Alignment question

[Sholos]

So, I had a character described to me tonight and I want to find out more people's opinions on what alignment vibes the character description puts off. I'll put what I initially thought (as well as what I was told) in a spoiler at the end.

So, as described to me, this character is an Oracle (Pathfinder system) who goes around doing various good works (what exactly was never expounded upon). In his travels, he is sometimes attacked by an enemy group. His go-to method for dealing with them is to Color Spray them into unconsciousness (I, of course, forgot to ask exactly how this Oracle was getting access to Color Spray... looking at it I'm guessing the Heavens mystery) and then stuff them into a 4'x4'x4' wooden box for transportation to a holding area of the group he's part of. If he is attacked along the way again, he has no qualms about putting said boxes in between him and his attackers as cover because, "they forfeited their rights as human beings when they attacked me." Also justified as not technically being the person to harm them if something should happen. This character also keeps ranks in Profession: Lawyer and delights in using the law and technicalities to win over people. Another thing he does is make daily Diplomacy checks on the prisoners he's transporting to change them from hostile to friendly.

Now, given that short bit, what alignment would you say this character is?

So my initial reaction before hearing about the "use my prisoners as human shields" bit was that the character was Lawful Neutral. I was then told that the character is actually Chaotic Neutral. Which seems very wrong to me, as things like using technicalities to justify terrible behavior seems a very Lawful mindset, as does being a lawyer by trade. Also, even if someone is running around doing good works (again, I was never actually told what those were), deliberately and consistently putting your prisoners in harm's way to protect you seems very evil to me. The player also tried to justify it by saying that enemies could make a Knowledge: Local check at DC 10 to know that their might be people inside the boxes and thus the character could never be at fault. Also "Rules as Written" was quoted several times as an overarching rule that not even DMs can go against.

[holywhippet]

Chaotic neutral characters are supposed to be either impulsive or insane. If that character goes around doing good deeds most of the time they aren't really neutral. Using legal technicalities and have ranks in profession: lawyer doesn't really match up with being chaotic either. Neither does taking prisoners.

Given the glaring contradictions I'd have to suggest true neutral. They are striking a balance between good and evil, lawful and chaotic.

[Kane0]

To me, Lawful nautral to lawful evil. He is using the law to his own benefit and may or may not be performing good deeds for his own ends (such as keeping up appearances rather than actually caring).

He lacks empathy and works within (and abusing) an established system, that seems lawful non-good.

[DeathOfAMailman]

I'd call it Lawful Neutral, in an almost robotic sense. While everything he says is technically correct, he's very much following the letter of the law, while ignoring its intent.

[ArcturusV]

I'm guessing Chaotic Neutral.

Reason for Neutral: Goodish... but can't hold to the standards. In particular the "Care of Prisoners". Good people would never do that. Evil people might. The "Forfeit human rights" thing is definitely not a good ideal unless you were talking about someone who willingly let a demon possess them level of evil. Not just merely "Because they were in my way".

Chaotic because of the total and complete lack of respect for law, order, civility, etc. Don't mistake using the law with being Lawful, as the character is using their status as a lawyer and knowledge to purposefully flaunt it just for the sheer thrill of being a rebel. Remember that basically Chaotic Neutral is "Rebel without a Cause". Someone who values freedom, is headstrong, etc, and thinks most everyone else is a fool for doing what people tell them. If he plays the Lawyer Schtick that way, it's possible. Otherwise using the law to break the law and flaunt it strikes me as maybe up to Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis.

There's a case to be made for Lawful Evil as well. Evil people CAN do "good deeds". And evil's dogma of "Anyone who stands against me has no right to live" is very much in their wheelhouse. If the "Lawyer" thing comes less from trying to break and subvert the system, but trying to use it as a sledgehammer against anyone who opposes him.

Funny ain't it, how close Chaotic Neutral and Lawful Evil are. But those would be the two I'd peg.

[MonochromeTiger]

Chaotic neutral characters are supposed to be either impulsive or insane. If that character goes around doing good deeds most of the time they aren't really neutral. Using legal technicalities and have ranks in profession: lawyer doesn't really match up with being chaotic either. Neither does taking prisoners.

