Neutral Evil v.s. Chaotic Neutral [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

RoboEmperor

2014-10-21, 05:43 PM

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Lets consider a power hungry character who would murders, cheats, steals, tortures, and betrays for power. Is he neutral evil or chaotic neutral?

Both alignments seem to not care at all about obeying the law, tradition, etc. and both alignments seem to be out for himself. But neutral evil seems a lot more sadistic than chaotic good.

So as long as the character murders, cheats, steals, tortures, and betrays for the sake of power, and does not do any of that stuff out of sport or for the sake of evil, would he be chaotic neutral despite burning down orphanages to get into some evil gang, tortures uncooperative villagers for information, and kills all those who stand in his way? Because all that stuff seems really evil, yet the motivation behind the evil deeds is power not evil or sadism, and the character would never do any of the above horrific deeds if it did not result in more power.

EDIT: Here is a case study:
Small Good Stuff
a. Girl is crying cause cat is in a tree, the PC gets the cat down for free
motive: She's crying, it takes very little effort on his part to make her stop crying, why not?

b. A kid is crying cause the toy broke, PC fixes the toy for free
motive: Kid is crying, it takes very little effort on his part to make her stop crying, why not?

c. A party member wants to eat ___ for the longest time. At the first chance the PC buys him/her the food
motive: A tiny effort on his part will make his companion happy, why not?

d. A party member whines about carrying too much stuff. PC carries his/her stuff as long as it doesn't encumber him
motive: A tiny effort on his part will make his companion happy, why not?

big good stuff
a. Paladin needs helpers to cleanse a den of necromancers. PC does not join unless is paid no matter what
motive: PC: I don't give a f*ck about you or your cause so why the f*ck should I risk my life and use my time to help you?

b. Village is about to be raided by bandits and village cannot afford to pay. PC lets the village get torched
motive: PC: I don't know this village, bandits are a circle of life, I can't save everyone, everyone is not a good person themselves so... let it be. I don't give a f*ck
If the villagers grovel and beg the PC to help him however, he will help them but makes sure they pay him back later. If they miss that deadline and grovel and beg again, he may push the deadline further but there's a limit to that. He won't kill the groveling villagers, but will make sure they make money for him, like making them work in a mine at gun point (arrow point cause guns don't exist) after a few missed deadlines.

c. If PC is good friends with someone, he'll help them occasionally free of charge. For example, if the paladin in the above example is a good friend, PC will help cleanse the den free of charge. If PC is friends with one of the villagers, he'll clear the bandits free of charge.
motive: PC knows good friends are hard to come by so he tries to maintain a good relationship because so few people can become good friends. I may not give a f*ck about your cause but I do care about you so I will help you

Evil Stuff
a. If the PC is a wizard or cleric with the spell domain in a low magic world, and an NPC has a scroll he needs, he'll first offer to buy it. If NPC refuses, he'll threaten. If NPC still refuses, then it's death.
motive: I need that scroll. It is essential to my build. If he doesn't sell it to me, then I will take it by force (not necessarily kill).

b. If a paladin is guarding a key to some evil tomb that holds an item of interest, PC will offer gold, then threaten, then kill if paladin refuses to relinquish the key. If the paladin doesn't die in the fight however, and is just wounded to the point where he can't fight, then PC won't go out of his way to kill the paladin and just take the key and leave him. Paladin could bleed to death, or he could get up later, doesn't matter, PC will leave. If paladin survives and chases the PC and tries to get the key back by force, then it's death for sure.
motive: I need that key. It will make me more powerful. If he doesn't sell it to me then I will take it by force (not necessarily kill). If he survives and attacks me, this guy ain't gonna give up til I'm dead so he must die.

c. PC is burning wood to make a campfire. Then suddenly 100 druids show up saying burning wood is bad and then douses the fire, prevents him from making another fire, and acts all zealous activists in his face. PC will NOT offer gold, but threaten the druids and if they refuse to back down then he'll slaughter every last one of them. No survivors. He'll hunt them down if he has to.
motive: I don't give a f*ck about your druidic beliefs. If you harm me or piss me off and force your retarded faith on me then I will not stand for it.

d. Say there is this religious orphanage. It has the key to some tomb. PC asks for it, the orphanage owner says no because they don't help the faithless (in this case PC does not follow a deity). After he offers large sums of gold, the orphanage leader is very zelous in his anti-faithlessness, so the PC gets pissed off. After a few warnings, PC doesn't back down and burns the orphanage down, but makes sure the fire is slow spreading enough that an evacuation is possible. He doesn't help the orphans evacuate, but just makes it an "evacuatable" fire. Then he combs through the remains to find the key, which can't be burnt unlike the rest of the orphanage and kills the orphanage owner if he attacks him. His mind is like "it's the orphanage owner and his zealoutry's fault that these kids no longer have a place to sleep."

e. PC is attacked by bandits. He will kill all the bandits, hunt them down to their camp, and wipe out the camp
motive: Nobody tries to kill/rob/harm me and gets away with it. NOBODY!

dascarletm

2014-10-21, 05:51 PM

Daefos

2014-10-21, 05:59 PM

Broken Crown

2014-10-21, 10:50 PM

Lets consider a power hungry character who would murders, cheats, steals, tortures, and betrays for power. Is he neutral evil or chaotic neutral?

So as long as the character murders, cheats, steals, tortures, and betrays for the sake of power, and does not do any of that stuff out of sport or for the sake of evil, would he be chaotic neutral despite burning down orphanages to get into some evil gang, tortures uncooperative villagers for information, and kills all those who stand in his way? Because all that stuff seems really evil, yet the motivation behind the evil deeds is power not evil or sadism, and the character would never do any of the above horrific deeds if it did not result in more power.

All of these acts, in and of themselves, rate as fairly evil, regardless of motive. The character seems consistently willing to inflict harm on others for his own ends. He's not merely indifferent to the well-being of others, he's deliberately working against it.

The unanswered question is, why does the character want power so much that he's willing to do all of these things to get it? What does he intend to do with that power? If he's got a long-term plan, that suggests a more lawful kind of evil. If he just wants power for its own sake, a more chaotic evil seems more likely.

As I see it, a chaotic neutral person generally doesn't set out to harm others in the pursuit of a goal. For an evil character, doing harm is a means to an end; for a chaotic neutral character, doing harm is a side effect.

Duke of Urrel

2014-10-21, 11:16 PM

Chaotic-Neutral characters don't commit murder on purpose, but they sometimes do so by accident, as it were. Chaotic-Neutral characters break laws just for kicks and give offense with their outrageous, but non-violent pranks. It's all in good fun, until the one day when a Chaotic-Neutral character annoys the Lawful authorities enough to provoke them into a violent confrontation, in which the Chaotic-Neutral character wins and the authorities lose. This makes the Chaotic-Neutral character an outlaw, who must spend the rest of his or her life on the run. Actually, this is just the kind of life that this kind of character enjoys. And while on the run, the Chaotic-Neutral outlaw continues to commit mostly petty, non-violent crimes, all the while keeping one step ahead of the Law. There is never any desire to kill anybody on purpose; it's only the Law that the Chaotic-Neutral character despises, not the poor fools who obey it. And if you are a Lawful character who dares to stand between a Chaotic-Neutral character and Freedom, well, then you have only yourself to blame.

A Chaotic-Neutral outlaw is a quasi-ethical outlaw. If you're Chaotic-Neutral, you may not believe in the formal market of money. You have an informal relationship toward money, so to speak. But you may take it very seriously when somebody does a favor for you. You may feel honor-bound to return the favor – for free, of course. I reject the idea that honor is an exclusively Lawful concept; indeed, I don't believe that as a Chaotic-Neutral outlaw you would survive long without it. So while you may do your fair share of cheating and stealing money from your Lawful enemies, your main currency is likely to be the trust that you carefully build among your informal network of Chaotic friends and allies. So although you have only scorn for the Law, your friends may find you very trustworthy. On the other hand, woe unto the person who ever betrays your trust. For a Chaotic-Neutral person, bloody revenge may be the flip side of grateful generosity.

Neutral-Evil characters, on the other hand, don't break the Law because they particularly hate the Law, or even because they're selfish. They're beyond selfish; they're cruel. They hate others much more than they love themselves. They're not happy unless they're making others unhappy. They may even be willing to endure some personal hardship in order to achieve their goal, which is to inflict exquisite pain upon others. Neutral-Evil characters strongly oppose the Law only when it gets in the way of these goals. But if they can falsely accuse their enemies of crimes and manipulate the Law to punish them, so much the better. If you're Neutral-Evil, then it's obvious to you that the Law only applies to other people, not to you. If you're a Neutral-Evil ruler, then it's also obvious that you make the Law work best by applying the cruelest possible punishment to lawbreakers. On the one hand, fear greatly adds to the power of the Law. On the other hand, the inconsistent way that a Neutral-Evil ruler applies the Law unavoidably weakens it.

Neutral-Evil characters favor Chaos equally as they favor Law, namely as an instrument. If you can make Chaos work for you, for example by sowing discord and war and by manipulating others into destroying themselves, this is not only fine entertainment, but a good way to obtain power yourself, or to hold onto it once you've got it. If you're a Neutral-Evil ruler, you believe that true Freedom – the fruit of Chaos, so to speak – is exclusively for you, just as the punishing hammer of the Law is exclusively for others. At the same time, a Neutral-Evil ruler may not feel very free. If you govern by terror and cruelty, you have to worry all the time about losing your absolute grip on power, because you imagine (perhaps not incorrectly) that if the tables are turned, others will do to you what you have done to others. A little Chaos is good, but too much will lead to your downfall. This awareness is not likely to make you much of a free spirit.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-21, 11:31 PM

After reading the pathfinder version of neutral evil, I agree that power hungry PCs that murder, cheat, steal, torture, etc. are neutral evil. My confusion started because it seemed like neutral evil HAS to be motivated by evil, while chaotic neutral are "I don't give a f*ck about anything" but pathfinder included PCs who aren't driven by evil, but do evil things for their own benefit are neutral evil.

But then here's a case like this:
A paladin has an item the PC wants. The PC demands the item and the paladin refuses. Neutral Evil PCs will kill the paladin and take the item, but what about chaotic neutral? He wants the item, he is not good or evil, he doesn't care about the law, so wouldn't he try to steal the item or kill the paladin for it? LG, LN, NG, TN would all probably give up, all the evils will kill the paladin, even CG would give up, but how about CN?

As for Duke or Urrel's lengthy post... how would you classify the hypothetical character in question? A power hungry PC who does anything for power, but does absolutely no evil deeds if it doesn't result in more power? He doesn't inspire fear, or control armies through fear, or nothing. He just goes around the world, looking for powerful artifacts or powerful knowledge, and does whatever it takes to get them including murdering, stealing, torturing, etc. He is in absolutely no way cruel, honorable, and is very, very serious. He's emotionless power hoarder who wants to become the most powerful being in the world. CN? NE? Because by your definition of NE, he has to be a cruel sadist who enjoys sowing terror, destruction and suffering, and this PC doesn't fit that. By your definition of CN, he has to be honorable and a total complete joke who just goes around spreading mischief, and this PC doesn't fit that either. He is no way a good character because he will burn an orphanage (or soup kitchen) down if it helps him pressure the mayor into giving him something in the town vault, no way evil by your definition because he doesn't kill for sport or pleasure, no way lawful because he's not following any laws or has any personal code of ethics, etc.?

