So I've decided to join the "Is this character Evil?" fad...

[AgentofHellfire]

Because basically, I'm really quite curious what you guys think he is.

Spider

Essentially, Spider's story is that he was a cowardly orphan boy living in a nation that had decided to put its gutter rats to use by putting them in a conscripted military service. He wasn't at all good at it for a while, but he was perceptive and quite intelligent, and one of the more perceptive and intelligent "recruiters" noticed this, deciding to take him under his wing and give him a slight bit of an alternate curriculum, allowing Spider to make full use of his positive traits (cunning, perception, subtlety, ability to figure out when to back down...) to become something of a hero among parts of the nation.

However, he ended up angering some of his superiors, who ultimately set him up to be sent to trial for attacking commanders (he was very, very justified in doing so). And since the trial was rigged, he basically had two choices:

1. Die and
2. Suffer a massive loss of rank and prestige, and become the personal assassin of the king (which meant the jobs he had to do would become a whole lot dirtier).

Given his options, Spider realized he did not want to die, ever, and so chose the second one. And here's where the question of "is he evil" comes in...

Some of the things a king's assassin must do are not savory things--killing innocent people is often on his master's agenda, and Spider has, in large part, killed those innocents. Not because of any agenda of his own, but simply because when it comes down to it, he would do pretty much anything to continue his own existence. Up to and including things he feels absolutely terrible about doing. Outside of that, though, his behavior would basically involve doing good most of the time--he'll go out of his way to save innocents, and indeed doing so is what got him in trouble in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, those of you that felt like reading: Evil, Neutral, or Good?

[Naomi Li]

Good-natured coward with an evil alignment, I believe. Put him in easier circumstances and his alignment would probably shift towards good, but unless things change he's probably looking at an eternity of suffering in the setting's afterlife. (It seems to be rather common in many universes, as abhorrent as I find the concept)

[Captnq]

Evil. No question. Evil.

A slow slide into evil. But evil. I suspect considering how much it sounds like he lies to himself and how much he pushes the guilt of his actions onto his superiors he is lawful evil.

[Tingel]

Murder of innocents is evil.

For his missions he must have a lot of liberties. Has he ever tried escaping from his assassin lifestyle? "Not murdering innocents" should be a very high priority for a decent person.

You claim that "he'll go out of his way to save innocents", but that is not true. Because apparently he only does it if it does not require too much effort or risk or sacrifice on his part - otherwise he would not have surrendered to being a professional murderer for hire.

When you claim that he had basically two choices you are stating a false dichotomy. He could have agreed and then fled the country at the first chance for example. Or even eventually slain the evil king - it sounds as if he has both the skills and the necessary access to his employer.

[Red Fel]

Some of the things a king's assassin must do are not savory things--killing innocent people is often on his master's agenda, and Spider has, in large part, killed those innocents. Not because of any agenda of his own, but simply because when it comes down to it, he would do pretty much anything to continue his own existence. Up to and including things he feels absolutely terrible about doing. Outside of that, though, his behavior would basically involve doing good most of the time--he'll go out of his way to save innocents, and indeed doing so is what got him in trouble in the first place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, those of you that felt like reading: Evil, Neutral, or Good?

Well, let's see.

He has a tragic backstory, but I find history isn't indicative of whether a person is good or evil, only why. I look at his present actions for the whether.

And his present actions are, basically, killing people on behalf of his king. Sometimes they may deserve it, other times, as you say, they are "innocent."

Assassination itself is not inherently non-good (contrast Assassin (any Evil) with Slayer of Domiel (Lawful Good)), but ordinarily, the killing of innocents is a non-good act.

My typical position is that good is based on actions, evil on intentions; a good character cannot remain good if he engages in certain specifically unacceptable acts, regardless of his motivations. Deliberate and repeated taking of innocent lives is one such act. However, by the same token, he is not doing so entirely of his own volition; indeed, he is personally resistant to the idea and would avoid it whenever possible. Thus, he lacks the intent to render him evil.

I would conclude that he is Neutral, but only for a limited time. He cannot be Good, because he does evil things; but he is not yet Evil, because he does not want to do them and otherwise avoids them whenever possible.

