Help me figure out an alignment

[Shnigda]

Hey guys,
So I am playing in a campaign where I am an elf rogue. We have been on quite a few adventures and sorted out some problems for various guilds and whatnot... (you know the usual adventuring stuff)
However, during one of the quests my character had his life threatened by an (in my opinion) over-zealous guard after my character had attempted to greet him with a hug. My character took offence and killed the guard (under cover of darkness of all quiet-like of course).
Now, my character originally started out on the good end of neutral, so not actually good, but leaning towards it somewhat. My question is whether that one-off killing of the guard who threatened my character's life would change his alignment to Evil or whether it would just tip to the evil end of neutral (but still neutral).
Thanks!

EDIT: To clarify, while refusing the greeting hug, the guard stabbed at my character twice with his spear, doing damage once and missing the other time.

[Skya]

You killed him because he refused a hug? You are evil, buddy.

[Troacctid]

It sounds like this wasn't a case of you defending yourself from someone who was a threat to you. The guard let you go, and you came back in the dead of night to assassinate him later. That's just plain murder. And totally gratuitous. A non-evil character wouldn't do that.

Unless there are some pretty strong mitigating circumstances that you didn't mention, you are Evil.

[Xyzzt]

Would doing this act cause a paladin's armor to turn gray and his horse to go bye-bye? That was so evil and petty that it was worthy of :xykon: himself. Of course, if the others didn't find out, having a secretly evil rogue in the party can be great fun... (just make sure your DM approves of course)

[Shnigda]

So would my character's alignment go straight to evil even though he has done all these good things in the past?
(I'm not very experienced with alignments as you can probably tell...)

[Troacctid]

Again, what you've described is not something a non-evil character would do. If you weren't evil, you wouldn't have done that. But you did it, so therefore, logically, you must be evil. It doesn't necessarily mean you shifted towards evil (it's possible you were evil all along and just didn't understand your character well enough to realize it), and there are still a lot of different ways you could play it from here, but the "**** Sandwich" principle applies. ("It doesn't matter what else is in the sandwich. Once you add even a little bit of **** to it, it's a **** sandwich.")

[Shnigda]

Ok, thanks!
In that case I have been understanding alignments completely wrong the whole time!
I understood evil to be that you are working towards an evil objective or do things for evil reasons, and I understood good to be the reverse of this. Then neutral being in the middle, so that you don't really have any real reason for doing things, you just do it because you feel like it but the 'good' and 'evil' actions balance out (normally with more on the good side).
I also thought alignment was generally a balancing thing (maybe one evil thing equated to 5 good things... sort of like a see-saw)

[Karl Aegis]

Is your deity Corellon Larethian? If it is, you can get away with random acts of murder and betrayal and still maintain your chaotic good alignment. You're just trying to emulate him, after all.

[Red Fel]

Again, what you've described is not something a non-evil character would do. If you weren't evil, you wouldn't have done that. But you did it, so therefore, logically, you must be evil. It doesn't necessarily mean you shifted towards evil (it's possible you were evil all along and just didn't understand your character well enough to realize it), and there are still a lot of different ways you could play it from here, but the "**** Sandwich" principle applies. ("It doesn't matter what else is in the sandwich. Once you add even a little bit of **** to it, it's a **** sandwich.")

Pretty much this. An Evil character can do Good things for an Evil purpose, and still be Evil. (See e.g.: The criminal boss who runs several charitable organizations as fronts for his dastardly deeds. Any good they accomplish is offset by the sinister motivation.) The opposite isn't true: A Good character can't do Evil things, no matter the purpose, and remain Good.

As Troacctid points out, the alignment spectrum isn't a case of "Good actions move you this way, Evil actions move you this way." It's not a case of your actions shifting you along the spectrum. Rather, it's a case of your actions indicating what your mindset is along the spectrum.

A person who thinks, "This person wronged me, I will sneak into his home and murder him in the night," is not a Good person, full stop. It doesn't matter how many dragons you've slain, how many tyrants you've toppled, how many princesses you've rescued. Evil people do that too. The difference is that a Good person would never see murdering someone in the middle of the night as a justified response to being inconvenienced by local law enforcement. Even a Neutral person generally wouldn't see such an action as necessary. Only an Evil person would go out of his way to sneakily murder someone who refused him a hug.

