CE or NE? You decide!

[Sacrieur]

Since my last alignment thread ended in a giant flaming ball of ruin, I'll change the format so that we can stay focused on the character.

Introduction: A character I will call T is a powerful wizard specializing in transmutation magic.

History: T was a magical prodigy, especially in the realms of transmutation magic. He quickly surpassed his peers and became known for his advanced abilities, he also received formal training at a prestigious school for wizards. When he was 14, his family died a tragic death and he was unable to prevent it. Stricken with grief he sought ways to revive them, only to find no one was willing or able to help him. Unwilling to accept defeat he sought more and more powerful magic, obsessing over his studies, to find a way to bring them back. Where necromancy had failed him he turned to transmutation, beginning to think that if he could not revive them, he would travel back in time and prevent their deaths from ever occurring. His obsession for more and more powerful magic began to twist him and he began to become psychotic, obsessed with his goal.

Moral Behavior: He has little regard for any life other than his own and will go as far as it takes to obtain more powerful magic, regardless of who it may harm. However, he will usually stick to himself unless he has a personal benefit in the matter, unwilling to unnecessarily burden himself. Still he displays psychotic behavior, and those who cross his path may find themselves toyed or played with should he deem them intelligent enough, all for his own personal amusement. He creates games that test their intellectual prowess and designs moral dilemmas for them. He rewards those who succeed the games, but those who fail die.

Notable Quotes

"I will decide the laws of this world."

"There is only one rule: the strong make the rules and the weak follow them."

"Reality shall bend to my will or be crushed beneath it."

"Insolent fool, it seems I must teach you a lesson."

"Power is for willing."

"Ignorance is a sin."

---

I want to know what you think, GITP!

[Crake]

His moral behaviour seems to be very detatched from his history, why does he randomly decide to toy with intelligent people, testing their moralities? Did he just develop that trait along the way due to insanity? I get that he finds it entertaining, but why? I've always been of the mind that insane people lack the ability to control their decisions, and thus are void of alignments, same as animals.

[Sacrieur]

His moral behaviour seems to be very detatched from his history, why does he randomly decide to toy with intelligent people, testing their moralities?

He relates to those who think as he does, and those who are willing to do what is necessary. Beyond the fact it's a fun game to him, he has a deep emotional desire to justify his own actions. If other people who would otherwise not commit evil commit it when forced into the decision, then he believes that it's okay that he does it as well. His soul is slightly tortured over his own insanity and buried deep down, he's bothered by the evil he's caused.



Did he just develop that trait along the way due to insanity? I get that he finds it entertaining, but why? I've always been of the mind that insane people lack the ability to control their decisions, and thus are void of alignments, same as animals.

It's a pathological way of thinking. He believes he has no choice but to keep pressing forward. He believes that any evil he causes won't be permanent because he'll go back in time and none of it will ever have happened, so it doesn't matter what he does.

[fallensavior]

Since my last alignment thread ended in a giant flaming ball of ruin, I'll change the format so that we can stay focused on the character.

Introduction: A character I will call T is a powerful wizard specializing in transmutation magic.

History: T was a magical prodigy, especially in the realms of transmutation magic. He quickly surpassed his peers and became known for his advanced abilities, he also received formal training at a prestigious school for wizards. When he was 14, his family died a tragic death and he was unable to prevent it. Stricken with grief he sought ways to revive them, only to find no one was willing or able to help him. Unwilling to accept defeat he sought more and more powerful magic, obsessing over his studies, to find a way to bring them back. Where necromancy had failed him he turned to transmutation, beginning to think that if he could not revive them, he would travel back in time and prevent their deaths from ever occurring. His obsession for more and more powerful magic began to twist him and he began to become psychotic, obsessed with his goal.

Moral Behavior: He has little regard for any life other than his own and will go as far as it takes to obtain more powerful magic, regardless of who it may harm. However, he will usually stick to himself unless he has a personal benefit in the matter, unwilling to unnecessarily burden himself. Still he displays psychotic behavior, and those who cross his path may find themselves toyed or played with should he deem them intelligent enough, all for his own personal amusement. He creates games that test their intellectual prowess and designs moral dilemmas for them. He rewards those who succeed the games, but those who fail die.

Notable Quotes

"I will decide the laws of this world."

"There is only one rule: the strong make the rules and the weak follow them."

"Reality shall bend to my will or be crushed beneath it."

"Insolent fool, it seems I must teach you a lesson."

"Power is for willing."

"Ignorance is a sin."

---

I want to know what you think, GITP!

The history sounds Neutral. The moral behavior sounds Chaotic Evil. The quotes sound Lawful Evil.

I would hedge and call it NE since it contradicts itself, though IMO you should reexamine your concept.

[Sacrieur]

The history sounds Neutral. The moral behavior sounds Chaotic Evil. The quotes sound Lawful Evil.

I would hedge and call it NE since it contradicts itself, though IMO you should reexamine your concept.

Why?

Characters don't have to be one dimensional.

[fallensavior]

Why?

Characters don't have to be one dimensional.

Internal conflict is great, but shouldn't that conflict should make sense?

[Sacrieur]

Internal conflict is great, but shouldn't that conflict should make sense?

Even if they're psychotic?

I'd argue that he's a special case, but in general I think we all have internal inconsistencies within our own beliefs and actions.

[fallensavior]

Even if they're psychotic?

I'd argue that he's a special case, but in general I think we all have internal inconsistencies within our own beliefs and actions.

There's nothing wrong with a CE psychopath, and I think that's what you were going for. But it's confusing to have a list of 6 extremely lawful quotes attributed.

[AvatarVecna]

NE. Your character is the kind of person who actually means it when they say they'll do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal; where the insanity/delusion comes in is that his goal is not sufficient to justify the means, at least in regards to universal morality. This is solidly Evil, and is neither the more controlled/restricted Evil of LE nor the aimless/free Evil of CE. You are Evil because being Evil allows you to try more things that might work...and as far as you're concerned, the ends absolutely justify the means.

[AvatarVecna]

There's nothing wrong with a CE psychopath, and I think that's what you were going for. But it's confusing to have a list of 6 extremely lawful quotes attributed.

:smallconfused: Are we reading the same quotes?


Notable Quotes

"I will decide the laws of this world."

Okay, I must admit this one's pretty solidly Lawful of some kind.


"There is only one rule: the strong make the rules and the weak follow them."

