What alignment is this character?

[RoboEmperor]

She starts off as textbook neutral good. She does the best she can to help people, and she obeys the laws but might break small ones, like giving food to a child who's punishment is going to bed without dinner.

Then something traumatic happens to her involving betrayal and such. I haven't decided yet but something like... she trusted a stranger and it turns out she helped him kill everyone in her village or something. Now homeless and guilt ridden, she wanders around and try to survive the day, but then her naivety gets taken advantage of over and over again, and she loses all her money, forcing her to steal to survive the day. Some of those people who took advantage of her were corrupt guards.

So now, she is extremely distrustful of strangers, and extremely paranoid that everyone is trying to hurt her. If there is some strong magical item, she will covet it and try to steal it if the risk's aren't too high. She doesn't intentionally murder, but if a heist goes wrong, she will panic and end up killing anyone trying to catch her.

She right now sees the common man as evil, so stealing from them or scamming them feels like you've accomplished vengeance. If the money she steals is actually medical fees for a dying wife, she will return the money, but if it's like the bonus pay for all the workers in a factory, she will keep the money. So you could say her evil motivation is from the hatred of those who wronged her

Reason for stealing magical artifact is, when was taken advantage of, the offender would say "So what are you going to do about it?" and because she's weak, she had to just watch the offender wrong her and get away with it. So now she is desperate to become more powerful so she won't be wronged again.

In combat, no honor. If throwing sand in the other guy's eye will give her an advantage, she will do it. If faking a surrender will give her an advantage (paladins), she will do it. If she is able to practice necromancy, she will defile every grave until her maximum control limit is reached, and intentionally use bandit camps as fodder for undead spawn.

Her neutral good personality remains though. If she sees starving children, she'll give her food. If she sees an elderly woman barely making ends meet, she will buy stuff from her. If someone asks her for help, she will help them, but if someone tells her to not fight dirty or not to use evil spells, she will ignore them.

So in summary, she is a neutral good character that
a. steals. Won't steal from the poor, but will steal important stuff from good people, like a powerful sword that's been in the mayor's family for 10 generations, a historic axe used by a village's savior a century ago, etc.
b. Scams people. I read about a girl in history that sold lottery tickets, and she will marry the winner, but on the night before the draw, she skips town with all the money she made selling the tickets. She will do something like this.
c. 3rd degree murder. (Although she is grief stricken after every murder, after a long internal debate, she will always choose killing guards rather than go to jail.
d. Do anything evil or dishonorable like fighting dirty, necromancy, demon bargaining, etc.

I think she's true neutral, but she does a lot of evil things like stealing and scamming innocent people. In another alignment discussion thread I made, most people said anyone who attacks paladins (not necessarily kill) for selfish reasons is evil, but unlike the character in that discussion, this character actively does try to do good, but will usually only do good when she sees something sad. If no one is sad and everything is neutral, she'll be a non-murdering criminal.

This is the biggest "good" scenario I can think of her doing. A massive army of orcs are about to attack the village. The PC will use every single thing she has to stall the orcs as long as possible, and then retreat. She won't die for the village, but she will use every stolen and not stolen item she has and will NOT ask for compensation from the village survivors even if she is left without a single penny. She is self-sacrificng, after all, she is naturally neutral good, so in any scenario where she wasn't "tainted" by the world, her neutral good side shows.

Biggest evil thing is... She first tries to steal a magical artifact, but gets caught and now is on the run. She is absolutely mortified of being captured and tortured. She runs and runs and then in a hallway guards spot her and cut her off. They ask her to surrender but she attacks. Guards fight to the death, which result in their death, and quickly too like in a round or two. Then the guards behind her catch up and she runs again, and the above scenario repeats until she is backed into a corner. The guards ask her to surrender again but she attacks. If the guards stayed down they would of lived but because they are lawful good, they fight to the death to apprehend her, and result in death. The girl after successfully escaping, is grief stricken for a long while for killing so many people. Maybe for a month or something iunno, but she is devastated. I just said lawful good 30 to show an extreme example.

Is she evil? neutral? Or... good? Chaotic?

edit: An additional case study.
If she sees a great evil or injustice, she will intervene. Like she stole some gold off some poor sap, but on her way to her "home" she sees a bunch of gangsters harassing an orphanage and starts tearing it down. She will fight them to save the orphanage or at least try to stall them long enough for guards to arrive. So her good is not whimsey, it's part of her nature.

edit2: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18423134&postcount=91 I've summed up my opinion based on all the posts in this thread here. Sorry for the walls of text >.<

[hamishspence]

Depends how heavily you weight the Evil deeds on the scale - but it's not like you can't have an Evil character with traditional Good motivations like altruism and compassion - it's just that such characters are rare. BoVD does say that "Evil Antiheroes" like Elric can have good motivations.

If the character's racking up corruption from Murders ("ordinary" rather than "cold-blooded") and undead animations - and isn't really repentant of those - I could see a DM eventually sliding them across the Neutral/Evil border.

Heroes of Horror focuses more on "flexible Neutral" antiheroes than Evil ones - but it's a similar approach - characters are both altruistic and ruthless.

Keep in mind that "fighting dirty" is never called out as Evil anywhere - even if the other things are.


Is she evil? neutral? Or... good? Chaotic?
I'd say the TN/NE border is probably the best place.

[Xelbiuj]

Chaotic evil.
You can't wash away your sins with a few "decent" acts.
If you willful murder or put yourself in a situation where murder may be the only way out, and then actually do it, you're evil. Congrats, you have a non-idiotic chaotic evil character.

The path to hell is still paved with good intentions.

[heavyfuel]

The way I see alignment, intentions don't matter so much as actions. Killing people that are just doing their job is pretty much evil, no matter how you spin it. Just because she helps out small children, that's not really a justification to get a neutral character. And breaking laws and running cons is very chaotic.

So there you go: Chaotic Evil in my opinion.

While the game progresses, she may eventually return to her Neutral Good self, but her actions at this moment imply a CE alignment;

Also, as Xelbiuj said. Congrats on making a Chaotic Evil character that isn't as deep an as complex as a sheet of cardboard

[hamishspence]

Keep in mind that not all lawbreakers are Chaotic. Some are even Lawful (LE is a fairly common alignment for crimelords).

[RoboEmperor]

Doesn't intentionally saving an entire village from death by orcs for no reward and massive cost to herself out weigh the evil of killing 30 good people unintentionally and intentionally scamming innocent stupid villagers? XD

Alright so 1/2 vote for TN, 1/2 vote for NE, and 2 votes for CE.



Also, as Xelbiuj said. Congrats on making a Chaotic Evil character that isn't as deep an as complex as a sheet of cardboard

Thank you :)

[heavyfuel]

Keep in mind that not all lawbreakers are Chaotic. Some are even Lawful (LE is a fairly common alignment for crimelords).

True... But I think Lawful isn't all to do with the law of the land, as much as it to do with being methodic. LE character are methodically evil. Crimelords use evil acts to gain power, but they don't go around killing everyone, they plan and act according to the plan, which is why they are Lawful.

The character in question has no such methods. She is almost whimsical in her evil acts, hence the Chaotic nature

[RoboEmperor]

True... But I think Lawful isn't all to do with the law of the land, as much as it to do with being methodic. LE character are methodically evil. Crimelords use evil acts to gain power, but they don't go around killing everyone, they plan and act according to the plan, which is why they are Lawful.

The character in question has no such methods. She is almost whimsical in her evil acts, hence the Chaotic nature

Well... official guidelines state neutral evil characters steal and murder and gets away with what they can, so for EVIL characters breaking the law may not justify a chaotic alignment :), since the character in question does only steal and murder and gets away with what she can.

[Xelbiuj]

Keep in mind that not all lawbreakers are Chaotic. Some are even Lawful (LE is a fairly common alignment for crimelords).

True but that character seems utterly lacking in vision, conviction, a personal set of ethics and ideals. Basically they'd prefer not to murder and like to feed the lil children but "screw it."
They're certainly not lawful, maybe a case could be made for neutral but they seem flippant, erratic, and inconsistent.

[hamishspence]

Fair enough. The NE/CE border may be a bit blurry.