Your character is Evil. Maybe he was Evil to begin with, maybe he just has a pathological reaction to being hug-less, but he's seriously Evil.

[Shnigda]

That makes things much clearer, thanks!
The one thing I still feel could possibly provide a bone of contention is the fact that the guard actually stabbed by character just for attempting to get a hug... So possibly the guard was evil and getting rid of him was actually for the greater good? (Perhaps he was the sort of guard who would try to blackmail people/rob them while arresting them?)

[Grek]

Killing Evil people does not make you Good. The saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right." is around for a reason, and the two biggest exemplars of Evil, the Devils and the Demons, actively war with each other.

[Jay R]

That makes things much clearer, thanks!
The one thing I still feel could possibly provide a bone of contention is the fact that the guard actually stabbed by character just for attempting to get a hug... So possibly the guard was evil and getting rid of him was actually for the greater good? (Perhaps he was the sort of guard who would try to blackmail people/rob them while arresting them?)

A. The guard could have been fearing an attack from you, and defending himself, in which he is not evil, but stupid.
B. Being Evil is not a capital crime in any case.
C. Your character is not judge or executioner. You could have reported him to the authorities on that basis, but not disposed of him under cover of darkness.

If you had killed him while he was attempting to stab you, that would be self-defense, but coming back later is clearly murder.

Also, why was he trying to hug somebody he didn't know? Is he Chaotic, or was the hug really an attempt to get in range for a sneak attack?

[Zanos]

That makes things much clearer, thanks!
The one thing I still feel could possibly provide a bone of contention is the fact that the guard actually stabbed by character just for attempting to get a hug... So possibly the guard was evil and getting rid of him was actually for the greater good? (Perhaps he was the sort of guard who would try to blackmail people/rob them while arresting them?)

If you were someone a cop had never met before and went up to hug them, do you really think they would respond jovially, especially if the hugger was armed?

I certainly wouldn't.

[nyjastul69]

When a stranger hugs me I assume they are trying to distract me, or pick my pocket.

The answer to your question is to ask your DM how they feel about alignment. It's a contentious subject.

[Red Fel]

That makes things much clearer, thanks!
The one thing I still feel could possibly provide a bone of contention is the fact that the guard actually stabbed by character just for attempting to get a hug... So possibly the guard was evil and getting rid of him was actually for the greater good? (Perhaps he was the sort of guard who would try to blackmail people/rob them while arresting them?)

That's fine. Let us assume, for sake of argument, that the guard was Evil, either for this or some other reason. Even assuming that he was...


Killing Evil people does not make you Good. The saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right." is around for a reason, and the two biggest exemplars of Evil, the Devils and the Demons, actively war with each other.

Precisely this. Even assuming he was, that doesn't give a PC - any PC, regardless of alignment - free run to go out and murder him. Same goes for any NPC that happens to ping on Detect Evil (with the exception of Evil Outsiders). As an aside, it's estimated that as much as a third of the civilian population of the world is some shade of Evil. You still don't get to go out and kill them.

However, let us take it a step further. Let us assume that this guard was, in fact, Evil. Not just passively Evil, but actively, aggressively Evil. Let's assume that he hassled travelers for kicks, demanded bribes, maybe even murdered a few lone passers-by for the thrill of it. And desecrated the corpse, because why not.

What your character did? Still Evil. Why? Because it's one thing to catch an Evil NPC in the act, attempt to stop them from committing Evil, and kill them in the process. Unfortunate, but acceptable. It's another to sneak into their homes in the night, while they're sleeping and - probably - not committing Evil, and murder them. That kind of killing is almost never acceptable by Good alignment. Often never by Neutral alignment, either. It's slightly more palatable when the NPC in question is the sort of all-powerful entity, a la Evil Wizard or Dragon, who spends every waking moment committing atrocities and heavily guarded; if his only vulnerable time is while he's asleep, it may be the only chance you have.

But this wasn't that guy. This was a guard. An NPC town guard. And your PC murdered him in his sleep.

Here's your E. Take a seat next to the Drow and the Imp and wait your turn.

