Alignment Confusion

[rmnimoc]

Most of the time, if a player tells me he wants to be a good guy and take over the world for the "greater good", I'm going to make a little note to watch for him to start sliding down the slippery slope to hell. That said, I've ran into an interesting situation where it seems the opposite may be true. The party is held together by necessity, the good crusader, lawful cleric, neutral druid, and the wizard who was pretty much cookie cutter evil from the get go, a selfish jerk who happily stole, maimed, and murdered in his selfish quest to do generic evil stuff. He really didn't have much of a goal. His character (not the player) has three main personality traits, he is selfish, vain, and he has an ego that makes the the abyss seem small. When the party managed to take over a city, that ego appearently demanded that the city thrive and become a world power because other cities were world powers and he was not going to allow anyone to even think his city wasn't the greatest ever. At first this was no big deal, but it started getting more interesting as time went on. I had some cultists plan to kidnap a few children to entice the crusader to lead the party against the cult and the planned BBEG. The kidnapping was going to take place right in front of the wizard because he couldn't care less about some orphans when he had a track record of burning down orphanges and he was friendly with members of the cult. I did not expect the wizard to engage the cultists single handedly to protect the kids, to intentionally hold back to avoid hurting the orphans, or to take a disintegrate spell to the back to defend a hobo. The rest of the party showed up and drove the cultists off, and the party began tossing all kinds of spells to figure out what I had done to the wizard to make him do that (nothing). When they finally questioned him about it, his reasoning was "This city is mine, the people are mine, and no one touches my stuff". He has proceded to spend vast amounts of his own fortune to repair and protect the orphanage, and personally spearheaded the crusade to completely wipe out the child sacrificing cult that attacked the city. Now he wants to save the day and take over the world, because of selfishness and greed. All the while doing every heroic thing along the way because he wants everything to belong to him, and no one is allowed to mess with his stuff.

One of the players joked about his alignment a bit, reminding him he was evil, but everything he has done so far still totally fits his character's personality.. Most people would argue that "the ends justify the means" is totally not a [Good] viewpoint, so is it Good or Evil to do the right things (saving orphans, donating money to charity, jumping in front of a fatal spell to save some random joe) for the wrong reasons (selfishness and greed)? Where in the outer planes they'd go upon dying and how outsiders treat them was a plot point I was planning on using, so I kind of need to figure out how to hand this alignment-wise. Thoughts?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Doing the right things for the wrong reasons balances to neutral in -most- cases. If he's still regularly doing evil things as well then an evil alignment on his character sheet is probably correct.

That said, does it really matter? Unless you're making exploring alignments a central feature of your adventure/campaign it's a relatively minor thing. Just ignore it until it becomes relevant because of an alignment based spell.

[Sith_Happens]

If he's mostly stopped doing Evil things, then I'd say he's sliding towards the most hilarious flavor of Good ever. Whether he gets there is going to depend primarily on how he goes about expanding his dominion.

[Rosstin]

Great example of why alignment is meaningless in a complex game, but it sounds like a really fun plot.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If he's mostly stopped doing Evil things, then I'd say he's sliding towards the most hilarious flavor of Good ever.

Nah. Sliding toward neutral, certainly, but there's got to be a certain respect for life and/or a bit of altruism for it to keep sliding into good. I'm not getting that from the OP's description at all. It strikes me more as a "nobody's allowed to break my toys but me!" kind of attitude.

[Sith_Happens]

Nah. Sliding toward neutral, certainly, but there's got to be a certain respect for life and/or a bit of altruism for it to keep sliding into good. I'm not getting that from the OP's description at all. It strikes me more as a "nobody's allowed to break my toys but me!" kind of attitude.

That's sort of respecting life, and it's definitely slid into about half the working definitions of altruism (his reward is entirely intrinsic).

[The Grue]

Great example of why alignment is meaningless in a complex game, but it sounds like a really fun plot.

Pretty much this. The character is consistent, and yet defies classification by the Nine Alignments. I wouldn't worry too much about it, or at all really.