Given the glaring contradictions I'd have to suggest true neutral. They are striking a balance between good and evil, lawful and chaotic.

agreed with holywhippet, except with a bit of split between lawful neutral and true neutral. I wouldn't really say evil since that description didn't really seem to mention them actually starting any fights, simply responding with notably non lethal force. the good deeds seem intentionally vague and look like they're there simply to counter "but if attacked will use the prisoners as a human shield".

the thing that really makes chaotic seem out of line in my mind however is the fact that he clearly has a system for dealing with enemies, he uses the law as his profession (lawyer) and way of interacting with others...but the "can't be at fault" thing for the human shields is just wrong, he's intentionally putting them into a situation in which they're in danger after losing any ability to be a threat (which I've NEVER seen a DM play out as anywhere north of neutral).

[Kelb_Panthera]

The character seems to be lawful neutral, edging toward lawful evil, to me.

Honestly though, I'm much more concerned about the player putting forward RAW as inviolable, especially in regards to RAW on alignment which pathfinder has precious little of, to my understanding.

RAW is the baseline that we all use for internet discussions and even then there are certain things that are assumed to be true that don't necessarily fit with RAW. For example; it's generally assumed that the rules for drowning saying you immediately go to -1 on the round you begin drowning doesn't apply if you're below -1 when you begin to drown and you instead stay where you are or drown immediately. It's also a fairly common assumption that multiclass XP penalties aren't in play unless stated otherwise, though this one isn't as ubiquitous.

In an actual, in-person game RAW is the starting point and from there DM's make house rules and rulings that modify or clarify how the rules apply to their group; sometimes with the group's input, sometimes without. Alignment in particular is a complex and confusing area that absolutely -needs- a DM to interpret and clarify and to stick to his guns when a player disagrees unless the majority of the group agrees that he's wrong and maybe even then.

[Deophaun]

...stuff them into a 4'x4'x4' wooden box for transportation to a holding area of the group he's part of. If he is attacked along the way again, he has no qualms about putting said boxes in between him and his attackers as cover because, "they forfeited their rights as human beings when they attacked me." Also justified as not technically being the person to harm them if something should happen.
This seems to be the only thing that can be interpreted as evil. It's ironic that, if he didn't bother using non-lethal force and just killed the people attacking him, he would clearly be Good.

But is this as bad as it looks? Not really. By the rules, anyone inside those boxes is safe unless you have people using alchemist's fire or woodwisp arrows; there's no LoE to anyone inside. It's little different than using an occupied building as cover.

While the player says "they forfeited their rights," his character certainly isn't treating his enemies that way by what you describe. First, there's the nonlethal response to lethal actions. Then there's the daily diplomacy checks. The character obviously cares about what his prisoners think about him. Unless he's delivering them to his organization to be tortured or rendered down into soap or something along those lines, I'm saying Lawful Good.

[Sholos]

This seems to be the only thing that can be interpreted as evil. It's ironic that, if he didn't bother using non-lethal force and just killed the people attacking him, he would clearly be Good.

But is this as bad as it looks? Not really. By the rules, anyone inside those boxes is safe unless you have people using alchemist's fire or woodwisp arrows; there's no LoE to anyone inside. It's little different than using an occupied building as cover.
While true, that's very metagame material. Hard to justify it in-game in my mind.


While the player says "they forfeited their rights," his character certainly isn't treating his enemies that way by what you describe. First, there's the nonlethal response to lethal actions. Then there's the daily diplomacy checks. The character obviously cares about what his prisoners think about him. Unless he's delivering them to his organization to be tortured or rendered down into soap or something along those lines, I'm saying Lawful Good.

To clarify, the character is the one saying that they've forfeited their rights, as well as the player. The daily diplomacy checks are more on the order of "hahaha, the rules let me force you to be my friend" than checking up on them. Think interrogation tactics.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, I'm now beginning to get the impression that this player probably doesn't take the game as seriously as BoED was assuming the group would if they were going to include its contents.