[Mystral]

Hey guys,
So I am playing in a campaign where I am an elf rogue. We have been on quite a few adventures and sorted out some problems for various guilds and whatnot... (you know the usual adventuring stuff)
However, during one of the quests my character had his life threatened by an (in my opinion) over-zealous guard after my character had attempted to greet him with a hug. My character took offence and killed the guard (under cover of darkness of all quiet-like of course).
Now, my character originally started out on the good end of neutral, so not actually good, but leaning towards it somewhat. My question is whether that one-off killing of the guard who threatened my character's life would change his alignment to Evil or whether it would just tip to the evil end of neutral (but still neutral).
Thanks!

EDIT: To clarify, while refusing the greeting hug, the guard stabbed at my character twice with his spear, doing damage once and missing the other time.

Sounds like a non-good act, most likely evil. Not enough to shift your character to an evil alignment on its own.

Yes, neutral characters can, sometimes, do evil things. They don't become evil just because they did one evil act, unless it was one of baby eating proportions. Killing someone who attacked you without provocation, even if done in cold blood, isn't that extreme.

I have to strongly disagree with the notion displayed in this thread, that a character who does an evil thing once not only becomes, without fail, evil, but has been evil the entire time before that.

Also, killing someone in his sleep doesn't make the killing act more evil. Maybe more chaotic, because you don't fight by the rules. But why would it be more evil to kill someone in his sleep than to kill him while he's awake? One could even argue that it is less evil, because it is done in a way that ensures minimal pain and danger to bystanders.

[Troacctid]

Also, killing someone in his sleep doesn't make the killing act more evil. Maybe more chaotic, because you don't fight by the rules. But why would it be more evil to kill someone in his sleep than to kill him while he's awake? One could even argue that it is less evil, because it is done in a way that ensures minimal pain and danger to bystanders.

The difference is premeditation and malice aforethought. Murder in the first degree is a more heinous crime than manslaughter. A neutral character, even a good character, is capable of killing someone in the heat of the moment. Only an evil character would go home, consider the matter carefully, and then go back that night to assassinate the guy while he's sleeping.

[AvatarVecna]

That makes things much clearer, thanks!
The one thing I still feel could possibly provide a bone of contention is the fact that the guard actually stabbed by character just for attempting to get a hug... So possibly the guard was evil and getting rid of him was actually for the greater good? (Perhaps he was the sort of guard who would try to blackmail people/rob them while arresting them?)

About a week ago, I set out around 4 am or so to go to a nearby college. I don't attend that college, I was just playing this augmented reality game called Ingress. When I pulled in, the nightguard stopped me and asked me why I was there. When I explained myself, the guard was understanding, but told me that I couldn't just drive around the campus at 4 in the morning for a game, especially since I wasn't a student. He invited me to come back during visiting hours during the day (which I did).

I tell this story to point out that a guard's motivation is to defend whatever they're guarding. If, when that guard had stopped me and asked me what I was doing, and I tried to get out of the car and give him a hug, I probably would've gotten tazed, because who does that?! In the guard's mind, what was more likely: that this stealthy elf approaching him with arms raised as if to enclose around him is trying to hug him, or perhaps trying to grapple him to knock him out, or stab him, or something? More importantly, can the guard take the chance that your elf rogue isn't trying to kill him by doing so? That might put the thing he's guarding at risk, which he can't allow. He's got to take that chance, and he did.

Thankfully for him, you didn't mean any harm at the time, and if that had been the end of it, everything would be fine. But no, you decided that his rejection of your hug warranted assassination. There's misunderstandings, then there's overreactions, and then there's **** moves. Killing a guy for just trying to do his job right? **** move.

[HalfQuart]

I agree with Mystral -- this is perhaps an evil act, but certainly not an alignment-altering act on it's own, especially since you started out Neutral.

[hamishspence]

Is your deity Corellon Larethian? If it is, you can get away with random acts of murder and betrayal and still maintain your chaotic good alignment. You're just trying to emulate him, after all.

Actually that's something of an exaggeration of his character - and not really relevant to the topic at hand.

[Maglubiyet]

I'd love to hear the IC conversation about this one.

A: "Hey Shnigda, do you remember that guard last week you were trying to hug? He got killed the other night! Poor guy."

S: "Yeah, I know. It was me. I knifed him in his sleep."

A: "Uh...what?"

S: "He was a little overzealous. You remember, I just wanted a hug."

A: "But...you killed him?"

S: "Why, do you think that was bad? We're the good guys, remember? We helped that guild."

A: "Dude."

[Geddy2112]

If you had killed him while he was attempting to stab you, that would be self-defense, but coming back later is clearly murder.