[Seharvepernfan]

I'm siding with the others in that it doesn't matter, but here's my thoughts:

The player is intentionally undermining the alignment system - no person would ever act that way - unless they're lying (he's had an actual change of heart but doesn't want to admit it, or it's part of some larger evil scheme). The character is evil (unless your player is actually playing that "change of heart, too proud to admit it" bit, and isn't telling you).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm siding with the others in that it doesn't matter, but here's my thoughts:

The player is intentionally undermining the alignment system - no person would ever act that way - unless they're lying (he's had an actual change of heart but doesn't want to admit it, or it's part of some larger evil scheme). The character is evil (unless your player is actually playing that "change of heart, too proud to admit it" bit, and isn't telling you).

See now, I completely disagree with this. It's not hard to understand that frame of mind, monstrous though it may be. It's simply a matter of seeing people weaker than yourself as lesser beings that deserve to be treated like cattle. Once you're in that frame of mind, grasping the rather juvenile sentiment of not letting somebody else mess with what belongs to you becomes fairly easy.

It's the mind of sociopath but it's not really that complex or difficult to understand.

[Seharvepernfan]

See now, I completely disagree with this. It's not hard to understand that frame of mind, monstrous though it may be. It's simply a matter of seeing people weaker than yourself as lesser beings that deserve to be treated like cattle. Once you're in that frame of mind, grasping the rather juvenile sentiment of not letting somebody else mess with what belongs to you becomes fairly easy.

It's the mind of sociopath but it's not really that complex or difficult to understand.

No, I meant it's unrealistic to see people as lesser than you are (cattle, whom you own) and still make sacrifices for them (like jumping in front of a hobo to save him from disintegration). You don't want your cattle to die, but somebody in that "ownership" frame of mind isn't going to see those people as worth (potentially) dying for.

[Stormageddon]

Sounds like the relationship between Doom and Latveria.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, I meant it's unrealistic to see people as lesser than you are (cattle, whom you own) and still make sacrifices for them (like jumping in front of a hobo to save him from disintegration). You don't want your cattle to die, but somebody in that "ownership" frame of mind isn't going to see those people as worth (potentially) dying for.

You don't know many farmers, do you?

It's not unheard of for people to put their life on the line for inanimate objects of relatively low value, when that's the way they think. There's also the possibility of simply misunderstanding the threat represented in a particular foe.

I didn't read that he jumped in front of a hobo to protect him from a disintegrate. I read that he jumped into a fight to get those fellows off of -his- hobo and took a disintegrate in the back during the engagement. Big difference there.

[Seharvepernfan]

You don't know many farmers, do you?

It's not unheard of for people to put their life on the line for inanimate objects of relatively low value, when that's the way they think. There's also the possibility of simply misunderstanding the threat represented in a particular foe.

I didn't read that he jumped in front of a hobo to protect him from a disintegrate. I read that he jumped into a fight to get those fellows off of -his- hobo and took a disintegrate in the back during the engagement. Big difference there.

You have a point. I still think the character is evil (and IMO, insane).

[Kelb_Panthera]

You have a point. I still think the character is evil (and IMO, insane).

Well, yeah. I doubt "insane" is on his character sheet but evil certainly is. That was the OP's question; is the E on that particular line appropriate? IMO, yes.

[TheMonocleRogue]

Alignments are tedious, but I allow them since it sometimes forces the hand of NPCs who can't be interacted with on a personal level because of opposing alignments (good vs evil). Plus alignments can severely dictate some classes in that they lose their class abilities when they break a code of conduct or simply choose a different alignment.

I always make sure my PC's understand the basics of alignments. I tend to treat it like the first amendment of the constitution in that, as a DM, I cannot prevent you from picking any alignment you want. However, the context of what you say and do in character should be within your alignment spectrum or it will have adverse affects on how the NPCs treat your character.

You can go one step out of an alignment if you have an ulterior motive you don't want anyone to know about, I'm okay with this since I find it necessary for role playing in campaigns where everyone is either all good or all evil. Two steps out of your alignment tends draw suspicion, and three steps requires some serious scrutiny or a possible shift along the alignment table (someone taking neutral evil actions as a lawful good character for instance).

And to the DM in this thread, you should take caution in expecting your players to react based on their in-game alignment. An alignment does not dictate a player's reaction to certain situations, it only affects the context of what the character does.

So say the chaotic evil wizard wants to protect the children for being "his property." One could make the argument that this is a good act since he is protecting the kids, but the wizard merely sees them as his "property" and not as human beings. Thus it is considered a neutral act.