There's nothing wrong with choosing not to take the game seriously (unless you're the only one in the group that feels that way) but BoED and BoVD made certain assumptions about how seriously they were going to be considered and probably aren't appropriate for a game with a more casual tone.

Of course, I'm assuming that this is a 3.P game, that is a pathfinder game that incorporates 3.5 material, because otherwise I don't think that rule about converting someone's alignment with diplomacy checks was ever incorporated in pathfinder. Was it?

[Sholos]

:smallconfused: He's not changing their alignment, just their attitude towards him. From hostile to friendly, apparently. By keeping them tied up in a box and talking to them once a day.

[MonochromeTiger]

:smallconfused: He's not changing their alignment, just their attitude towards him. From hostile to friendly, apparently. By keeping them tied up in a box and talking to them once a day.

....I feel as though there may be a flaw in logic here... "keeps them cramped in a tiny box"... "makes them like him more"... nope after thinking it over more I still can't think of that as anything more than driving them insane with improper prisoner handling conditions...

[Kelb_Panthera]

:smallconfused: He's not changing their alignment, just their attitude towards him. From hostile to friendly, apparently. By keeping them tied up in a box and talking to them once a day.

Oh..... diplomancer crap. Yeah.

Diplomacy has long been known to be horribly flawed and in need of a ground-up rewrite. It's one of those things like drown-healing that most people just assume will have houserules or that the DM will rule on the fly, rather than anyone assuming that RAW is in full, unmodified effect.

[Brookshw]

I'm going to reply to you before reading other responses so I don't color my opinion. Bolding parts that I find relevant in such determinations.



So, as described to me, this character is an Oracle (Pathfinder system) who goes around doing various good works (what exactly was never expounded upon). In his travels, he is sometimes attacked by an enemy group. His go-to method for dealing with them is to Color Spray them into unconsciousness (I, of course, forgot to ask exactly how this Oracle was getting access to Color Spray... looking at it I'm guessing the Heavens mystery) and then stuff them into a 4'x4'x4' wooden box for transportation to a holding area of the group he's part of. If he is attacked along the way again, he has no qualms about putting said boxes in between him and his attackers as cover because, "they forfeited their rights as human beings when they attacked me." Also justified as not technically being the person to harm them if something should happen. This character also keeps ranks in Profession: Lawyer and delights in using the law and technicalities to win over people. Another thing he does is make daily Diplomacy checks on the prisoners he's transporting to change them from hostile to friendly.

Now, given that short bit, what alignment would you say this character is?


From the initial "doing good stuff", seeking non lethal options for conflict resolution I'm initially inclined to put him towards good. Law/Chaos axis currently unknown. I would expect though that the "doing good stuff" bit continue in the campaign, otherwise it's an empty statement that shouldn't have bearing, and that by "good" we mean generally trying to help people for the sake of helping.

The whole transport them to a holding cell is now swinging him/her into the law side of the Law/Chaos axis so I'm now inclined to think Lawful Good. This I could see potentially being reinforced by the whole "buddying up to them" bit but I don't know his rational for doing so and as such can't use it as evidence yet to swinging it in any particular direction. Is he trying to get them to give up some evil way? Maybe but that's an unknown.

Using the box as a shield puts the brakes on a bit. Were there other options for cover available or was he deliberately putting the prisoner in harms way? Was the prisoner actually in harms way? As in, a group of mooks peppering the box with arrows dealing a d8 damage shouldn't break a well made box so he could be making a valid tactical decision that's not in fact putting the prisoner in danger. If the prisoner is not in danger I'll go with good, if in danger I'll go with neutral.

The forfeited their rights as human beings is now firmly putting him in the neutral category.

The "not technically being the person to harm them" is reinforcing the lawful bit, feels awfully reminiscent of devil's who use exact wording to get away with a great many things. Using this technicality to put someone in harms way doesn't strike me as good and is another notch in the neutral category but again, I'd like some more info on the set up.

So my kneejerk based on what info is available is this seems likely L/N though there's a bit of flexibility. So far it doesn't sound evil but as a campaign played out I could see this drifting in that direction, I just don't see enough justification yet to consider it an option. The strict interpretation of who is doing what definitely sticks it to the big L for me though.