I have actually seen this happen in a game, where due to a minor misunderstanding a character was attacked. Now, you did not mean any malice and your action was not malicious, but you were forced to defend yourself. After being stabbed with a spear it is clearly "on" and fighting back is the logical thing to do. Defending yourself is not evil, and if somehow you talked him down AFTER being stabbed, well that is super good. He was threatening your life, but you lived and did not fight back. After that, he was not threatening your life.

But coming back later is pre-meditated murder, which is about as evil as it gets.

[fallensavior]

Hey guys,
So I am playing in a campaign where I am an elf rogue. We have been on quite a few adventures and sorted out some problems for various guilds and whatnot... (you know the usual adventuring stuff)
However, during one of the quests my character had his life threatened by an (in my opinion) over-zealous guard after my character had attempted to greet him with a hug. My character took offence and killed the guard (under cover of darkness of all quiet-like of course).
Now, my character originally started out on the good end of neutral, so not actually good, but leaning towards it somewhat. My question is whether that one-off killing of the guard who threatened my character's life would change his alignment to Evil or whether it would just tip to the evil end of neutral (but still neutral).
Thanks!

EDIT: To clarify, while refusing the greeting hug, the guard stabbed at my character twice with his spear, doing damage once and missing the other time.

With this as all we have to go on I would definitely peg your character as evil. And not just evil, but chaotic evil.

However; if overall your character turns out to be more unpredictable than psychotic, I think you could make a case that they are actually chaotic neutral.

[Troacctid]

However; if overall your character runs out to be more unpredictable than psychotic, I think you could make a case that they are actually chaotic neutral.

No. Chaotic Neutral would not murder an innocent in cold blood. Chaotic Neutral might be unpredictable sometimes, but it's not Evil.

[fallensavior]

No. Chaotic Neutral would not murder an innocent in cold blood. Chaotic Neutral might be unpredictable sometimes, but it's not Evil.

I said the OP was evil, but that they could easily shift to CN if they stop murdering. Murder in response hug spurning is at least as chaotic as it is evil.

Chaotic Neutral is the most unpredictable all of the time. They can briefly flirt with good or evil.

[Troacctid]

They can briefly flirt with good or evil.

Not any more than a True Neutral or Lawful Neutral character, they can't.

[hifidelity2]

Interesting reading the thread above

My group all play that your alignment does move OVER TIME with your prevailing actions. This allows for someone to both become more evil and to redeem themselves over time.

I have had characters go from NG to NE over time and back

The alignment system is by its nature trying to simplify someone highly complex ego

e.g I have a character that is LE but is 100% loyal to his friends and family and would happily (and has) burn down a whole city to rescue them. Characters can be complex and the alignment system is overused can become a straight jacket

[fallensavior]

Not any more than a True Neutral or Lawful Neutral character, they can't.

I agree with you in real life, but in game, absolutes like this break the system. The game doesn't function if you are bouncing around the alignment chart for every single transgression. Besides, the game says:


Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

and


"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

and


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

("Compunction" meaning that they should feel bad about it, not that they wouldn't do it.)

Ultimately it is GM discretion as to if and when an alignment change is due.

[Judge_Worm]

Is your deity Corellon Larethian? If it is, you can get away with random acts of murder and betrayal and still maintain your chaotic good alignment. You're just trying to emulate him, after all.

If their deity is Garl Glittergold, then genocide can be considered a good act as well by that logic.

Intentionally murdering a stranger for refusing a hug is a sign of insanity, not anything on the alignment spectrum.

[Sam K]

I have nothing constructive to add, other than the fact that this may be one of the creepiest stories I've ever heard. An elf trying to hug people and if they don't let him, he sneaks into their house and kills them! We should totally use this for a concept in the VC!

[Jay R]

I agree with you in real life, but in game, absolutes like this break the system. The game doesn't function if you are bouncing around the alignment chart for every single transgression.

Agreed. But there won't be much "bouncing around the alignment chart for every single transgression." An unrepentant murderer is Evil. He doesn't have to commit more murders to keep renewing his license.

Any character who could convince himself to murder somebody in his sleep for such a trivial reason won't be bouncing away from Evil again.

Maybe, maybe, once, he could repent and start the slow climb back toward living in a civilized fashion, but it would be incredibly long, slow process before it had any effect on his alignment at all.