This one, however, is not: Chaotic alignments are commonly believed to live by no rules, but this isn't quite true; rather, they operate by "universal" rules that are basically made up by them to suit their whims/lifestyle/situation. The above is one of the only rules that is consistently held up by Chaotic characters in fiction: the strong rule the weak. Granted, it is also held up by Lawful types, but that does not make it lawful.


"Reality shall bend to my will or be crushed beneath it."

Yep, another Lawful one.


"Insolent fool, it seems I must teach you a lesson."

"Teach you a lesson" is hardly a threatening phrase only appropriate to lawful types. This one's neutral at best.


"Power is for willing."

Another solidly neutral quote. In fact, I'll throw in my own classic Neutral Evil quote to compare: "There is no good or evil. There is only power...and those too weak to seek it." This second quote is much more Evil in spirit than the quote above, but that's partially because the quote above is Neutral-ish and out-of-context. Given proper context, it could be spoken be any alignment without being OOC.


"Ignorance is a sin."

This one isn't really an alignment thing; I could literally imagine a situation where an archetypical member of every alignment would find themselves saying this, from LG to CE. Another solid Neutral quote at best.

[Seto]

There's nothing wrong with a CE psychopath, and I think that's what you were going for. But it's confusing to have a list of 6 extremely lawful quotes attributed.

Nope, they seem Chaotic to me. Well, the last three quotes have little to do with Law and Chaos, but the first three are all about - basically - "I will impose my will upon the world". Don't be misled by the use of the word "laws" : overthrowing natural/established laws and ruling through sheer willpower is as chaotic as it gets. That's what Demon Princes do. Hell, that's how you survive in Limbo. Besides, "there is only one rule" and it's the law of the jungle (the weak are meat, the strong do eat) ; the idea that all possible laws are just created by people who are (arbitrarily) strong enough to command, is chaotic as well.
By contrast, LE could think that the strong do indeed rule, but would never say that "there is only one rule". For Law to like it, a complex of much-detailed legal intricacies covering a lot of possibilities is preferrable.

To the OP : I'd say CE overall. Because of the quotes and the tendency of toying with people just for fun. Otherwise, there's no strong indication.

[fallensavior]

:smallconfused: Are we reading the same quotes?



Okay, I must admit this one's pretty solidly Lawful of some kind.



This one, however, is not: Chaotic alignments are commonly believed to live by no rules, but this isn't quite true; rather, they operate by "universal" rules that are basically made up by them to suit their whims/lifestyle/situation. The above is one of the only rules that is consistently held up by Chaotic characters in fiction: the strong rule the weak. Granted, it is also held up by Lawful types, but that does not make it lawful.



Yep, another Lawful one.



"Teach you a lesson" is hardly a threatening phrase only appropriate to lawful types. This one's neutral at best.



Another solidly neutral quote. In fact, I'll throw in my own classic Neutral Evil quote to compare: "There is no good or evil. There is only power...and those too weak to seek it." This second quote is much more Evil in spirit than the quote above, but that's partially because the quote above is Neutral-ish and out-of-context. Given proper context, it could be spoken be any alignment without being OOC.



This one isn't really an alignment thing; I could literally imagine a situation where an archetypical member of every alignment would find themselves saying this, from LG to CE. Another solid Neutral quote at best.

Strong rules the weak would be chaotic, but strong makes the rules is lawful.

Insolent means rude or disrespectful. Meaning that the speaker is addressing someone who is perceived to have broken rules/law. And then the speaker must teach them, because rules.

Ok, I kind of ignored "Power is willing." since it didn't make grammatical sense to me.

You can't have sins without rules/laws.

[Marlowe]

To paraphrase one of my old PCs; "Is there some "Big Book of Cliched Villain Lines" that you guys just quote from at random?".

[Oddman80]

Wether it's "strong makes the rules" or "strong rules the weak" - it doesn't really matter. Both quotes establish an order to how the world operates. Both are removing an element of chaos.

Establishing order while eliminating chaos = Lawful.

The character clearly has Lawful Evil ideals. The character yearns to be lawful evil. However his on psychosis causes him to break from his own ideals. He acts in a Chaotic Evil manner.

This does not make him Neutral Evil any more than Someone who is acting in a CE manner their whole life would be considered true neutral if, in their head, they held LG ideals.

Regardless of the character's ideals (LG), the
Character is CE.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think there is enough information to assign CE or NE or LE. (Remember, insanity can affect anyone) However I agree with Oddman in as much as you should assign the alignment based on behavior rather than their image of themselves/ideals.


Even if they're psychotic?

I'd argue that he's a special case, but in general I think we all have internal inconsistencies within our own beliefs and actions.

Eh, all the best psychotics are at least understood by the DM. You, the DM, should at least have a good enough map of the psychotics mind that they seem reasonable/consistent to themselves (which is different from actually being reasonable/consistent).

[Crake]

Honestly, if he can actually manage to reverse time and undo all the bad stuff he did, and save his parents, then I think I'd call it even and say he's neutral. Though at the point people start ****ing around with the time continuum I think that's when they transcend things like morality. What is morality and ethics when nothing is beyond repair, where your actions are almost (if not actually) literally irrelevant, because you can change it to whatever you feel.

[Sacrieur]

To paraphrase one of my old PCs; "Is there some "Big Book of Cliched Villain Lines" that you guys just quote from at random?".

Many of those he said to PCs. A few were more mantras he says to himself.

[Segev]

First thing I'd do is ask, "Does it matter?"

You've settled on Evil, clearly (and I doubt anybody would disagree with that assessment). Law/Chaos is more about ethics.

Does he keep his word?

When he is deciding whether to keep his word, does he care about consequences or is he concerned with reputation/honor?

Does he make and stick to plans?

Does he do whatever is most immediately expedient?

When he abandons a plan, is it because he's found something better or because it's inconvenient?

Does he form goals and stick to them, or are his goals capricious?

How solid would you have to consider your hold over him for you to trust him with a knife behind your back? (That is, would his word be sufficient, or would you have to be sure you had sufficient extortion to punish him severely should he betray you? Would even that be enough, or would you effectively be watching your back and ready to retaliate before he even struck?)

[Ettina]

Even if they're psychotic?

I'd argue that he's a special case, but in general I think we all have internal inconsistencies within our own beliefs and actions.

