Alignment arguement

[mrooski]

My group and I began a Ptolus campaign awhile ago, and I chose to play a Human Duskblade who's goal is to take down one of the noble houses for killing his elven mentor/father figure. In the past couple of years we have converted to the pathfinder system, but there has been a lot of discussion regarding my character's alignment. The DM almost argues that I play the character as chaotic evil, and has shifted my character's alignment toward chaotic neutral. The original purpose of the character was to be a highly idealistic individual who is quick and unrelenting to punish those who do evil usually by slaying them.

Here is some of what decisions that the character has made in game (note nothing plot major for the character has occurred yet):

The character attempted to punish a drug dealer by killing him, the rest of the party stopped him.

During an interrogation with a captured cultist, he becomes fed up with the cultist's ideology and kills the prisoner before the party's psion can read their minds.

There was a RP debacle involving him and another party member wrongfully imprisoning a NPC to collect an award for a murder of the NPC's Wife, they latter broke him out of prison.

He is very generally distrusting towards almost everyone that he meets, and has great suspicions about those in power of the church of Lothien.

Most recently, he watched three humanoid figures (who were obviously cultists) fight a Minotaur. After letting the Minotaur slay the cultists, he then killed the Minotaur (assuming correctly that he is also a cultist).

The DM argues that since the character is so quick to kill, he cannot be neutral good.
I say that since the character's goals are just (especially motivation), he is neutral good.

Is my idea of chaotic good completely unfounded? or do I have some credence to how I have played the character?

[TheCrowing1432]

a neutral good character wouldnt kill a (presumably unarmed) prisoner.

Nor would they attempt to kill a drugdealer, they'd probably arrest them.

[weckar]

You do seem rather quick to go for the 'kill' option, but other than that your behavior seems more lawful than chaotic: You see a problem, or something that opposes your views, and you deal with it - ruthless efficiency and goal-orientedness are lawful traits. It feels like a low-Wisdom character, but hardly chaotic.

[Ettina]

You sound like Lawful Neutral to me, not Chaotic Good.

[Red Fel]

Well, let's take a look at your illustrations.


The character attempted to punish a drug dealer by killing him, the rest of the party stopped him.

This is probably non-Good. The C in CG doesn't mean "I kill who I want." As a rule, if there is a way to deal with an enemy without killing him, that's preferable to a Good character. That doesn't mean Good can't kill; if the enemy poses a serious threat to you or others, put him down. But the only evidence you've given is that this guy was a drug dealer, and that your PC was killing him "to punish" him. Not to prevent harm, to punish. That's probably non-Good.


During an interrogation with a captured cultist, he becomes fed up with the cultist's ideology and kills the prisoner before the party's psion can read their minds.

Killing a captive is Neutral bordering on Evil. Killing someone because you're "fed up with his ideology" is reasonably Evil.


There was a RP debacle involving him and another party member wrongfully imprisoning a NPC to collect an award for a murder of the NPC's Wife, they latter broke him out of prison.

Breaking a guy out of prison may be Good or non-Good, depending on context, but anything that uses the word "wrongfully" is generally either non-Good, non-Lawful, or both.


He is very generally distrusting towards almost everyone that he meets, and has great suspicions about those in power of the church of Lothien.

This isn't inherently Good or non-Good.


Most recently, he watched three humanoid figures (who were obviously cultists) fight a Minotaur. After letting the Minotaur slay the cultists, he then killed the Minotaur (assuming correctly that he is also a cultist).

Also not inherently Good or non-Good.


The DM argues that since the character is so quick to kill, he cannot be neutral good.
I say that since the character's goals are just (especially motivation), he is neutral good.

When it comes to Good versus non-Good, goals are less important than actions. "The ends justify the means" is a non-Good mentality; Good has lines that it will not cross. I agree that someone too ready to kill isn't very Good.

[Theomniadept]

Gotta agree with the others here; killing unarmed prisoners is evil, and killing someone for having an opposing ideology is lawful. I'd argue the character is Lawful Evil at this point.

[Blackhawk748]

Gotta agree with the others here; killing unarmed prisoners is evil, and killing someone for having an opposing ideology is lawful. I'd argue the character is Lawful Evil at this point.

I dont think hes stepped across that line yet, but he may be getting close, id say LN for now.

[(Un)Inspired]

You could try to establish a defense supporting your character neutrality but from the evidence you've presented it sounds like your character is probably evil in DnD terms.

I'd go with NE. Breaking people out of jail because of some scheme of yours sounds pretty chaotic but otherwise you're character primary trait seems to be a view of pragmatism that is immoral.