Divide by Zero

2014-10-21, 11:45 PM

But then here's a case like this:
A paladin has an item the PC wants. The PC demands the item and the paladin refuses. Neutral Evil PCs will kill the paladin and take the item, but what about chaotic neutral? He wants the item, he is not good or evil, he doesn't care about the law, so wouldn't he try to steal the item or kill the paladin for it? LG, LN, NG, TN would all probably give up, all the evils will kill the paladin, even CG would give up, but how about CN?

Killing someone, especially a good someone, just because they have something you want is pretty deep in the Evil end of the alignment pool. Unless this is a bizarre one-time occurrence, the character either is already evil or is heading there fast.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-21, 11:47 PM

Killing someone, especially a good someone, just because they have something you want is pretty deep in the Evil end of the alignment pool. Unless this is a bizarre one-time occurrence, the character either is already evil or is heading there fast.

Yeah.. I agree. Neutral evil it is XD.

edit: But then again... he didn't do it out of malice.
PC: Give me your ___
Paladin: No
PC: Last warning, give me your ___ or I will kill you.
Paladin: Bring it!
PC kills paladin

v.s.

PC: Give me your ___ or I'm gonna splatter you across the wall
Paladin: No
PC kills paladin

The 2nd example is significantly more evil than the 1st, but both are neutral evil? I guess they are but I dont see emotionless characters as "evil" but more as neutral. Well, I guess neutral is in neutral evil XD.
Alright, I think I understand now. Motivation is not the only thing that matters. If there is a being that kills everything and takes their powerful equipment, then he's an evil threat despite being neutral, so neutral evil.

Troacctid

2014-10-22, 12:02 AM

As for Duke or Urrel's lengthy post... how would you classify the hypothetical character in question? A power hungry PC who does anything for power, but does absolutely no evil deeds if it doesn't result in more power? He doesn't inspire fear, or control armies through fear, or nothing. He just goes around the world, looking for powerful artifacts or powerful knowledge, and does whatever it takes to get them including murdering, stealing, torturing, etc. He is in absolutely no way cruel, honorable, and is very, very serious. He's emotionless power hoarder who wants to become the most powerful being in the world. CN? NE? Because by your definition of NE, he has to be a cruel sadist who enjoys sowing terror, destruction and suffering, and this PC doesn't fit that. By your definition of CN, he has to be honorable and a total complete joke who just goes around spreading mischief, and this PC doesn't fit that either. He is no way a good character because he will burn an orphanage (or soup kitchen) down if it helps him pressure the mayor into giving him something in the town vault, no way evil by your definition because he doesn't kill for sport or pleasure, no way lawful because he's not following any laws or has any personal code of ethics, etc.?

He is pretty clearly NE. Killing for pleasure is only one example of an act that would mark you as Evil; it's a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one.

Duke of Urrel

2014-10-22, 12:09 AM

After reading the pathfinder version of neutral evil, I agree that power hungry PCs that murder, cheat, steal, torture, etc. are neutral evil. My confusion started because it seemed like neutral evil HAS to be motivated by evil, while chaotic neutral are "I don't give a f*ck about anything" but pathfinder included PCs who aren't driven by evil, but do evil things for their own benefit are neutral evil.

But then here's a case like this:
A paladin has an item the PC wants. The PC demands the item and the paladin refuses. Neutral Evil PCs will kill the paladin and take the item, but what about chaotic neutral? He wants the item, he is not good or evil, he doesn't care about the law, so wouldn't he try to steal the item or kill the paladin for it? LG, LN, NG, TN would all probably give up, all the evils will kill the paladin, even CG would give up, but how about CN?

I agree that NE characters must be motivated by Evil, but that doesn't mean that they're impractical. They can clench their teeth and repress their desire to murder someone … just long enough to wait until they can do it secretly and avoid being held accountable for it.

CN characters must be motivated by their own Chaotic whims, but this doesn't mean that they're impractical, either, and it certainly doesn't mean that they "don't give a f*ck about anything." They consider paladins to be a pain in the butt, but they never forget that paladins can also be useful allies. Killing a paladin should be out of the question for a CN character. Stealing from a paladin? No problem, only don't get caught. And when you're done using the item, then you can secretly return it to the paladin's backpack – preferably right before the paladin accuses you of stealing.

Do a favor for the paladin – and then claim that he or she owes you a favor in return, Law or no Law. Let the paladin be the one who loses his or her temper, not you. That way, if the paladin threatens to leave the party or pick a fight with you because of your Lawlessness, you can make the case with your Chaotic allies that the paladin is to blame for breaking up the party.

If you're CN, I'd advise you to have all the fun you can get away with, but I'd avoid behaving so dishonorably that you will lose the respect of your allies. Be subtle, devious, underhanded, and secretive. What paladins and their Lawful allies don't know can't hurt them; more importantly, it won't hurt you. Make trouble for the paladin if you can, but avoid the consequences. Make all the practical jokes you want, but above all, be practical. If you really need something, there may be easier and more entertaining ways to get that thing than by robbing the paladin in your own party.

Alleran

2014-10-22, 02:56 AM

I'm not seeing murdering in chaotic neutral. CN follows their whims, but their whims aren't necessarily good or evil, such as this orphanage (why does everyone use orphanages, OVERUSED) soup-kitchen burning, which is evil.
You could put a twist on the orphanage thing. Maybe all the orphans are shadow-infested zombie orphans.

(See: Fell's Five.)

Ehcks

2014-10-22, 03:48 AM

A chaotic neutral character will perform either good or evil actions based on what they feel give them the best outcomes. An intelligent CN character will include how other people treat them in how good an outcome is. Murdering your party for fun prevents you from killing far more valuable targets, and tends to make you untrustworthy.

A neutral evil character will perform evil actions, but will choose to follow or disobey other people's rules based on how they feel it will benefit them. Again, an intelligent NE character can see how their actions can have later consequences from how other people react. They may choose to follow the laws, even "good" laws, when they're in a area heavily guarded by high level paladins. Death tends to not be a benefit.

AvatarVecna

2014-10-22, 04:13 AM

PC: Give me your ___
Paladin: No
PC: Last warning, give me your ___ or I will kill you.
Paladin: Bring it!
PC kills paladin

v.s.

PC: Give me your ___ or I'm gonna splatter you across the wall
Paladin: No
PC kills paladin

The 2nd example is significantly more evil than the 1st, but both are neutral evil?

You're mixing up perception and reality, and the above examples are actually, in order, NE and CE. Being calm on the outside doesn't necessarily mean they're calm on the inside. Furthermore, being calm while planning to kill somone if they don't do as you say is still pretty freaking evil!

Compare...

--NE approaches LG, ready for trouble.--

NE: "Alright, pal, we both know I could tear you apart. It's nothing personal, but I kinda need that . Just hand it over and there won't be any trouble."
LG: "No can do; you're intending to use it for evil. I'm going to bring you to justice!" --Slashes pointlessly with a sword--
NE: "Yeah, no. I was willing to let you live up until you tried to kill me. If I wasn't in a hurry, I'd make it a slow death, so that you could serve as a warning to others. Oh well; time waits for no man."
--NE easily kills paladin. NE takes the .
NE: "What a senseless waste of human life. Why does it always seem to end in violence?'
--NE walks off.

vs.

--CE approaches LG while using a child as a living shield.--

CE: "Hey, Mr. Truth and Justice! Looky looky!"
LG: "Release the child, villain! This is between you and me!"
CE: "How about a trade? The kid's life for my . How about it, buddy?"
LG: "...It appears I have no choice."
--LG hands CE the , but makes a grab for the child. CE gets away, but the child is safe...or are they?--
CE: "You tried to break our deal! Well, I guess that means it's a good thing I cheated you first. I've already given the wee one a nice hot cup of cyanide; it was only a matter of time before they croaked anyway. Toodeloo, lawman!"
--CE leaves in a rush, cackling madly as LG cradles the dying child.--

vs.

CN is running towards LG, looking frantic.

CN: "Mr. Paladin, sir! Thank the maker you're here! I was passing by this alley, and I saw 6 men surrounding this woman, tearing her clothes off!"
LG: "Not to worry, citizen; they won't get away with it! Thank you for bringing this to my attention; you're a good person."
--LG rushes off to save the day. CN stares after him, waiting for him to get out of sight.--
--CN pulls out the they just pickpocketed off the paladin.
CN (to self): "Hey officer! You dropped your . Hmm...oh well. Finders keepers, losers weepers! I hear possession is 9/10s of the law, after all."
--CN walks away, whistling to self.--
CN: "There's even a bright side for them: nobody's getting $@%ed behind the church! Everybody wins!"

CN wants the thing, and wants the paladin out of the way. But immediately resorting to violence just attracts more trouble, which ends in jail time, and jail is boring. Better to do things with a little more finesse than killing a paladin in broad daylight and looting his corpse.

HighWater

2014-10-22, 04:17 AM

The 2nd example is significantly more evil than the 1st, but both are neutral evil? I guess they are but I dont see emotionless characters as "evil" but more as neutral. Well, I guess neutral is in neutral evil XD.
Alright, I think I understand now. Motivation is not the only thing that matters. If there is a being that kills everything and takes their powerful equipment, then he's an evil threat despite being neutral, so neutral evil.

What you're describing is not someone without emotion, it is someone without empathy. Someone who doesn't care about the suffering of others that he himself inflicts.
You are also describing someone who would kill innocents and objectively good people (Paladin) to get what he wants.
You are describing someone who does Evil acts (murdering innocents and objectively good people) not to prevent a greater Evil (which could be a Neutral thing, if there is no other way to achieve the goal of preventing greater Evil).
In fact, the only goal this character has is Greater Personal Power. You could call this goal "detached", or perhaps "neutral", were it not for the following: seeing as he is recurrently doing very Evil things to achieve this goal, he is in fact working towards increasing the power of Something Evil (namely himself). He's actively working towards a Greater Evil. His goal is therefore now Evil as well.

That is pretty evil and not neutral at all. (The Neutral in Neutral Evil is about law/chaos neutrality, not good acts/evil acts)

A Chaotic Neutral person could also work towards greater personal power. A CN person would not feel bound by the Law in this pursuit, and may steal "What -is- possession anyway, other than an unnatural construct imposed upon the world by us?", lie "the truth can hurt as much as any lie!", or use 'unlawful' means of eliminating evil "We all know Chancelor X is Evil and now he's gone and made me his enemy. It is wrong he should go unpunished just because he manages to erase the evidence, so I'm going to arrange for his unlawful but totally deserved death." (Notice that a CN can get people killed, he just needs a proper reason, like any other Neutral person or any Good person).

Here's a handy little note to distinguish between Good, Neutral and Evil:

Good: Will seek to avoid inflicting suffering (especially murder/torture) on innocents. Will go out of their way to rectify or avenge suffering inflicted on innocents by others.
Neutral: Will seek to avoid inflicting suffering on innocents (unless absolutely necessary). Will not generally interfere with innocents' suffering (unless the personal costs are negligible or compensation is offered).
Evil: Does not seek to avoid inflicting suffering on innocents (it is such a useful tool!). Will not generally interfere with other people's suffering unless for personal gain.

Here's a handy little note to distinguish between Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic:

Lawful: Will uphold the Law even if it negatively impacts self. Will uphold the Law even if it negatively impacts others.
Neutral: May uphold the Law even if it negatively impacts self. May uphold the Law even if it negatively impacts others. (It's about balanced judgement!)
Chaotic: Will not uphold the Law if it negatively impacts self. Will not uphold the Law if it negatively impacts others.

Now you can see where CN resides:
- A Chaotic Neutral person will not uphold the law when it negatively impacts him. He will also not uphold the Law when it negatively impacts others. However, because he is Neutral, he doesn't care (enough) about the suffering the Law inflicts on others to actually help them out (that'd be CG). A CN will not inflict suffering on others, unless to prevent a greater evil (otherwise he would be CE).