[RoboEmperor]

Lawful evil has their own "code of conduct"
Wouldn't you say the character in question has a code of conduct? She will always help people in need, because she is neutral good before the world screwed her over. Other than that though, no people in need = get away with what you can, but still no murdering (although she unintentionally breaks this rule).

Heavy fuel changed his vote so 0.5 TN, 1 NE, 1.5 CE

[hamishspence]

Lawful evil has their own "code of conduct"
Wouldn't you say the character in question has a code of conduct? She will always help people in need, because she is neutral good before the world screwed her over. Other than that though, no people in need = get away with what you can, but still no murdering (although she unintentionally breaks this rule).

There's a good quote from The Giant - on how the difference between Lawful and Not Lawful people, when they both have a code - is in how they treat themselves when they break it:


In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm gonna go with NE from what you guys said. Heh, I guess no matter how "good" you are, couple of evil acts will bring you down to Evil instead of neutral.

a. No evil, no good = neutral
b. No evil, good = good
c. Evil, no good = Evil
d. Evil, Good = Evil

It's like if you do evil things, you're evil. If you don't do evil things then you determine whether you're good or neutral. Evil overrides all!

Lawful and Chaotic is harder to simplify simply because a chaotic neutral turned evil is neutral evil rather than chaotic evil. There's a slight shift between neutral and evil.

[Phelix-Mu]

The issue is that good is hard to maintain, while evil is corruptive and seductive. Holding oneself to a high standard of virtue is hard work, and while the occasional lapse can be forgiven, one must always resume the burden of virtue, and strive to never drop the ball again (and be remorseful, and penitent, etc).

Evil, on the other hand, doesn't give two shakes about whether the occasional act is good or not. Mr. Bastard can feed orphans if he wants to; maybe it inflates his ego, or reminds him of his childhood. Or maybe he just wants the whining brats to shut up. It doesn't matter, he can get away with as much charity as he wants.

The key to Mr. Bastard being evil is that he has done evil in the past and not really been bothered by it (no quest for atonement or redemption), and that, if a suitable occasion crops up in the future, evil is still on his list of acceptable options.

In short, to good people, evil is unacceptable. To evil people, good is fine, but evil is also fine (or even straight up superior). Only the most diehard villains refuse to ever do any good stuff (and that can be a bit of a chore, so half of them eventually just accept that they can't torture every orphan). Most just don't care, and do whatever for their own selfish reasons (or their C or L motivations).

[Pan151]

I do not think she is evil.

I strongly disagree with the "Evil always oveshadows good" and "Actions always overshadow intentions" approaches people seem to take. Intentionally killing 30 people to achieve your goal and killing 30 people on the spur of the moment in self defence are two very different things...

To me, she is CN. She just hasn't come to terms with it yet.

[Phelix-Mu]

I do not think she is evil.

I strongly disagree with the "Evil always oveshadows good" and "Actions always overshadow intentions" approaches people seem to take. Intentionally killing 30 people to achieve your goal and killing 30 people on the spur of the moment in self defence are two very different things...

To me, she is CN. She just hasn't come to terms with it yet.

The issue is generally on how the terms are defined. To be eligible for evil, you pretty much just need to do some evil stuff. To be good, you have to never do evil, and do some good. I use "never" loosely, because no one is perfect and forgiveness is a virtue, but the standard is to avoid evil, full stop.

So evil is permissive, and good is heavily proscriptive. If you look at it from a set theory perspective, it's hard to see that the set of neutral plus evil people isn't bigger than the set of good plus neutral people.

Still, I agree insofar as most people are neutral, and have done a mix of minor good and bad stuff in their lives, but generally fail to be extreme in either direction.

[RoboEmperor]

In short, to good people, evil is unacceptable. To evil people, good is fine, but evil is also fine (or even straight up superior). Only the most diehard villains refuse to ever do any good stuff (and that can be a bit of a chore, so half of them eventually just accept that they can't torture every orphan). Most just don't care, and do whatever for their own selfish reasons (or their C or L motivations).

where does neutral fit in in your description? All I see is good and evil :P

I got a CN vote! and I guess... another NE vote.

Why this case is a bit confusing to me is because she was neutral good, but the world hardened her into a criminal, but because her nature is good, she's acts good in areas where the world didn't influence her. She has yet to be betrayed by children, old people, etc. but she has been betrayed by guards, officials, and random strangers.

Oh, and if she sees a great evil or injustice, she will intervene. Like she stole some gold off some poor sap, but on her way to her "home" she sees a bunch of gangsters harassing an orphanage and starts tearing it down. She will fight them to save the orphanage or at least try to stall them long enough for guards to arrive. So her good is not whimsey, it's part of her nature.

[Pan151]

To be good, you have to never do evil

That to me is flat out unacceptable as a definition.

Good can do Evil just like Evil can do Good. The difference between them is the severity, frequence and justifications of their good and evil actions. That is to say, you can't simply balance out murdering a village in cold blood with funding enough orphanages and being nice to enough puppies, but if you kill good people is self defence once it is entirely possible to at least remain neutral, as long as you don't just keep accidentally doing evil acts on purpose.

An evil person is not just somebody who can do evil things - its a person who chooses to do evil things. If an eveil action is forced upon them, due to circumstances, that should not be held against them to the same degree. Similarly, a person who is being super nice and helpful and does good things only out of societal pressure and not out of their own desire cannot be considered a Good person.



PS @OP Stealing and being distrustful are Chaotic, not Evil. And unorthodox ways of fighting are non-Lawful at the very worst.

[hamishspence]

Going by BOVD, stealing, and "fraud" (scamming) default to Evil rather than neutral. Maybe, like with killing, there can be "mitigating factors" but these don't really seem to be in place - it's not like she's only scamming villains, in order to return their ill-gotten gains to their victims.

"Self-defence" isn't really a good term when she's trying to avoid "capture by LG guards" rather than execution.

In modern terms - she's a "cop-killer" - and a pretty serious one at that.

[Pan151]

Going by BOVD, stealing, and "fraud" (scamming) default to Evil rather than neutral. Maybe, like with killing, there can be "mitigating factors" but these don't really seem to be in place - it's not like she's only scamming villains, in order to return their ill-gotten gains to their victims.

"Self-defence" isn't really a good term when she's trying to avoid "capture by LG guards" rather than execution.

In modern terms - she's a "cop-killer" - and a pretty serious one at that.

We would need yet more context to get a full assessment of the morality of all these, to the point where this thread would have to resemble a campaign log. With what has been mentioned, however, I see plenty of reason to label the character as "non-good" but not anywhere near enough to label them as "evil" (yet).

And DnD books are absolutely terrible when it comes to morality, often conflicting with even themselves. So I do not take them into account.

[hamishspence]

If one doesn't take them into account (not even the PHB) then "what alignment" becomes a bit of a meaningless question, since alignment is a D&D-centric term.

30 murders, even if they're only "felony murder" rather than 2nd or 1st degree, is a lot of evil.

[TheOOB]

If she's willing to harm innocents to advance her agenda(which is sounds like she is, stealing and murder and stuff), she's evil. Note that it doesn't make her a lich trying to take over the world, lots of people are evil. Motivation or regret don't seem to factor into it, neither do good acts. Evil kind of overrides good.

The acts you mentioned imply chaotic to me, as she seems to have little in the way of plans/acts erratically with little concern for long term consequences.

[Pan151]

If one doesn't take them into account (not even the PHB) then "what alignment" becomes a bit of a meaningless question, since alignment is a D&D-centric term.

I obviously mean that I still use the very basic stuff, but ignore stupid things like "Killing a fiend is always a good act"

[Bad Wolf]

Hmm. I'd say...Chaotic Evil. Slippery slope, you know.

[Sartharina]

She's pretty clearly Chaotic Neutral to me.

Where's this murder you're talking about? Killing guards trying to stop you is not evil (It is self-defense). Killing is also not evil. They are Neutral acts. The guards are making their own choice to die by refusing to yield to someone who doesn't wish to harm them (But will if pressed to).