The one step in alignment to chaotic neutral should not affect the way other PCs see him so you shouldn't worry too much about it. The same would apply to the lawful good character wanting to take over the world for the greater good. The one shift to lawful neutral is acceptable so long as he doesn't threaten the sanctity of living by becoming a sociopath, in which case that would be lawful evil and would attract disbelievers.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh, I forgot to say it but this is -extremely- important if you don't just all but ignore alignment:

A character's alignment is determined by his actions. His actions -are not- determined by his alignment.

Getting this backwards is one of the most common screw ups people make in regards to alignment and causes ridiculous headaches that could've been easily avoided by getting it right. That's not just my opinion on the matter, it's the actual written rules of the game.

[TheMonocleRogue]

Oh, I forgot to say it but this is -extremely- important if you don't just all but ignore alignment:

A character's alignment is determined by his actions. His actions -are not- determined by his alignment.

Getting this backwards is one of the most common screw ups people make in regards to alignment and causes ridiculous headaches that could've been easily avoided by getting it right. That's not just my opinion on the matter, it's the actual written rules of the game.

It's true. Unless you house rule that alignments aren't necessary to the campaign you should be following these rules, albeit leniently to allow for some creative role playing.

For most players neutral is one of the best alignments you can be with regards to the alignment rules since it allows you to dip into the other alignments without attracting too much attention.

[Rosstin]

I only tolerate alignments because it's tradition and people like it.

[inexorabletruth]

The wizard is literally textbook Neutral aligned… most likely Lawful Neutral. My source? PHB, pg. 104:

A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

The G,N,E axis of alignment in D&D 3.5 relates most specifically towards your compunction regarding saving or destroying innocent life.

[Sith_Happens]

A character's alignment is determined by his actions. His actions -are not- determined by his alignment.

Which is precisely why I think there's a strong case for his not being Evil anymore. He's acting very non-Evil, and arguably even Good. He's not even using Good means to justify Evil ends, he's using them to justify Neutral ends (selfishness and greed are in themselves generally Neutral).


The wizard is literally textbook Neutral aligned… most likely Lawful Neutral. My source? PHB, pg. 104:

Also this.

Both of those things being said, however, I'll reiterate that the only way to know this character's current alignment for sure is to see how he acts while not in areas he considers his. Especially while in areas that he wants to make his.

[Drachasor]

He's still evil. Pretty clearly, imho.

If he was next to an orphanage in another town and the same thing happened, he'd do nothing. If one of those orphans kicked him in the shin, he might well kill them (sounds like). Possibly he'd do this to an orphan in his own town who kicked him too. He doesn't give a dang about life; he only cares about people messing with "his" things. Being insanely possessive does not make you good when you defend things you wrong consider as your possessions.

If a magistrate who was good for the city was going to leave, this guy would probably kill him. If the people under his thumb want to do something he doesn't like, then he's not going to respond well either. And in his desire to take over the planet, he's probably going to end up killing a lot more people just because they don't want to be owned by him. There's a whole world of evil behavior he'd gladly do.

The OP only described the very, very narrow scope in which one could construe his actions as good. Outside of that narrow context, the guy is still quite clearly evil.

Just because a psychopath does something nice doesn't mean he's a good guy or even an ok guy.

[georgie_leech]

I'd say the character is Evil, probably LE (LE doesn't have to be all about subverting the spirit of laws). It's the kind of character that would probably function fairly well in most Good parties, but he'd still take extra damage from Paladins and he'd have no problem shanking Goblin Clerics that try to cast Unholy Blight on him.

[Hangwind]

No, I meant it's unrealistic to see people as lesser than you are (cattle, whom you own) and still make sacrifices for them (like jumping in front of a hobo to save him from disintegration). You don't want your cattle to die, but somebody in that "ownership" frame of mind isn't going to see those people as worth (potentially) dying for.

What? Ranchers risk life and limb all the time for their cattle. That is doubly true for Ancient to Medieval settings. If you want to keep your sheep, you're going to have to stare down or drive off the bears and wolves sometime!