[mrooski]

I honestly didn't see most of these coming, but thanks for the good responses so far.
I will admit that I am very bad at the whole alignment thing (what good vs. evil inherently means).

The whole, ends justifies the means thing is quite similar to my idea of the character: low wisdom, fundamentally good ideals, but so fed up with the way that others respond to evil that he goes to far. Those were the DM's examples of why he began shifting the characters alignment. We both agree that the character is chaotic (disregard for the law, has distrust of guards and authority figures, gets into bar fights for fun, ect.).

I do argue that a strong quest for vengeance could be viewed as either lawful or chaotic depending on how that character goes about it. In this instance, his goal is do completely eviscerate a noble house that is in rule, for crimes against himself and others ect. I will agree that it is up for discussion.

I want to try and figure out the action vs. ideology thing though. To me what you guys are saying that someone could theoretically be chaotic evil, while still having a inherently good goal. The opposite could be true as well (that would be a really difficult character to play though, would be a good challenge). To me this is borderline ridiculous and split personality-esque.

Anyways, here are some more of what the character has done, and what he thinks:

After uncovering a plot to bring the whole city under chaos cultists rule, he has made it his focus to stop them, although most of the party argues that the opening up of the bane-warrens is a higher priority.

He HATES evildoers (ironic since he has committed some evil deeds)

He saved one of the party member's sister (latter finding out she is a cultist)

He is working to begin to dismantle the Nobel house in question through attacking their underground drug trade that has a grip on the ptolus population.


Thanks again for the responses.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I want to point out that, in DnD, the god of revenge in a NE deity, so revenge of any kind is an evil act and a slippery slope. IF you want to stay XN you will eventually need to abandon it.

Edit: I just could a CE deity whose revenge is included in his portfolio. 2/2 on revenge being evil.

[Drelua]

Have you seen the show Gotham, by any chance? The portrayal of Jim Gordon on that show has a lot in common with the character you're describing. He's frustrated and angry, being basically the only honest cop in Gotham, he's idealistic, and he's stubborn. He's nearly gotten himself killed when he got in over his head with the local crime lords. The difference is, he manages to be a good person in spite of all this. He'll kill someone if he has to, but he'd much rather arrest them if at all possible. Just last night's episode, three guys tried to kill him for a job and a million dollars, then the guy offering the money came at him with freakin' katana, and he didn't kill anyone because he didn't have to. He's definitely Lawful Good, in my opinion, almost to Paladin levels.

From what you've said in this thread, I'd say your character is likely Lawful for the same reasons, but definitely not Good. A good person doesn't kill people completely unnecessarily, he only kills when he absolutely has to.

[BrokenChord]

Your character is somewhere south of Neutral but north of Evil. I'd have to go with Evil in the end, though; the Well-Intentioned Extremist (by a different name) is called out as Evil in Book of Vile Darkness, and your character seems like a warped and chaotic version of that.

Keep in mind we're talking game alignment here. It's hard to wrap your head around the alignment that goes to characters with evil motives but good actions or evil actions but good motives because our real-world philosophies are varied and can tend to disagree with the game's definition.

Now, I know plenty of DMs play this differently than me, but I don't see Good and Evil as true measures of right and wrong from a moral standpoint. They are cosmic forces that respond naturally to certain actions and thoughts, regardless of whether those things are really ethically right or wrong.

So if your DM's setting's cosmic alignments are different, that's fine. But both the rules and, far more importantly, the flavor/fluff of D&D suggest that your character is just a hop over the fence in Evil territory. Whether you think that really makes him evil (lower-case E) is your prerogative.

[WhamBamSam]

I want to try and figure out the action vs. ideology thing though. To me what you guys are saying that someone could theoretically be chaotic evil, while still having a inherently good goal. The opposite could be true as well (that would be a really difficult character to play though, would be a good challenge). To me this is borderline ridiculous and split personality-esque."The road to hell is paved with good intentions," "everyone is the hero in their own story," etc, etc, etc. Inherently good goals are not just possible for evil people, they are arguably more likely than an outright "for the evuls" mentality.

Some of the evil people with good aims might even end up being vindicated. The ends might really justify the means in the long run. We call these characters antiheroes. They're still neutral at best.

It's harder for it to work in the other direction, because most people don't see themselves as evil or actively want to do evil, and when they do, it's harder to screw up than attempting to do good.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Meh, Hoar is Lawful Neutral. Vengeance has a long historic connection with honor and duty. In my opinion, revenge does not follow the moral axis and it's place on the ethical axis depends on the individuals acceptance of the vengeance of others. When your PC kills a cultist, is it honorable for the cultists son to seek your PC death?