- A Neutral Evil person will uphold the Law if it serves him (disabling an opponent through the legal system is nice), but has no qualms about acting outside the Law if necessary. Furthermore, a NE person doesn't care about inflicting suffering on innocents (let alone suffering inflicted by the Law on innocents).

- A Chaotic Evil person would seek a "solution" outside the Law even if the Law could be helpful. He doesn't care about innocents suffering and doesn't care about inflicting that suffering. He may attack the Law, even if the Law is Evil, in order to establish Chaos.

Your murderer-for-personal-power is either NE or CE. He is not CN.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-22, 05:39 AM

The reason why I keep getting confused whether this guy is NE or CN is
1. There are hardly any good items ever. It all has to be crafted or bought
2. The really only time he/she must kill to get an item is some sort of quest item, which is also rare, so the chances of a character having what he/she wants is very rare.
3. If there are no items or information of interest, he/she is very passive and is just a normal mercenary who obeys the laws unless it inconveniences him.

However, if a person is withholding information, like a captured assassin, he/she will torture. If a person has an essential quest item and refuses to relinquish it despite being offered money, then he/she will kill him.

So in a fairly straightforward campaign, he/she will not murder, steal, etc. but I just mentioned burning orphanages and such to illustrate an extreme that he will never stop til he/she gets what he wants, so I guess this quality makes him NE because he/she is not a thief so he has to take it by force. But again, no conflict, no evil deeds.

So it comes down to how often a situation will arise that will show his evil side, but I guess some would say it doesn't matter because his alignment should be his nature.

Since everyone in this thread said NE, i guess it's a sure thing XD. I'll make him CN if the DM bans evil alignments.

The Insanity

2014-10-22, 05:50 AM

How is that even a question?

Taveena

2014-10-22, 06:35 AM

Chaotic Neutral is free-spirited with compunctions against harming others but no drive to commit altruistic acts.
Chaotic Evil is free-spirited with no compunctions against harming others and acts upon that.
Chaotic Good is free-spirited with a belief that spreading that to others is the path to happiness.
Neutral Evil is selfish with no compunctions against harming others and acts upon that.

EDIT: In addition, 'give me x' 'no' 'seriously give me x' 'no' *kills* isn't INHERENTLY lawful, chaotic, or neutral. Neither is 'give me X or I'll blow you up'. If you want X so you can indulge your whims, it's Chaotic. (So if it were, say, an illicit drug.) If you want it for power, it's likely Neutral (evil). If you want it to fulfill a prior obligation, it's Lawful.

Xuldarinar

2014-10-22, 07:14 AM

I know I am just piling on here but I'm going to place a quote of mine from when someone else asked about alignments. Bold for emphasis:

Free-will is both a blessing and a curse. There are those who use their free-will poorly, taking from the free-wills of others without any greater reason than their own pleasure (Chaotic Evil). Those that embrace freedom and use their free-will to treat others with compassion are those to look to, for these are beings unrestrained and capable of great expression (Chaotic Good). Order can be used to give direction to good and to hold back many from falling into darkness, leading the sheep towards greener pastures, not at the cost of free-will but at the cost of some freedoms (Lawful Good). Sadly, order can just as easily be abused by people's own ambitions, cruelty and selfishness supporting the laws which some press upon others (Lawful Evil). There are men who wish to do good, and accept a balance of freedoms and rules (Neutral Good), and men who wish to do harm to others, bound to neither anarchy nor tyranny (Neutral Evil). Some embrace free-will and freedom alike, but care little for right or wrong, doing as they please and doing as much harm as good (Chaotic Neutral). Others obsess over rules, repressing freedom for it goes against the order of things, the system. It is amoral but not immoral (Lawful Neutral). And then there are those that fall on all lines. Those that are neither moral nor immoral, neither bound to the laws of man nor do they throw caution to the wind. Some embrace this, others lack the capacity to go anywhere else (Neutral).

But there are many that go against these arbitrary labels. The man who kills all save for women and children is the same as a man who will commit atrocities to protect those they care for, held back only by their compassion and rules, conscious or subconscious, that separate them from the truly fallen (Lawful Evil). Then again, there are those who in their free-will more often commit atrocities, perhaps it is because the society in which they grew was vile and such things are deemed at times acceptable in their own minds, but because of their free-will they will still preform acts of good, for it is something they wish to do but its a concept they cannot hope to truly embody (Chaotic Evil). If you kill a man it is evil, for you take away his free-will, not to mention his life. But if you kill a man for there is no other way to protect, we fall towards the grey.

Free-will and freedom are differing concepts. Freedom is the ability to say and do as you please without the rules and actions of others getting in the way, free-will is the ability to do as you please regardless. One is to move unrestrained, the other is the ability to move at all.

Red Fel

2014-10-22, 08:37 AM

Here are the parts of your quote on which I focus.

3. If there are no items or information of interest, he/she is very passive and is just a normal mercenary who obeys the laws unless it inconveniences him.

Translation: If nothing interests him, he does nothing of interest. That's not particularly indicative of any alignment.

However, if a person is withholding information, like a captured assassin, he/she will torture. If a person has an essential quest item and refuses to relinquish it despite being offered money, then he/she will kill him.

Translation: If something interests him, he has no compunctions about using torture or murder. That's non-Good.

So in a fairly straightforward campaign, he/she will not murder, steal, etc. but I just mentioned burning orphanages and such to illustrate an extreme that he will never stop til he/she gets what he wants, so I guess this quality makes him NE because he/she is not a thief so he has to take it by force. But again, no conflict, no evil deeds.(Emphasis added.)

Translation: Again, if there is no pressure on him, he doesn't go one way or the other. But if he wants something, he is brutal and ruthless and feel no compunction about it.

I agree with the NE analysis, although I could see the character as CN. But that's part of the stigma of CN - it's often placed on a character sheet when a player wants to play E, but the table has disallowed E. "Oh," says the player, "I'll just play Chaotic Stabby instead. It's Neutral, not Evil - see, it says right on my sheet."

Be aware that when you're playing CN, you're not playing Evil. It's important to make that distinction, unless you're ready to take a quick trip from CN to CE. My advice - and the easiest way to make the distinction - is not to enjoy the Evil stuff. The difference between a CN torturing and killing and a NE torturing and killing is that the former does it because he wants to, the latter does it for its own sake. For the former, it's a means to an end; for the latter, it's an end all unto itself. So simply don't enjoy it. Be blase about it. "Ugh, fine, we're going to do this the hard way. All I really wanted was the sword. I guess now we'll start with your fingernails. Sigh." CN doesn't give a whit to morality, one way or the other.

Be aware, though, if your CN character doesn't care about morality, it means he should also have no issue with doing good. Sure, he can feel no problems with torture or murder, but he should also feel no problems with heroism or compassion. When it suits him, anyways. If he's totally mercenary, if he feels no kindness or compassion, but regularly indulges in torture and murder, it's incredibly hard to hold down the N in CN.

Strigon

2014-10-22, 09:49 AM

I consider it this way:
The average person is, more or less, neutral.
This means that they have morals, and people they like, but they aren't on any sort of crusade for good. Neither, however, will they constantly steal, harm others, or commit murder; they aren't saints, but they're still human. Chaotic neutral might be a con-man, they might mark something on Ebay as "lightly used" when it's really quite worn, or they might be a petty thief, but only because they can't get by any other way.
People who consistently work to better the world as a whole are good; charity workers, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
People who work for themselves, and are willing to kill for it, are evil. They, too, might like people, but that doesn't by any stretch mean they won't sell them in a second if they need cash.

To make brief film comparisons:
If Davy Jones were Neutral Evil, Jack Sparrow would be chaotic neutral.
Sherlock Holmes (of any film/book/movie) would likely be TN or CN.
Magneto would be NE.

hamishspence

2014-10-22, 09:52 AM

Be aware that when you're playing CN, you're not playing Evil. It's important to make that distinction, unless you're ready to take a quick trip from CN to CE. My advice - and the easiest way to make the distinction - is not to enjoy the Evil stuff. The difference between a CN torturing and killing and a NE torturing and killing is that the former does it because he wants to, the latter does it for its own sake. For the former, it's a means to an end; for the latter, it's an end all unto itself. So simply don't enjoy it. Be blase about it. "Ugh, fine, we're going to do this the hard way. All I really wanted was the sword. I guess now we'll start with your fingernails. Sigh." CN doesn't give a whit to morality, one way or the other.

CN characters still prefer Good neighbours to Evil neighbours - and still have compunctions about harming the innocent.

Given that a LN character who tortures regularly is pretty much guaranteed to go to the Nine Hells (going by Fiendish Codex 2), regardless of how much they dislike doing it - maybe the same applies for a CN character and the Abyss?

Troacctid

2014-10-22, 01:04 PM

Yeah, neutral is explicitly not halfway between good and evil. Neutral characters consistently favor good over evil. The difference between Neutral and Good is that while both are in favor of goodness and opposed to badness, only Good is willing to go out of their way and make sacrifices in order to do good.

You cannot be okay with doing evil things and not have an Evil alignment. You can do them, but you need to angst about it. It needs to be something you legitimately don't want to do and feel bad about doing. If you stop caring, if it stops being a hard decision to make, you have turned to the dark side.

hamishspence

2014-10-22, 01:20 PM

And the harsher DMs will give the character an Evil alignment long before they reach the point of "stop caring" - because DMs tend to go by acts more than "internal thoughts".

busterswd

2014-10-22, 01:40 PM

CN characters still prefer Good neighbours to Evil neighbours - and still have compunctions about harming the innocent.

Yeah, neutral is explicitly not halfway between good and evil. Neutral characters consistently favor good over evil. The difference between Neutral and Good is that while both are in favor of goodness and opposed to badness, only Good is willing to go out of their way and make sacrifices in order to do good.

Yeah, this is one of my favorite descriptors of Neutral people; it's much easier to have relationships with good people rather than people actively seeking to harm others. Two more addendums:

1) Being Chaotic Neutral doesn't preclude your character's ability to think or feel, which is what a lot of CN PC's tend to forget. CN doesn't mean you act completely randomly, without disregard for consequences. Self interest at avoiding punishment is a pretty strong motivator for anyone, and you're not sociopathic; you still understand the difference between right and wrong.

2) Even if your character's personality starts off Chaotic Neutral, your actions eventually define who you are; murdering a paladin because they won't give you something you want is a pretty strong push towards Evil. Don't forget that killing people in general is a pretty evil-leaning act, so if your solution to problems ends with killing, that's another strong indicator.

Pan151

2014-10-22, 04:55 PM

Yeah, this is one of my favorite descriptors of Neutral people; it's much easier to have relationships with good people rather than people actively seeking to harm others.

To be fair, pretty much everyone prefers being around good people rather than evil ones - even evil people themselves. Well, as long as it's not the smite-happy kind of good (nobody likes being around smite-happy good people. Not even good people themselves).

Strigon

2014-10-22, 05:46 PM

To be fair, pretty much everyone prefers being around good people rather than evil ones - even evil people themselves. Well, as long as it's not the smite-happy kind of good (nobody likes being around smite-happy good people. Not even good people themselves).

I dunno, in the kind of world D&D is set in, if I were a commoner, I'd happily spend all day surrounded by smite-happy level 20 Paladins!

Troacctid

2014-10-22, 05:56 PM

Yeah, and smite-happy Paladins usually have high Charisma too.

Vhaidara

2014-10-22, 06:00 PM

Jack Sparrow would be chaotic neutral.
Sherlock Holmes (of any film/book/movie) would likely be TN or CN.
Magneto would be NE.

