn't need light blindness. It completely cancels out if you remove the ability scores. The only real difference is that the human lives a little longer on average.

[gorfnab]

I came up with this Riddick like build a while ago.

Dark Human
1. Ranger - Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Darkstalker, Weapon Finese, Flaws: Light Sensitivity and Grudge Keeper
2. Ranger - B: Two Weapon Fighting
3. Ranger - Superior Unarmed Strike, B: Endurance
4. Ranger - (Champion of the Wild ACF, CC) B: Eyes in the Back of Your Head, Blind Fight, or Combat Expertise
5. Ranger
6. Ranger - Mobility, B: Improved Two Weapon Fighting
7. Swordsage - Discipline Focus: Tiger Claw or Shadow Hand
8. Swordsage
9. Swordsage - Shadow Blade
10. Swordsage
11. Dread Commando
12. Dread Commando - Craven
13. Dread Commando
14. Dread Commando
15. Dread Commando - Greater Two Weapon Fighting
16. Bloodclaw Master
17. Bloodclaw Master
18. Bloodclaw Master - Gloom Razor
19. Bloodclaw Master
20. Bloodclaw Master
Favored Enemy: Arcanists and Human

[hamishspence]

Most of what I've read places Riddick along the CN/NE/CE lines. sweet, i agree with the CN or NE aspects.

Complete Scoundrel cites him (at least in Pitch Black) as an example of CE.

[Zonugal]

Complete Scoundrel cites him (at least in Pitch Black) as an example of CE.

Which I think is pretty ridiculous.

[hamishspence]

Why? Does he not do anything Evil or Chaotic in the movie? Is he not a person who's been convicted of crimes suggestive of a CE alignment?

[danzibr]

Complete Scoundrel cites him (at least in Pitch Black) as an example of CE.

Which I think is pretty ridiculous.

Why? Does he not do anything Evil or Chaotic in the movie? Is he not a person who's been convicted of crimes suggestive of a CE alignment?
I agree with Zonugal. When I read that bit in Complete Scoundrel I thought it was off (not totally off, but off). A good person looks out for others, a neutral person looks out for number 1, an evil person looks out for number 1 while looking for ways to shaft everyone else. I think Riddick is neutral. He does some self-sacrificing things in the movies, for one. Also, neutral is not diet good or something. I think he's halfway between good and evil.

Chaotic, yeah, I agree with that.

[hamishspence]

Evil does not mean "incapable of doing anything altruistic" though.

[Person_Man]

Vin Diesel plays D&D, and Riddick is directly based on Melkor, his "drow witch hunter with double specialization."

[Zanos]

I agree with Zonugal. When I read that bit in Complete Scoundrel I thought it was off (not totally off, but off). A good person looks out for others, a neutral person looks out for number 1, an evil person looks out for number 1 while looking for ways to shaft everyone else. I think Riddick is neutral. He does some self-sacrificing things in the movies, for one. Also, neutral is not diet good or something. I think he's halfway between good and evil.

Chaotic, yeah, I agree with that.
I was under the impression that Evil didn't necessarily shaft everyone else on purpose, but if a bit of torture and puppy-slaughtering got them to their goals faster, they don't really mind.

[hamishspence]

I like to think of alignment as a melting pot- a person can have traits from multiple alignments- but if one is dominant, that's the alignment they are. PHB does say that alignment isn't a straightjacket and that Good people aren't alway perfectly good.

Thus you can have Evil people with compassion, and Good people with unpleasant traits.


"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.
...
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
...
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized.

[Otep]

I believe Riddick is CN for the simple fact that he values personal freedom above all else. Yes he swings towards the brutality side of evil but none the less.... plus, in pitch black I have no qualms with him being CE. However in Chronicles he was much more in character with a CN Ranger...


Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with their own at the moment. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.

also, if you look at the quotes listed in IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0005022/quotes) alot of them simply value his freedom....

[hamishspence]

However in Chronicles he was much more in character with a CN Ranger...

Also in Chronicles:

Aereon: "In normal times, evil would be fought with good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil."

[ericp65]

A CE character delights in causing the greatest harm to the greatest number of people. It's reasonable to expect such a person to be whimsical and cruel, deviant by society's standards (unless said society is itself CE).

[hamishspence]

Or they might simply do so for a subset of others:

Normal CG elf- compassionate and freedom-loving.

CN elf- more self-centred, without actually exploiting and mistreating others.

CE elf- might have a massive hate for a certain group (let's say dwarves) and enjoy causing as much unnecessary suffering to them as they can manage- while still behaving in a CG fashion to everybody else.