He doesn't sound psychotic. Psychotic is seeing or hearing things that don't exist, or holding fixed beliefs with no basis in evidence. You haven't mentioned any of that for this guy. (Incidentally, psychosis is neutral on the good-evil axis - it all depends on what kind of beliefs they have and how they act on them.)

Besides, even crazy characters make sense from their own perspective. They don't just randomly do stuff 'because they're crazy'.

[Nibbens]

Besides, even crazy characters make sense from their own perspective. They don't just randomly do stuff 'because they're crazy'.

Agreed. A person with irrational logic actually makes sense according to their own skewed worldview. It just looks "crazy" from whatever the normal worldview is.

For example - If I believe that the color green means that someone who wants to harm me is watching me, I would go to extreme lengths to avoid green or (ir)rationally lash out at anyone wearing or associated with green. THAT is a good way to create a baseline for a "psychotic" character.

Although, if you want a more D&D-ish version of psychosis, go here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/afflictions/madness/psychosis).

[Segev]

To be fair, if one is using the stereotyped, inaccurate, but widely-accepted version of "psychotic" which just means "kill-crazy blood knight who likes hurting people and looks like Jack Nicholson from The Shining," that's CE.

Note that even Jack's character was technically the more realistic version of psychotic: he saw and heard and believed things that weren't true, and in his own mind was doing totally rational things.

However, the typical portrayal ignores the inner worldview and just assumes the monster is getting off on killing, maiming, and hurting others. The level of out-of-control indulgence in such behaviors oft depicted is CE, because it's characterized by impetuous fulfilment of drives with little regard to ongoing important plans (or only grudging acceptance of them for medium-term gain).

That's not technically "psychotic." It is mentally ill, however. And definitely one version of CE. A little less impulsive, and it could be NE, but that would require a more measured approach towards maximizing opportunities for the particular kind of torments it enjoys inflicting. LE would be more Hannibal Lector like: in control because that allows for efficient compartmentalizing of the recreational activity in ways that don't interfere with other ongoing needs and desires and which maximizes the freedom to be PICKY about the torments inflicted in return for sometimes not indulging.

[Zale]

Yeah, to harp on that, you probably shouldn't use psychotic as short-hand for evil. It's a bit disrespectful to people who have mental illnesses, since you're sort of associating them with evil.

I mean, most people with psychoses just have some error or quirk in the way they process information that results in what they perceive/understand not having a 1:1 representation with what really is.

Psychosis is probably more distressful for the people experiencing it than anyone else, really. It's hard to go through your day when you just know that all the chairs are really alive and just pretending not to be when people look. Sure people tell you that you're wrong but how can you really know.

Of course, provided it's not distressing for them or overtly for people around them, then they don't really need to do anything about it. If you go home; spend a few hours talking to your chairs and you're cool with that and can function in society without breaking down in a chair-related anxiety attack, then by all means go ahead.

With alignments, I find it's helpful to go through a sort of questionaire with regards to alignment (Though I personally think D&D's alignments are kind of asinine.).

In the most general sense, Chaotic Evil characters are motivated by whim and/or destruction, Lawful Evil characters are motivated by duty and/or desire to rule, and Neutral Evil characters are motivated by cruelty and/or self-interest.

The embodiment of CE, Demons, would break the world to see what sound it made. They all crave destruction in varying degrees of abstraction: A mere dretch might desire to cause physical destruction, but a succubus enjoys destroying interpersonal trust and personal morality.

The embodiment of LE, Devils, want to sit in the midst of a web of power from which they will never be unseated. They crave power over others purely for the sake of it. All of them believe in hierarchies because they all want to be on top of one.

The embodiment of NE, Daemons/Yugoloths are the most selfish things in the cosmos, even more so than Demons or Devils. A Demon might risk their own skin if they think it'll be worth while, if the payoff is high enough. A Balor would happily die if it meant dewinging every celestial in the heavens because Balors are spite-powered hate-engines. Devils prize prestige so much most of them would rather face oblivion that the humiliation of demotion. But Daemons? They are the physical emobdiments of pure selfishness and self-interest. It's why they merrily help fuel the Blood War between Devils and Demons- it keeps them occupied and the Daemons well paid. They live for the sake of living, at any cost and preferably with as much pointless, spiteful cruelty as is reasonably practical. That practicality is what separates them from their Lawful and Chaotic kin.

A Daemon won't kill someone who's more useful to them alive. Devils and Demons would, though for very different reasons. A Devil might kill a useful person because they insulted the Devil and they won't suffer a fool to insult their honor. A Demon might have been bored.

Chaotic Evil characters can be really fun, it's just they tend to (appropriately enough) derail carefully made plans with festive homicide. It's best to supply them with entertainment to avoid having them search for their own.

[Spore]

The history sounds Neutral. The moral behavior sounds Chaotic Evil. The quotes sound Lawful Evil.

I would hedge and call it NE since it contradicts itself, though IMO you should reexamine your concept.

Seconded although I would reexamine with a grain of salt. Your concept is fine. But there is no reason why life shouldn't be precious to him. He can be a pragmatic villain, with little regard for mortal coil, but ultimatively death is what he should and will fear the most. He would be a good archetype for a paranoid wizard doublechecking his magical defenses, distrusting everyone and always trying to have something in petto versus everyone, even his own accomplices (group).

People stricken with powerlessness often feel weak and helpless. You need some sort of mentor figure who senses the potential in the young wizard and uses his family to manipulate him to become more powerful as he pushes the boundaries of his experimentations. Wizards are sometimes depicted as a simile to modern scientists where evil wizards push the moral boundaries of research. They would imprison good outsiders called via Planar Binding to try and torture them into giving you information about the afterlife. They would pact with sinister powers in order to get a way to get their parents back.

Time travel actually is a concept that isn't very well done and reachable in D&D and its settings. Plane shifting and resurrection magic is far more approachable. Question is why he isn't going to become an Ur-Priest? The cleric spell list offers indefinitely better options at bringing back the dead. Even if he isn't very wise, but very intelligent, there has to be a way to get int based divine casting. It's D&D, I'm sure there has to be one. Or even some cleric spells on his wizard spell list (as he is a wizard by nature). Not even Ur-Priest/Wizard/MT is out of the question.

There are so many natural class, spell and character choices that don't fit the concept, it's not even funny.

[Crake]

there has to be a way to get int based divine casting. It's D&D, I'm sure there has to be one. Or even some cleric spells on his wizard spell list (as he is a wizard by nature).