That said, he is on a slippery slope. There will come a time, and soon, that, if he doesn't find a way to stop, he will become Evil. Indeed, the argument could be made that he should have embraced death rather than agreeing to commit evil acts, and that every time he kills rather than letting himself die, he is sinking deeper.

[hamishspence]

Champions of Ruin does support the notion that committing a lot of Evil acts tends to lead to an Evil alignment- even if the motive was "For the Greater Good".

In this case, the motive is somewhat lower- survival.

As BoVD says "Sacrificing others to save oneself is an evil act. It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is".

He might be a bit more compassionate than your average Evil character- but alignments can be pretty broad- it's the overall combination of behaviour and personality taken as a whole, that determines it.

[Zubrowka74]

He might not have started as Evil but he became so. You can argue that society changed him, and you'd be right, but he's still Evil. Did he try running away? Did he try to find a way to spare the innocents? He's supposed to be cunning, intelligent. He could have found a plan. Instead he resigned himself.

Makes for a good story, though.

[Emperor Tippy]

Personally, I hold that for a human or the like to become Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic requires either messing around with extra-planar forces and magic or extraordinary commitment.

For a human without planar interaction or magical effects to become Evil requires not just murder, banditry, rape, and other vile and nasty crimes but that they be pretty much unrepentant mass murders, rapists, etc. of the absolute worst sort.

Your actions can't just be bad but "You would be at home and fit right in with the demons of hell" bad.

There is an exception for those devoted to the cause of an alignment but that goes back to the planar interaction bit. If you worship an Evil deity or similar entity then that actually has a measurable and noticeable impact on your soul. What actions you commit or not tends to be mostly irrelevant.

Most people who have an alignment gain it from either honest and devout faith in a god or cause of that alignment, from bartering with demons/devils/angels/etc., or from messing around with magic that is inherently aligned (spells with alignment descriptors).

In D&D Good and Evil are real honest forces. As real as fire or air. If you don't give said forces a hold on you then you are pretty much going to remain neutral until and unless you go to great lengths to change that, but if you do mess with such forces then you best be careful because that does impact on your soul and it can do it fast.

Now some things are pretty much always evil, like sacrificing souls to demons and these are the kind of things that you do once and are pretty much damned for eternity.

Absent a specific reason to play alignment differently for a campaign or setting, that is how I run it. And so Spider would be neutral.

Under the official rules though, he's totally Evil.

[hamishspence]

Personally, I hold that for a human or the like to become Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic requires either messing around with extra-planar forces and magic or extraordinary commitment.

For a human without planar interaction or magical effects to become Evil requires not just murder, banditry, rape, and other vile and nasty crimes but that they be pretty much unrepentant mass murders, rapists, etc. of the absolute worst sort.

Your actions can't just be bad but "You would be at home and fit right in with the demons of hell" bad.

There is an exception for those devoted to the cause of an alignment but that goes back to the planar interaction bit. If you worship an Evil deity or similar entity then that actually has a measurable and noticeable impact on your soul. What actions you commit or not tends to be mostly irrelevant.

Most people who have an alignment gain it from either honest and devout faith in a god or cause of that alignment, from bartering with demons/devils/angels/etc., or from messing around with magic that is inherently aligned (spells with alignment descriptors).

This sounds like "Evil as a Supernatural Taint" - the 3rd of the 3 alignment models discussed in the 3rd party splatbook Quintessential Paladin II:

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Another alternative is that Evil is essentially a supernatural quality, a spiritual taint that comes only from dark powers. Merely human evil would not be detected by the paladin's power - only monsters, undead, outsiders, and those who traffic with dark powers are Evil on this scale.

A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on a divine level. However, if this murderer were killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefore detectable by the paladin.

In this campaign, a positive result on detect evil means that the paladin should immediately take action. This is a morally black-and-white set-up - anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.

[lytokk]

If this is all a matter of debate with people chiming in with opinions, I don't think he's evil. Perhaps on the evil side of Neutral, but not evil. If he continues down this path for a long time, its going to have a psychological effect on him. Either, he will become numb to the suffering of others, or he will decide he can't do this anymore, and turn his aggression towards his controllers. He'll either go out trying to be the hero, or be remembered as a villain.