And contrary to the people in this thread's mistaken interpretation of the BoED and Fiendish Codex 2, good and evil acts DO cancel out. Exalted Good (Not merely good) people cannot commit evil acts without losing their exalted status, but keep their alignment without a pattern of evil acts. With a consistent and frequent pattern of Evil acts, they cannot maintain a Good alignment, but it doesn't automatically equate to an Evil alignment. She also has a consistent and frequent pattern of Good acts for its own sake (Protecting a town, but not to the point of suicide. And her generosity), which DOES cancel out the occassional Evil she commits.

The only time Good and Evil don't cancel out is if Good is taken for the purpose of 'book balancing', instead of Good for its own end. The character who does Good and Evil in equal amounts for the sake of those actions alone is Neutral. The Character who does good for the purpose of running away from Evil, or Evil for the express purpose of moving from Good, though, is Evil.
I obviously mean that I still use the very basic stuff, but ignore stupid things like "Killing a fiend is always a good act"That's not stupid if you remove the potential of Good fiends (Who aren't supposed to be fiends at all, because they violate what a fiend is). Fiends are Evil Incarnate.

Hmm. I'd say...Chaotic Evil. Slippery slope, you know.Slippery slope is a fallacy. And she'd have slid down/fallen off if she was now running around murdering everyone and everything indiscriminately because "WAAAAAAAAAH! I'VE ALREADY FALLEN AND KILLED SOMEONE SO MIGHT AS WELL KILL EVERYONE WHILE I'M AT IT! WAAAAAAAH!" Anything less than that is not slippery slope. She maintains her much stronger pattern of Good acts than her pattern of evil ones.
Evil kind of overrides good.No, it does not. This is not ANYWHERE in the rules, beyond locking out Exalted/Paladin status.

[heavyfuel]

She's pretty clearly Chaotic Neutral to me.

Where's this murder you're talking about? Killing guards trying to stop you is not evil (It is self-defense).

On what world do you live in in which killing a person that is just doing their job of stopping you from commiting a crime isn't evil? Seriously? It's like a bank robber that shoots a cop. Are you really going to say that guy is Neutral?

[hamishspence]

On what world do you live in in which killing a person that is just doing their job of stopping you from commiting a crime isn't evil? Seriously? It's like a bank robber that shoots a cop. Are you really going to say that guy is Neutral?

This, in short. Or even if they are trying to stop you from escaping after you've committed one?


This is not ANYWHERE in the rules, beyond locking out Exalted/Paladin status.

There's Champions of Ruin's example description - a lycanthrope, in this case.

page 5

"A character can be evil and yet not seem to be evil; he can be evil and yet consider himself the epitome of goodness; or his evil might only show itself under certain conditions. A character who has contracted lycanthropy, for example, might donate treasure to widows and orphans, build temples, slay dragons, and help old ladies across the street - but on the night of the full moon, he hunts down and slaughters those widows and orphans and feeds the same old ladies to the dragon. Most of the time he is good, but his curse outweighs all the good that he does."

[Sartharina]

On what world do you live in in which killing a person that is just doing their job of stopping you from commiting a crime isn't evil? Seriously? It's like a bank robber that shoots a cop. Are you really going to say that guy is Neutral?
That is a dispute of Law vs. Chaos, not Good V.S. Evil. Law loves to paint itself as Good, though. Those cops are trying to harm him, and he has every right to defend himself. Whether it's "Their job" or not is irrelevant to the Good vs. Evil axis.
It also depends on how far the guards are willing to escalate their use of force in response to the show of force from the person, and how much threat the guards need to pose to the person.

Champions of Ruin is overruled by the PHB and DMG. The Werewolf is also Overwhelming in the Evil department due to the scale of his atrocities (He's not killing people trying to harm him), and his curse overrules the normal rules of alignment... and also has a point-by-point overwhelming counter to his (Usually weak) good acts.

[hamishspence]

That is a dispute of Law vs. Chaos, not Good V.S. Evil.

Most crimes are also normally evil acts, going by BoVD - fraud, theft, murder.

And the OP specifically called out these Guards as lawful Good.

[Sartharina]

And the OP specifically called out these Guards as lawful Good.

Good is not Monolithic. Good can and will fight+kill Good. Neutral also will kill+fight good.

She fails to be more evil than the average lizardfolk or dragon turtle.

The BoVD is overruled by the DMG and PHB, which counts fraud and theft as Chaotic, not Evil, acts.

And, for stealing to be Evil, it must be because you can, not because it's the only option. A neutral person steals what it cannot afford. A thief is only Evil if they only buy what they cannot steal.

[hamishspence]

Good is not Monolithic. Good can and will fight+kill Good.

It can - but every time that happens, it's a victory for evil - and there's a risk that the good people will eventually stop being good, if this keeps happening.

"Good implies respect for life" after all.



The BoVD is overruled by the DMG and PHB, which counts fraud and theft as Chaotic, not Evil, acts.
Please quote the specific lines that state that. I've read those books numerous times, and never seen them.



And, for stealing to be Evil, it must be because you can, not because it's the only option. A neutral person steals what it cannot afford. A thief is only Evil if they only buy what they cannot steal.

Or - a neutral person steals - each theft is a very minor Evil act - which can be counterbalanced by a pattern of other acts that happen to be Good.

It's pretty clear from
she is extremely distrustful of strangers, and extremely paranoid that everyone is trying to hurt her. If there is some strong magical item, she will covet it and try to steal it if the risk's aren't too high. She doesn't intentionally murder, but if a heist goes wrong, she will panic and end up killing anyone trying to catch her.
that she's not stealing food but magic - and that she's not killing people who are trying to kill her, but people who are trying to catch her.

[Perturbulent]

I admittedly prefer to be a little loose with alignment, and would consider it per the circumstance. Would she ping as chaotic from a detect chaos spell? I don't think she fits that kind of chaotic. Would she ping as Lawful? that depends, as someone already mentioned, if she upholds her aiding the weak even at severe detriment to herself, I'd call her Lawful, yeah. If not, the Neutral on that scale.
Would she ping as evil from a detect evil spell? I feel like that depends on how recently she has committed an evil act, she certainly shouldn't just radiate evil as a matter of course, but there might be a faint aroma of it. Things should work similarly for good in my book.

However, regardless of whether she recently committed evil or good, I think Holy and Unholy weapons would read her as Neutral.

I'd probably end up calling her True Neutral or Lawful Neutral.

[Sartharina]

Why would protecting the weak have anything to do with Law? That is Good, not Lawful, behavior.

[hamishspence]

I admittedly prefer to be a little loose with alignment, and would consider it per the circumstance. Would she ping as chaotic from a detect chaos spell? I don't think she fits that kind of chaotic. Would she ping as Lawful? that depends, as someone already mentioned, if she upholds her aiding the weak even at severe detriment to herself, I'd call her Lawful, yeah. If not, the Neutral on that scale.
Would she ping as evil from a detect evil spell? I feel like that depends on how recently she has committed an evil act, she certainly shouldn't just radiate evil as a matter of course, but there might be a faint aroma of it. Things should work similarly for good in my book.

In 2nd ed, Detect spells worked that way. In 3rd, they're a bit more powerful.

[danzibr]

You can't wash away your sins with a few "decent" acts.

I do not think she is evil.
Interesting viewpoints here.

Anyway. I would not call her evil (which seems to go against the norm).

I read something once... in a sig, I think. I forget the exact quote, but it was something about neutral is not diet good or good lite. One view of neutrality is that you are just as evil as you are good.

[Strigon]

I'd call her CN, or maybe even TN.
If I met this person, I wouldn't consider her evil, in any way. A saint? Obviously not. A criminal? Absolutely.
The thing is, she's not going around intentionally hurting anyone. She does what she has to, but she's not going around committing murder without a second thought; she's much like Han Solo. She tries to keep to herself, but circumstances force her hand. All she really wants is to live, and be safe, but she can't do that because she doesn't have the resources. So she gets resources in the easiest way possible, but if things go wrong she has to clean up after herself. It's not that it was her plan, or that she enjoys it, but these things can't be helped.
I sincerely doubt anyone here would label Han Solo an evil character.