[Fable Wright]

Yeah, I gotta say that sounds about right (twf, tracking, skill points, full bab, extra damage to humans, martial weapon proficiency, wasteland survival skills, skirmish). How's he getting full attack sneak attacks is the only thing I'm not sure about but there's probably a feat or something for that.

Then, maybe Wilderness Rogue/Scout with Swift Ambusher and a 2 level Ranger dip? Before level 10, he's lost a total of 2 BAB, which isn't really that bad, and has TWF, full Skirmish, good Sneak Attack, and lots of Wilderness skills. (Two level dip mostly for bonus feats and some Wild Empathy, which could be boosted later.)

[KillianHawkeye]

I can't believe nobody has suggested a dip into Shadow Dancer (house ruled to switch the Perform requirement for Intimidate?) for the HiPS.

[Fooliscious]

I don't see him as all that chaotic honestly. He has a personal code that he strictly adheres to, even to his surprise.

Pitch Black:
*He offers the cap'n a way out because she is a fellow survivor.
*Doesn't let Barnes(the merc) feed Jack off to the creatures. Or at the very least doesn't sit well with him. He says somewhere in Riddick that he wasn't gonna let that happen.
*He really doesn't kill unless he is threatened.
*He understands predator animals, and dances with the creatures successfully.

Chronicles:
*The continuing relationship with all the survivors seems to look like he is protecting them for some reason. Jack especially. He goes back for her.
*He doesn't really murderlize any of the prisoners until threatened, and even offers them a way out if they are strong enough.
*The animal kinship with the cat thing shows an affinity for the animilistic side of nature, which is very heavily structured.
*He blends in well to a society that is like him(the necro's). It is a very structured society. He never actually says anything is wrong with them, he just gets lazy in Riddick. (Jeez, just happened across the thought that the Necro empire is Menzoberannzen in a space ship.)

Riddick:
*Again, the animilistic side of nature comes into play. He doesn't do things randomly, or recklessly. And the dog. /cry
*He offers the bounty hunter's a chance, even when we are shown that he hilariously outclasses them. He really only murderlates one of them in cold blood, and that's after he shoots his dog. Someone he was protecting.
*The easy thing to do with papa was to just off him, instead of constantly trying to convice him of the truth about his kid. Even when he knows the chance he will listen is near 0.

Overall, you can reliably predict what Riddick is going to do given a situation. Monks aren't lawful because they follow the rules, they are lawful because they live within restraints they impose upon themselves, which I feel Riddick does.

[Fooliscious]

He also needs to have Improvised Weapon feats. He kills people with cups, shards of metal, a bear trap, bone-axe-sword thing.

Massive Fort and good will saves.

Not so much sneak attack and more death attack. He never one hit kills someone he fights one on one or one on 30.

A monk type class fits him I think, with some death attacks. The gradual immunity to poisons, resitance to mind effects, the falling off cliffs without dying craziness.

[hamishspence]

I don't see him as all that chaotic honestly. He has a personal code that he strictly adheres to, even to his surprise.
...
Overall, you can reliably predict what Riddick is going to do given a situation. Monks aren't lawful because they follow the rules, they are lawful because they live within restraints they impose upon themselves, which I feel Riddick does.

I like what The Giant has to say about "personal code" lawfulness:



In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[Fooliscious]

I wasn't quite arguing that he was lawful, more that he was non-chaotic. But yeah, I like what The Giant has to say on the subject.

To me though, Riddick leans towards the more lawful side of neutral. He puts himself through a lot of unnecessary pain for people he should care nothing for.

[hamishspence]

The "flexible Neutral anti-hero" archetype of Heroes of Horror is the kind of Neutral that has managed to successfully balance Good ends (helping people, even strangers) with Evil means.

Riddick as Evil, could be the kind of anti-hero that didn't manage to strike a balance. He mentions his being a murderer an awful lot.

[Gigas Breaker]

Which I think is pretty ridiculous.

Don't you mean Riddickulous?

[hamishspence]

Don't you mean Riddickulous?

Isn't that a Boggart-banishing spell? :smallamused:

[CIDE]

The "flexible Neutral anti-hero" archetype of Heroes of Horror is the kind of Neutral that has managed to successfully balance Good ends (helping people, even strangers) with Evil means.

Riddick as Evil, could be the kind of anti-hero that didn't manage to strike a balance. He mentions his being a murderer an awful lot.

A murderer, yeah. But looking at his track record we know about exactly how many people did he kill that wasn't in defense of himself or other people? Or other times he could have killed others but just didn't do it at detriment to himself?