[Socratov]

Simple: the wizard always was neutral (borderline evil): he does not care if it does not concern him. Sure he did some evil acts but he was not doing it for teh evuls. He was doing out of a sense of property. He has power, so naturally he is at or near the top of the foodchain. Being apex predator he can pretty much do whatever he wants. So a case can be made for him to be entirely neutral. And with his self centered policies and thoughts he is pretty much chaotic. So I'd peg him at CN (though borderline evil). Why chaotic and not lawful? He does not follow a sense of protocol rules or such things. He follows his whims and feelings. The hint is placed at "They are mine and mine to do with as I please" not "Becuase it is right and just to do so"or "I deem it sensible to do so", but "becuase I think it should be done this way". That and hte fact that he has done similar things to other's property (burning down other city's orphanages and the like), not respecting another's right to play with their toys, instead enforcing his own justice for selfish reasons. Will it stop him from going about his earlier behaviour (you kow, destroying another person's 'toys')? No Because they are not his toys, so why should he care about it?

By the way, I love the plothook you threw at him. I don't even think it backfired as much as provided interesting roleplay opportunities. I think that apart from the main objective (providing the crusader with his spot in the limelight), it was one fo the most successful plothooks I have read about on this forum. Well done! *Applauds*

[Seharvepernfan]

What? Ranchers risk life and limb all the time for their cattle. That is doubly true for Ancient to Medieval settings. If you want to keep your sheep, you're going to have to stare down or drive off the bears and wolves sometime!

I was referring to people who see other people as property, which is basically slavery, and slavery is explicitly listed as evil in D&D.

[Drachasor]

Simple: the wizard always was neutral (borderline evil): he does not care if it does not concern him. Sure he did some evil acts but he was not doing it for teh evuls. He was doing out of a sense of property. He has power, so naturally he is at or near the top of the foodchain. Being apex predator he can pretty much do whatever he wants. So a case can be made for him to be entirely neutral.

That's actually evil not neutral. Animals can get away with that sort of thing because they can't make moral choices.


I was referring to people who see other people as property, which is basically slavery, and slavery is explicitly listed as evil in D&D.

Their benefit is incidental. He's making sacrificing to preserve his property and that is all. He doesn't have to do a cost-benefit analysis and follow it to be evil. As described, he'd do the same thing for an empty building in the city.

[SiuiS]

Doing the right things for the wrong reasons balances to neutral in -most- cases. If he's still regularly doing evil things as well then an evil alignment on his character sheet is probably correct.

That said, does it really matter? Unless you're making exploring alignments a central feature of your adventure/campaign it's a relatively minor thing. Just ignore it until it becomes relevant because of an alignment based spell.

For once I agree with Kelb.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was referring to people who see other people as property, which is basically slavery, and slavery is explicitly listed as evil in D&D.

There is no such explicit listing. Slavery, in its most common incarnation, is -usually- evil.

Also, seeing people as property when you hold power over a populace, such as a monarch or "elected" dictator, is not slavery. Slavery is -legally- recognized ownership of specific individuals or de facto ownership of individuals by communal understanding, e.g. the slaves held by an orc tribe.

With dictatorial rule you have to at least -appear- to care about the populace on some level if you want to avoid a rebellion or coup. With slavery the people may or may not support the practice but they don't oppose it, at least not enough to do anything about it. It's a difference of scale and institution.

[Cirrylius]

The wizard sounds pretty competitive from the OP. If you want to get a better feel on his current alignment, try having city officials talk about other local city-states around him. Provide a context to show him that there're ways to either better his city at the expense of others, or actively sabotage them just to make them worse by comparison. If he leaps at the latter, he's still evil.

[hamishspence]

There is no such explicit listing. Slavery, in its most common incarnation, is -usually- evil.

There's BoED and Cityscape references to it as Evil though.

Prestige classes built around it in some way tend to have "nongood" as a requirement.

Even 4E Dark Sun helpfully points out that it's Evil enough that being a slaver/slaveowner is impossible for a Good character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's BoED and Cityscape references to it as Evil though.

Prestige classes built around it in some way tend to have "nongood" as a requirement.

All make the assumption of abusive, horrific slavery. This is not the only possible incarnation of the concept. We went over this in detail in a recent thread. I'll dredge up a link.

Edit: Got it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=322395&page=3) I start the discussion on slavery being lawful in earnest on post 68.


Even 4E Dark Sun helpfully points out that it's Evil enough that being a slaver/slaveowner is impossible for a Good character.

4E rules have no bearing on 3E games.