[Skya]

I want to point out that, in DnD, the god of revenge in a NE deity, so revenge of any kind is an evil act and a slippery slope. IF you want to stay XN you will eventually need to abandon it.

Edit: I just could a CE deity whose revenge is included in his portfolio. 2/2 on revenge being evil.

Same thing for pathfinder. Revenge is evil. Justice is good. You have to find the line between those 2.

[Squark]

My group and I began a Ptolus campaign awhile ago, and I chose to play a Human Duskblade who's goal is to take down one of the noble houses for killing his elven mentor/father figure. In the past couple of years we have converted to the pathfinder system, but there has been a lot of discussion regarding my character's alignment. The DM almost argues that I play the character as chaotic evil, and has shifted my character's alignment toward chaotic neutral. The original purpose of the character was to be a highly idealistic individual who is quick and unrelenting to punish those who do evil usually by slaying them.

Here is some of what decisions that the character has made in game (note nothing plot major for the character has occurred yet):

The character attempted to punish a drug dealer by killing him, the rest of the party stopped him. Definitely problematic. It's one thing to kill criminals in a shootout when you're trying to stop illegal activities (We'll sidestep the whole vigilante thing for now), another to execute someone without due process.
During an interrogation with a captured cultist, he becomes fed up with the cultist's ideology and kills the prisoner before the party's psion can read their minds.Definitely evil. Killing a helpless prisoner because you don't like his ideals is a serious transgression that might push you all the way to the bottom of the alignment rung in one go.
There was a RP debacle involving him and another party member wrongfully imprisoning a NPC to collect an award for a murder of the NPC's Wife, they latter broke him out of prison.Not an uncommon con. If the man was in on it and the government was totally corrupt, I could see a character like Haley trying this. If it's a legitimate government or the man was an unwilling participant, then we've got a problem.
He is very generally distrusting towards almost everyone that he meets, and has great suspicions about those in power of the church of Lothien.Not evil, but it does seem like your character isn't much of a team player, which gets old fast.
Most recently, he watched three humanoid figures (who were obviously cultists) fight a Minotaur. After letting the Minotaur slay the cultists, he then killed the Minotaur (assuming correctly that he is also a cultist).Context Dependant. Could just be savvy tactics, or it could be a callous and goodhearted move. In your character's case, his previous actions make it come off as the latter.
The DM argues that since the character is so quick to kill, he cannot be neutral good.
I say that since the character's goals are just (especially motivation), he is neutral good.Motivation is only a part of alignment. Being good requires doing the right thing for the right reason- Your character comes off as a barely-controlled killer out for bloody vengeance. I'd probably peg your character as NE from the events you've given us. Vengeance is at best neutral (And it's the primary motivation for a lot of villains), and your character's means are rather callous as well.

From here, you've got a couple of options.
1) Accept you're playing a character whose desire for vengeance is consuming him. It's a valid archetype, although combined with the antisocial tendencies it might not be right for your group.
2)Have your character realize he's becoming an awful lot like the thing he hates. Redemption story ensues.

[ZamielVanWeber]

When your PC kills a cultist, is it honorable for the cultists son to seek your PC death?

Honor is L/C. Revenge more often pops up on G/E. That child could be a LE on a quest for honorable revenge.

A good part of being good is knowing when to kill. BoED has a great picture of a paladin stumbling on a succubus and an incubus in a tryst. They are evil so smite = good. But to smite them would be to destroy love, so smite = bad. Killing when you are good can easily be covered in these snags. You have no qualms about killing, thus you CANNOT be good. You could be on a spree murdering every person two steps from redemption as far as you know.

[Troacctid]

Your character is definitely shifting towards Evil. You can't go around remorselessly killing unarmed prisoners and expect to maintain a Good alignment.

The good news is it doesn't sound like you're beyond redemption, so you can still make a case for staying Neutral as long as you start toning down the dark aspects, and even climb back to Good if you clean up your act.

As for the Law/Chaos axis, there's not much you can do that'll force an alignment shift. If you choose to suppress your impulses and follow an external rule, you're more Lawful; if you choose to ignore an external rule to gratify an impulse, you're more Chaotic. But since you get to decide what your character's impulses are, it's usually easy to handwave away any internal conflicts as "That's what I was going to do anyway" and stay Chaotic if that's what you want.

[Sam K]

I honestly didn't see most of these coming, but thanks for the good responses so far.
I will admit that I am very bad at the whole alignment thing (what good vs. evil inherently means).

The whole, ends justifies the means thing is quite similar to my idea of the character: low wisdom, fundamentally good ideals, but so fed up with the way that others respond to evil that he goes to far. Those were the DM's examples of why he began shifting the characters alignment. We both agree that the character is chaotic (disregard for the law, has distrust of guards and authority figures, gets into bar fights for fun, ect.).