Another easy way to look at it is this: If this person had power, and I mean a lot of power, what would they do?
My guess: Feed some hungry children, and then live off by herself in the woods or something, maybe protecting travelers who happened to pass by.
Contrast this with any evil character. Their result will be to either gain more power, amuse themselves, or seek revenge on everyone who has ever harmed them. Really, this character doesn't care about any of those, she just wants to live and let live.

[Sartharina]

that she's not stealing food but magic - and that she's not killing people who are trying to kill her, but people who are trying to catch her.Catching her may as well be death for her, especially if the result of being caught is subjugation to a system that operates on the drain of the most productive and valuable years of her life coupled with the humiliation, rape, and other atrocities for the entire duration of that life-drain.

And, she probably can't afford those magic items. Does she steal or buy her food?

Also - respecting life does not mean you don't take it. Otherwise, every farmer everywhere would be Vile Evil.

[Strigon]

Interesting viewpoints here.

Anyway. I would not call her evil (which seems to go against the norm).

I read something once... in a sig, I think. I forget the exact quote, but it was something about neutral is not diet good or good lite. One view of neutrality is that you are just as evil as you are good.
Reading this also brought someone's sig to mind.
Can't recall who it is, but the quote was "Remember, evil isn't selfish; it's evil. Looking out for number one is a neutral attitude: evil is looking out for number one while hurting number two".

Or somesuch.

[Perturbulent]

Why would protecting the weak have anything to do with Law? That is Good, not Lawful, behavior.

The reason is that it is her particular bent. She has a personal code about caring for the disadvantaged. That is the good she balances with little evils to come out neutral. The reason it could or could not make her lawful is all about how dedicated she is to it. If she'll go hungry for a week to feed some orphans, that's remarkably disciplined: evidence of lawfulness. If she'll let herself be captured if the only alternative is outing some kids to the sheriff to get away, that's discipline, and although evidence of goodness perhaps, is also strong evidence of lawfulness.

[hamishspence]

Catching her may as well be death for her, especially if the result of being caught is subjugation to a system that operates on the drain of the most productive and valuable years of her life coupled with the humiliation, rape, and other atrocities for the entire duration of that life-drain.

Would LG guards really work for that kind of system?

[mashlagoo1982]

For the Good vs Evil spectrum...

This character seems neither Good or Evil. She has tendencies toward both sides of the spectrum, but she does not seem to base the majority of her actions in one alignment or the other. She does what she thinks she needs to survive while helping those who she feels she can trust. If the Evil actions were to become more common in their frequency, I would shift her toward Evil. The same for Good. Currently though, I would rule her alignment on this spectrum as Neutral.


For the Chaotic vs Law spectrum...

Not Lawful, that much is clear. Regardless of past experiences (or how justified her feelings are), the character seems to have a problem with authority. Because of her past, she seems to have developed her own sense of right and wrong. The question to me then becomes, how often does this character act out against authority to follow her own morals? It seems to be quite a lot. I would probably place her on the Chaotic side of the spectrum.

I cast my vote for Chaotic Neutral.

[hamishspence]

Way I see it - most of any character's actions will be Neutral - it's the fact that there's a pattern of evil acts at all (rather than them being the majority of the character's actions) that is the warning sign.

[AvatarVecna]

Chaotic Evil.

She started out Neutral Good, but learned quickly not to trust people, or the system. Your description of this change makes me think she's now at least leaning towards Chaotic. Now, the fact that she performs heists doesn't make her Evil, it's the fact that, should a heist start going wrong, she panics and kills anyone trying to catch her. Her experience with corrupt guards enforces this reaction, as well as more solidly lands her in the Chaotic side of the Alignment pool.

Furthermore, let me know if the following stereotypical line from a bank robber sounds familiar: "Now, I don't want to have to hurt anyone, but if anyone tries to be a hero, or tries to call the cops, I swear to God, I'll blow your friggin' head off. Just keep your head down, stay out of trouble, and you'll be just fine."

It doesn't matter if the bank robber is stealing to buy a slave or save the orphanage, the fact of the matter is, they were able and willing to kill someone to get away with their crime.

Chaotic Evil.

[Sartharina]

Would LG guards really work for that kind of system?YES! This is almost every single prison system ever.


The reason is that it is her particular bent. She has a personal code about caring for the disadvantaged. That is the good she balances with little evils to come out neutral. The reason it could or could not make her lawful is all about how dedicated she is to it. If she'll go hungry for a week to feed some orphans, that's remarkably disciplined: evidence of lawfulness. If she'll let herself be captured if the only alternative is outing some kids to the sheriff to get away, that's discipline, and although evidence of goodness perhaps, is also strong evidence of lawfulness.No. it's not a 'personal code' in the lawful sense - it's a moral compunction.
Way I see it - most of any character's actions will be Neutral - it's the fact that there's a pattern of evil acts at all (rather than them being the majority of the character's actions) that is the warning sign.And it's counterbalanced by her equal and often greater pattern of good acts as well (That someone has mistaken for lawful)

[hamishspence]

In D&D (going by DMG2) - few prisons exist - crimes tend to be punished with exile, or forced hard-labor.

[Troacctid]

This is clearly a character who is in the middle of a character arc. She hasn't landed in an obvious place yet. She started good, but she's slipping--will it lead her deeper into darkness, or will she redeem herself? She can't stay on the edge forever.

Look at the endpoints of the arc. The alignments there should be crystal clear. Here in the middle, her alignment should be moving gradually towards what it will be at the end of the arc, wherever that is.

[hamishspence]

And it's counterbalanced by her equal and often greater pattern of good acts as well

The impression I get, is that most of her aligned acts are thefts and scams - and that "acts of personal sacrifice for strangers" are much rarer.

[Strigon]

The impression I get, is that most of her aligned acts are thefts and scams - and that "acts of personal sacrifice for strangers" are much rarer.
But those aren't evil!
They're selfish, they're unfair, but they are not evil!
Evil is genocide, torture, taking advantage of the fact that an old lady can't stop you to rob her blind!
She just wants to live, she's not trying to become the queen of the land, and even if she was she'd be a good queen!

[Perturbulent]

No. it's not a 'personal code' in the lawful sense - it's a moral compunction.And it's counterbalanced by her equal and often greater pattern of good acts as well (That someone has mistaken for lawful)

I said that were it a defined personal code (which is unclear) that she might be lawful neutral, not that she clearly had this as a defined personal code. To what extreme she would go to satisfy that moral compunction is unclear based on the OP. If she would go to extreme lengths to satisfy that moral compunction, it becomes a personal code, a sign of lawfulness. If she would not, then certainly, there's no reason to call her lawful. I never pretended to say that she must be lawful because she does good things sometimes.

[hamishspence]

But those aren't evil!
They're selfish, they're unfair, but they are not evil!
Evil is genocide, torture, taking advantage of the fact that an old lady can't stop you to rob her blind!

That's high-end evil. But there's a spectrum - from the great and terrible to the tiny and petty. BoVD lists acts all across the spectrum - not just the Big Ones.

That said - "survival" may excuse things up to a point.

[Sartharina]

I If she would go to extreme lengths to satisfy that moral compunction, it becomes a personal code, a sign of lawfulness. If she would not, then certainly, there's no reason to call her lawful.No, it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Going to extremes to support one's morality is for EVERY alignment, not just Lawful. It just means she has strong convictions for her moral compunctions.

Lawful Good is Good- (You sacrifice some of your moral compunctions for technicalities and consistency), not Good+.

[hamishspence]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't at all. Going to extremes to support one's morality is for EVERY alignment, not just Lawful.

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).



Lawful Good is Good- (You sacrifice some of your moral compunctions for technicalities and consistency), not Good+.
Exalted LG (and Exalted CG) don't sacrifice moral compunctions at all - they always place Good first. What makes them Lawful or Chaotic is not to do with "what they sacrifice" - may have more to do with simple personality traits. Whimsicality compared to orderliness, maybe.

[mashlagoo1982]

I would totally argue that a Chaotic Good character would have more potential to be Good+ then a Lawful Good character.

[hamishspence]

It might be my modernistic perspective - but if I read in the newspapers that when cops (or even just security guards) attempted to arrest a tramp after a robbery, the tramp knifed them to death - and had knifed over 30 of them - I wouldn't be thinking that those killings were Self Defence.