By the book, he'd have to be evil. Tragic evil, but evil

[Dr. Cliché]

I'd say Lawful Evil.

His story, whilst tragic, seems like a case of denial on his part. It's easier for him to just kill innocents and tell himself that he doesn't have a choice, than try to escape, fight back or contrive a scheme to make them appear dead, without actually killing them.

He believes he has no choice because that allows him to justify his evil deeds to himself.

The same could be said for his supposed moral code - whereby he tries to save innocents whenever possible - even whilst murdering others at the behest of the king. It is just another attempt at convincing himself that he really is a good person at heart.

[AgentofHellfire]

You claim that "he'll go out of his way to save innocents", but that is not true. Because apparently he only does it if it does not require too much effort or risk or sacrifice on his part - otherwise he would not have surrendered to being a professional murderer for hire.

Well, he won't die, without that much chance of escape, to save innocents. That doesn't mean he wouldn't put effort and sacrifice into the cause--remember, the only reason he was in that trial in the first place was because he took the bait put out of an innocent to protect.


When you claim that he had basically two choices you are stating a false dichotomy. He could have agreed and then fled the country at the first chance for example. Or even eventually slain the evil king - it sounds as if he has both the skills and the necessary access to his employer.

When you put magic into the equation, it's actually pretty easy to nullify a lot of those plans--a shock-collar type thing could even do that, for the "fleeing the country" bit.

[Spore]

He is evil if he didn't take the: "Pretend you are dead and leave this country immediately." route.

[supermonkeyjoe]

definitely evil, apart from the fact that he is regularly killing, orders or not, he is in this line of work for entirely selfish reasons, i.e to keep himself alive.

If he were good, he would be unable to carry out the killings, he would probably try to run and hide to avoid having to kill anyone else, still cowardly and self serving but these aren't necessarily evil traits.

[Starmage21]

lawful evil, hands down.

Cliff notes:
That does not mean that he's a baby-killing cartoon evil. He's the well-done believable real person kind of evil.
His alignment will ping on the evil-dar, but he's going to have a good motivation for sticking around (merely staying alive doesnt cut it). Maybe he's a cut-and-dry patriot that loves his nation.

[Eldonauran]

He's rather not kill innocents but does so to spare his own life. This effectively bars him from a good alignment.

Rigid societal structure that he acts within. I put him on a Lawful bent.

Since you mentioned the character still feels terrible about what he does, but does them anyhow, I would be hesitant to peg him as outright evil.

The character does what he has to, watches out for himself most of all but still feels some remorse when he performs evil acts.

Lawful Nuetral

[Dr. Cliché]

Since you mentioned the character still feels terrible about what he does, but does them anyhow, I would be hesitant to peg him as outright evil.

It's not enough to simply feel bad.

He still committed them, and is content to continue committing them.


The character does what he has to, watches out for himself most of all but still feels some remorse when he performs evil acts.

That's the problem though - he does have other choices; he just refuses to acknowledge them. What he's doing is taking the easy way and killing defenceless innocents, because it's the easiest way to save his own skin.

[hamishspence]

The character does what he has to, watches out for himself most of all but still feels some remorse when he performs evil acts.

Lawful Nuetral
I can't see "feels remorse" as a barrier to an Evil alignment.

[Dr. Cliché]

I can't see "feels remorse" as a barrier to an Evil alignment.

If anything, I'd be tempted to argue that it makes him more evil - since he's well aware that what he's doing is amoral, but keeps doing it anyway.

[Der_DWSage]

If we had additional alignments for those that are right on the cusp of things, he'd definitely be right between Lawful Neutral / Lawful Evil. Only mildly cowardly, in the fact that he probably has good reason to fear those that would murder him without a second thought, but then it comes down to the fact that he's repeatedly going 'It's you or me, and I don't want it to be me.'

The fact of the matter is, he's murdering innocents, and every time, he's saying that their life was worth less than his. The only tangible difference I see between his evil and other evil characters is the fact that, the very moment he is no longer forced into evil, he'll likely snap right back to Lawful Neutral or True Neutral. Innocent blood on his hands would keep him from ever being a paragon of goodness without a lot of effort, but without a third party influencing his actions, he'd likely return to what he was.

