PDA

View Full Version : What alignment would my character be?



SangoProduction
2015-02-09, 09:26 PM
Alignment is not an issue in my games (up until you become chaotic douchebag, or lawful stupid), and I don't plan on it being any more important, but I was curious as to what those who do mess with alignments think.

First thing's first: for 3 years just prior to meeting the party, he became a prominent member of a thieve's guild (at least within the guild). He had the capacity for some minor thief's work but he found himself most at home in the court systems, defending those of his guild who couldn't keep from being caught. He was, after all, a former noble of the lands who was there when the laws were being made...at least until what he thought to be a noble action led to his mother getting killed, and the king sentencing him to death. *The king's lands and laws are far-reaching, but knowledge of this "betrayal" was not so much.

Now, he finds the group, and is obsessed with them (likely due to the magics that originally summoned them to the same place [by my own choice, of course] ). Even going as far as... manipulating party members who might cause friction with each other, such as one who's first answer to everything is to stab it with the pointy end of something, and the Paladin of Thor. Subtly, of course, asking innocent questions that would underlie a greater intent, like all good politicians should. Given the stabber's relationship with actually talking though, I don't blame her. As well as running head long into a group of demons, taunting them with their valued magic item, then running away so the party could get out safely

He has been shown to be willing to steal and kill when it was safe to do so without significant consequences. (Problem is, he doesn't understand magic, and the stuff that really looks good to steal is under the nose of those dang wizards. It's just a bad move to steal from them without a safety net of some kind, or power of position at least.) He doesn't necessarily wish ill upon people, but, he doesn't take much effort in helping others outside of the party. Indeed, he's likely to seek extreme retribution on those who harm the party, and even harm others if it would help the party without unneeded risk. (And obviously, kill those who stand in the way of the party's missions, but that's standard affair for D&D.)

He is currently participating in a quest to return magic to the outer worlds to prevent people from dying, and the worlds from just collapsing by way of lack of magic (don't question it, it's magic). I however, think while he likes the idea of people not dying, he's doing it mostly because the group is.

So, what do you guys think, based on this information? As much detail about your reasoning as possible would be great. :)

Curmudgeon
2015-02-09, 10:18 PM
Lawful Evil.

Tryxx
2015-02-09, 10:24 PM
Yeah, Lawful Evil, and I think this is a great example of the alignment without being taken to either extreme.

Karl Aegis
2015-02-09, 10:29 PM
I'm going with Neutral Evil, bordering on Lawful Evil. The obsession tips it into Neutral Evil territory.

KrimsonNekros
2015-02-10, 01:07 AM
I'd agree with LE. Makes me think of Tom Hagen from The Godfather.

Sam K
2015-02-10, 07:42 AM
Probably NE; being willing to steal and kill if it's profitable and he can get away with it doesn't strike me as lawful (unless by "get away with it" you mean "do so legally", but it doesn't sound like that). Depending on how he acts, he may actually be close to true neutral, assuming he ends up doing alot of good deeds, and his instances of evil are limited. It would require alot of good-by-association deeds, though.

I would be hesitant to call him lawful, because it seems he is only really loyal to the party. To me, being lawful requires a general preference for law, order and tradition, not just loyalty to one group or cause. Just like being good requires you to be generally good, not just donate money to chairity. I know some people have a different view on this, though.

Ashtagon
2015-02-10, 08:03 AM
Generally, I take the following to be true:


Lawful: Loyalty to city, large tribe, nation, or empire. Works with the rules of the wider society.
Chaotic: Loyalty to family, close friends, small clan-like group such as guild or extended family. Happy to follow the lead of the head of that small group where such a head exists.
Good: Makes an effort to help others. Does not knowingly hurt others unless it is the "least bad" option.
Evil: Hurts others.


The classic chaotic-follows-no-one is effectively loyal to a small group but either regards himself as the head of that group, or regards the group as being composed of equals with no leader.

I've noted alignment initials next to each major aspect of your character's past.


(C) prominent member of a thieve's guild
(L) most at home in the court systems, defending those of his guild who couldn't keep from being caught
(L) former noble of the lands who was there when the laws were being made
(C) what he thought to be a noble action led to his mother getting killed, and the king sentencing him to death
(N) manipulating party members who might cause friction with each other (this is as much a self-preservation thing as anything, since he is expected to stay with them)
(E) He has been shown to be willing to steal and kill when it was safe to do so without significant consequences
(N) He doesn't necessarily wish ill upon people, but, he doesn't take much effort in helping others outside of the party
(N) Indeed, he's likely to seek extreme retribution on those who harm the party (revenge on those hurting your in-group is essentially self-protection)
(E) and even harm others if it would help the party without unneeded risk
(G) He is currently participating in a quest to return magic to the outer worlds to prevent people from dying, and the worlds from just collapsing by way of lack of magic



So, somewhere between true neutral and neutral evil. Given the strength of the good factor compared to the two evil factors, I'd weight it extra and call him neutral.

ETA: The classic D&D monk in a monastery (as inspired by the Shaolin monastery) would be lawful something. The monastical order itself may be small or large (which in itself would imply chaotic or lawful according to the above), but traditional monasteries were also devoted to the idea of order within the wider state in which they lived. They might might care who the emperor was, but they were rather fond of the idea of the wider state being stable, since that meant their monastery could continue undisturbed. A monastery that had no connection at all to the wider state it sits within would tend towards chaos or law depending on whether it was part of a wider monastical network or organisation, whether it was directed towards a particular deity.

SangoProduction
2015-02-10, 09:14 AM
.

I really like how you did your analysis.
To everyone else: Thanks for your opinions. It's interesting to see what people think of the character lol.

Sam K
2015-02-10, 09:19 AM
Generally, I take the following to be true:


Lawful: Loyalty to city, large tribe, nation, or empire. Works with the rules of the wider society.
Chaotic: Loyalty to family, close friends, small clan-like group such as guild or extended family. Happy to follow the lead of the head of that small group where such a head exists.
Good: Makes an effort to help others. Does not knowingly hurt others unless it is the "least bad" option.
Evil: Hurts others.


The classic chaotic-follows-no-one is effectively loyal to a small group but either regards himself as the head of that group, or regards the group as being composed of equals with no leader.

I've noted alignment initials next to each major aspect of your character's past.


(C) prominent member of a thieve's guild
(L) most at home in the court systems, defending those of his guild who couldn't keep from being caught
(L) former noble of the lands who was there when the laws were being made
(C) what he thought to be a noble action led to his mother getting killed, and the king sentencing him to death
(N) manipulating party members who might cause friction with each other (this is as much a self-preservation thing as anything, since he is expected to stay with them)
(E) He has been shown to be willing to steal and kill when it was safe to do so without significant consequences
(N) He doesn't necessarily wish ill upon people, but, he doesn't take much effort in helping others outside of the party
(N) Indeed, he's likely to seek extreme retribution on those who harm the party (revenge on those hurting your in-group is essentially self-protection)
(E) and even harm others if it would help the party without unneeded risk
(G) He is currently participating in a quest to return magic to the outer worlds to prevent people from dying, and the worlds from just collapsing by way of lack of magic



So, somewhere between true neutral and neutral evil. Given the strength of the good factor compared to the two evil factors, I'd weight it extra and call him neutral.

Ashtagon, I hereby name you patron saint of reasonable discussion about alignment.