I do argue that a strong quest for vengeance could be viewed as either lawful or chaotic depending on how that character goes about it. In this instance, his goal is do completely eviscerate a noble house that is in rule, for crimes against himself and others ect. I will agree that it is up for discussion.

I want to try and figure out the action vs. ideology thing though. To me what you guys are saying that someone could theoretically be chaotic evil, while still having a inherently good goal. The opposite could be true as well (that would be a really difficult character to play though, would be a good challenge). To me this is borderline ridiculous and split personality-esque.

Anyways, here are some more of what the character has done, and what he thinks:

After uncovering a plot to bring the whole city under chaos cultists rule, he has made it his focus to stop them, although most of the party argues that the opening up of the bane-warrens is a higher priority.

He HATES evildoers (ironic since he has committed some evil deeds)

He saved one of the party member's sister (latter finding out she is a cultist)

He is working to begin to dismantle the Nobel house in question through attacking their underground drug trade that has a grip on the ptolus population.


Thanks again for the responses.

Heaven is exclusive, hell takes everyone. It would take the people going to heaven too, if it could. It's simply easier to be condemed to hell (being evil on the alignment scale) than earning your place in heaven (being good on the alignment scale).

It's quite easy to have good goals but be evil. Many religious extremists think that their devotion will appease a vengeful god who might otherwise destroy the world. From the aztecs and their human sacrifice to religious nutcases who think that D&D offends god, their claimed goal may not be evil (I mean, who wants a vengeful god rampaging around the earth, it's horrible for the property value), but I think we would rather not have them sacrifice us (or even worse, our gaming books!)

Doing good to achieve evil isn't all that hard. Evil isn't as picky, it doesn't care if you save some orphans as long as the orphanage burns in the long run. Evil is usually ruthless, and that sometimes means NOT doing what is best for yourself at the moment.

[Red Fel]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," "everyone is the hero in their own story," etc, etc, etc. Inherently good goals are not just possible for evil people, they are arguably more likely than an outright "for the evuls" mentality.

So much this. It is possible for an Evil character to ultimately benefit society (e.g. a tyrant who imposes strict laws and rules, and draconian punishments, the end result of which is a society without crime).

The bottom line is this: A hero has lines he will not cross. Think of Batman, who never kills. (He only used a gun that one time, but in his defense, his opponent was a physical god.) Think of Superman, who is extremely careful never to use his full power, because he lives in a "world of cardboard." Think of Captain America, who puts his ideals over following orders, even to the point that he stands opposed to the United States government on multiple occasions. A Good character doesn't have to be a tree-hugging pacifist, but he prefers to exhaust other reasonable options before resorting to straight-up killing a dude.

That's the "actions versus goals" angle. You may have the best of intentions, but an Evil act is still an Evil act in D&D. If you could kill one innocent child to save an entire village, D&D morality says that you're committing an Evil act by doing so - because killing an innocent child is straight-up Evil, full stop. Committing a genocide of the Drow or Illithids, even though they're mostly terrifyingly evil creatures, is still Evil, because it's a genocide.

Wanting to stop cultists? That's a noble goal. But there are ways to do that that don't violate Good morality. Investigations. Arrests. Subduing rather than killing them. If they fight you, killing in self-defense is fine, but if you capture one, you get your answers and then turn him in; you don't kill a helpless captive.

Hating evildoers is fine too. But your character has to keep in his mind something that separates him from them. What is it that justifies his actions? Because if he is willing to resort to the same means, he can't claim the moral high ground. Think again of Batman, who knows that his mental state is unstable; but he manages to hold to his principles, apprehending criminals and turning them over to the police rather than becoming a killer like the people he hunts. Draw the line.

And so on. Here's the point: If your character's first instinct, when confronted with a situation he doesn't like, is to lash out with violence, he's probably non-Good. If his first instinct is to try to fix it without killing people, he's on the right track.

My advice would be to step back and re-evaluate the character's priorities and world view. Have a talk with your DM, who probably has a better idea than we do of what you've been up to and what you can be doing.

You say your character is CG. There are many ways to play that, but ultimately, a CG character wants to help people. Perhaps he helps by seeing to their needs, or perhaps he helps by fighting the bad guys. But as a rule, G characters tend to be more of a shield than a sword; that is, there's a difference between protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. That line is where Good and non-Good start to part ways.

[mrooski]

Hey guys thanks for the input. I plan on talking with my DM about a potential reconciliation sub plot (there are a few excellent ways that the character could see himself in his enemies).
It would personally bring the character more to life for me.

Thanks again, I think I have a batter grasp on the G/E side of things.