[Frosty]

If anything, I'd be tempted to argue that it makes him more evil - since he's well aware that what he's doing is amoral, but keeps doing it anyway.It doesn't make him feel evil. He always has a choice. He's just too much of a coward to make the difficult one (die so that he doesn't have to kill others. Or try to run away).

[The Oni]

Really, he could have easily taken the king's job and then mysteriously vanished after his first assignment. The skills that make a good assassin also make a good escape artist. He might have a chance at redemption - but he's definitely south of Neutral.

[lytokk]

There's also the theory that the king was going to have all of these people killed anyway. So by taking these jobs, he's ensuring that the victims die a quick and hopefully painless death, as opposed to a straight evil assassin, who may not grant them that. Granted this is justification after the fact.

Also, by taking these jobs over a straight evil assassin, he guarantees those he can find a way to save do get saved. Straight evil wouldn't be as compassionate and would kill without trying to find a way to save.

[hamishspence]

Not every evil character has to be "just plain Evil" though- plenty of room for flexibility within a wide alignment category.

[Zerter]

Neutral. If this stuff makes him evil, pretty much everybody is evil.

[Dr. Cliché]

Neutral. If this stuff makes him evil, pretty much everybody is evil.

Right on!

If murdering innocents makes you evil, we're all evil!



Wait...? :smallconfused:

[Frosty]

He's evil, but he's less evil than the axe murderer who does it for FUN. And he has an opportunity to be redeemed and to atone.

[The Oni]

Right on!

If murdering innocents makes you evil, we're all evil!



Wait...? :smallconfused:

I think Zerter is making the argument that most people in the modern world are complicit with one evil machination or another. But that sounds dangerously close to a real-world politics argument.

Also, doing the evil overlord's laundry is not quite the same as stabbing his enemies in their sleep.

[Toofey]

I would actually say neutral, he's killing because he stands to die if he doesn't, he doesn't want to, but he also is taking what he sees as his best chance to survive.

Now he's on the darker side of neutral to be sure, but I'd say he's neither good or evil until he starts actually being motivated by something other than survival.

I would probably list him as N(e)HM (assuming he's human) because he does continue to let himself be used for evil.

[Wings of Peace]

I'd say at the start he was neutral with strong potential for evil but now he's just evil. At the time he may have just been making the decision that let him survive but from the sound of things it's been a bit now and Spider hasn't found he hates the work enough to quit. It's nice that he saves innocents in his off time but being conflicted about being evil is still being evil. The general vibe I get from spider is that he's an evil coward now.

[Slipperychicken]

1. Die and
2. Suffer a massive loss of rank and prestige, and become the personal assassin of the king (which meant the jobs he had to do would become a whole lot dirtier).

Hold up. Since when does becoming a royal assassin* entail a loss of prestige and rank? That sounds more like a promotion than a punishment.


*The way you phrased it implies he's the only royal assassin, which would give him an astounding amount of prestige within the kingdom, if not among professional killers in general (being the highest-ranking, probably best-paid assassin in your nation-state is no small achievement).

[Eldonauran]

I can't see "feels remorse" as a barrier to an Evil alignment.
I'll have to change what I said then. I don't feel it is a barrier to evil though it does show that the character gives worth to the lives of others, even though he feels his life is worth more. Misguided, most definitely. I have no doubt that his actions are evil and, if alignment was based on just actions, he would be Evil.


Neutral. If this stuff makes him evil, pretty much everybody is evil.
:smallsigh: Powerful stuff displayed in such simple words. I agree the character is not Evil, but he is close.

[amalcon]

So, this guy is definitely not good. The only question is "Neutral or Evil". Someone who is forced to do bad things by circumstances is not necessarily evil, but they definitely can be.

I'd say it depends on how he approaches it. If he has the chance to fake the death of one of his targets, does he take it? If he has the choice between a safer approach with collateral damage, or a riskier approach that only kills the target, which does he choose? How actively is he putting together a plan to escape his current occupation? Is there a line he will not cross even if so ordered (for example, harming children)?