Archivist, the divine wizard.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Nitpick: your character is psychopathic, not psychotic. You have listed 0 psychoses.

[Telonius]

Both the actions and the backstory sound mainly Neutral Evil to me. T's not particularly going out of his way to mess with traditions, hierarchies, or codes of honor. He ignores mores when they aren't convenient, he doesn't go around breaking them just to break them. He seems more selfish than anything; that says "Neutral" to me.

[Segev]

I personally think D&D's alignments are kind of asinine.

I disagree. The alignment system makes sense if you take it for what it is: a descriptive guide. It works for the outer planes because they're not, ultimately, nuanced. In fact, what makes them what they are is that lack of nuance. It works for describing people because the meanings are there, in a broad sense.

It tends to fall apart because people start to think they're being clever by finding "loopholes" or "flaws" that they really are inventing themselves and injecting into it. It's like most Paladin discussions, where the Paladin is forced to inevitably fall because "clever" individuals have determined that the Paladin's code is far less workable than it really is. They've injected contradictions and stringent requirements where it's really a guideline. They've invented definitions that are not in use nor in force, and insisted that Paladins cannot possible work because of them.

While there is room for discussion of whether good is nice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice) or not, the D&D alignment system boils down to very simple terms when you stop deliberately complicating it:


Nice Guy Who Follows the Rules | Nice Guy | Nice Guy Who Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follows the Rules | Okay Guy Who Follows Convenient Rules | Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerk Who Follows the Rules | Jerk | Jerk Who Ignores The Rules

[Sacrieur]

Yeah, to harp on that, you probably shouldn't use psychotic as short-hand for evil. It's a bit disrespectful to people who have mental illnesses, since you're sort of associating them with evil.

He knows he's doing evil. His psychosis permits him to stay evil while knowing what he's doing is wrong, deep down. Having past experience with mental illness, I can relate well enough and am not defaulting some trope where mentally ill = evil.

Someone who is mentally ill will have very deluded reasoning. They'll blame others for their misfortune or inability to cope, and may engage in destructive behavior to that end. Not everyone does, but I don't think it's fair to say T is evil because he's psychotic. He's evil because he kills people, takes what he wants, and manipulates them for his own amusement. If he weren't psychotic then sure maybe he wouldn't be this way.



I mean, most people with psychoses just have some error or quirk in the way they process information that results in what they perceive/understand not having a 1:1 representation with what really is.

He believes he can go backwards in time if he obtains enough power. He believes that no one's life matters because it will all be erased anyway.



With alignments, I find it's helpful to go through a sort of questionaire with regards to alignment (Though I personally think D&D's alignments are kind of asinine.).

In the most general sense, Chaotic Evil characters are motivated by whim and/or destruction, Lawful Evil characters are motivated by duty and/or desire to rule, and Neutral Evil characters are motivated by cruelty and/or self-interest.

I tend to agree. It's really a question of chaos vs. law, as Segev said, rather than an issue of good vs. evil. He's evil, there shouldn't be any question about it.



Time travel actually is a concept that isn't very well done and reachable in D&D and its settings. Plane shifting and resurrection magic is far more approachable. Question is why he isn't going to become an Ur-Priest? The cleric spell list offers indefinitely better options at bringing back the dead. Even if he isn't very wise, but very intelligent, there has to be a way to get int based divine casting. It's D&D, I'm sure there has to be one. Or even some cleric spells on his wizard spell list (as he is a wizard by nature). Not even Ur-Priest/Wizard/MT is out of the question.

There are so many natural class, spell and character choices that don't fit the concept, it's not even funny.

Even out of my world, where death is a far more permanent thing, there's still pretty hefty restrictions on it. Can a 20th or mythic level wizard resurrect someone who has been dead for decades?



Nitpick: your character is psychopathic, not psychotic. You have listed 0 psychoses.

Incorrect, his entire system of morality and how he treats people is based on the delusion that it doesn't matter because he will succeed. While time travel is possible in my world even the most powerful beings have difficulty with traveling back days, let alone decades. I have a special love of time travel so I believe I can handle it well. See world line shifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line) for more information (but this isn't really about how time travel works).

He's not psychopathic and I explicitly mentioned otherwise. He does feel guilt; he just justifies and buries it. His behavior may be psychopathic, however.

[Seto]

Nice Guy Who Follows the Rules | Nice Guy | Nice Guy Who Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follows the Rules | Okay Guy Who Follows Convenient Rules | Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerk Who Follows the Rules | Jerk | Jerk Who Ignores The Rules


You know, while your approach has merit, there's a whole lot of room between alignment-lawyering-should-the-paladin-fall (in which I plead guilty to sometimes indulge) and simplistic.

[Shackel]

To chip in on the psychotic thing, I actually agree that he might be. While the reasoning is different, I'm getting a very Anton(No Country For Old Men) feel from him, where he truly believes that he must do these things from his broken, insane logic, and may not even like doing it. He might not even like them, but he thinks he must. From both this and the fact that he seems to have mixed opinions on laws and chaos(establishing an order of strong ruling over the weak, but believing that the current laws don't mean anything because time will be turned back), I think he's Neutral Evil.

My view of Neutral Evil is that it comes down to caring about yourself more than anything; selfishness in truest form. Order and anarchy mean nothing... until it applies to yourself. That's what I think it is: everything is secondary to his goal, and the ends completely justify the means to get there. Even considering that these things may really not matter if he succeeds, I'd still say he's evil; his willingness to do these things and, well, the fact that he did them still remains. The effects might not, sure, but the acts were still committed(sort of).

[ZamielVanWeber]

Incorrect, his entire system of morality and how he treats people is based on the delusion that it doesn't matter because he will succeed. While time travel is possible in my world even the most powerful beings have difficulty with traveling back days, let alone decades. I have a special love of time travel so I believe I can handle it well. See world line shifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line) for more information (but this isn't really about how time travel works)..

That isn't a delusion. That is a moral justification. A delusion would be if he believed that he could solve his problems with time travel even though it is literally impossible and then acted on it in spite of the impossibility. Also a truly psychotic person would have a lot of trouble functioning, let alone accomplishing what he has. A better word would be obsessed.

Also as you describe him he is a clinical psychopath:
1) Decreased empathy? Check. The hows and whys don't matter as much as the fact that he does act with diminished empathy.
2) Antisocial behavior? Toying with anyone he deems to be unworthy? Check.
3) Disninhibition? He is trying to rework time, with all the consequences, to suit his own goals.