[Sartharina]

It might be my modernistic perspective - but if I read in the newspapers that when cops (or even just security guards) attempted to arrest a tramp after a robbery, the tramp knifed them to death - and had knifed over 30 of them - I wouldn't be thinking that those killings were Self Defence.That's because you're Lawful, and Lawful loves to frame itself as Good.

[mashlagoo1982]

It might be my modernistic perspective - but if I read in the newspapers that when cops (or even just security guards) attempted to arrest a tramp after a robbery, the tramp knifed them to death - and had knifed over 30 of them - I wouldn't be thinking that those killings were Self Defence.

You are trying to combine dnd with reality.
Sorry, those two things just don't get along.

[hamishspence]

That's because you're Lawful, and Lawful loves to frame itself as Good.Or because my "respect for life" meter is calibrated pretty high when it comes to people - and I expect pretty extreme circumstances before I say "This killing is not Evil."


You are trying to combine dnd with reality.
Sorry, those two things just don't get along.

The DMG does say "Assume most common-sense laws are in place".

[mashlagoo1982]

Or because my "respect for life" meter is calibrated pretty high when it comes to people - and I expect pretty extreme circumstances before I say "This killing is not Evil."



The DMG does say "Assume most common-sense laws are in place".

Common-sense laws based on where?
North America? North Korea?

At best the quote proves that the person was behaving in an unlawful manner.

It does not prove what she did was evil.

In dnd law =/= good.

Not saying that killing the guards is good. Just that you cannot compare reality to dnd. If that were the case, where is my pet dragon?

[Sartharina]

Most Good people find Neutral people abhorrent once they learn why said neutral people aren't Good as well.

[hamishspence]

Common-sense laws based on where?
North America? North Korea?

Given that D&D is published in North America, that would be my guess. The general laws that most of "Western Society" tends to have.



Not saying that killing the guards is good. Just that you cannot compare reality to dnd.

If a book says "Murder is Evil" - one may need to use reality as a starting point for what the word "murder" means.



Most Good people find Neutral people abhorrent once they learn why said neutral people aren't Good as well.
"Not altruistic or self-sacrificing" is the simplest reason. And that's not especially abhorrent - Good characters can get along with Neutral ones.

[AvatarVecna]

Because if you're running scams and knifing cops, you clearly have the moral high ground.

Law doesn't care about good or evil, right or wrong, fair or unfair: it's about the rules that people agree to abide by while playing the game of life. Any particular society will have rules, traditions, social mores, and so on that tell people how they should act. Lawful Good governments use their laws to ensure the safety and security of as many people as possible, Lawful Evil governments use their laws to exploit and control the people, to the expense of the people and the advantage of those in power. The Lawful Neutral government just wants to have a precedent on which to make decisions in the future: having a rule for every situation is the goal, with no rule made with the intention of helping or hurting anybody in particular. Some laws are, indeed, intended to serve the people, but some are intended to screw them over.

The character presented is not some anarchic martyr, or a revolutionary taking a stand on a controversial issue that she's wiling to defend with violent action if necessary; she's an idealist who got taken advantage of so often, she doesn't trust the law anymore, especially since members of law enforcement have proven themselves to be consistently untrustworthy. She's arrived at a point in her life where she needs to steal to continue living; it sucks, but it's necessary. Furthermore, the environment the character exists in doesn't have prisons like we have IRL, but rather has labor programs, banishment, and fines. So, neither the crimes she is committing, nor the punishments that would be dealt to her if she was caught, are severe enough that taking someone's life to avoid being captured and tried for her crimes would be morally justified.

The rich aren't necessarily evil, and stealing from rich and/or evil people isn't necessarily good anyway. Law enforcement members aren't necessarily evil, and while killing evil people in the name of self-defense is good, taking lives in self-defense when you're only defending yourself from fines is not...especially if it turns out that any of the multiple law enforcement officers you killed saving yourself from lawful punishment weren't as corrupt as you thought.

[hamishspence]

Because if you're running scams and knifing cops, you clearly have the moral high ground.

Law doesn't care about good or evil, right or wrong, fair or unfair: it's about the rules that people agree to abide by while playing the game of life. Any particular society will have rules, traditions, social mores, and so on that tell people how they should act. Lawful Good governments use their laws to ensure the safety and security of as many people as possible, Lawful Evil governments use their laws to exploit and control the people, to the expense of the people and the advantage of those in power. The Lawful Neutral government just wants to have a precedent on which to make decisions in the future: having a rule for every situation is the goal, with no rule made with the intention of helping or hurting anybody in particular. Some laws are, indeed, intended to serve the people, but some are intended to screw them over.


Even Chaotic societies like elves will have governments - albeit loose ones.

[mashlagoo1982]

Given that D&D is published in North America, that would be my guess. The general laws that most of "Western Society" tends to have.



If a book says "Murder is Evil" - one may need to use reality as a starting point for what the word "murder" means.



"Not altruistic or self-sacrificing" is the simplest reason. And that's not especially abhorrent - Good characters can get along with Neutral ones.


Fixed that for you.

[BaronDoctor]

CN, with good and evil tendencies. She doesn't trust the system, the law, to the point she's prepared to do serious battle with it. To kill in order to escape being caught and punished by fines/banishment/hard labor definitely says her core alignment isn't Good. (Incidentally, you'd think the guards would get trained in some sort of net or have merciful weapons and/or tanglefoot bags or something if they're lawful good).
Her willingness to sacrifice her gain for others leans towards good. Her willingness to sacrifice others for her own gain leans towards evil.

Where's she going, is the real question. She could go anywhere.

[AvatarVecna]

Even Chaotic societies like elves will have governments - albeit loose ones.

That's true. I wasn't saying that there are only Lawful governments, more that the posters who appear to be operating under the belief that all governments believe themselves Lawful Good while actually being Lawful Evil are wrong...the poster's assumption is wrong, that is; Lawful Evil governments that think they're Lawful Good are still wrong, they're just not the only kind of government.

[Twilightwyrm]

I'd say it is fairly safe to say the character is Chaotic at this point. The OP has described the character as rather whimsical, the character doesn't put much stake in traditions, oaths or laws, and grifting and theft are not outside the character's purview.

Here's where I think a lot of people are getting hung up: this character killed 30 people in order to escape capture. If your escape gets messy, a couple of guards get killed and a dozen more get injured, that is still pretty bad, but not outside the realm of accidental collateral damage, especially if you are remorseful afterwards. But 30 people? I think you need to give a better description of what happened here if you want to justify this as not cold-blooded evil. Because at the point that you kill 30 people in an escape, you pretty much need to be actively attempting to kill everyone pursuing you. If, for example, this artifact that has hundreds or thousands of people guarding it, and you happened to collapse one of the main temple structures in your escape, then 30 dead people is a bit more understandable than turning on and one by one killing the 30 guards that followed you into the woods. If it is something like in the former example, I'd be more inclined to say Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies. If it is more like the latter example, I would be inclined to say Chaotic Evil with some good tendencies.

[Strigon]

Of course, OP did say that she panicked, and killed those people.
It's entirely possible she tried her best to disarm, or simply wound them, but with the adrenaline and the need to rush she accidentally skewered them.

Which sounds ridiculous, but in reality is quite plausible.

[Sartharina]

Of course, OP did say that she panicked, and killed those people.
It's entirely possible she tried her best to disarm, or simply wound them, but with the adrenaline and the need to rush she accidentally skewered them.

Which sounds ridiculous, but in reality is quite plausible.Trying to disarm/simply wound guards is a good way to get yourself turned into a fine red mist in D&D's combat system. You go full power until the combat's resolved.

[hamishspence]

Trying to disarm/simply wound guards is a good way to get yourself turned into a fine red mist in D&D's combat system. You go full power until the combat's resolved.

If one is already significantly ahead in combat power - taking the -4 penalty for nonlethal damage is not a huge handicap.

[Sartharina]

If one is already significantly ahead in combat power - taking the -4 penalty for nonlethal damage is not a huge handicap.Not against a single opponent, no... but outnumbers 1-to-30 it is.

[hamishspence]

True enough. We don't know the circumstances though - she could have been chased - encountered each one individually (maybe the guard for that small city district, who's just overheard the hue and cry, moves to intercept) and we have run-by-stabbings.