No-Safer-No-Yes: Definitely evil.
Yes-Riskier-Yes-No: Definitely neutral, though leaning toward evil.

[Invader]

In what world is murdering innocent people neutral? This guy is clearly evil.

[hamishspence]

The argument seems to be that "attitude" partially counterbalances actions.

Still, I could see Evil characters having a line that they won't cross even with orders.

Even Evil Has Standards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards), in short.

[The Oni]

You could argue that this guy is in Anti-Villain territory. Maybe even Noble Demon, Worthy Opponent, the whole gamut of sympathetic villain tropes - but in no way could you convince me he's not below the halfway mark in the alignment chart. Definitely Evil, not Neutral.

This is classic darkside path stuff. His driving motivation is fear. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate.

[AgentofHellfire]

Hold up. Since when does becoming a royal assassin* entail a loss of prestige and rank? That sounds more like a promotion than a punishment.


*The way you phrased it implies he's the only royal assassin, which would give him an astounding amount of prestige within the kingdom, if not among professional killers in general (being the highest-ranking, probably best-paid assassin in your nation-state is no small achievement).


It would seem like a promotion, except:

1. While certain evil circles might gain a (really tiny) amount of respect for him (it's only tiny since he's still working for the opposite side), pretty much everyone else loses respect for him in large amounts.
2. Before, he might've had some measure of command over other people. Currently, he kind of doesn't. He's prioritized under even the lowest ends of foot soldier, officially.
3. His life between missions is now kind of micromanaged even when it would stop being such for a normal member of an army--he can't, after having fought for a bit, go get a nice house someplace and do other things.

[hamishspence]

You could argue that this guy is in Anti-Villain territory. Maybe even Noble Demon, Worthy Opponent, the whole gamut of sympathetic villain tropes - but in no way could you convince me he's not below the halfway mark in the alignment chart. Definitely Evil, not Neutral.

Strictly, it needs to be below the "one third-way mark" :smallamused:

but I agree with the general principle.

[Dr. Cliché]

This is something of an aside, but what if he didn't know that he was killing innocents?

Let's say that we have a noble but slightly dim (or more trusting of the king, for whatever reason) person, and the king tells him that everyone he's being sent to kill has committed a horrific act (rape, murder etc.). However, some of them are actually innocents.

Essentially, he firmly believes that he's doing good by bringing justice to evil people, but (in reality) is unwittingly committing evil acts.

(Assume that he has no easy way to verify or disprove the King's word that the people he's sent to kill are evil.)


I'm just curious about what alignment people would place on him, and if it would differ from their proposed alignment for Spider.

[Scow2]

The lives he saves when he can does count for something, though whether it's enough to offset his Evil is a much harder sell, because 1 life saved =/= one life ended.

[hamishspence]

This is something of an aside, but what if he didn't know that he was killing innocents?

Let's say that we have a noble but slightly dim (or more trusting of the king, for whatever reason) person, and the king tells him that everyone he's being sent to kill has committed a horrific act (rape, murder etc.). However, some of them are actually innocents.

Essentially, he firmly believes that he's doing good by bringing justice to evil people, but (in reality) is unwittingly committing evil acts.

(Assume that he has no easy way to verify or disprove the King's word that the people he's sent to kill are evil.)


I'm just curious about what alignment people would place on him, and if it would differ from their proposed alignment for Spider.
Evil alignment is possible - but it might require more than for the character who does know.

BoVD:


The Misguided Fool:
Some villains do not even know that they are villains. Deluded through insanity, religious belief, or just stupidity, they commit horrible acts and never realize what it is that they do. A foolish villain might suspect that his acts and thoughts are tainted, but he's too apathetic to try to uncover the truth. Blindly committing evil acts because it's just easier that way, the misguided fool can easily become a truly sinister villain over time, continuing his evil deeds while his own perceptions veer ever further from reality.

EDIT: If they had been taking "reasonable precautions" - it might be different:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

[AgentofHellfire]

So, this guy is definitely not good. The only question is "Neutral or Evil". Someone who is forced to do bad things by circumstances is not necessarily evil, but they definitely can be.