As for alignment he is solidly NE. He is taking actions for his own ends without regard for anyone else, but is not bent of upsetting that status quo.

edit:
To chip in on the psychotic thing, I actually agree that he might be. While the reasoning is different, I'm getting a very Anton(No Country For Old Men) feel from him, where he truly believes that he must do these things from his broken, insane logic, and may not even like doing it. He might not even like them, but he thinks he must. From both this and the fact that he seems to have mixed opinions on laws and chaos(establishing an order of strong ruling over the weak, but believing that the current laws don't mean anything because time will be turned back), I think he's Neutral Evil.
Bad logic is not psychosis. Acting on bad logic is not psychosis. The fact that Anton can analyze his actions and regret doing them, while deeming them necessary, is an indication that he is not psychotic. People have a very warped view of what psychosis is and it is not appropriate to cling to such a warped and incorrect belief, especially one that punishes the actual sufferers.

[Shackel]

Seeing how a very quick look to Wikipedia(I admit that it is not the most 'legit' source) shows that psychosis is a term used to refer to a rather wide number of symptoms and sicknesses in what seems like a similar situation to Asperger's, amongst other things, being now placed into the much wider-spanning high-functioning autism. Such symptoms or results from psychosis include grandiosity and paranoia, both linked to losing touch with reality. Anton most certainly has lost touch with reality, is a highly violent individual, etc.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Seeing how a very quick look to Wikipedia(I admit that it is not the most 'legit' source) shows that psychosis is a term used to refer to a rather wide number of symptoms and sicknesses in what seems like a similar situation to Asperger's, amongst other things, being now placed into the much wider-spanning high-functioning autism.
What? That analogy falls flat; psychosis is a loss of contact with reality; the symptoms don't represent a functional range but the ways psychosis can manifest. There is no grand spectrum of psychosis with "high functioning psychotics" up top and "low functioning psychotics" on the bottom. While symptoms can vary in severity you simply don't see the range that you do with autism. What varies mainly is responsiveness to medicine.

Such symptoms or results from psychosis include grandiosity and paranoia, both linked to losing touch with reality. Anton most certainly has lost touch with reality, is a highly violent individual, etc.
No, he hasn;t. I've read the book; Anton is clearly a psychopath. He does nothing, literally nothing, that indicates he has lost touch with reality. He is a ruthless, remorseless, capable, killer. That, at worst, is psychopathy.

Remember how I said views were warped; there is one of them. Psychosis has little to do with violence and the vast majority of it is self harm in an attempt to end the psychotic symptoms; there is a reason people with psychosis have a shorter average life span than people without. The myth of the "violent psychotic" is not doing anyone favors.

[MyrPsychologist]

I feel like it's an interesting concept but it needs some refining because there is a lot of inconsistency with the thought processes and patterns of behavior for the character. Individuals shouldn't be 2 dimensional, but they should at the very least make sense and follow their own logic. So let me outline some of the problems that I see and a few possible ways to solve them through more development.

1. Use of the word psychotic. This is extremely vague and I highly recommend not using it. It just states that he is suffering from a psychosis, which is a break with reality. Now crazy characters often are detached from reality, but even then they follow a logic that is consistent with their own worldviews. I apologize if this is nitpicky but it's a personal pet-peeve. Perhaps you could specify the type of psychosis he suffers from.

2. Inconsistency with background/goals and actions. Your character has a strong goal in mind and a way that he believes to accomplish it, it seems very silly that he would toy with people. This doesn't serve his goal, it doesn't help him. If anything, this seems to work against him. Not only does it expose a possible threat that could destroy him but it also removes possible test subjects that he could use to further his goals. Why would he waste such valuable research potential on a simple game? I would go into more detail maybe about the why he does these kinds of things and ultimately what he hopes to gain. Even Jigsaw and Hannibal Lecter had goals and things they wanted. Your character should too.

Possible way to maintain the most integrity of the character concept: bump the age down. Someone willing to construct elaborate and deadly games for no real reason is not likely to be an adult. They could very easily be a child of around maybe 10. A child that is very self centered and DEMANDS people play his games. In this light the demands to play don't even contradict the character because they are a goal within themselves. If you aren't comfortable playing someone that young you could also go into further detail about a series of events that could have trapped him in that childish mindstate. Often times trauma can have strange impacts on an individual's personality.

3. Inconsistency with the quotes. The quotes seem to put a great deal of emphasis on control and law. For a character that is not supposed to be lawful, that is a tad strange. Perhaps shift the focus more onto ideas like power (and the exercise thereof), the lack of rights of the weak, and the characters right to experiment on whomever he chooses.

[Sacrieur]

I feel like it's an interesting concept but it needs some refining because there is a lot of inconsistency with the thought processes and patterns of behavior for the character. Individuals shouldn't be 2 dimensional, but they should at the very least make sense and follow their own logic. So let me outline some of the problems that I see and a few possible ways to solve them through more development.

1. Use of the word psychotic. This is extremely vague and I highly recommend not using it. It just states that he is suffering from a psychosis, which is a break with reality. Now crazy characters often are detached from reality, but even then they follow a logic that is consistent with their own worldviews. I apologize if this is nitpicky but it's a personal pet-peeve. Perhaps you could specify the type of psychosis he suffers from.

2. Inconsistency with background/goals and actions. Your character has a strong goal in mind and a way that he believes to accomplish it, it seems very silly that he would toy with people. This doesn't serve his goal, it doesn't help him. If anything, this seems to work against him. Not only does it expose a possible threat that could destroy him but it also removes possible test subjects that he could use to further his goals. Why would he waste such valuable research potential on a simple game? I would go into more detail maybe about the why he does these kinds of things and ultimately what he hopes to gain. Even Jigsaw and Hannibal Lecter had goals and things they wanted. Your character should too.

Possible way to maintain the most integrity of the character concept: bump the age down. Someone willing to construct elaborate and deadly games for no real reason is not likely to be an adult. They could very easily be a child of around maybe 10. A child that is very self centered and DEMANDS people play his games. In this light the demands to play don't even contradict the character because they are a goal within themselves. If you aren't comfortable playing someone that young you could also go into further detail about a series of events that could have trapped him in that childish mindstate. Often times trauma can have strange impacts on an individual's personality.