[mashlagoo1982]

If one is already significantly ahead in combat power - taking the -4 penalty for nonlethal damage is not a huge handicap.

Depending on the feats the character took, this could be a really bad idea.

Even if the guards are only hitting on a natural 20, there are 30 of them.

More then likely the odds are in the favor of the guards simply through sheer numbers.

Assuming the guards are able to surround the character, they should hit the character 8 times before the character can take out 22 or more of them.

[hamishspence]

True enough. Mercy's risky - that's probably why it's more associated with Good characters - it's a "personal sacrifice" of their own survival chances - reducing them at least a little.

[Dgrin]

Chaotic Evil, that's my opinion.

Yes, she occasionally does something good. But I don't really think that could be used as a justification to say that she's Chaotic. Let's imagine the example situation: she is hungry for a long time. She stole a little food for herself. And then she sees hungry kid. I don't see her giving the food to him when that means SHE cannot eat. Or, as a more extreme example, let's say she is captured and her capturers force her to kill the innocent boy or be killed instead. I am pretty sure that she would choose life for herself.

What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to do Good when it does not hurt you. But she seems to value herself above anyone. Yeah, she does good things. Perhaps she is trying to convince herself that she's still not THAT bad, or it is simply nice to feel like a saviour sometimes. She still doesn't value life if that's not her own life. She is still being Evil. I don't think I have to explain her being Chaotic, that was said quite nicely before me.

[Strigon]

Chaotic Evil, that's my opinion.

Yes, she occasionally does something good. But I don't really think that could be used as a justification to say that she's Chaotic. Let's imagine the example situation: she is hungry for a long time. She stole a little food for herself. And then she sees hungry kid. I don't see her giving the food to him when that means SHE cannot eat. Or, as a more extreme example, let's say she is captured and her capturers force her to kill the innocent boy or be killed instead. I am pretty sure that she would choose life for herself.

What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to do Good when it does not hurt you. But she seems to value herself above anyone. Yeah, she does good things. Perhaps she is trying to convince herself that she's still not THAT bad, or it is simply nice to feel like a saviour sometimes. She still doesn't value life if that's not her own life. She is still being Evil. I don't think I have to explain her being Chaotic, that was said quite nicely before me.

The thing is, choosing yourself above others is as neutral as it is evil!
That's just natural self-defense, which isn't evil. Evil would be if she was captured with that boy, and she took all his food for herself, because she was getting hungry.
Outright self-sacrifice is good. Refusal to sacrifice yourself is ambiguous.

[mashlagoo1982]

Chaotic Evil, that's my opinion.

Yes, she occasionally does something good. But I don't really think that could be used as a justification to say that she's Chaotic. Let's imagine the example situation: she is hungry for a long time. She stole a little food for herself. And then she sees hungry kid. I don't see her giving the food to him when that means SHE cannot eat. Or, as a more extreme example, let's say she is captured and her capturers force her to kill the innocent boy or be killed instead. I am pretty sure that she would choose life for herself.

What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to do Good when it does not hurt you. But she seems to value herself above anyone. Yeah, she does good things. Perhaps she is trying to convince herself that she's still not THAT bad, or it is simply nice to feel like a saviour sometimes. She still doesn't value life if that's not her own life. She is still being Evil. I don't think I have to explain her being Chaotic, that was said quite nicely before me.

Except for the times where she committed acts of self sacrifice at great risk to her life with no personal gain.

The part where many people seem to get hung up is what the OP stated below.

"Biggest evil thing is... she tries to steals a powerful artifact, fails, runs, and ends up killing 30 lawful good guards in order to avoid capture, and feels extremely guilty and cries about it for the next while."

Sadly we don't have anything else (as far as I have noticed) on the incident.

Without anything else to go on, it is difficult to truly determine the alignment of this character.

[hamishspence]

Outright self-sacrifice is good. Refusal to sacrifice yourself is ambiguous.

And sacrificing others - even to survive - is Evil according to BoVD.


Except for the times where she committed acts of self sacrifice at great risk to her life with no personal gain.


Which is a bit atypical of Evil - still, alignments aren't straitjackets, after all, and the categories are fairly loose.

[Strigon]

And sacrificing others - even to survive - is Evil according to BoVD.

So, does the boy become evil for allowing her to die?

[hamishspence]

So, does the boy become evil for allowing her to die?Not really. He's not doing anything to her, after all - it's "her capturers" who will kill her if she doesn't kill him. He cannot act at all.

[Sartharina]

Given that her rampage was the most evil thing she's done... One evil act does not result in a fall. Given her reaction, it seems to be extremely atypical of her normal behavior for that sort of result, and can be discarded as an outlier. It is not a pattern of behavior.

If she were Evil, she wouldn't be traumatized by it the way she was.

[hamishspence]

Given that her rampage was the most evil thing she's done... One evil act does not result in a fall. Given her reaction, it seems to be extremely atypical of her normal behavior for that sort of result, and can be discarded as an outlier. It is not a pattern of behavior.

If she were Evil, she wouldn't be traumatized by it the way she was.

The implication is that she's killed lots of guards - it's just that this is the most guards killed at any one time.

I can't see any reason to "discard it as an outlier".

from Champions of Ruin:

"Driven to Evil"
A character could be driven to evil in several ways. His life circumstances might have been so harsh that he had to commit evil acts just to survive. He might be seeking retribution for some unimaginable wrong done to him or those he loved. He might be fighting fire with fire, so to speak, driven to evil just to keep a worse evil at bay.

Unlike the character who doesn't accept that he is evil, this type of character often doesn't see himself as truly evil - but he doesn't deny that what he has done in the past could be seen that way. Often, he has some grandiose intention to make up for what he has done; of course, by that time it might be too late for him to change his ways.



Actually, she reminds me a bit of Calais from Exemplars of Evil - horrified by her actions afterward - but she still does them, and doesn't try to actually atone.

[Dgrin]

Except for the times where she committed acts of self sacrifice at great risk to her life with no personal gain.

The part where many people seem to get hung up is what the OP stated below.

"Biggest evil thing is... she tries to steals a powerful artifact, fails, runs, and ends up killing 30 lawful good guards in order to avoid capture, and feels extremely guilty and cries about it for the next while."

Sadly we don't have anything else (as far as I have noticed) on the incident.

Without anything else to go on, it is difficult to truly determine the alignment of this character.

I agree that we need more information. I stated my opinion from already said stuff.

First of all, the only act of self-sacrifice stated in OP was the defense of the village. Yes, she did not had any MATERIAL gain from that act. But, as I already said, I feel that she did it cause she could get away with it. She did not lose anything she couldn't steal again. And she gained the feeling of still being good - something that one cannot buy with wealth. A worthy exchange? I think so.

She claims her right to judge others based on her childhood trauma, and she doesn't care in slightest about ones she considers unworthy. As stated in OP, she helps people but will not die for them. So she's ready to go to the end with Evil , but not with Good.

[Strigon]

Not really. He's not doing anything to her, after all - it's "her capturers" who will kill her if she doesn't kill him. He cannot act at all.

What if they were told to fight to the death?
Does that count as evil?

(Don't mean to nitpick; some of this just seems a bit arbitrary, if not outright counterintuitive.)


Actually, here's a question: In that whole sacrifice or die scenario, what would a neutral character do?
Or is there no neutral option?

[hamishspence]

Neutral characters would act according to their moral codes - which might vary to some degree. Some would commit the Evil act and atone afterward - some would try not to act at all.

[mashlagoo1982]

I do admit that this is one of the more difficult calls on character alignment.

It is sways on the edge between Neutral and Evil.

If killing multiple guards was an common occurrence for this character and she rarely performs deeds like saving towns I would need to rule in favor of CE.

However, if she actually doesn't kill guards often (hopefully only to escape capture as a last resort) while regularly saving towns (saving the guards in said town), that would put the character in CN.

It seems for very bad thing this character does, she has something good as well.

Currently I need to keep with CN because we don't really know with what consistency these actions are performed and I would rather give the character the benefit of the doubt.