Away from book, but IIRC, according to Complete Scoundrel, Captain Jack Sparrow is CN, Magneto is LE, and Holmes (if he was mentioned) was N

Strigon

2014-10-22, 06:24 PM

Away from book, but IIRC, according to Complete Scoundrel, Captain Jack Sparrow is CN, Magneto is LE, and Holmes (if he was mentioned) was N

I could see that, for the most part.
I guess Holmes' drug habit led me to put him more chaotic, and Magneto always seemed a bit too eager to kill... well, anyone.
I've always had a tendency to mess up neutral on the lawful/chaotic axis. It just seems to slip my understanding a little bit.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-22, 07:43 PM

Alright, what if things were a little more complicated.
What if the character in question does nice things as a hobby.

Small Good Stuff
a. girl is crying cause cat is in a tree, the PC gets the cat down for free
b. A kid is crying cause the toy broke, PC fixes the toy for free
c. A party member wants to eat ___ for the longest time. At the first chance the PC buys him/her the food
d. A party member whines about carrying too much stuff. PC carries his/her stuff as long as it doesn't encumber him

big good stuff
a. Paladin needs helpers to cleanse a den of necromancers. PC does not join unless is paid no matter what
b. Village is about to be raided by bandits and village cannot afford to pay. PC lets the village get torched
c. If PC is good friends with someone, he'll help them occasionally free of charge. For example, if the paladin in the above example is a good friend, PC will help cleanse the den free of charge. If PC is friends with one of the villagers, he'll clear the bandits free of charge.

Evil Stuff
a. If the PC is a wizard or cleric with the spell domain in a low magic world, and an NPC has a scroll he needs, he'll first offer to buy it. If NPC refuses, he'll threaten. If NPC still refuses, then it's death.
b. If a paladin is guarding a key to some evil tomb that holds an item of interest, PC will offer gold, then threaten, then kill if paladin refuses to relinquish the key. If the paladin doesn't die in the fight however, and is just wounded to the point where he can't fight, then PC won't go out of his way to kill the paladin and just take the key and leave him. Paladin could bleed to death, or he could get up later, doesn't matter, PC will leave. If paladin survives and chases the PC and tries to get the key back by force, then it's death for sure.
c. PC is burning wood to make a campfire. Then suddenly 100 druids show up saying burning wood is bad. PC will NOT offer gold, but threaten the druids and then slaughter every last one of them. No survivors. He'll hunt them down if he has to.

Troacctid

2014-10-22, 07:51 PM

Red Fel

2014-10-22, 07:59 PM

Strigon

2014-10-22, 08:02 PM

If you do a mix of good and evil stuff, the good doesn't cancel out the evil. In order to cancel out the evil, you need remorse, penance, and atonement. Sincere remorse, penance, and atonement. Do you have no regrets about your evil actions? Then you are Evil.

And you also need to do the good things because they're good. You need to recognize they are good, and feel the need to do them simply because they are good. Occasionally following a whim and helping a child isn't good; if all I knew about a character was that they helped children who were in trouble, I'd just assume he was neutral with a soft spot for kids.
If we want to jump right into the cliche here, we can observe Hitler; he was reasonably nice in person, had a wife, kids, probably was nice to them.
Yet I doubt many here would put him anything kinder than lawful evil.

Gullintanni

2014-10-22, 08:08 PM

I play a character called Isaac the Mad, a Chaotic Neutral Illusionist who hallucinates whenever he casts a spell of the Illusion school.

In a recent campaign, he noticed an army marching on a small township, intent on the destruction of said township. He had a vested interest in preserving that town, as he was trying to gather information on this particular army.

So we marched into the town, used Illusions to direct the army in another direction, and ultimately saved the town. After interrogating the village elders for a short time, Isaac began to realize something: The village elders were occultists who used powerful necromantic rituals to raise Wights when their villages were threatened. Knowing the danger that Wights pose to inexperienced militas (and how great a personal inconvenience a full blown wight-pocalypse would be), Isaac altered his course. Having just saved the village, Isaac now demanded that the villagers desert their ruinous traditions, and relocate their village to the hills, threatening to burn the village to the ground if the elders did not co-operate, while simultaneously offering blessings (on behalf of the party cleric) from the god of Travel to those who did co-operate. He also elected to repossess most of the villagers unholy relics so as to prevent future preparation of these rituals.

It is here that the Neutral Evil character and mine pursue divergent paths. Both characters are driven to mitigate an impending disaster for selfish reasons. One attempts to achieve his ends through negotiation, then threats, and them by the prolific use of Major Images of fires spreading through thatched roofing, while the other slaughters a village of people wholesale in the name of expedience. Murder is wasteful, it's symptomatic of tyranny and persecution, and ultimately, it's far too predictable a solution for a problem that can be better solved through creativity. These are all reasons Isaac the Mad uses to justify his better solution. He's made up his mind: This tradition of necromancy is dangerous and toxic. The villagers will be liberated from the tradition either voluntarily or through intimidation.

But he also respects well enough the liberty of these villagers, who are ultimately being deceived by their elders, to forego violence and murder. Plus...raining illusory hellfire on the village is much more fun than having to clean up a pile of corpses at the end of the day :smallamused:

RoboEmperor

2014-10-22, 10:56 PM

See, the thing is, at a certain point, you're not really discussing a person or a personality anymore. You're discussing random, disconnected actions.

Usually, if I'm using illustrations, examples, and individual actions to paint a picture of a personality, they form a whole image. They fit together to give an idea of a single person, from multiple angles. Yours, if taken collectively, suggest someone truly random. And I don't just mean a wacky "look at me, I'm so random," character; I mean I really can't see any rhyme or reason to them. I can't see a pattern. It's like you're describing several different characters.

Let me give you an example: In what universe is the person who fixes the toys of crying children the same person who murders a hundred Druids because they told him that burning wood was bad? (That's rhetorical, by the way; I can think of a few illustrations off of the top of my head.) You haven't actually painted connections from one point to the next.

Let me ask you this: If you were to go down that list you gave, could you tell me why your character does or does not do each of those things? That will give a much better impression of who the character is as a person, not just as a bag of random actions. Because any given one of those things may or may not arise in the game, but who the character is will be an integral part of how his alignment develops.

And as an aside, your descriptions of good acts are minor, isolated, and contingent; by contrast, your descriptions of evil acts are excessive and pronounced. Even assuming you could explain both, they don't wash.

Small Good Stuff
a. She's crying, it takes very little effort on his part to make her stop crying, why not?
b. Kid is crying, it takes very little effort on his part to make her stop crying, why not?
c. A tiny effort on his part will make his companion happy, why not?
d. A tiny effort on his part will make his companion happy, why not?

big good stuff
a. PC: I don't give a f*ck about you or your cause so why the f*ck should I risk my life and use my time to help you?
b. PC: I don't know this village, bandits are a circle of life, I can't save everyone, everyone is not a good person themselves so... let it be. I don't give a f*ck
p.s. If the villagers grovel and beg the PC to help him, he will help them but makes sure they pay him back later. If they miss that deadline and grovel and beg again, he may push the deadline further but there's a limit to that. He won't kill the groveling villagers, but will make sure they make money for him, like making them work in a mine at gun point (arrow point cause guns don't exist) after a few missed deadlines.
c. PC knows good friends are hard to come by so he tries to maintain a good relationship because so few people can become good friends.
PC: I may not give a f*ck about your cause but I do care about you so I will help you

Evil Stuff
a. PC: I need that scroll. It is essential to my build. If he doesn't sell it to me, then I will take it by force (not necessarily kill).
b. PC: I need that key. It will make me more powerful. If he doesn't sell it to me then I will take it by force (not necessarily kill). If he survives and attacks me, this guy ain't gonna give up til I'm dead so he must die.
c. PC: I don't give a f*ck about your druidic beliefs. If you harm me or piss me off and force your retarded faith on me then I will not stand for it. Note: druids weren't just telling him that burning wood is bad. They were angry yelling at him, preventing him from starting a fire, dousing his already started fire, etc. Think nature activists/protestor level vigor.

So yeah, he does know good and evil, right from wrong, and he does good things for free if it isn't too difficult but he will not tolerate anyone harming him, either by refraining an essential item, forcing their faith on him, downright trying to kill him, etc.

Gullintanni's post kinda makes me confused. This PC uses murder as a last resort too, but doesn't do everything to avoid it, so he's like an in-between of the CN and NE in his story, though more NE i guess because he doesn't respect the villager's freedoms or rights or anything.

edit: I just thought of a good example for burning the orphanage.
Say there is this religious orphanage. It has the key to some tomb. PC asks for it, the orphanage owner says no because they don't help the faithless (in this case PC does not follow a deity). After he offers large sums of gold, the orphanage leader is very zelous in his anti-faithlessness, so the PC gets pissed off. After a few warnings, PC doesn't back down and burns the orphanage down, but makes sure the fire is slow spreading enough that an evacuation is possible. He doesn't help the orphans evacuate, but just makes it an "evacuatable" fire. Then he combs through the remains to find the key, which can't be burnt unlike the rest of the orphanage and kills the orphanage owner if he attacks him. His mind is like "it's the orphanage owner and his zealoutry's fault that these kids no longer have a place to sleep."

Sartharina

2014-10-22, 11:04 PM

I'm seeing Neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to hurt others - only those that get in his way. His goals are not evil, and his actions DO cancel out. Actions cancel out Actions if goals don't override or conflict.

If you do a mix of good and evil stuff, the good doesn't cancel out the evil. In order to cancel out the evil, you need remorse, penance, and atonement. Sincere remorse, penance, and atonement. Do you have no regrets about your evil actions? Then you are Evil.Not really. It just means he can't be Good.

By your standard, every nongood god in the multiverse is Evil.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 01:06 AM

I'm seeing Neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to hurt others - only those that get in his way. His goals are not evil, and his actions DO cancel out. Actions cancel out Actions if goals don't override or conflict.

The first CN vote!
I guess this is my fault for not being clear on the subject. I'm gonna edit the 1st post to make it clearer.

It seems to me though universally people think CN are talkative and mischievious, while I got the impression CN were quiet, backstage mercenaries who don't give a f*ck about anything.

Troacctid

2014-10-23, 01:29 AM

CrispyCriminal

2014-10-23, 01:40 AM

Chaotic neutral will solve a problem with heavy-handed means, but doesn't intend harm on whoever gets caught in the shadow of the hammer as it falls, to them things just happen and they can't (perhaps even not want to) control them. Neutral Evil on the other hand, will happily add the lives of innocents into casualties if it amuses and/or benefits him/her.

I think a very perfect example would be Jack from V:tM. A prankster who will commit actions that cause earthquakes in politics, but has standards not to kill a bunch of innocent people unless they know too much or did something stupid that turned them into a threat (to secrecy or to him).

That's all what it boils down to. Chaotic neutral has a set of standards for both his/her self respect and his/her means of making a point, and neutral evil has no standards whatsoever.

Edited to add the /her to this stating the obvious post of neurotic chaos.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 02:14 AM

So there's no question the I-don't-give-a-**** character you're describing is Chaotic. That's a very iconically Chaotic attitude. You could write him to be CN or you could write him to be CE, depending on the tone of the setting and how sympathetic his motives are.

Ok, according to you guys, he's definately CN, because he does have a standard and prefers not to kill, but if he has to he will. There is confusion because he resorts to violence fairly quickly compared to others (offer gold, if they refuse then take it by force) and there is no limit to his violence (orphanage burning), but because he offers gold first and a warning after, it shows he would rather solve the problem peacefully rather than force, and if his attacks don't kill, he just leaves them in that half-dead state instead of finishing them off, unless of course, the target was the one who attacked him first (bandits, zealous druids), then he makes sure they're dead.

