Identify This Alignment

[Darkranger85]

Hey guys,

I'm not sure what alignment to label my character as.

She is a 'Good' character in that she is working toward the greater good of people in general. But, she is not afraid to do terrible things in order to get the job done.

For instance, she would put herself in harms way to save a village or an individual without regard for her own life. But she would also do things such as raise her fallen comrades corpses from the dead to fight along side her, threaten an evil persons friends and family to bring him down, or any other length needed to accomplish the goal.

What alignment is that?

[Kane0]

For reference, obligatory TVTropes link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice).

I'd put them at Neutral or Chaotic Good. The end justifies the means, and the end is the greater good.
That said, it would be a precarious position and very easy to slip into neutral and even evil depending on what is being justified.

[hamishspence]

Anti-heroes, who do Evil deeds for Good ends, are sometimes Neutral (Heroes of Horror) and sometimes Evil (BoVD, Champions of Ruin).

As the previous poster says- it tends to depend on the deeds.

[Darkranger85]

The deeds could be just about anything, so long as the effect of the deed is a greater good.

Typically though, the deed has to be necessary. She doesn't just jump at each and every terrible choice that comes along, but she is quicker to get there than most and loses little sleep doing them.

For instance, she would use magic to wipe out an entire city without warning, if it would end a war that would cost far more lives.

[Slipperychicken]

As per the SRD, alignment is one's moral outlook. So we would need to know more about her, like what her beliefs are, why she holds them, also her background would help. Perhaps more importantly, what has she done in the past, and why?


she is quicker to get there than most and loses little sleep doing them.

This bit doesn't look too good for her moral axis. When she feels like 'lesser evils' are necessary, does she make any kind of effort to atone for, or at least reduce the harm she does?



For instance, she would use magic to wipe out an entire city without warning, if it would end a war that would cost far more lives.

What does it take to bring her to that point? Does she try anything else before that?

[MonochromeTiger]

...I'd kinda say true neutral, chaotic neutral, or a VERY grim chaotic good. wait possibly lawful evil with the code and beliefs being that "greater good". really ends justify the means situations are a toss up of how people want to interpret them but if you're randomly butchering people cause you think it will make the next big battle not happen it's not a sign of one of the more socially acceptable alignments.

[Honest Tiefling]

Anti-heroes, who do Evil deeds for Good ends, are sometimes Neutral (Heroes of Horror) and sometimes Evil (BoVD, Champions of Ruin).

I'd agree to the same things, the difference between how willing the character is to commit evil deeds, and how often. Killing 1 dude to save 50 is a little different then breaking people's faces on a regular basis because you didn't put ranks into Gather Information.

[Darkranger85]

This bit doesn't look too good for her moral axis. When she feels like 'lesser evils' are necessary, does she make any kind of effort to atone for, or at least reduce the harm she does?

What does it take to bring her to that point? Does she try anything else before that?


I never thought about that, you make some good points.

Let's see.

She would indeed try to reduce the harm she does to the best of her ability and she wouldn't really go out of her way to 'atone' for her actions because in her mind she is doing what needs to be done for the greater good, and that greater good is atonement enough.

Now, what it would take in order for her to do something drastic, like destroying a city, would probably be faily dire circumstances. For instance the war is being lost and many are dying.

I would say the difference with her though would be that she isn't going to wait till the very last second to make the choice to do what needs to be done since, in her mind, waiting is only costing more lives than the action itself will save.

[MonochromeTiger]

I never thought about that, you make some good points.

Let's see.

She would indeed try to reduce the harm she does to the best of her ability and she wouldn't really go out of her way to 'atone' for her actions because in her mind she is doing what needs to be done for the greater good, and that greater good is atonement enough.

Now, what it would take in order for her to do something drastic, like destroying a city, would probably be faily dire circumstances. For instance the war is being lost and many are dying.