[Seto]

Actually, here's a question: In that whole sacrifice or die scenario, what would a neutral character do?
Or is there no neutral option?

Did you mean "sacrifice or kill" ? Or maybe I just didn't follow with enough attention. I'd say there's no Neutral option per se, but a Neutral character could (most probably would) take the Evil option here and atone afterwards. Depending on the repercussion it has on the character though, such an event is likely to change a character's whole moral horizon. Let's take a Neutral character that has killed innocent, good people in a "kill or be killed scenario". Either way they'll have to learn to live with themselves, but their coping strategy can take them very different ways. Schematically, 3 possible options (that's not exhaustive) :
- Horrified by what they've done and overwhelmed by guilt, they cannot live with themselves unless they make the firm decision that this should not have happened and absolutely cannot be allowed to happen again. And even then living with themselves will not be easy. Faced with a similar situation, they will make a different choice and go the self-sacrifice way. They gradually go from Neutral to Good.
- Horrified by what they've done - at first -, they gradually come to terms with the fact that they had no choice. They hate to be pushed in such a situation, but they'd do it again. Maybe they do. Or at least, after enough mental replays of the scene, they're not so shocked anymore. After all, life is a struggle and it takes what it takes, y'know. The only difference is that now, they're honest about it. They go from Neutral to Evil.
- Horrified by what they've done, they deal by lashing out at themselves. They did have a choice. They made the wrong one. They know both of these facts. But let's be realistic : they're not the stuff heroes are made of, and knights in shining armour don't exist, or if they do they're one in a million. The rest, normal people - like the character - will make the most natural choice : save themselves. And they'd do it again. But they compensate by loathing themselves for it, doing good when they can, and thriving never to have to make such a choice again. They go from Neutral to Gritty Neutral.

[hamishspence]

Let's take a Neutral character that has killed innocent, good people in a "kill or be killed scenario". Either way they'll have to learn to live with themselves, but their coping strategy can take them very different ways. Schematically, 3 possible options (that's not exhaustive) :
- Horrified by what they've done and overwhelmed by guilt, they cannot live with themselves unless they make the firm decision that this should not have happened and absolutely cannot be allowed to happen again. And even then living with themselves will not be easy. Faced with a similar situation, they will make a different choice and go the self-sacrifice way. They gradually go from Neutral to Good.
- Horrified by what they've done - at first -, they gradually come to terms with the fact that they had no choice. They hate to be pushed in such a situation, but they'd do it again. Maybe they do. Or at least, after enough mental replays of the scene, they're not so shocked anymore. After all, life is a struggle and it takes what it takes, y'know. The only difference is that now, they're honest about it. They go from Neutral to Evil.
- Horrified by what they've done, they deal by lashing out at themselves. They did have a choice. They made the wrong one. They know both of these facts. But let's be realistic : they're not the stuff heroes are made of, and knights in shining armour don't exist, or if they do they're one in a million. The rest, normal people - like the character - will make the most natural choice : save themselves. And they'd do it again. But they compensate by loathing themselves for it, doing good when they can, and thriving never to have to make such a choice again. They go from Neutral to Gritty Neutral.

Question is - how "gritty" can Neutral get before it becomes "self-loathing evil that does good when it can"?

[kardar233]

I think the important question to ask is whether the judicial system in her place is really as corrupt and awful as she thinks it is.

When she was discovered stealing the artifact she could (theoretically) have turned herself in rather than being cornered by the guards and having to fight her way out (which is the only real way I can see her killing 30 guards). If she's correct in believing that turning herself in would end in her death or brutal punishment, or in other words, the justice system there is as brutal and corrupt as she thinks it is, she is fairly justified in doing what she did, and her remorse reflects well on her. I'd put her at Chaotic Good, in that case, with possible points down to Neutral based on how prevalent and harmful her stealing is.

On the other hand, if the justice system is fair and her bad experiences have led her into thinking it isn't, then she's sadly deluded. Being wrong about the facts only gets you so much credit under the alignment system, but as I said above her sorrow is worth some points and so I'd put her at Chaotic Neutral, but liable to slip southwards.

[RoboEmperor]

Sorry for not posting earlier, was sleeping XD.

The guard scenario would be like this. She first tries to steal a magical artifact, but gets caught and now is on the run. She is absolutely mortified of being captured and tortured. She runs and runs and then in a hallway guards spot her and cut her off. They ask her to surrender but she attacks. Guards fight to the death, which result in their death, and quickly too like in a round or two. Then the guards behind her catch up and she runs again, and the above scenario repeats until she is backed into a corner. The guards ask her to surrender again but she attacks. If the guards stayed down they would of lived but because they are lawful good, they fight to the death to apprehend her, and result in death. The girl after successfully escaping, is grief stricken for a long while for killing so many people. Maybe for a month or something iunno, but she is devastated. I just said lawful good 30 to show an extreme example.

She is self-sacrificing. I don't know whether she will sacrifice her life for good, but she will do her best to save the world, save villages, correct injustices, etc. This is her neutral good side. Her evil side is "everyone is out to hurt her" so stealing from strangers is like stealing from "everyone" since she had like a year or two of being taken advantaged of and such. She doesn't view the common man as neutral, she views them as evil so she shows no remorse stealing or scamming them. A successful theft or scam is like feeling you've accomplished vengeance to her. HOWEVER, if she steals and turns out a lot of kids are suffering for it (the gold bag she stole was a donation bag for orphans) she will return it or if the gold she stole from a guy turned out was his wife's medical bills and without it she will die. In this case she will return the money.

She is at a crossroads in her alignment. Depending on my DM's campaign her alignment will shift, but what alignment would you say she starts the campaign off with? If more people take advantage of her, and use even children to harm her, her paranoia will win and she will believe every single person is trying to kill her and so in turn she will try her best to kill everyone. If she meets mostly nice people, her view of the common man will change from evil to neutral or maybe even good and her neutral good personality will win.

[AvatarVecna]

So to clarify:

A NG character down on her luck turns to crime; multiple run ins with some corrupt guards convinces her the local government can't be trusted. Somehow (it's not explained), she takes "stealing what she needs to survive" and logics her way to "stealing a heavily guarded artifact". She is discovered during the job by a guard, who requests her surrender; instead of fleeing, or nonviolently incapacitating the guard, she kills him. To clarify, this guy hasn't acted violently towards her; she just assumes he would and that capture means suffering and death for her; to avoid suffering and death that's based on her assumption (which could be flawed), she kills this dude and runs.

Over the course of her escape, she kills 30 people; while she feels bad about it, she neither turns herself in, nor does she seek spiritual atonement, nor does she resolve to improve herself; she wallows in self-pity. It's implied that, while she's never killed to escape on this scale before, she has killed to escape before, and would do so again if she had to.

She sees the common man as evil, not neutral, and the government as well. Everyone is out to get her, and while she has some moral instincts, they've led her to ruin so often that she now only helps out others when she can afford to do so and there's no consequence to be suffered for helping. She regrets and will undo her crime if it turns out she stole from innocents, like children, or pregnant women, but otherwise she wouldn't even consider it: in her mind, she won that money fair and square because her mark was too stupid and naive to resist falling into her trap.

You're right, someonenoone11, she's at a crossroads...somewhere between CN and CE. "But she's charitable!" Only when she can afford to be, or if she gains something from being charitable; that's pretty solidly neutral, and that's the supposed "good" acts that some are arguing outweigh the evil parts of her. "But she feels bad about the bad things she does!" Great! Now let's see what she does to improve herself...oh wait, she doesn't do anything. She continues doing the bad stuff and continues feeling guilty about them.

I do the same thing: I keep telling myself that this semester, I'm going to get my academic life on track. I've been telling myself that since I was in 8th grade, and I'm now in my second year of college. I haven't changed, I haven't improved, and that's what matters: improvement. You can feel as bad as you want about something, you can beat yourself up about it. You can go as far as self-loathing and self-harm, but that doesn't mean you've improved. Coping with the bad parts of your life is not the same thing as changing them; without change, without improvement, without character development, she's just a sad, sad person moaning about how much she sucks as she kills another guard trying to arrest her for multiple murders.

This character has improved her life quality at the expense of her morality. She is, at best, CN leaning CE. At worst, she is CE who is deluded in thinking she's still NG.