Chaotic neutral will solve a problem with heavy-handed means, but doesn't intend harm on whoever gets caught in the shadow of the hammer as it falls, to them things just happen and they can't (perhaps even not want to) control them. Neutral Evil on the other hand, will happily add the lives of innocents into casualties if it amuses and/or benefits him/her.

I think a very perfect example would be Jack from V:tM. A prankster who will commit actions that cause earthquakes in politics, but has standards not to kill a bunch of innocent people unless they know too much or did something stupid that turned them into a threat (to secrecy or to him).

That's all what it boils down to. Chaotic neutral has a set of standards for both his/her self respect and his/her means of making a point, and neutral evil has no standards whatsoever.

Edited to add the /her to this stating the obvious post of neurotic chaos.
This PC would definately will try to minimize collateral damage and makes sure the hammer hits only his targets, but if the only way of landing said hammer on the enemies is to include a few innocent people, then he will drop it on all of them.

But are you people sure that NE has to be sadistic? The d20srd quote said NE people are people who are out for only themselves and only SOME NE people kill for the sake of evil, and pathfinder says NE people can also be protective of others. So if you have a non-sadistic NE who is protective of his friends/certain party members, and has a small heart (helps people if it requires not much effort) then it'd be this guy (note he will still attack his party members if they refuse to relinquish an essential scroll/item/etc). CN however, also seems like they're out for themselves, since they won't go out of their way for other people's freedoms.

If the sadist/bloodthirst is unremovable from NE then this guy is CN for sure, otherwise it's a gray area which is why I posted this thread.

I know for a fact though that this guy is not CE. CE is your stereotypical bad guy, the guy who starts the conflict, the guy who sows destruction and terror, etc. and this guy is not that, not even close by a long shot. CE has to enjoy creating mayhem.

hamishspence

2014-10-23, 02:20 AM

I know for a fact though that this guy is not CE. CE is your stereotypical bad guy, the guy who starts the conflict, the guy who sows destruction and terror, etc. and this guy is not that, not even close by a long shot. CE has to enjoy creating mayhem.
Not necessarily- they can be a traditional CN but with (almost) "no limit to their violence" when it comes to getting what they want.

V in the V for Vendetta comic might qualify.

Even a traditional CG can become CE through harming enough innocents - without losing their altruism - I'd say.

Away from book, but IIRC, according to Complete Scoundrel, Captain Jack Sparrow is CN, Magneto is LE, and Holmes (if he was mentioned) was N

Holmes wasn't mentioned in the alignment examples. Han Solo and Lara Croft were - as Neutral.

But are you people sure that NE has to be sadistic? The d20srd quote said NE people are people who are out for only themselves and only SOME NE people kill for the sake of evil, and pathfinder says NE people can also be protective of others. So if you have a non-sadistic NE who is protective of his friends/certain party members, and has a small heart (helps people if it requires not much effort) then it'd be this guy (note he will still attack his party members if they refuse to relinquish an essential scroll/item/etc). CN however, also seems like they're out for themselves, since they won't go out of their way for other people's freedoms.

That seems like a pretty fair assessment. Some NEs as "Neutral but with a disturbingly ruthless streak" works just fine.

Troacctid

2014-10-23, 03:03 AM

I know for a fact though that this guy is not CE. CE is your stereotypical bad guy, the guy who starts the conflict, the guy who sows destruction and terror, etc. and this guy is not that, not even close by a long shot. CE has to enjoy creating mayhem.

It seems to me though universally people think CN are talkative and mischievious, while I got the impression CN were quiet, backstage mercenaries who don't give a f*ck about anything.

It sounds like you're laboring under the assumption that each alignment is associated with exactly one set of personality traits? Because that's not the case.

squiggit

2014-10-23, 03:14 AM

It sounds like you're laboring under the assumption that each alignment is associated with exactly one set of personality traits? Because that's not the case.

This is personally the biggest source of conflict I see in alignment discussions. Too many people associate a single alignment with a single personality... when really each alignment is this big open space with lots of different characters that can fit inside each.

As for the specific question, I'd suggest not trying to pick a specific alignment, but first looking at where he stands on the lawful-chaotic axis and the good-evil axis independent of each other.

Taveena

2014-10-23, 05:35 AM

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 06:07 AM

He certainly sounds neutral on the Good/Evil axis. Compunctions against harming the innocent, but not a driving force of altruism.

BUT WHERE DOES HE FALL ON THE LAWFUL/CHAOTIC AXIS?

Tell us about his thoughts on freedom, stability, and government.

"I don't give a f*ck" is his thoughts. XD
Freedom? If you get in my way I'll kill you, if you leave me alone, whatever I don't care. So if a soldier tries to conscript him or anyone he cares about (good friends) into the army, it's gonna end in bloodshed but if he ignores the PC and his friends and conscripts other people, don't care.
Stability? Iunno. I guess he won't care if the country experiences a series of rebellions and assassinations that result in massive changes in government if that's what you're asking.
Government? He wouldn't give a f*ck whether Sir John is king or Sir Henry is king, and he would definitely never fight for one another, unless the pay is good.

So now with all that apathy, you might ask "why is he even adventuring in the first place if he doesn't give a f*ck about anything?" Well, he's afraid of is death, so he's on a quest to gain immortality. Being human, his plan is getting to level 21, grabbing the Epic Spellcasting feat, and then turning himself into an outsider of his choice. So he'll do anything that will help his goal (amassing gold, crafting items ONLY FOR HIMSELF, getting the crafting materials for his ideal weapon, etc.). (i know there are other ways to gain immortality but this one sounds the most fun as it is sort of a quest that ends in celestial or demonic ascension with only CORE rules.)

About neutral v.s. chaos, he doesn't intentionally promote chaos but on the other hand he'll break every law that will get in his way, which sounds more like chaotic neutral than the true neutral's official alignment description, but then again he does not intentionally sow chaos and will follow the law usually unless it gets in his way, but then true neutral also has people who are completely devoted to their study/work/etc. and doesn't care about law or chaos.

But about your answer, he stands somewhere in between neutral and chaos (i'm not even sure which! Which is why i started this thread).

hamishspence

2014-10-23, 06:16 AM

He certainly sounds neutral on the Good/Evil axis. Compunctions against harming the innocent, but not a driving force of altruism.

"If an innocent person refuses to sell to me, no matter what, I'll kill them and take their stuff" - it seems like his compunctions are pretty superficial.

An obsession with immortality - being willing to kill anyone who "gets in the way of it" - seems like textbook NE to me.

Segev

2014-10-23, 08:29 AM

There's an alignment chart I particularly like, but have a hard time keeping track of the image link to. But it spells it out thusly:

Nice Guy
|
Plays By The Rules -------------- Ignores The Rules
|
Prick

Now, the problem you're having is that you're not sure if he's a prick or not, and not sure if he "ignores the rules" or merely is neutral and thus chooses to break them when they become inconvenient.

If I had to guess, his motives for the random acts of kindness are still quite selfish: he likes feeling like he's important to these pathetic whiny brats' lives and showing how great he is. The accolades might make their gratitude useful later, too. Even if that's not the case, his kindness is only skin deep. Sure, he might enjoy their happiness more than their sorrow, but their pain and suffering is of no consequence to him beyond a mild disappointment at its necessity.

Regardless, the CN person will generally balk at killing innocents. The more insane ones may not think about the fact that their antics cost others' lives, and even the sane ones might not be willing to connect, say, their theft of somebody's wealth to the fact that this could cause him to be unable to feed himself and his family. But they balk at being directly responsible for the death of those who are not hurting them or others equally directly.

But the confusion over CN vs NE always puzzles me. The CE alignment exists betwixt the twain, and nobody seems to have trouble identifying CE vs. CN, or CE vs. NE. So perhaps what you need to do is ask yourself, "What would I have to change to make this character CE?" Then see if those changes make him more chaotic or more evil. If the latter, he's clearly NE. If the former, he's clearly CN. If "both," then he's probably N.

Red Fel

2014-10-23, 09:03 AM

There's an alignment chart I particularly like, but have a hard time keeping track of the image link to. But it spells it out thusly:

I like this. I happen to think it's a better way to describe players than character alignments, but I like it a lot.

I did have three points to make, though.

First: On alignment confusion.

But the confusion over CN vs NE always puzzles me. The CE alignment exists betwixt the twain, and nobody seems to have trouble identifying CE vs. CN, or CE vs. NE. So perhaps what you need to do is ask yourself, "What would I have to change to make this character CE?" Then see if those changes make him more chaotic or more evil. If the latter, he's clearly NE. If the former, he's clearly CN. If "both," then he's probably N.

The confusion I see over CN versus NE isn't between the alignments themselves, but rather how they're played - part of the stigma against CN is that it's often played as CE or NE. Looking at the alignments in a vacuum, there's no confusion - one represents change, freedom, and passion, untempered by morality, and the other represents selfishness and cruelty, untempered by thoughts of tradition or freedom.

On your commend regarding "nobody seems to have trouble identifying . . . CE vs. NE," however, I disagree somewhat. It's kind of hard to visualize a difference between the Chaotic Evil character, who values Evil and Freedom, and the Neutral Evil character, who values Evil full stop. It can be difficult to come up with an NE character who doesn't lean either towards L or C, in my experience. And this from a person who very much enjoys playing Evil characters to great depth and nuance.

Second: It's not impossible to picture a CE character who is squeamish or has a soft spot for kids. I could argue, for example, that Fagin, from Oliver! (the musical adaptation of Oliver Twist) is CE - he's a thief and a liar, he trains street urchins to be his army of pickpockets and sends them off to steal or be arrested, he knowingly aids violent criminals (like Bill Sikes), he trusts nobody, and he revels in his villainy ("Reviewing the Situation"). But he has a soft spot for the kiddies, even though he sends them out every day to steal, knowing some will likely be caught; he gets squeamish when they might be harmed, and can't stomach violent crimes, himself. Despite having a soft spot for the kids, however, he gives them no second thoughts apart from an instruction to "Scatter!" when the heat is on. Despite providing them with a roof and some scraps to eat, his motivations are entirely self-serving, his apathy towards their well-being is worrisome at best, and his lack of regard for laws or morality is refreshing and upbeat clearly villainous. He's CE, and has a soft spot for kids. It works.

My point is that it's possible to play a CE character with a "nice" streak, if you can explain it. Having isolated acts of warmth doesn't bar an Evil alignment. Which leads to...

Third: On "why not?"

Small Good Stuff
a. She's crying, it takes very little effort on his part to make her stop crying, why not?
b. Kid is crying, it takes very little effort on his part to make her stop crying, why not?
c. A tiny effort on his part will make his companion happy, why not?
d. A tiny effort on his part will make his companion happy, why not?

Here's the thing. I'm not saying that Evil requires laughing at every crying child because crying children are funny for the evulz. But Evil is generally seen as the ultimate embodiment of selfishness. That is, an Evil character generally won't do something for someone else unless he can see some benefit from it, present or future. Now, admittedly, with regard to making and keeping friends, that's a different issue. But strangers? Children you've never seen before, and likely will never see again?

Let me put it this way. If it takes an effort on your part - any effort whatsoever, even minor effort - and doesn't grant you a benefit, why do it? For a Good character, "Because it's the right thing to do." For a Neutral character, perhaps "To balance the scales," or "In the name of freedom," or "As justice requires," or what-have-you. But for an Evil character? "Why not" is rarely justification for acting outside of your typical alignment framework. There may be more specific justifications, but "Why not" generally isn't one of them.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 09:23 AM

Let me put it this way. If it takes an effort on your part - any effort whatsoever, even minor effort - and doesn't grant you a benefit, why do it? For a Good character, "Because it's the right thing to do." For a Neutral character, perhaps "To balance the scales," or "In the name of freedom," or "As justice requires," or what-have-you. But for an Evil character? "Why not" is rarely justification for acting outside of your typical alignment framework. There may be more specific justifications, but "Why not" generally isn't one of them.