I would say the difference with her though would be that she isn't going to wait till the very last second to make the choice to do what needs to be done since, in her mind, waiting is only costing more lives than the action itself will save.

ok yeah in my eyes leaning much closer to lawful evil now, which again can be pretty common when the term "greater good" is brought up. it wouldn't exactly mean they aren't TRYING to do good but it definitely means they're capable and willing to keep their view of what should be there through evil means. just keep in mind evil doesn't mean they can't think they're doing the right thing and quite a few evil characters actually use "I was doing what's best for *blank*" as their motivation, so thinking they're in the right may not really push them closer to the nice and happy side of the alignment system.

[Darkranger85]

That is interesting, and it's what I've always found interesting about the alignment system.

How two characters could be the same alignment and still be very much opposed in many ways.

For instance a LE character that is truly evil to the core vs a LE person that is doing evil things in order to bring about a better result.

[MonochromeTiger]

That is interesting, and it's what I've always found interesting about the alignment system.

How two characters could be the same alignment and still be very much opposed in many ways.

For instance a LE character that is truly evil to the core vs a LE person that is doing evil things in order to bring about a better result.

it has always struck me as disturbingly fitting for the alignment system that so many evil characters can have "paved with good intentions" somewhere on their grave marker.

[Scow2]

Alignment is not Personality.

Alignment is support and progression of the cause of a Cosmic Force.



She's Good, because she fights for Good. That's all there is to it. She is a very SCARY Good, but still Good.

Most "Greater Good isn't Justified" arguments come because the "Greater Good" they support isn't actually Good (Bringing about an authoritarian, oppressive autocracy to enforce Lawful Behavior), the means along the way don't outweigh the end result (Blowing up a Schoolbus to save a pedestrian), or the means taken undermine and invalidate the end result.

[Darkranger85]

That is very true.

It's an interesting thought though. I've never played or written any 'evil' class characters. I'm almost exclusively a Chaotic Good type.

Should be a good learning experience.

[Darkranger85]

Alignment is not Personality.

Alignment is support and progression of the cause of a Cosmic Force.



She's Good, because she fights for Good. That's all there is to it. She is a very SCARY Good, but still Good.

lol I like that quote. And the one in your signature lol.

[MonochromeTiger]

Alignment is not Personality.

Alignment is support and progression of the cause of a Cosmic Force.



She's Good, because she fights for Good. That's all there is to it. She is a very SCARY Good, but still Good.

so as long as you're trying to support good it's ok to kill everyone you see on suspicion of them hindering good in some way? as long as you're sure it will be better in the long run it's perfectly reasonable and good to turn and shoot the person whose only crime is being useful in a place that's about to be taken over?

[hamishspence]

She's Good, because she fights for Good. That's all there is to it. She is a very SCARY Good, but still Good.

If the preponderance of her actual deeds is Evil though, "fighting for Good" may be irrelevant.

Alignment is not just "what team you fight for".

[MonochromeTiger]

If the preponderance of her actual deeds is Evil though, "fighting for Good" may be irrelevant.

Alignment is not just "what team you fight for".

agreed, if it was as simple as what you want to support and not your actions paladins would never fall. if it WERE as simple as what god you worship or just saying you're one alignment most people would be so terrible at it their team would kick them out anyway.

[Scow2]

If the preponderance of her actual deeds is Evil though, "fighting for Good" may be irrelevant.

Alignment is not just "what team you fight for".

Actually, by definition, Alignment IS "What Team You Fight For". That's why the word is Alignment, not Morality/Ethics. However, due to the cosmic forces being defined by the state of the world, someone's nominal alignment may not match their actual alignment, because their actions advance the cause of the opposing alignment far more than their nominal one.

[MonochromeTiger]

Actually, by definition, Alignment IS "What Team You Fight For". That's why the word is Alignment, not Morality/Ethics. However, due to the cosmic forces being defined by the state of the world, someone's nominal alignment may not match their actual alignment, because their actions advance the cause of the opposing alignment far more than their nominal one.

oh joy we seem to have a "destined alignment" versus "alignment by actions" debate. I'll just bring up the first point I have against destined alignment, it only works in a campaign where the DM either doesn't really care or is completely set on "they're this alignment they put on their sheet no matter what they do so they can eat an orphanage and still be lawful good". people don't work like that, you can get someone who kills thousands to save millions and do you know what they're called? murderers. an act of evil is an act of evil even if you are doing it for a supposedly good reason and a crime is a crime even if it's in support of a supposedly good group.