[RoboEmperor]

Well, the unfortunate events she experienced is due to lack of strength.

"No! This is wrong! You didn't promise this!"
"So? What are you going to do about it huh?"
"um... um..."
"That's what I thought"

so stealing the magic artifact stuff is because of her FEAR of being weak and experiencing injustice first hand again. If she is strong then those people can't hurt her, so she is desperate to find ways of becoming stronger.

Whether she actually killed 30 lawful good character is not yet decided. I'm under the impression that the alignment of a character should be determined by the most extreme acts that person would do, not a history of their actions. An evil character may not be presented with the opportunity to show their evil side in their current campaign, and with not a single evil deed done, he or she would be labeled as neutral or even good and I think that's incorrect. Also, she doesn't kill the guards in cold blood. She is mentally unstable in that situation, completely overcome by fear and panic, so a rational course of action like dealing non-lethal damage is not realistic, especially since she doesn't know whether or not she is stronger than the guards or not. For all she knows a guard could be a level 30 lawful evil fighter.

edit:After a long chain of thought, I figured it out. Those drastic events will CHANGE her alignment. Her current alignment doesn't have to reflect her future actions, just on what she will do regularly right NOW.

Right now I think she'll start off as neutral evil because she is full of hate and there is nothing she won't do to get more powerful. In the lawful good guard scenario , she'll be neutral evil before the deed, and after the deed, if she sees the mourning family members of the lawful good guards, and learns that they were in fact lawful good, and she is in a region with a good and fair judicial system, she will go repenting, turn herself in, and try to make it up to the families, and change her alignment to neutral good from there. If however, the guards were lawful evil, she'll get over her guilt. If the judicial system is not good and fair and her confession will lead to her death, she'll be a coward and run away. In this scenario she'll turn into true neutral when she turns herself in (she is now severely doubting herself and regretting her actions, and probably will not resort to crime again), and become neutral good when she tries her best to make it up to the families (trying to atone for her sin), or stay neutral evil if the guards were lawful evil, or turn true neutral if the guards were lawful good and her arrest would be her death since even though she runs away, she will no longer harm others, at least for a long while. If she has to harm others to survive then yeah she'd return to crime but that traumatic experience would very powerfully push her away from evil.

These are all cases when she is NOT adventuring. When she is:

When adventuring in a GOOD party, she'll start out as neutral evil since she's full of hate and is extremely distrustful of her new companions, but as time goes and she starts to trust them, her hatred will subside and her neutral good will emerge. First she'll only be good to her companions, but them after being inspired by their actions, she'll become neutral good again.

When adventuring in an EVIL party, she'll start out joining their heists and committing evil deeds, but if the evil party attempts to something really evil like torch an entire village to impress a demon, she will fight them unless her death is guaranteed, in which case she will sabotage them best she can and run away. This would turn her to true neutral since she will no longer be evil since she will be scared of evil.

When adventuring in a NEUTRAL party, she'll probably stay neutral evil since neutral characters don't really influence anyone in the good/evil axis.

[Templarkommando]

I'm going to say that the character falls in the evil category. After rereading the PHBs explanation of alignment, I tend to want to say Neutral Evil, though I could easily see Chaotic Evil as well. So count me in for half and half.

There is a caveat to this though. To me, alignment seems fluid. Therefore the question of alignment is akin to asking the question "What is this character like?" A few degrees Celsius may or may not make the difference between water, ice, or steam. This requires an examination of a character's behavior over time - though you might warn the character depending on the severity. This does have exceptions like genocide, or other horrendous evils so I'm just speaking generally. If you play a campaign that takes 3 years in-game that tends toward good action, but one time does something a little out of character, that doesn't trigger an alignment change. An alignment change should come when there is a discernible new pattern of behavior. As a thought experiment, ask a few questions about your character. In a given situation is your character more likely to behave in a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic manner? This isn't a one size fits all, because there are complex characters.

Trying to put myself in the position of the OPs DM, the crucial matter is what is an acceptable definition of evil or good within your D&D group. If everyone in the group is happy with saying your character is lawful good, as much as I disagree with that, go with that. As far as I'm concerned, the alignment system really has one purpose - it gives effect to spells and certain other mechanics. Protection from evil is useless in a campaign without alignment. A DM can rework things so that you just have a general protection spell, but it sort of undermines the definition of high fantasy a bit(knights in shining armor, rescuing damsels in distress, and battling evil dragons etc.). Again the thing that matters is what is playable within your group regardless of what the rest of us think.

[mashlagoo1982]

With the new information I would slide the alignment of this character more toward Chaotic Evil.
The player would need to convince me the character is NOT Chaotic Evil if they were seeking to be Chaotic Neutral.

I still believe the character is Chaotic though, she seems to have a serious aversion to laws and authority.
It is true that Neutral characters can also ignore authority and sometimes behave in a Chaotic manner.
However, this character seems to never adhere to laws and authority.

On top of that, she also has her own skewed moral code, which she follows OVER the law consistently.
It has even been stated she would do something good for another person, despite what authority tells her.
The conflict of choosing her own beliefs over authority and law almost all the time places her squarely in Chaotic for me.

[RoboEmperor]

Well, neutral evil can get away with more chaotic stuff than a neutral good, at least that's what I got from reading the official guidelines. Neutral evil follows no laws because she knows the law can't help her, and gets away with what she can like stealing and murdering. Sounds pretty chaotic, but I think you HAVE to PROMOTE CHAOS to be chaotic evil. So chaotic good or chaotic neutral character turned evil would be neutral evil instead of chaotic evil, unless they do promote chaos.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, neutral evil can get away with more chaotic stuff than a neutral good, at least that's what I got from reading the official guidelines. Neutral evil follows no laws because she knows the law can't help her, and gets away with what she can like stealing and murdering. Sounds pretty chaotic, but I think you HAVE to PROMOTE CHAOS to be chaotic evil. So chaotic good or chaotic neutral character turned evil would be neutral evil instead of chaotic evil, unless they do promote chaos.

Neutral Good/Evil will work with the law if that's to their benefit, but will break the law if it furthers their goals. The difference is only in what those goals are.

Chaotic Good/Evil doesn't trust the law, or thinks that society needs true democracy, not governments claiming they have our best interests at heart. The difference is that CG will promote anarchy for the sake of the people, or just to support the concept of pure freedom of choice. The CE characters sees all people, including themselves, as animals who only pretend to be civilized to avoid being destroyed, and thinks that stripping away all the rules of society will show people for what they truly are. That way, the CE character is normal, the standard: they're a monster who's convinced that everyone else is as evil, and only pretend to be good to avoid destruction. They want to show everyone in the world how terrible they really are, when push comes to shove.

[Sartharina]

Her view of "Everyone else is evil, so everything I do to hurt anyone else hurts everyone else and thus hurts evil" pushes her firmly into Delusional Chaotic Evil to me.

[hamishspence]

Her actions haven't changed though - scamming and stealing from innocent people. That was established in the OP's first post.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm having trouble labeling her as chaotic evil.

This is a quote from neutral evil.

She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble.

The character in question does love order, but knows it's not perfect so she subverts it sometimes, hence neutral good, and after being unjustly harassed by corrupt guardsmen numerous times, she doesn't trust the law, the guards, etc.

At worst she holds no illusion that following THIS REGION'S laws, traditions, or codes would make her any more "noble" so she ignores them. Sure she's chaotic because she scams and steals and treats everyone like her enemy currently, but it's all within neutral evil. And of course if the law favors her she would uphold the law, like buying stuff with her money in a super-well-armed-and-guarded shop instead of stealing, and acting all innocent or acting like the victim if her mark catches her and chases after her, causing guards to take her side.

[hamishspence]

Sure she's chaotic because she scams and steals and treats everyone like her enemy currently, but it's all within neutral evil. And of course if the law favors her she would uphold the law, like buying stuff with her money in a super-well-armed-and-guarded shop instead of stealing, and acting all innocent or acting like the victim if her mark catches her and chases after her, causing guards to take her side.

It's also all within Chaotic Evil - chaotic evil characters will buy stuff if they think it's the most practical way to get it.