Yeah, I like this a lot. In addition to everything everyone said in this forum, he is chaotic neutral. Although he kills paladins if they refuse to relinquish crucial essential stuff, he always offers them a "fair" monetary trade that is also accepting of counter offers before resorting to violence, so he still makes a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict peacefully. That and he does good things for no reason so he is not evil, but the good stuff is not big enough so he is neutral.

On the lawful-chaotic axis, he will never, ever obey a law that gets in his way, unless the enforcer of the law is stupidly more powerful than he, so he is chaotic.

Thanks everyone!

loodwig

2014-10-23, 09:46 AM

I'd go for thematic relevance based on game mechanics alone, rather than worry about an adherence to the alignment that defines your character type. You can selflessly save kittens and apprehend bandits for the authorities if you're evil and chaotic respectively. Just, don't make a career out of it.

A strict adherence to alignment is a recipe for a 1 dimensional character. Can we find an example of someone who never "broke the law" or never "did something bad" or the converse? If that's true, then every person in reality is true neutral, or strict adherence is absurd. This is where Lawful Stupid Paladins come from (Miko Miyazaki, to be topical :) )

That said, I tend to "disagree" with some fundamental game mechanics when role playing. I ascribe an alignment to any NPC or PC based on what they resemble (as close as possible). I do not describe any NPC or PC based on their alignment.

Chaotic characters will end up beating to their own drum in terms of fiat, but excepting the most chaotic extreme not all of them are anarchists. Indeed, a true reckless abandon towards law is... somewhat impossible, especially when one beats to their own drum and ends up following the rules anyway (the law says don't murder and I didn't kill anyone today, therefore I'm a lawful assassin).

It gets really funny with "evil" too. You can "detect evil" and you have a special kind of hell for "evil" characters. But is anyone truly the bad guy in their narrative? Villains and antagonists make sense in the context of a two sided battle, but evil is a very situational and relative term, especially when free will is involved.

Case and point, I have a lich in the campaign I'm running. He's obviously Chaotic Evil, but I have to answer not only "why is he a lich," but also "what is his motivation now?" Well, he was a elf sorcerer that had wizard friends that were morally dubious (willing to experiment on sentient life forms if it meant good scientific results) that found the world-ending macguffin. He attempted to destroy it, failed catastrophically, and realized he needed more research. Unfortunately only he remained focus on the study, and he knew that mortal life will get in the way and as he aged his mind would lose ability. So he sought immortality, consulted with demonic lore, found a spell to create a phylactery, and now continues his research without the confines of aging to get in his way. In his mind, a few million lives pales in comparison to the destructive potential of the macguffin (which makes sense if you think about it like a crazy person). He considers only "his" law to be valid, as his "maturity and wisdom" from time have allowed him moral superiority over contemporary civilization. He is not, however, beyond saving children, putting hierarchy within his own ranks of minions. He still wants to save the world, by any means necessary, and yes, his goals and the PC's goals align.

So yeah, he's textbook chaos and evil, but not mustache twirling for the sake of mustache twirling. However, he's more "chaotic evil" because the lich template requires it, than he is "chaotic evil" because he's the embodiment of chaos and evil.

Sartharina

2014-10-23, 09:47 AM

Actually the "I don't give a ****" attitude pushes him further toward Evil. In light of the new information, I have to say "Neutral Evil, but doesn't want to admit it".

Segev

2014-10-23, 09:55 AM

I'd actually put Fagin at CN more than CE. Even his "revel in villainy" is more a rejection of the idea that he could be part of the aristocracy and hang out with those who enforce its rules than it is a love of hurting others for his own gain. He has zero respect for the law to the point of repudiating it in the name of being free of it (highly Chaotic), and he doesn't MIND using people - even kids - for his own selfish aims. But he doesn't mean them any harm, and for those whom he gets even moderately close, he feels a certain amount of responsibility for their well-being. This is very much NEutral on the good/evil axis: willing to disregard the rights of others in small but myriad ways, but not willing to directly harm them; not caring about those outside his sphere, but feeling some responsibility for those within beyond even "they're mine and nobody else can hurt them."

He's not a good man. But he's not an evil one, either. He's highly anti-establishment and pro-selfish-freedom.

CN.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 09:57 AM

Actually the "I don't give a ****" attitude pushes him further toward Evil. In light of the new information, I have to say "Neutral Evil, but doesn't want to admit it".

I'm totally fine with him being neutral evil, but it seemed like after the clarification with the case studies, most people said neutral. The "evil will never do something good out of random kindness" part is what convinced me he wasn't evil, and despite not giving a **** about most things, he still helps out friends free of charge, doesn't kill groveling people and makes them work off his services, and offers a chance to avoid violence at his monetary expense, but it seems there isn't a real clear answer so I guess every DM will have a different opinion, so I'll leave it to him and let him decide unless evil alignments are banned.

I'd actually put Fagin at CN more than CE. Even his "revel in villainy" is more a rejection of the idea that he could be part of the aristocracy and hang out with those who enforce its rules than it is a love of hurting others for his own gain. He has zero respect for the law to the point of repudiating it in the name of being free of it (highly Chaotic), and he doesn't MIND using people - even kids - for his own selfish aims. But he doesn't mean them any harm, and for those whom he gets even moderately close, he feels a certain amount of responsibility for their well-being. This is very much NEutral on the good/evil axis: willing to disregard the rights of others in small but myriad ways, but not willing to directly harm them; not caring about those outside his sphere, but feeling some responsibility for those within beyond even "they're mine and nobody else can hurt them."

He's not a good man. But he's not an evil one, either. He's highly anti-establishment and pro-selfish-freedom.

CN.

another CN vote XD

Segev

2014-10-23, 10:04 AM

another CN vote XD

I would note that the described behavior of the PC in the OP is different from Fagin's. Fagin balks at violence to gain his ends. He does NOT want to hurt others, himself, nor order it done on purpose.

The OP's PC is, on the other hand, perfectly willing to do whatever he has to to whomever he has to in order to get what he wants. He may not revel in it, but he needs no justification beyond expediency towards his own selfish goals. That pushes him firmly in the Evil direction.

Fagin might want the jewels held by the sweet young lady, but if he would have to kill her to take them, he probably would balk at it. (He usually doesn't have to; he's a skilled pickpocket. But if it came to "do her violent harm or let her go with her jewels," Fagin would more than likely do the latter.) The OP's character is stated to be willing to kill her if she doesn't agree to sell them to him or hand them over after being threatened.

Taveena

2014-10-23, 10:20 AM

Actually, yeah, if he's... willing to murder Paladins that does tip him towards CE. I'm inclined to say, in retrospect, he's CE with CN leanings.

dascarletm

2014-10-23, 10:27 AM

big good stuff
a. Paladin needs helpers to cleanse a den of necromancers. PC does not join unless is paid no matter what

This isn't good. It is staunchly neutral.

b. Village is about to be raided by bandits and village cannot afford to pay. PC lets the village get torched

That sounds borderline neutral and evil, depending on the details of the situation

c. If PC is good friends with someone, he'll help them occasionally free of charge. For example, if the paladin in the above example is a good friend, PC will help cleanse the den free of charge. If PC is friends with one of the villagers, he'll clear the bandits free of charge.

still pretty neutral here. Not really good, and especially not "big" good

Evil Stuff
a. If the PC is a wizard or cleric with the spell domain in a low magic world, and an NPC has a scroll he needs, he'll first offer to buy it. If NPC refuses, he'll threaten. If NPC still refuses, then it's death.

Evil.... Possibly SE

b. If a paladin is guarding a key to some evil tomb that holds an item of interest, PC will offer gold, then threaten, then kill if paladin refuses to relinquish the key. If the paladin doesn't die in the fight however, and is just wounded to the point where he can't fight, then PC won't go out of his way to kill the paladin and just take the key and leave him. Paladin could bleed to death, or he could get up later, doesn't matter, PC will leave. If paladin survives and chases the PC and tries to get the key back by force, then it's death for sure.

Evil.

c. PC is burning wood to make a campfire. Then suddenly 100 druids show up saying burning wood is bad. PC will NOT offer gold, but threaten the druids and then slaughter every last one of them. No survivors. He'll hunt them down if he has to.
:smallconfused: This situation. Why would he offer them gold? Druids are actually selling out their beliefs for gold. "Please don't hurt the forest, but I'll let it slide for a few k gold. Daddy needs a new pair of leaves." Campfires are bad M'kay... even though the wood you would use was probably already dead, since cutting down a tree just for a fire would be a ridiculous.
Seems chaotic evil to me.

The Insanity

2014-10-23, 12:04 PM

Red Fel

2014-10-23, 12:32 PM

I don't agree with this "CN is free from morality" thing. That would make you Evil. The N part of CN makes you free from altruism/Good. You still don't want to do Evil stuff, you're just not compeled to do Good stuff.

That's the definition of being "free from morality" - you have no desire to do Good or Evil. No particular compunction either way. It's the difference between moral, immoral, and amoral. The former is a "Good" person, next is an "Evil" person, then a "Neutral" person - one whose acts are not motivated by morality in either direction.

The distinction between immoral and amoral is key, here.

Segev

2014-10-23, 12:54 PM

"free from morality" does generally mean "evil." "morality" is good, not good or evil. Neutral people on the moral axis are not free of morality, but rather have a selfish view tempered by enough conscience to actively wish to avoid harming others. And, maybe, help out if it doesn't cost them much. Maybe. If it's convenient and they're needy enough.

BlackDragonKing

2014-10-23, 01:14 PM

So as long as the character murders, cheats, steals, tortures, and betrays for the sake of power, and does not do any of that stuff out of sport or for the sake of evil, would he be chaotic neutral despite burning down orphanages to get into some evil gang, tortures uncooperative villagers for information, and kills all those who stand in his way? Because all that stuff seems really evil, yet the motivation behind the evil deeds is power not evil or sadism, and the character would never do any of the above horrific deeds if it did not result in more power.

These are all inherently evil acts. Chaotic Neutral characters do things on personal whims, not for the sake of power.

If you burn down orphanages, even to infiltrate a gang, take an alignment shift. You have unnecessarily endangered others to associate with evil people. You would need some seriously good intentions and sincere atoning just to stay neutral. If orphans die because of your actions, YOU ARE EVIL.

If you torture uncooperative villagers for information, YOU ARE EVIL. Please consult a nearby cleric or paladin for advice on how to mend your ways or get used to wearing the big NE for the rest of your career.

If you kill people for no better reason than them being in your way, YOU ARE EVIL. Good only kills in defense of itself and others, and Chaotic Neutral only kills in self-defense or when it feels it really has to.

Chaotic Neutral never MEANS to cause harm; it does, frequently, but it never MEANS to do anything. It's just following its whims and doing what comes naturally. You're describing a character who endangers, tortures, and murders other people out of a selfish desire for power.

That's evil. That's incredibly evil. This character doesn't need sadism for all that, they STILL can't see Neutral with a frigging telescope.

hamishspence

2014-10-23, 01:38 PM

I'm totally fine with him being neutral evil, but it seemed like after the clarification with the case studies, most people said neutral. The "evil will never do something good out of random kindness" part is what convinced me he wasn't evil

In the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, the exceedingly evil red dragon Klauth is stated to do random acts of kindness.