[hamishspence]

Actually, by definition, Alignment IS "What Team You Fight For". That's why the word is Alignment, not Morality/Ethics. However, due to the cosmic forces being defined by the state of the world, someone's nominal alignment may not match their actual alignment, because their actions advance the cause of the opposing alignment far more than their nominal one.
So- if the character does almost as much Evil as Good overall (or as much, or even more Evil than Good),

then they cease to be someone who is "Fighting for Good" and become someone who "only thinks they are fighting for Good"?

[Scow2]

oh joy we seem to have a "destined alignment" versus "alignment by actions" debate. I'll just bring up the first point I have against destined alignment, it only works in a campaign where the DM either doesn't really care or is completely set on "they're this alignment they put on their sheet no matter what they do so they can eat an orphanage and still be lawful good". people don't work like that, you can get someone who kills thousands to save millions and do you know what they're called? murderers. an act of evil is an act of evil even if you are doing it for a supposedly good reason and a crime is a crime even if it's in support of a supposedly good group.This is a Deontological approach to morality that doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny. It's also not true. Someone who kills thousands and does save millions doing so, with the motivation of the killing being the salvation of the others, is a Hero. An act of evil is an act of evil - but a person is judged by the net result of all their actions, not a single one. But it's easy to focus on the 'evil' ones and discard the 'good' ones out-of-hand without actually appraising the result.

And it's not so much Destined Alignment vs. Alignment by Actions - they're both Alignment by Actions, but recognize that Alignment is determined by Cosmic Forces From Above, not irrelevant personal feelings.

Someone who's deliberate behavior results in a net growth of the influence of Good in the world (As a result of their actions, not as a reaction to their actions - A genocidal maniac isn't Good because the rest of the world is so collectively horrified by his actions that they straighten up... unless, possibly, if his actions were taken deliberately to create that reaction)


So- if the character does almost as much Evil as Good overall (or as much, or even more Evil than Good),

then they cease to be someone who is "Fighting for Good" and become someone who "only thinks they are fighting for Good"?Right. Planned results matter, and most "Greater Good" people are usually too caught up in their own self-righteousness to see the damage their causing (As opposed to a deliberately Destructive Savior who has taken a holistic view of the world and knows the extent of the evil they're doing in order to get the maximum Good.)

[hamishspence]

A genocidal maniac isn't Good because the rest of the world is so collectively horrified by his actions that they straighten up... unless, possibly, if his actions were taken deliberately to create that reaction)
In the context of D&D, not even then. An act of genocide, according to BOVD, is so evil that it can leave a major taint upon the world. "It was for good reasons" won't prevent the taint from appearing.

[MonochromeTiger]

This is a Deontological approach to morality that doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny. It's also not true. Someone who kills thousands and does save millions doing so, with the motivation of the killing being the salvation of the others, is a Hero. An act of evil is an act of evil - but a person is judged by the net result of all their actions, not a single one. But it's easy to focus on the 'evil' ones and discard the 'good' ones out-of-hand without actually appraising the result.

And it's not so much Destined Alignment vs. Alignment by Actions - they're both Alignment by Actions, but recognize that Alignment is determined by Cosmic Forces From Above, not irrelevant personal feelings.