3. Inconsistency with the quotes. The quotes seem to put a great deal of emphasis on control and law. For a character that is not supposed to be lawful, that is a tad strange. Perhaps shift the focus more onto ideas like power (and the exercise thereof), the lack of rights of the weak, and the characters right to experiment on whomever he chooses.

This is very helpful, thank you.

[Segev]

Having read more on the OP's character's goals, I'm reminded of Nox of Wakfu. I will say no more lest I spoil it for those who have not seen it. His opening fight scene with Grogulorugran, however, is spectacular.


You know, while your approach has merit, there's a whole lot of room between alignment-lawyering-should-the-paladin-fall (in which I plead guilty to sometimes indulge) and simplistic.

Oh, absolutely. Start with that simple base, however, and you can build up to a perfectly reasonable level of depth and nuance without having an alignment system that is asinine or inherently broken. My point is more that the tendency to see it as inherently and unavoidably bad stems from trying too hard to complicate it in unnecessary ways.

[Straybow]

NE. All time travel plots suck, and any character who tries it must be NE, as is any author, DM, or player involved. :tongue:

[Seto]

Oh, absolutely. Start with that simple base, however, and you can build up to a perfectly reasonable level of depth and nuance without having an alignment system that is asinine or inherently broken. My point is more that the tendency to see it as inherently and unavoidably bad stems from trying too hard to complicate it in unnecessary ways.

Sure ! So we both defend alignment, or some version thereof. It doesn't help, though, that the tendency to complicate it is responsible for several official D&D books and book sections and makes money...

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, though I don't have a dissertation on why, I'd say that he's definitely Neutral Evil.

[Segev]

Sure ! So we both defend alignment, or some version thereof. It doesn't help, though, that the tendency to complicate it is responsible for several official D&D books and book sections and makes money...

Honestly, I think it's less "there is money in complicating it" and more "we decided to make books on it and hired people who wanted to be clever/weren't paid to really think things through/needed to get it out hte door in 1 month."

There IS good stuff in both the BoVD and the BoED. There's just a lot of garbage, too. And I think some of the fluff garbage is trying to justify crunch garbage that was lazy, we-need-this-much-crunch-by-July throw-ins.

In reality, it's still mostly us fans who do the overcomplication to the point that things are unworkable. Internet discussions being what they are, it's only natural. Most of the most eggregious stuff in the official work is easily ignored (not that that isn't entering into house rules territory; it is), but it's easy to ignore because it's not the predominant presentation. We just, as fans, tend to fixate on the contradictions to build our internet ire over how "asinine" it all is.


Anyway, all I'm doing here is agreeing with you at greater length than necessary, because I talk too much. ^^;

[Brookshw]

Honestly, I think it's less "there is money in complicating it" and more "we decided to make books on it and hired people who wanted to be clever/weren't paid to really think things through/needed to get it out hte door in 1 month."

There IS good stuff in both the BoVD and the BoED. There's just a lot of garbage, too. And I think some of the fluff garbage is trying to justify crunch garbage that was lazy, we-need-this-much-crunch-by-July throw-ins.

In reality, it's still mostly us fans who do the overcomplication to the point that things are unworkable. Internet discussions being what they are, it's only natural. Most of the most eggregious stuff in the official work is easily ignored (not that that isn't entering into house rules territory; it is), but it's easy to ignore because it's not the predominant presentation. We just, as fans, tend to fixate on the contradictions to build our internet ire over how "asinine" it all is.


Anyway, all I'm doing here is agreeing with you at greater length than necessary, because I talk too much. ^^;
Amen to us overcomplicating.

[icefractal]

Nice Guy Who Follows the Rules | Nice Guy | Nice Guy Who Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follows the Rules | Okay Guy Who Follows Convenient Rules | Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerk Who Follows the Rules | Jerk | Jerk Who Ignores The Rules
That works fine for "here's an example character for each alignment", but it doesn't really handle figuring out what alignment an existing character is, in anything but the obvious cases.

One big issue - "the rules". What rules are these, exactly? Laws of kingdoms? You can't follow "all the laws", because many of the laws contradict each-other. Laws of a god? Again, even between the Lawful gods only, there are conflicts. Your own principles? How does that differ from a Chaotic person?

You could say "To be Lawful, pick a set of rules in advance, doesn't matter what they are, then stick to them." But that can get pretty meaningless - consider this code of rules:
1) Nobody should attempt to command another person. And if they do, they should be ignored.
2) Abstract things like currency, contracts, national borders, and such are all meaningless.
3) Grouping up into towns/cities makes people weak. Tearing down settlements so that people live more independently is an important endeavor to pursue.
Would someone who faithfully follows this code be considered lawful?

[Segev]

As I said, that was the simplest way to break it down.

"What rules?" is less important than recognizing that rules are important to the character. Which ones are up to him, but he's going to stick to the ones to which he subscribes if he "plays by the rules." The more he finds himself at odds with them, the more likely he is to either find a new set to which to subscribe that are more in line with his desires, or to shift to Neutral on the ethical axis.

This is an important point: changing the rules to which you subscribe is not a chaotic act. Doing so capriciously is. But doing so at all can be the act of a deeply lawful person who's found his moral alignment doesn't agree with the ethics of the rules he had been following. Or simply that the rules he had been following are stacked so much against his interests that he'd have to be insane to follow them.

Note that this doesn't mean "oh, it's inconvenient" or even "oh, the rules say I should die here." It means, "nothing I believe is worth having happen comes of this. These are actively bad rules!"


You listed some rules that suggest a barbarian-like outlook. Believe it or not, a "savage tribe" can have Lawful people. They adhere to traditions, to codes, to "honor" or something similar. Just because Barbarian, the class, must be Chaotic doesn't mean all members of his tribe are.

Chaotic people cna even be accepted and acceptable in Lawful societies...if the Lawful societies have built themselves and their traditions around the Chaotic individuals' proclivities. A tyrannical, despotic nation could be ruled by a CE monster. The laws and traditions are built to keep people in line and minimize the likelihood of the CE despot simply wreaking havoc, and recognize inherently the despot's right to do whatever the heck he pleases. The rules are in place to protect people from his ire not by restraining him, but by keeping them from doing things they know will anger him.