The Wyrms of the North article for him also mentions it:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/wn/20030226a

The Savage Species book also mentions that Evil characters can treat those they have an emotional tie to with kindness and consideration.

Sartharina

2014-10-23, 01:38 PM

Tragak

2014-10-23, 01:39 PM

Chaotic Neutrals will never serve somebody they disagree with unless their life is on the line - and sometimes not even then - but they won't want to hurt somebody who isn't likely to hurt them first.

Neutral Evils would jump at the chance to profit from hurting somebody, but they might very well serve the person until then.

hamishspence

2014-10-23, 01:41 PM

I'm looking through the Monster Manual to check this guy's alignment.

At first, I was thinking he was True Neutral (Not chaotic neutral/neutral evil) - No more evil than a Dragon Turtle (Or any other neutral dragon), gynosphinx, or lizardfolk. Seriously - people here need a much better scope of what you can get away with and still be neutral in D&D.

Monsters tend to get away with more than PCs can. This guy is not exactly a superpredator, or a member of a savage tribe battling for survival in a hostile environment, either.

Sartharina

2014-10-23, 01:51 PM

Monsters tend to get away with more than PCs can. This guy is not exactly a superpredator, or a member of a savage tribe battling for survival in a hostile environment, either.Why the double standard?

hamishspence

2014-10-23, 01:54 PM

Possibly because DMs wish to discourage players from having their characters act like predators toward strangers?

Doctor Awkward

2014-10-23, 06:15 PM

Actions in regards to alignment don't matter nearly as much as your motivation for doing those actions. Alignment doesn't dictate your personal history or your life goals, or even your personality. It's supposed to be a guideline to help dictate your typical response to a given situation.

The most frequent question a neutral evil person will ever ask is, "How does this benefit me?" They put their own happiness above everyone else's, but the difference is there is nothing they will not do to achieve it. A cutthroat mercenary that will do literally anything to finish a job is a good example of neutral evil. A lot of people argue, "oh he can't be neutral if he follows contracts!!" Not true at all. What if he only agrees to contracts to put other people at ease? What if he'll break it if he gets a better offer or thinks he can get away with it? "Well then he's chaotic!" No, that'd be if he broke nearly every contract, or did so just to be contrary.

Chaotic neutral generally puts their own happiness above others, but the difference is they still have a sense of morality about it, and they frequently have a line they won't cross. You don't just go punching random people if you aren't a crazy person.

You want a good example of effective chaotic neutral? Sun Wukong (http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Sun_Wukong) from the Rooster Teeth web series RWBY.
He constantly thumbs his nose at authority, breaks the laws on a whim, and laughs about it to their face when he can get away with it. Yeah, he helped Blake with her trouble, but ask yourself, "why?" Out of the kindness of his heart? Heck no, he did it because he thought she was cute. Helping her with her problem was entirely selfishly motivated by his desire to be around her.
The reason why he works as a character, and why he's so likable, is that he is mischievous in his dealings, rather than malicious. Nothing he bad he does is anything far above mildly inconvenient and annoying.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 08:02 PM

Gah... still no clear answer >.<
Alright let me get the facts straight...
This guy is a LITTLE GOOD because he does good things that aren't much trouble for free
This guy is NOT SUPER GOOD because he won't help paladins or villages without payment
This guy is EVIL because there is no end to his violence if he does not get his way
This guy is NOT SUPER EVIL because he is not sadistic, is not motivated by evil, gives the opposing party a chance to end this peacefully with money, does not actively search or start conflict, does not use violence as the first resort, instead of killing or enslaving villagers who can't pay him, he makes them work it off in some mines or foraging forests or w.e., and he will almost always spare the life of someone groveling and begging for mercy, unless that guy is someone he really, really hates.

His motives for violence is:
1. He does not suffer fools, so a horde of angry druids forcing their faith on him will result in violence.
2. He does not tolerate harm towards him. So if a thief steals from him, he will hunt him down and kill him. If a corrupt baron frames him and tries to jail him, he will kill the baron and every soldier who gets in his way.
3. He must get what he needs. He needs certain scrolls to pull off w.e combo he's trying to combo. He needs items that will boost his combat ability (aka power), and so if someone is not selling him that thing that gives him power, he will attack (not necessarily kill) and take it.

so... LITTLE GOOD + EVIL = Neutral? Evil? He's not LITTLE EVIL because there is no end to what he'll possibly do, but he's not super evil due to reasons mentioned above. Maybe he's... SOMEWHAT EVIL? so LITTLE GOOD + SOMEWHAT EVIL = ?

I really don't think he's CE because CE is the ultimate evil, on par with demons. LE is the 2nd worst evil, on par with devils. So it's either NE, TN, or CN. Some people here think the no extent to his violence warrants an evil alignment, but due to his random acts of kindness and complete indifference to good and evil, he's not evil enough to be evil so they say neutral.

I'm looking through the Monster Manual to check this guy's alignment.

At first, I was thinking he was True Neutral (Not chaotic neutral/neutral evil) - No more evil than a Dragon Turtle (Or any other neutral dragon), gynosphinx, or lizardfolk. Seriously - people here need a much better scope of what you can get away with and still be neutral in D&D.

I'm inclined to agree with this guy as TN too now >.<

I think the question all comes down to:
The ONLY EVIL thing the PC in question does is take crucial items by force if opposing party refuses to relinquish it for money. The PC has absolutely NO EVIL MOTIVES (even in the orphanage burning case, he believes the fault is with the orphanage leader's unjust zealoutry), so does this ONE EVIL TRAIT make him evil enough to warrant an evil alignment?

edit: what if I change "kill if doesn't sell" to "severely wound if doesn't sell?" So in the paladin case, he will fight the paladin until the paladin is dying, then he takes the key, stabilizes the paladin, and drops him off at the nearest village with a bag of gold that was originally meant to pay for the key? Would this make him a definite CN? I really can't play sadistic characters, so I don't think there is a change I can do that will make him more evil.

Strigon

2014-10-23, 08:27 PM

Let's make it very clear here:
If you met this person in real life, would you call him a free spirit with some authority issues, or a complete and total ***?
That should, in most cases, clear it up enough for general purposes.

Troacctid

2014-10-23, 08:29 PM

edit: what if I change "kill if doesn't sell" to "severely wound if doesn't sell?" So in the paladin case, he will fight the paladin until the paladin is dying, then he takes the key, stabilizes the paladin, and drops him off at the nearest village with a bag of gold that was originally meant to pay for the key? Would this make him a definite CN? I really can't play sadistic characters, so I don't think there is a change I can do that will make him more evil.

Yes, that would make him unambiguously nonevil.

123456789blaaa

2014-10-23, 10:30 PM

<snip>
I really don't think he's CE because CE is the ultimate evil, on par with demons. LE is the 2nd worst evil, on par with devils. So it's either NE, TN, or CN.
<snip>

What? :smallconfused:

Divide by Zero

2014-10-23, 10:59 PM

I think the question all comes down to:
The ONLY EVIL thing the PC in question does is take crucial items by force if opposing party refuses to relinquish it for money. The PC has absolutely NO EVIL MOTIVES (even in the orphanage burning case, he believes the fault is with the orphanage leader's unjust zealoutry), so does this ONE EVIL TRAIT make him evil enough to warrant an evil alignment?

edit: what if I change "kill if doesn't sell" to "severely wound if doesn't sell?" So in the paladin case, he will fight the paladin until the paladin is dying, then he takes the key, stabilizes the paladin, and drops him off at the nearest village with a bag of gold that was originally meant to pay for the key? Would this make him a definite CN? I really can't play sadistic characters, so I don't think there is a change I can do that will make him more evil.

Unless I missed something, "crucial" here means "crucial to increase my personal power" ("motive: I need that key. It will make me more powerful.") So he's still causing significant suffering so he can steal someone's stuff for selfish reasons.

I don't see how anyone can interpret this guy as anything other than Evil.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 11:37 PM

Unless I missed something, "crucial" here means "crucial to increase my personal power" ("motive: I need that key. It will make me more powerful.") So he's still causing significant suffering so he can steal someone's stuff for selfish reasons.

I don't see how anyone can interpret this guy as anything other than Evil.

World is not black and white. Just because a person is not a good guy doesn't make him a bad guy. Again, I don't care whether he is neutral evil or chaotic neutral because neither alignment will affect the PC mechanically at all, but your argument seems very weak. Stealing is not evil, it is chaotic, and where does it say that neutral characters have to be selfless? Tell me, why would a neutral PC steal in your definition? A person stealing a sacred artifact to give to their church is a GOOD PC, a person stealing a sacred artifact to annihilate a city is a BAD PC, but how about a person stealing a sacred artifact for money? Is that evil? Because stealing for money is equal to stealing for power. An evil PC can steal a ton of money to fund an army to destroy a city, where as a good PC can steal a ton of money to feed the poor, but how about a neutral PC? Would you say a PC stealing a ton of money for his own pleasure, for a new mansion, etc. warrant an evil alignment because he stole money and caused suffering for selfish reasons? How about a PC who stole from a paladin for power so he can overthrow an evil tyrant?

Let's make it very clear here:
If you met this person in real life, would you call him a free spirit with some authority issues, or a complete and total ***?
That should, in most cases, clear it up enough for general purposes.

I would call him an unsociable guy who keeps to himself. What alignment is that? If I saw him helping someone, I'd say he's unsociable but a good guy. If I saw him beat a paladin up, but instead of killing him and looting him clean he just takes a key and stabilizes him before leaving, I'd say he's not a bad guy but not a good guy either. If I see him killing a paladin and looting his body clean, then I'd say he's a bad guy. So I guess he's a murderer and neutral evil without that change in character I mentioned, and CN with the change.

What? :smallconfused:

I admit I don't have much experience with LE and CE apart from the stereotypes :(
but that's how they look to me at first glance XD

Divide by Zero

2014-10-23, 11:45 PM

Stealing is not evil, it is chaotic

...what? Barring a mitigating factor (stealing food to survive, using the stolen item for a good cause, the item was stolen to begin with, etc.), stealing is performing a selfish act at someone else's expense. That's textbook Evil. And where does it say that non-chaotic people can't steal? The Lawful Evil tyrant who extorts impossibly high taxes from the peasants is doing the same thing by a different method. Of course, even if it were a chaotic act, that doesn't mean it can't also be evil.

I'm not saying ALL stealing is necessarily evil, just that the sort of stealing this character does definitely is.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-23, 11:50 PM

...what? Barring a mitigating factor (stealing food to survive, using the stolen item for a good cause, the item was stolen to begin with, etc.), stealing is performing a selfish act at someone else's expense. That's textbook Evil. And where does it say that non-chaotic people can't steal? The Lawful Evil tyrant who extorts impossibly high taxes from the peasants is doing the same thing by a different method. Of course, even if it were a chaotic act, that doesn't mean it can't also be evil.

Lawful evil steals LEGALLY. Chaotic characters steal ILLEGALLY. XD
Lawful evil would make an effort to make a LAW that lets him practically take everything from the peasants or abuse an "emergency law" that lets him raise taxes in an "emergency." He would never, ever secretly nick a person's wallet, mug a guy for money, etc.

Chaotic on the other hand would never bend the law to get what he wants.

By definition, lawful characters can't steal, mug, etc. without threatening an alignment shift to neutral.

Divide by Zero

2014-10-23, 11:56 PM

Lawful evil steals LEGALLY. Chaotic characters steal ILLEGALLY. XD
Lawful evil would make an effort to make a LAW that lets him practically take everything from the peasants or abuse an "emergency law" that lets him raise taxes in an "emergency." He would never, ever secretly nick a person's wallet, mug a guy for money, etc.