I'd say it depends on how he approaches it. If he has the chance to fake the death of one of his targets, does he take it? If he has the choice between a safer approach with collateral damage, or a riskier approach that only kills the target, which does he choose? How actively is he putting together a plan to escape his current occupation? Is there a line he will not cross even if so ordered (for example, harming children)?

No-Safer-No-Yes: Definitely evil.
Yes-Riskier-Yes-No: Definitely neutral, though leaning toward evil.

Depends on how innocent the target is-Depends on how much risk we're talking-Not really all that actively yet-At first no standards, but since one particular murder he's vowed he's never going to kill a child again. Whether he keeps that vow is unfortunately a tad murkier.



This is something of an aside, but what if he didn't know that he was killing innocents?

Let's say that we have a noble but slightly dim (or more trusting of the king, for whatever reason) person, and the king tells him that everyone he's being sent to kill has committed a horrific act (rape, murder etc.). However, some of them are actually innocents.

Essentially, he firmly believes that he's doing good by bringing justice to evil people, but (in reality) is unwittingly committing evil acts.

(Assume that he has no easy way to verify or disprove the King's word that the people he's sent to kill are evil.)


I'm just curious about what alignment people would place on him, and if it would differ from their proposed alignment for Spider.

He would without a shadow of a doubt be Good in my mind.

[hamishspence]

Going by the atonement spell description:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

"unwitting acts of evil" still result in a "burden" that needs to be removed, that the spell can be used for removing.


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.

[Brookshw]

Not the op: there are only certain outcomes to the prisoners dilema. Please attribute alignment values to each potential answer. Show your work for extra credit.

[amalcon]

Depends on how innocent the target is-Depends on how much risk we're talking-Not really all that actively yet-At first no standards, but since one particular murder he's vowed he's never going to kill a child again. Whether he keeps that vow is unfortunately a tad murkier.
In that case I'd say definitely evil, but with a realistic prospect for a change of alignment later in life. The first two answers are non-answers. The fourth suggests that he might be at the beginning of changing alignment right now. The third is the real verdict: If he's not actively plotting to get out of such a terrible position, when his job basically entails being sent into well-guarded places and left alone with significant enemies of his employer, either he's evil or insufficiently confident in his own skills.

[hamishspence]

The fourth suggests that he might be at the beginning of changing alignment right now.

It's not unheard of for LE characters to have similar aversions:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#theNineAlignments


Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

[amalcon]

It's not unheard of for LE characters to have similar aversionsHence "might".

[Naomi Li]

If somebody is killing people based solely off of the word of a single person, especially when there is no reason to believe that this person's information is actually accurate, I don't think anything higher than a neutral alignment is reasonable. Especially since a king really shouldn't be calling for assassinations of his subjects; dealing with crimes is the job of the courts and without a REALLY good excuse anyone with a wisdom score north of 6 should be immediately suspicious of receiving such assassination orders. (Even if they utterly trust the person involved, maybe they're being coerced into doing it, or it's an imposter, or an illusion, or some other trick)

Now, if it's being done against foreign subjects who committed the cimes in foreign territory to foreigners that's another matter entirely, though this seems rather unlikely given the excuses given.

[hamishspence]

In DMG- the point of actual alignment change, is repentance- in this case, with a more normally Evil NPC:

p134:

An NPC travelling with the PCs is chaotic evil and is pretending to be otherwise because he was sent to spy on them and foil their plans. He has been evil all his life, and he has lived among others who acted as he did. As he fights alongside the good-aligned PC adventurers, however, he sees how they work together and help one another. He begins to envy them their camaraderie.

Finally, he watches as the paladin PC gives his life to save not only his friends, but an entire town that was poised on the brink of destruction at the hands of an evil sorcerer. Everyone is deeply moved, including the evil NPC, and the town celebrates and honors the paladin's self-sacrifice. The townfolk hail the adventurers as heroes.

The NPC is so moved that he repents, casting aside his own evil ways (and his mission). He becomes chaotic neutral, but is well on the way to chaotic good, particularly if he remains in the company of the PCs.

[Cerlis]

If you have to ask if a character is evil...

its probably cus he is.


Generalizing