A barbarian tribe with Lawful people in it will obey traditions surrounding the idea of the barbarian's way of life as honorable and noble. They get away with their behavior because Might Makes Right, and the traditions are designed to placate the mighty and encourage their free-wheeling choices to more likely benefit those who obey said traditions. "Cities make us weak" because barbarians don't get along well in cities, and tradition says barbarians are the strongest. So the lawful savage doesn't dwell in cities. (He also, if he realizes how backwards those laws are for his own well-being and the interests of everybody except the barbarians, may well decide this code of rules and traditions is not for him, and change to a more civilized one if such are available.)

[Ettina]

Incorrect, his entire system of morality and how he treats people is based on the delusion that it doesn't matter because he will succeed. While time travel is possible in my world even the most powerful beings have difficulty with traveling back days, let alone decades.

This is not delusional, because it's in the realm of possibility. For example, think of the guy who figured out that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, but no one believed him, so he drank a culture from an ulcer patient's stomach. He got an ulcer, proving that he was right, and then took antibiotics to cure it.

Now, that was a reckless thing to do, but not delusional, because he had good reason to believe what he believed - ie, that this would give him an ulcer and that antibiotics would cure said ulcer. Even if he happened to be wrong, it would have just been an honest mistake.

A delusion is more like someone in our world thinking he's going to travel back in time and fix all his mistakes, so he can do whatever he wants. Not in a world where time travel is known and possible.

Essentially, a delusional person has no logical basis for believing what they believe (even though they think they do). The mere fact that they can believe that indicates a serious impairment in logical thinking.

[ryu]

This is not delusional, because it's in the realm of possibility. For example, think of the guy who figured out that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, but no one believed him, so he drank a culture from an ulcer patient's stomach. He got an ulcer, proving that he was right, and then took antibiotics to cure it.

Now, that was a reckless thing to do, but not delusional, because he had good reason to believe what he believed - ie, that this would give him an ulcer and that antibiotics would cure said ulcer. Even if he happened to be wrong, it would have just been an honest mistake.

A delusion is more like someone in our world thinking he's going to travel back in time and fix all his mistakes, so he can do whatever he wants. Not in a world where time travel is known and possible.

Essentially, a delusional person has no logical basis for believing what they believe (even though they think they do). The mere fact that they can believe that indicates a serious impairment in logical thinking.

Even in such a world you run into the very real question of what is considered a mistake? What future would you seek to build with time travel? Instead of actively making more work for your later self, why aren't you just working towards the future you want now? For that matter what guarantee do you have that you'll suddenly start to act like a paragon when given more power rather than actually becoming a worse version of what you are now as is statistically likely?

[TheBrassDuke]

Even in such a world you run into the very real question of what is considered a mistake? What future would you seek to build with time travel? Instead of actively making more work for your later self, why aren't you just working towards the future you want now? For that matter what guarantee do you have that you'll suddenly start to act like a paragon when given more power rather than actually becoming a worse version of what you are now as is statistically likely?

This.

"T" is just a psychopathic murderhobo by this point. Unless you're the DM you aren't guaranteed the possibility of time travel; however, given that I believe you are the DM..this is just a poorly disguised excuse for justifying your character's actions throughout the game.

You're going out of your way to do inane, outright evil things. Because whatever, it won't have happened. Yeah. Bs. Who's to say he won't continue if and when he alters the past? Frankly, he's a psychopath at this point. Nothing will stop him from continuing his path of bloodshed. He might even go after all his previous victims again. Just 'cuz.

Never mind your quotes. Contradictory statements to give depth that isn't there.

Chaotic evil. Power player concept with huge metagame syndrome. You already know he's evil. You already know that he'll succeed. I dislike the concept.

I hope he's a BBEG or at least one-off villain and not a PC...

[Sacrieur]

this is just a poorly disguised excuse for justifying your character's actions throughout the game.

Why? Because you don't like him? He lost his entire family at a very young age. This kind of tragic backstory trope is used all the time, especially in villain stories. And he's just one character of many. In the grand scheme of my campaign he's just a character who the party happened to cross paths with. They were trying to steal from him, so it's kinda on them as well. The wizard and paladin in the party were the only ones who went, "Maybe we shouldn't be here."



You're going out of your way to do inane, outright evil things. Because whatever, it won't have happened.

I'm guessing you have a lot of trouble understanding villains.



Yeah. Bs. Who's to say he won't continue if and when he alters the past? Frankly, he's a psychopath at this point. Nothing will stop him from continuing his path of bloodshed. He might even go after all his previous victims again. Just 'cuz.

That wouldn't make any sense. If he were to prevent his family's death from ever happening, his world line would cease to exist. He would still exist, but in the new world line. Who knows what he would do if he succeeded. He would probably dedicate himself to good as penance for all of the evil he caused to fix things.



Never mind your quotes. Contradictory statements to give depth that isn't there.

They're really not.

"Reality shall bend to my will or be crushed beneath it." is a chaotic thing to say, but not contradictory to his character. Powerful wizards bend reality to their will all of the time. "or be crushed beneath it" is an extension of just how determined he is to fix things. He can't even entertain the thought that he might be wrong. He must be right; he has to be; he knows he is. Everyone else is wrong about what he wants to do.

There is only one rule: the strong make the rules and the weak follow them." was in response to a PC inquiring about the rules of his game. I picked this quote in particular because I believe it to be quintessential NE.

I'm suspecting you're really not diving into the character and just rejecting it because you don't like evil characters.



Chaotic evil. Power player concept with huge metagame syndrome. You already know he's evil. You already know that he'll succeed. I dislike the concept.

You really haven't presented a convincing argument that he's more chaotic than neutral. You've convinced me you really don't like him.

I've explicitly stated that what he wants to do isn't possible, but he doesn't know that and refuses to listen to anyone who tells him that. That's the opposite of metagaming.



I hope he's a BBEG or at least one-off villain and not a PC...

I'm the DM, in case you missed the "DM Help" tag. All characters in my campaign have their own motivations and desires. It's fleshed out in all directions. The party could very well try to help this character find redemption if they wanted to (if they can manage) or attempt to stop him. Or they can leave him alone because they have more pressing matters to take care of.

The plot is not pre-written.

[Sacrieur]

This is not delusional, because it's in the realm of possibility. For example, think of the guy who figured out that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, but no one believed him, so he drank a culture from an ulcer patient's stomach. He got an ulcer, proving that he was right, and then took antibiotics to cure it.

This isn't a discussion about H. pylori. And they're only one cause (of many) of peptic ulcers. Most people with H. pylori do not develop symptoms, so if that story ever happened it would have been an invalid conclusion based on a sample size of one.