Chaotic on the other hand would never bend the law to get what he wants.

That's pretty much exactly what I said - it's a question of method, not intent or results. And intent and results are what matter for purposes of good and evil. Whether it's chaotic or lawful, stealing from someone without a good reason is still evil.

Troacctid

2014-10-24, 12:00 AM

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean you follow the law. You can work outside the law and still be Lawful. Look at mobsters, for example. Organized crime is iconically Lawful Evil.

Nightingale

2014-10-24, 12:09 AM

RoboEmperor

2014-10-24, 12:37 AM

Let's not forget that all he does is for a selfish purpose.The character appears to be*extremely and violently anti-authority, so chaotic seems a given on that axis.Then we are also informed that he will stop at nothing to get something that he needs in service of his selfish quest for immortality, including physical or psychological violence.I'd say that puts him firmly on the evil camp.The fact that he will attempt other options before violence doesn't make him neutral, it just means he's not a balor.You can be firmly ce without being a raving lunatic

Doesn't neutral allow you to be a little evil though?
Let me quote an example I made in another thread.
It's the law to chop off the hands of thieves in this particular kingdom. A young girl is caught stealing an apple so she wouldn't starve. A lawful neutral guard will chop her hands off. Does that make the lawful neutral guard evil? Especially since he does not take any pleasure and feels guilty for the rest of his life, but he would no doubt do it again because he's lawful.

How bout this case between a lawful neutral and a paladin:
LN: king requests you relinquish that shield
Pal: Never!
LN: Please don't resist, I really don't want to hurt you
Pal: BRING IT

LN brutally beats the paladin and takes the sword. Paladin rises up
LN: Please stay down, I can't bare to see this go any further
Pal: N...never!

LN brutally beats the paladin again. This repeats at least 3 times, and when the paladin passes out, LN doesn't kill and just leaves with the sword. Does this make the LN evil? Now replace king with quest, and get rid of all the sissy LN's dialogue to warnings. Does this make LN evil? >.< I thought I was firmly persuaded by "evil PCs will never, ever do good things without reason, ever" but now there's all these people saying he is evil. T_T

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean you follow the law. You can work outside the law and still be Lawful. Look at mobsters, for example. Organized crime is iconically Lawful Evil.

Good point! LE people can steal, rape, murder, break the law and be chaotic as long as they want as long as they're lawful to some other organization, which makes things more complicated >.<

thefirecrack3r

2014-10-24, 12:44 AM

Well, your examples point towards NE or CE. I however have played CN characters willing to murder, torture, and extort their way to meet their goals. They would not however harm someone not involved in the situation (a-la your orphanage example) However (in the case of the Paladin) he'd probably be like "Look man, I need this, its not your business why,but I really don't want to hurt you because, you're not part of this but if you wont back down...you'll need to draw your sword." Then he'd beat that paladin's ass and take the ****. Even then he'd probably have tried to of stolen it or bought it or blackmailed it out have him, if none of those worked, that item is more important than the arrangement of that paladin's face. Think Liam Neeson in Taken. He brutally murdered and tortured people, definitely left women in horrible conditions and let them be sold into slavery (he explicitly had no intention of ending the human trafficking ring) shot a mans wife and threatened to kill him and his wife, and basically wouldn't act unless he knew it would get him to his end goal (his daughter). His intentions were noble but he wasn't too worried about petty things like 'morality' and 'law' or even 'good' and 'justice'. He had a goal, an important one to be sure, and he did ANYTHING to complete it. THATS CN. I think of Antiheros as CN, Ghostrider uses evil powers to punish evil people but has no qualms bashing a cops face in or damaging innocent peoples property. The Punisher is a good comic example as well. They may not care about "good for the sake of good", they may not care about morality, but they might have a sense of vengeance or are just too cruel to be "good."

Troacctid

2014-10-24, 12:47 AM

Does he want to be nonevil? Does he care about being moral? If you do evil things knowing they're evil, without even caring that they're evil, then you're probably Evil. It means you're deliberately choosing that path.

Good point! LE people can steal, rape, murder, break the law and be chaotic as long as they want as long as they're lawful to some other organization, which makes things more complicated >.<

Organization shmorganization. A personal code of honor is plenty. Heck, you don't even need a "code"--a logical, organized mind and a careful, methodical personality can qualify you.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-24, 12:52 AM

Troacctid

2014-10-24, 01:23 AM

It would be easier to play him as Evil. You wouldn't have to toe the line. Just make him harsh, callous, relentless, and utterly without mercy in achieving his goals.

You can give him occasional moments of kindness, but you should be consistent with the circumstances in which they happen because the characterization is stronger that way. (For instance, instead of random acts of kindness because random, perhaps he is always kind to children.) That's a pretty standard case of Evil Virtues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilVirtues) and his evil card won't be revoked because of it.

And yes, that's a TV Tropes link. Honestly, you'd do well to spend some time over there looking at villain tropes. There's a lot of examples that could help you understand your character better.

Red Fel

2014-10-24, 09:16 AM

Alright, so if he was NE, then would anyone here have qualms about a NE character doing random acts of kindness? I still don't think he's CE because he doesn't promote chaos. I think the amount of law breaking this guy does is within the neutral evil's limits.
NE: "She is out for herself, pure and simple"
"She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble"
"she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has."

I just wanna be sure of this guy's alignment before printing out a ton of stuff.

If he is NE then I'll change the "take it by force" back to "kill him and take it"

edit: Actually, NE might be more fun. He's not totally evil, and kinda of a good guy, but due to his choice to do anything for immortality, he's tragically going to hell because of his foolish obsession/fear. Just like how a good guy who helps people regularly would tragically become evil if he would stop at nothing (and end up killing innocents) to achieve his vengeance against the man who killed his family. The PC in question might even become true neutral if a party member shows him the error of his ways and makes him repent and atone.

So anyone against this sort of NE?

Let's run down the list, shall we?

1. Evil can be nice. Usually, Evil is self-centered, but that doesn't mean that Evil can't be kind, warm, friendly or compassionate. It just means that he usually has an agenda for doing it. (Even if that agenda is "Heck, I felt like it," or "Man, those heroes will never be able to explain this!") Don't be afraid to indulge in moments of petting puppies. Heck, don't forget the classic Bond villain, Blofeld, who more or less originated the Villain's Fluffy White Cat trope. (Not the All Cats Are Evil, trope, but the Fluffy White Cat subtrope.) You can have a softer side and still be Evil, so long as you can explain it.

2. Don't be afraid to get the alignment a little wrong. As has been said many times, "Alignment is not a straightjacket." A good DM will gently remind you that your alignment is shifting based on your actions. Now, it's one thing to say you're playing LG and then go out and murder orphans for sport. That's way off. But saying you plan to play CE or NE, for example, and winding up shifting from one to the other during play? That's fine. Don't worry as much about it.

3. If he repents and atones, he's probably going to be heading towards G territory. The shift from E to N is not embodied by true repentance, but more by pragmatism - "But killing is fun," is replaced by "Well, I suppose I don't have to this time," which is replaced by "You know, I just don't feel like it today." That's an example of an E -> N shift. Atonement and repentance is more of a sharp E -> G shift (and, frankly, I have issues with something so dramatic, but again that's my own baggage).

4. Bottom line: Play the character the way you want to play him, with the usual disclaimer of "But don't be a jerk to the DM or other players/PCs." As long as you have fun, and everyone else has fun, the rest will work itself out. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that description can change and morph as needed.

And, as an aside: I'm not against the kind of NE you describe. There are only two Evils with which I have issue: Backstabbing Evil, that exists solely to be a jerk to the party; and Evil that steals my business. I don't care what level you are, you don't infringe on my domain.

Other than that, be a bad guy - it doesn't make you a bad guy! (With apologies to Zangief.)

Segev

2014-10-24, 10:35 AM

Evil people can do nice things, even for no nefarious motive. Many German SS officers (to risk activating Godwin's Law) were known as wonderful family men who would also be kind and helpful to strangers (amongst the acceptable Good Citizen German populace), despite living down to every stereotype out there in terms of what they did to their victims.

He likes feeling good about himself for helping others. Maybe he genuinely feels badly for their minor pains and feels good about seeing them happy. But that same child whose puppy he just rescued, he'd eviscerate the kid's puppy in front of his eyes if that child had something he wanted and wouldn't give it to him without this...demonstration. He likes seeing people happy, and doesn't enjoy seeing them sad, but it's a mild preference compared to his refusal to let their happiness get in the way of his power.

That's evil.

It's NE, because he's not behaving particularly out of respect or disrespect for order. He's not got a solid Code to which he holds, but he also isn't going to willy-nilly change his mind and abrogate agreements when convenient. He'll break them if he has to, but it's like that evisceration of the puppy: he'd rather keep it than break it if there's not a compelling (albeit, for him, it might not have to be "moral quandary" level compelling) reason to do so.

dascarletm

2014-10-24, 11:04 AM

Chaotic doesn't mean you promote "chaos" as a force necessarily. It just means you don't think or act in an orderly manner or faction, don't have a code, or don't adhere to authority. Any of those would make you chaotic.

Free spirit. You live in the moment. Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic are separate. LE is not less evil than CE. Both are the same amount of evil. So don't say your character isn't CE because you think it is some sort of greater evil than the others.

Look at each axis in a vacuum from one another.

Everything about your mentality screams chaotic to me. You're a wild card. You live life by what life brings you without some restraining code, or authority. You don't seem to plan and have an ordered lifestyle. You sir are Chaotic Embrace the freedom! :smallbiggrin:

I also must say you're character is quite evil. Small acts of kindness don't make you good. They just don't make you a stereotype. That's a good thing. It seems like your character likes children, whatever the reason may be. This is great and you should play it up. Work it into your back-story.

Maybe you had a rough childhood and think that no other kid should have to go through what you did. You don't go out of the way to save a village because there are kids in it, you know it's not possible to help everyone and out of sight out of mind. You're not on a mission to help all the kids, but you will help them if you see them. This makes your character interesting, not "Good." To make you Good, you'd need to be willing to self sacrifice for others, which your examples don't seem to indicate.

I have got to say you are probably Evil. This is a good thing! Embrace your dark side! Enjoy your selfish immorality and revel in the tears of those that stand in your way.

busterswd

2014-10-24, 12:44 PM

Alignment is not a personality straitjacket. Lawful Good are not compelled to act like the overbearing Paladin, Lawful Neutral people CAN find motivation to break a promise or disobey a local law, Chaotic Evil people do not have to be slavering monsters ready to stab/steal/murder any living thing in front of them.

I loved Rich's article about the two evil warlords working together, because it illustrates personality quirks really well. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html)

2. Don't be afraid to get the alignment a little wrong. As has been said many times, "Alignment is not a straightjacket." A good DM will gently remind you that your alignment is shifting based on your actions. Now, it's one thing to say you're playing LG and then go out and murder orphans for sport. That's way off. But saying you plan to play CE or NE, for example, and winding up shifting from one to the other during play? That's fine. Don't worry as much about it.

4. Bottom line: Play the character the way you want to play him, with the usual disclaimer of "But don't be a jerk to the DM or other players/PCs." As long as you have fun, and everyone else has fun, the rest will work itself out. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that description can change and morph as needed.
These, pretty much. It's more important to flesh out a consistent personality you have fun playing with rather than worrying about maintaining a certain alignment. You're either CE or NE; pick one, let the DM decide whether to shift you or not, keeping in mind there can always be consequences for mass murder. Evil is tough to play, sometimes, because people tend to notice evil acts with considerable prejudice.