Granted, these are all things that even further reinforce my opinion that the D&D alignment system is @#$%#$#@.

[Forrestfire]

Isn't that a Boggart-banishing spell? :smallamused:

Well, Riddick is good at getting rid of scary monsters... :smalltongue:

[Zonugal]

Why? Does he not do anything Evil or Chaotic in the movie? Is he not a person who's been convicted of crimes suggestive of a CE alignment?

What evil things does he do in the movie? Seriously, what vile acts does he commit?

Also, I am going to ignore your question of, "Is he not a person who's been convicted of crimes suggestive of a CE alignment?" as we aren't provided such information and this is just biased speculation.

If you want an evil character you have an easy target, William J. Johns.

[hamishspence]

Also, I am going to ignore your question of, "Is he not a person who's been convicted of crimes suggestive of a CE alignment?" as we aren't provided such information and this is just biased speculation.

We know at least that he's been convicted of murder, from his own words- although not the context of it.


Seriously, what vile acts does he commit?

An example I've seen given:
He tries to corrupt Carolyn to make the selfish choice to join him and forget about the others, threatening to leave her to die if she doesn't.

[CIDE]

We know at least that he's been convicted of murder, from his own words- although not the context of it.



An example I've seen given:
He tries to corrupt Carolyn to make the selfish choice to join him and forget about the others, threatening to leave her to die if she doesn't.


1. Yeah, the murder part is suspect. It could have been self defense. A drug induced stupor. Whatever. We really don't know and context as far as alignment is concerned becomes really important.

2. And he later changed his mind. Also at the time he felt that the others wouldn't have made it anyway either.

[Big Fau]

What evil things does he do in the movie? Seriously, what vile acts does he commit?

Also, I am going to ignore your question of, "Is he not a person who's been convicted of crimes suggestive of a CE alignment?" as we aren't provided such information and this is just biased speculation.

If you want an evil character you have an easy target, William J. Johns.

Murder (pre-Pitch Black, an on-screen "unintentional" kill in that same movie, several bounty hunters in Chronicles, a couple of convicts, and numerous Necromongers, although in a majority of cases it's fairly clear the people he kills are liable to do the same) and multiple escapes from high-security prisons (Butcher Bay, Crematoria, technically the cryotube in Pitch Black).

Most of what we've seen has been Evil VS Evil. He is very squarely in the NE, leaning towards LE (he seems to have some code against killing children and women who aren't actively trying to gut him first, but they tend to have a very low survival rate when he's around anyway). He cares more for himself than anyone else, save for going back for Carolyn and the others when he had the opportunity to escape in Pitch Black. Definitely Evil, but a very friendly kind. Like Belkar post-MoJ recovery.

You know, the kind of evil you shouldn't keep on a leash just because you don't want him to drag you around while the **** hits the fan.

[Zonugal]

We know at least that he's been convicted of murder, from his own words- although not the context of it.

And as such we can't judge him for it.


An example I've seen given:
He tries to corrupt Carolyn to make the selfish choice to join him and forget about the others, threatening to leave her to die if she doesn't.

This is pretty nasty on his account but he is giving Carolyn the option and later comes back to save her & the others. So if anything he did an evil thing and then a good thing, which sounds pretty neutral for me.


Murder (pre-Pitch Black, an on-screen "unintentional" kill in that same movie, several bounty hunters in Chronicles, a couple of convicts, and numerous Necromongers, although in a majority of cases it's fairly clear the people he kills are liable to do the same) and multiple escapes from high-security prisons (Butcher Bay, Crematoria, technically the cryotube in Pitch Black).

Which "unintentional" kill are you referencing? When the survivors accidentally kill a guy because they think he might be Riddick? Because that is on them...

The bounty hunters are trying to capture & sell him, so he is in a position to defend himself. A player character would do the exact same thing. The convicts threaten and try to kill him, so once again he is killing them in self-defense. And the necromongers? Are you using the super-evil undead-like conquerors as victims?

Escaping from prisons isn't an evil act either.


Most of what we've seen has been Evil VS Evil. He is very squarely in the NE, leaning towards LE (he seems to have some code against killing children and women who aren't actively trying to gut him first, but they tend to have a very low survival rate when he's around anyway). He cares more for himself than anyone else, save for going back for Carolyn and the others when he had the opportunity to escape in Pitch Black. Definitely Evil, but a very friendly kind. Like Belkar post-MoJ recovery.

I would fundamentally argue against this and say he is neutral. His on-screen violence is primarily done in self-defense, he doesn't go out of his way to kill/hurt others (at least anyone who hasn't brought it down on themselves) and is willing to risk his own life for people he cares about.