Someone who's deliberate behavior results in a net growth of the influence of Good in the world (As a result of their actions, not as a reaction to their actions - A genocidal maniac isn't Good because the rest of the world is so collectively horrified by his actions that they straighten up... unless, possibly, if his actions were taken deliberately to create that reaction)

that still seems like putting intent over effect. further it doesn't hold up any better than what I said, you're still killing people who are on the "good" side simply because you believe it will hinder the "bad" side, perception has quite a bit to do with alignment as it's how the alignment system was set up in the first place. to a monster killing sentient things could be justified as good because we're infringing on their territory or upset their gods, to us that just makes them an aggressive evil monster. to us we're doing something good by going out and slaughtering every one of those monsters we see, to them they're being killed by some horrible abominations because WE'RE the aggressive ones.

without those personal moral views the alignment system wouldn't exist and it wouldn't be nearly as debated as it is, going back to my earlier "a crime is a crime" stance, you kill someone because if you don't two other people might be killed, does that make you less guilty of murder? no, you're still guilty, their family will still hate you, the law will still be against you, you still killed them and saying it was for a good reason (even if it was and that reason succeeded) does not undo or reverse the fact that it was a terrible thing to do.

[hamishspence]

going back to my earlier "a crime is a crime" stance, you kill someone because if you don't two other people might be killed, does that make you less guilty of murder? no, you're still guilty, their family will still hate you, the law will still be against you, you still killed them and saying it was for a good reason (even if it was and that reason succeeded) does not undo or reverse the fact that it was a terrible thing to do.
"Murder" is one of those things that varies in definition somewhat, depending on who's doing the defining.

Still, as a general rule, "necessity is not a defence against a charge of murder"

So- even if a character's able to prove that it was "necessary to ensure the survival of some people"- that may not be enough to make it "Not-Murder".

[Scow2]

without those personal moral views the alignment system wouldn't exist and it wouldn't be nearly as debated as it is, going back to my earlier "a crime is a crime" stance, you kill someone because if you don't two other people might be killed, does that make you less guilty of murder? no, you're still guilty, their family will still hate you, the law will still be against you, you still killed them and saying it was for a good reason (even if it was and that reason succeeded) does not undo or reverse the fact that it was a terrible thing to do.Crime is a legal, not Moral, issue. You violated the law, and it would be unlikely for the family of the victim to understand what and why you did it and accept it... but it's Law you've turned against, not Good. The monster killing thing becomes a weirder issue where Game Morality becomes divorced from fumbling Real World morality, and the difference between a "Person" and "Monster" does determine whether Cosmic Good or Cosmic Evil approves.


In the context of D&D, not even then. An act of genocide, according to BOVD, is so evil that it can leave a major taint upon the world. "It was for good reasons" won't prevent the taint from appearing.
Which goes back to "The end does not outweigh the means".

[hamishspence]

The monster killing thing becomes a weirder issue where Game Morality becomes divorced from fumbling Real World morality, and the difference between a "Person" and "Monster" does determine whether Cosmic Good or Cosmic Evil approves.

"We're all in the Monster Manual somewhere"

And in the case of editions other than 3rd- that includes humans.

[Scow2]

"We're all in the Monster Manual somewhere"

And in the case of editions other than 3rd- that includes humans.True, which means you need a know when someone's a Monster or not - but it's not Evil to brutally annihilate a pack of gnolls that has burned, looted, and pillaged a swath of countryside just because it's murdering a family of sentients, even it IS evil to kill a gnoll just for being a gnoll if it's actually just a local bard keeping the population of a small town entertained.

In 3.X, it's impossible for a person who commits evil acts or has a few evil outlooks to be Exalted Good, but they can still be Normal Good if their net behavior, actions, and outlook advance Good far more than Evil. Three in ten humans are Good on average, but ten out of ten humans have Evil Tendencies somewhere in their actions and outlook.

[MonochromeTiger]

"Murder" is one of those things that varies in definition somewhat, depending on who's doing the defining.