[Red Rubber Band]

....I feel as though there may be a flaw in logic here... "keeps them cramped in a tiny box"... "makes them like him more"... nope after thinking it over more I still can't think of that as anything more than driving them insane with improper prisoner handling conditions...

If he keeps them in there long enough, and is kind to them for long enough, they will start to go insane and think he is their saviour. The only kind person in the world.

"He lets me out of my box if I've been good."

:smalleek:

[MonochromeTiger]

Oh..... diplomancer crap. Yeah.

Diplomacy has long been known to be horribly flawed and in need of a ground-up rewrite. It's one of those things like drown-healing that most people just assume will have houserules or that the DM will rule on the fly, rather than anyone assuming that RAW is in full, unmodified effect.

yeah it kind of sounds increasingly like a "well the rulebook says it works so I should be able to do it" letter of the rules play..

sholos I feel as though it may be best to say something my group's usual DM tells me when I get stuck trying to DM a campaign.. "just because it's in the rules doesn't mean it makes sense and is meant that way". if a player does something that even by game logic and fluff shouldn't possibly work the only way it will is if the DM decides it should which IS the DM's right. there are any number of rules that have been house-ruled over by various DMs or outright ignored to make their game more unique. easy fix for some of these issues is simply asking yourself "does this make sense".

[Brookshw]

Oh..... diplomancer crap. Yeah.

Diplomacy has long been known to be horribly flawed and in need of a ground-up rewrite. It's one of those things like drown-healing that most people just assume will have houserules or that the DM will rule on the fly, rather than anyone assuming that RAW is in full, unmodified effect.

Agreed. Once you start down this path it feels like the games there to support the mechanics rather than the other way around. I can't think of anyone I've ever played with that especially likes that.

At least with intimidate there's the punch them in the face option.

[MonochromeTiger]

At least with intimidate there's the punch them in the face option.

well diplomacy has that too sometimes..but generally I only see it when our group's bard REALLY messes up on talking to a barmaid...and generally it's more very carefully aimed kicking than punching..

[Kish]

The player also tried to justify it by saying that enemies could make a Knowledge: Local check at DC 10 to know that their might be people inside the boxes and thus the character could never be at fault. Also "Rules as Written" was quoted several times as an overarching rule that not even DMs can go against.[/SPOILER]
The problem here is that the player is Lawful Neutral, and the character...doesn't actually have an alignment because his entire personality is based on incorrect ideas.

[MonochromeTiger]

The problem here is that the player is Lawful Neutral, and the character...doesn't actually have an alignment because his entire personality is based on incorrect ideas.

wait we haven't come up with an alignment dedicated to characters based entirely on rule-lawyering?

[Kane0]

The problem here is that the player is Lawful Neutral, and the character...doesn't actually have an alignment because his entire personality is based on incorrect ideas.

You might be onto something there.

The player might have a chaotic lawyer character because he intends on using that to cover for his rules lawyer tendencies.


wait we haven't come up with an alignment dedicated to characters based entirely on rule-lawyering?

If you feel brave enough i'm sure TVTropes has something on the topic.

[Vedhin]

The character is Lawful Evil. He is exploiting various loopholes for his own gain, a classic LE act. He also belongs to an organization, a not so Chaotic thing. Claiming that others forfeited their rights by attacking him shows a distinct lack of respect for others, an Evil trait. Diplomacy, used as he is, is best looked at as an attempt to create allies, not make friends. His Good or good acts are likely just to gain the trust of others.

There is little reason for him to be Chaotic Neutral. He shows too much consistency for that. A true CN character also would not be imprisoning beings in boxes, and taking them to a holding area is right out. One of the beliefs of Chaos is the importance of freedom. Chaotic Good actively tries to secure it for others, Chaotic Neutral won't restrict it for others, and Chaotic Evil seeks its own freedom regardless of the cost to others.