[Big Fau]

Which "unintentional" kill are you referencing? When the survivors accidentally kill a guy because they think he might be Riddick? Because that is on them...

Whatshisface, the co-pilot. Riddick wounded him and the Bioraptors finished him.


The bounty hunters are trying to capture & sell him, so he is in a position to defend himself. A player character would do the exact same thing. The convicts threaten and try to kill him, so once again he is killing them in self-defense. And the necromongers? Are you using the super-evil undead-like conquerors as victims?

The bounty hunters are technically trying to bring a fugitive to justice. They may not be LG, but they were on the law's side. And the Necromongers were brainwashed slaves. Most of them. Not saying they were the good guys, just that a lot of them were not willing converts. As for the convicts, IRL it's still a felony murder. Not sure if that applies on Crematoria though.

Unfortunately I haven't played the games or seen any supplementary material, so I can't judge the actions from those sources.


Escaping from prisons isn't an evil act either.

It's still a crime. A felony at that. He's willingly done so several times.

[CIDE]

Not following the laws of the civilization you are attached to (such as staying in prison or listening to bounty hunters) is NOT an evil act.

[Drelua]

I'd say he's NE just because he doesn't hesitate to kill people and is mostly indifferent when other people die if it serves his ends somehow. Sure, he avoids killing women and children, but the PHB says LE people are likely to do that to make themselves look/feel less evil. You don't have to be a complete psychopath to be evil. He kills plenty of people when he could have avoided it, slowly picking off the bounty hunters in Riddick for example. Not that a lot of them didn't deserve it, but that doesn't mean a non-evil person would make a game of it the way he said he would if he had the time. Granted, what he says he'll do often doesn't match up with what he actually does, but I think in this case he was telling the truth.

As for his build, Death Attack definitely does fit the way he takes people out one at a time, I didn't even think of that when I suggested Assassin. The spells don't fit quite so well though, maybe we could homebrew something that trades the spells for good BAB, fortitude, and some more class features?

[Zonugal]

Whatshisface, the co-pilot. Riddick wounded him and the Bioraptors finished him.

Do you mean William J. Johns? The bounty hunter in Pitch Black?

Because that guy is way more evil than Riddick...


The bounty hunters are technically trying to bring a fugitive to justice. They may not be LG, but they were on the law's side. And the Necromongers were brainwashed slaves. Most of them. Not saying they were the good guys, just that a lot of them were not willing converts. As for the convicts, IRL it's still a felony murder. Not sure if that applies on Crematoria though.

So he's chaotic, not evil. He opposes restraints and limitations to his own personal freedom. Bounty hunters and prisons represent extreme antagonists to a chaotic neutral character. Also I think it is unfair to put the blame on Riddick for having to cut through the necromongers. They were a militaristic people conquering the universe who were trying to murder him. And he doesn't even kill their non-military members, just those who pose a threat to him (and his allies).

As for the convicts and prison guards? They initially provoke or attacked him. Riddick doesn't walk around killing random characters.


It's still a crime. A felony at that. He's willingly done so several times.

So he's unlawful, but not evil.

[malmblad]

From MMI:
—Alignment: Always neutral. Animals are not governed by a
human sense of morality.

Based on Riddick's affinity with animals (which we are lead to believe is because he as an animalistic/feral nature), his knack for hunting like a great cat, and our inability to pin him down to an alignment, I think he qualifies for Neutral.

[Eldonauran]

Murder (pre-Pitch Black, an on-screen "unintentional" kill in that same movie, several bounty hunters in Chronicles, a couple of convicts, and numerous Necromongers, although in a majority of cases it's fairly clear the people he kills are liable to do the same) and multiple escapes from high-security prisons (Butcher Bay, Crematoria, technically the cryotube in Pitch Black).

Most of what we've seen has been Evil VS Evil. He is very squarely in the NE, leaning towards LE (he seems to have some code against killing children and women who aren't actively trying to gut him first, but they tend to have a very low survival rate when he's around anyway). He cares more for himself than anyone else, save for going back for Carolyn and the others when he had the opportunity to escape in Pitch Black. Definitely Evil, but a very friendly kind. Like Belkar post-MoJ recovery.

You know, the kind of evil you shouldn't keep on a leash just because you don't want him to drag you around while the **** hits the fan.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. As much as I like Riddick, I am very aware of how evil the man is. Sure, he plays nice sometimes though thats when he is getting something out of it. He forms attachments to certain people and goes out of his way to help them, and evil people can do that.

Riddick is not a hero. He just gets the job done and gets the hell out of there.