Still, as a general rule, "necessity is not a defence against a charge of murder"

So- even if a character's able to prove that it was "necessary to ensure the survival of some people"- that may not be enough to make it "Not-Murder".

in the situation I'm trying to imply neither the person killed nor the people at risk have done anything wrong and are not threatening the other group in any way, so the definition in use here is the traditional "you are not doing this in self defense you are killing someone who has not threatened you in any way". but yes you got the point I was trying to get across, just because someone may have a reason it doesn't justify what they did, killing a thousand to save a million still involves killing that thousand that have done nothing to deserve it, it still involves mass slaughter for the yet to be verified promise that it will somehow help others, a good act would be attempting to save all of them, or even saving what you can without killing even if it's less. an evil act is accepting the circumstances presented to you without questioning and simply killing till someone in charge says stop.

there's a question that was brought up when I was younger as part of an attempt to figure out how me and some of my peers thought, the question was "if there's a train going down one track with a crowd of people and your friend is on the only one you can divert it to would you divert the train". just about everyone answered that they wouldn't and that they would try to warn the people, it's a foolish answer but you can see that they were at least trying to save everyone even when they overlook the answer that gets closest to that, I answered I'd divert the train and when asked if I thought I was wrong the only answer I could give was "yes, and I'd go to be judged after, both choices are wrong". it doesn't matter if you think you can save someone by doing something bad if what you're doing is still clearly bad.

[hamishspence]

it's not Evil to brutally annihilate a pack of gnolls that has burned, looted, and pillaged a swath of countryside just because it's murdering a family of sentients,

Generally, depending on the context, it could end up as "justifiable homicide" - for example- you've been sent to arrest them and bring them back for trial- and if they resist arrest, you're entitled to use lethal force.

Or, you've put yourself between them and their next victims, and are using lethal force only in defence of those victims.



there's a question that was brought up when I was younger as part of an attempt to figure out how me and some of my peers thought, the question was "if there's a train going down one track with a crowd of people and your friend is on the only one you can divert it to would you divert the train". just about everyone answered that they wouldn't and that they would try to warn the people, it's a foolish answer but you can see that they were at least trying to save everyone even when they overlook the answer that gets closest to that, I answered I'd divert the train and when asked if I thought I was wrong the only answer I could give was "yes, and I'd go to be judged after, both choices are wrong".

In this case, it can be argued that one has a responsibility to divert it away from crowds. It's not your fault that there's no completely safe direction to divert it to.

Not quite the same thing as "murdering the few to save the many" - more "diverting the hazard away from the largest number of people."

[MonochromeTiger]

Crime is a legal, not Moral, issue. You violated the law, and it would be unlikely for the family of the victim to understand what and why you did it and accept it... but it's Law you've turned against, not Good. The monster killing thing becomes a weirder issue where Game Morality becomes divorced from fumbling Real World morality, and the difference between a "Person" and "Monster" does determine whether Cosmic Good or Cosmic Evil approves.


crime and law are facets of morality just as good and evil are, all of them are labels we put on actions in order to rationalize them to ourselves which is why people consider crime "bad", because the things we punish the most as crimes are things we consider evil such as killing. but admittedly to a degree I agree with you on the "monster or person" issue but even then it's heavily reliant on perception.

[hamishspence]

crime and law are facets of morality just as good and evil are, all of them are labels we put on actions in order to rationalize them to ourselves which is why people consider crime "bad", because the things we punish the most as crimes are things we consider evil such as killing.
It would probably be fair to say that most D&D laws are against usually Evil acts.

Even Evil societies need to discourage their citizens from committing Evil acts against one another (most of the time) in order for those societies to survive.

[MonochromeTiger]

It would probably be fair to say that most D&D laws are against usually Evil acts.

Even Evil societies need to discourage their citizens from committing Evil acts against one another (most of the time) in order for those societies to survive.

oh agreed, it's kind of like the childish belief that anarchy is actually good for someone when the very fact that it is chaos, random in all ways, means that it may be good for someone but only until it's soul-shatteringly terrible.

[Scow2]

oh agreed, it's kind of like the childish belief that anarchy is actually good for someone when the very fact that it is chaos, random in all ways, means that it may be good for someone but only until it's soul-shatteringly terrible.Aside from that not being what anarchy actually is... You can't really say that blind enforcement of all laws, regardless of circumstance and impact, is good for everyone. What makes Law not Good is its demands to be consistent and universal, when every person is a unique individual with their own motivations, outlook, circumstances, and needs.