A delusion is more like someone in our world thinking he's going to travel back in time and fix all his mistakes, so he can do whatever he wants. Not in a world where time travel is known and possible.

The fun bit is that time travel isn't impossible in reality. I do my best to make sure time travel in my world adheres to current temporal mechanics. That's why it's based on world lines instead of some weird Hollywood nonsense. I guess the fun part is that traveling into the future is relatively simple in reality. You just have to go very fast. But this isn't a true world line shift, unlike this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester).

In any case time travel is known to be possible in D&D, but not nearly to the degree he wants it to be. Stopping time for a few seconds isn't nearly the same as actually going backwards several decades. I don't even know if there are any ways to use divination magic to see backwards in time.



Essentially, a delusional person has no logical basis for believing what they believe (even though they think they do). The mere fact that they can believe that indicates a serious impairment in logical thinking.

Not always true. This is what the term doublethink was created for. Additionally, many real people have inconsistent and contradictory beliefs that are otherwise capable of rational thought.

[Sacrieur]

That isn't a delusion. That is a moral justification. A delusion would be if he believed that he could solve his problems with time travel even though it is literally impossible and then acted on it in spite of the impossibility. Also a truly psychotic person would have a lot of trouble functioning, let alone accomplishing what he has. A better word would be obsessed.

Also as you describe him he is a clinical psychopath:
1) Decreased empathy? Check. The hows and whys don't matter as much as the fact that he does act with diminished empathy.
2) Antisocial behavior? Toying with anyone he deems to be unworthy? Check.
3) Disninhibition? He is trying to rework time, with all the consequences, to suit his own goals.

As for alignment he is solidly NE. He is taking actions for his own ends without regard for anyone else, but is not bent of upsetting that status quo.

I am forced to agree.



Having read more on the OP's character's goals, I'm reminded of Nox of Wakfu. I will say no more lest I spoil it for those who have not seen it. His opening fight scene with Grogulorugran, however, is spectacular.

I did take his moral justification from Nox, I'll admit. I realized I had built a character so similar that I may as well copy it. I suppose a large difference is that Nox actually needed to destroy life in order to accomplish his goal.

Nox is definitely one of my favorite villains. He's at the top of the list alongside Hannibal.

[Segev]

I suppose the biggest question I have is: why do you care whether he's NE or CE? He's definitely Evil. And definitely selfishly so, viewing everyone and everything else as totally expendable because they are, essentially, not real to him. Because he's going to unmake everything that's come about to make them. They're video game NPCs as far as he's concerned, and he's got a saved game he'll reload to undo all the "bad stuff" and make sure they never know it happened.

When you don't view others as people, but as things of no value, you're Evil.

Chaotic or Neutral or even Lawful, you're Evil.

If he's taking advantage of this for kicks and grins, that pushes him a little more towards CE, but not strongly by itself. It's not LE behavior, but NE can engage in casual sadism for the lols. (LE reserves it for recreational time, if that's how they get their kicks.)

[Ettina]

Why? Because you don't like him? He lost his entire family at a very young age. This kind of tragic backstory trope is used all the time, especially in villain stories.

Used badly all the time, yes. Just like it's being used badly here.

If you want to use a tragic backstory to explain villainy, you need to connect the links and do your research. Otherwise it's just a disconnected backstory added to a cartoony villain.

If you stuck only to 'cruelty that accomplishes his goals', your backstory would be enough to explain his behaviour. But there is nothing in his backstory to explain why he'd play with people for his personal amusement. Unless he was already a psychopath (not psychotic, that's completely different) before his parents died - in which case, why would he bother bringing them back when he has more freedom to play with them gone?

[Sacrieur]

I suppose the biggest question I have is: why do you care whether he's NE or CE? He's definitely Evil. And definitely selfishly so, viewing everyone and everything else as totally expendable because they are, essentially, not real to him. Because he's going to unmake everything that's come about to make them. They're video game NPCs as far as he's concerned, and he's got a saved game he'll reload to undo all the "bad stuff" and make sure they never know it happened.

When you don't view others as people, but as things of no value, you're Evil.

Chaotic or Neutral or even Lawful, you're Evil.

If he's taking advantage of this for kicks and grins, that pushes him a little more towards CE, but not strongly by itself. It's not LE behavior, but NE can engage in casual sadism for the lols. (LE reserves it for recreational time, if that's how they get their kicks.)

I'm at a bit of a quandary about how to proceed with him. There's a very possible plot event coming up that may involve him and require him to take sides. I want to have personally accountability on what happens by determining his alignment before it happens so I know which side he'll take. That way I can say, "He's been this alignment since X so his actions are justified."

[Ettina]

I'm at a bit of a quandary about how to proceed with him. There's a very possible plot event coming up that may involve him and require him to take sides. I want to have personally accountability on what happens by determining his alignment before it happens so I know which side he'll take. That way I can say, "He's been this alignment since X so his actions are justified."

You're going at it backwards.

Don't go 'my character is evil, so he's going to eat babies', go 'my character eats babies, so he's evil'. Evil should never be used as a reason for a character to act a certain way, only as a label for a character who does act that way. Figure out who your character is, first, then slap an alignment label on him.

[Segev]

Yeah, his alignment doesn't determine the side he takes. The side he takes MAY indicate his alignment.

Given what you've said about him, I would ask these questions:

Which side offers him a greater chance to achieve his goals?
Which side grants him a better overall position after the conflict is over?
Which side is he more able to get away with betraying, if he has to?
How likely is he to have to betray each side if he joins them?
Which side is more likely to amuse him if he joins?
Which side is he more likely to enjoy toying with?
Is he more able to toy with people on his side or on the other side?


In essence, figure out what he wants, how strongly he values long-term goals vs. short-term amusement/satisfaction, and which side will best satisfy his desires by joining it.

[Spore]

Time travel should be barred by a single or several deities in a well-written setting. Because it would unravel too much. And T would have to try really hard to get magic that one or several deities have forbidden.

[Keltest]

He sounds neutral evil to me. Believing in there being merits to order but not avoiding chaos when it comes up? sounds pretty solidly neutral, though those quotes to the effect of "I make the rules" all sound pretty chaotic.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

NE. All time travel plots suck, and any character who tries it must be NE, as is any author, DM, or player involved. :tongue:

Preach it, brother!