[KillianHawkeye]

My first reaction was Lawful Evil. Definitely NOT Chaotic anything. Maaaaaybe Lawful Neutral if his undisclosed good deeds were truly altruistic (which I kinda doubt) and there are enough of them to balance out his casual disregard for the rights and well-being of other intelligent life forms.

[Epsilon Rose]

From what you've said of the character, I'd peg him as very lawful and precariously neutral. As it stands, it sounds like he sticks to the letter of the law and his various rules about as strictly as any devil or inevitable. That said, his ethics are questionable. The disregard for sophont life and confinement could be seen as neutral or evil and the good works could be anything from part of an evil plot (my evil PCs tend to do tons of good works) to a saints calling. You might want to press him for specifics on what good works he does.


The player himself seems more problematic. I'm not sure I'd ever let someone diplomance an appropriately CRed enemy into friendly, while confining the enemy to a 4x4x4 box for days on end. Especially not if they occasionally use the box as mobile cover. I'm also not sure I'd let them use profession (lawyer) to win many people over. When people start declaring they can do these things by RAW I'd get a bit nervous. In fact, when people start pointing to raw, rather than balanced gameplay, I tend to consider it a red flag, unless they're new to 3.5/pf.

[Deophaun]

While true, that's very metagame material. Hard to justify it in-game in my mind.
The unfortunate thing is, that's how this fantasy world works. Why would the characters think any differently?

To clarify, the character is the one saying that they've forfeited their rights, as well as the player.
That's fine. The character can say whatever he wants. A character who puts out a burning building filled with orphans isn't evil just because he also likes to talk about setting orphanages on fire. Unless he actually sets the building on fire, he's just suffering from cognitive dissonance.

The daily diplomacy checks are more on the order of "hahaha, the rules let me force you to be my friend" than checking up on them.
Now this is metagame material, and you're the one judging from a metagame perspective.

[Sholos]

Fortunately I don't have to play with this guy. Unfortunately he's the boyfriend of one of my friends, so I'll probably just avoid talking about D&D at all around him (especially since he seems to consider himself an excellent optimizer, which clearly he is not). I wouldn't be able to play with anyone of his mindset. I just got into a heated argument with him about how the character was being presented, especially the point of whether using the boxes as cover on a regular basis would be grounds for shifting a character's alignment towards evil.

[McJesos]

Initially I read this character as lawful neutral, however after reading some of the comments it definitely appears that he's edging towards a true neutral or perhaps even neutral evil alignment, he many not harm people directly but by using his own opinion of the law he is willing to forfeit human life. Seems like a corrupted view to me.

[Telonius]

I'd need a bit more information (testing his actions in certain circumstances), but I'm actually inclined to say True Neutral, maybe with some minor Lawful and stronger Evil tendencies. He's not really going out of his way to be benevolent or malevolent. It's more, "I'm doing my thing, get out of my way while I'm doing it." He seems like the type that would keep to the letter of a promise but twist the spirit. While that's generally lawful (even Devils do that), I don't get the idea that he follows any code other than, "local rules are there for me to twist to my own benefit." Would he get upset if he saw somebody breaking a local cherished tradition, or would he take the attitude of, "Eh, I'm not a cop," and let somebody else take care of the issue? I have a feeling it's the latter.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'll chime in again on Lawful Neutral, through it could easily become Lawful Evil. He's using his own code to justify a questionable activity. To me, chaos is less about a code and more of a focus on achieving a goal. Most chaotic characters in my opinion wouldn't bother with twisting laws when they could just laugh at anyone trying to enforce them and do what they want anyway. Why not just stuff people you dislike in boxes and then hand them over when you please?

The Diplomancing stuff, however? I just hope your friend doesn't play DnD or has the same attitude as him, OP.

[HaikenEdge]

I'd say the guy is Lawful Evil, leaning Neutral Evil. He uses the law to his advantage, and sometimes does things that aren't particularly lawful when he can get away with it (using prisoners he's transporting as human shields seems to violate basic prisoners rights, and the whole "they lost their rights as a person" is more an excuse than a justification). Doing good deeds really depends on the methodology of said deeds; there are ways to do good deeds even when employing evil methods.