[hamishspence]

Going back to the OP- the character is Altruistic (a Good trait) and lacks compunctions against harming the innocent (an Evil trait).

Thus, they're likely to be Neutral at best.

Depending on the nature of the deeds, a DM might change them to evil, once enough unrepented Evil deeds are "on the character's soul" - and rule that no amount of good deeds can move them out of Evil, until they actually repent.

That would fit well with BoVD, or Champions of Ruin.

[MonochromeTiger]

Aside from that not being what anarchy actually is... You can't really say that blind enforcement of all laws, regardless of circumstance and impact, is good for everyone. What makes Law not Good is its demands to be consistent and universal, when every person is a unique individual with their own motivations, outlook, circumstances, and needs.

practiced anarchy is the absence of laws, which while not inherently bad also means there's nothing to keep people from DOING something bad, which is why I said chaos, it's fun and interesting and there's nothing keeping you down but at the same time it's terrifying and worrying and nothing is there to stop you from falling. blind enforcement of laws is also bad as it doesn't take circumstance into account but circumstance doesn't instantly mean a crime wasn't bad. but yes as hamishspence is pointing out the original point of the topic is still there and I think his outcome is the only middle ground we could remotely agree on in this.

[Remmirath]

Depending on how far she takes the whole going to any lengths thing, I would say currently either chaotic good or chaotic neutral (I say chaotic, because it sounds as though there is no regard or care for rules at all in there -- could also be neutral on the chaos/law spectrum). From what you've said there, I'd say probably still in the good area, but very close to neutral.

I would also say that such a character is primed for slipping slowly into the evil end of the alignment spectrum if she isn't careful, and becoming the sort of evil character who firmly believes that they are doing the morally right thing (and has a point some of the time).

Of course, that's based on my own interpretation of the alignment system, and if being around on this forum has taught me anything it's that people have very, very different interpretations of alignment.

[Darkranger85]

I find this debate very interesting.

I personally believe that both of you have very good points and in reality neither one can ever truly be labeled as "right" or "wrong."

@Remmirath: I tend to agree with your assessment. If you look at it from say a view where this person is indeed fighting for good, but also has the cold and detached ability to say "I have to do this bad thing to bring about a larger good result."

Then technically speaking I would consider them 'Good' but most certainly not 'lawful.' And in fact I would classify her as a criminal depending on what she ends up doing.

This is what makes alignment so complicated for many I think. Because people cannot be classified so easily. We have many many complicated facets.

You can be a good person that has done terrible things, or a terrible person that has done very good things and every shade in between.

[MonochromeTiger]

I find this debate very interesting.

I personally believe that both of you have very good points and in reality neither one can ever truly be labeled as "right" or "wrong."

that's a rather nice view to have. I have to say while I disagree with scow on the matter I still have to admit he's clearly looking at this from a logical view (of which there can be many), and as neither of us know your DM either one of us may be right or perhaps we could both be wrong and you'll wind up with an entirely different way of judging. regardless I hope you enjoy your game when you've decided.

[Darkranger85]

Thats another thing that is great about this. The sheer fact that so many people have varying opinions and interpretations of how these things could work, allow for a great deal of variety in a game.

[Darkranger85]

Going back to the OP- the character is Altruistic (a Good trait) and lacks compunctions against harming the innocent (an Evil trait).

Thus, they're likely to be Neutral at best.

Depending on the nature of the deeds, a DM might change them to evil, once enough unrepented Evil deeds are "on the character's soul" - and rule that no amount of good deeds can move them out of Evil, until they actually repent.

That would fit well with BoVD, or Champions of Ruin.

Thank you for the input!

And you also gave me a great idea for another character along the same lines but a little different.

A character that does unspeakable things in the name of good without hesitation, but feels the guilt for what he has done and always attempts to repent for the deeds even though given another similar circumstance he would do that same again.