Yet Another Alignment Thread

[Inevitability]

I have this idea for an NPC, but I'm not sure what his alignment would be.

At a young age, the NPC was taught that there are three kinds of people. The ones who are ruthless, bloodthirsty, and don't mind killing others to get what they want, the ones who fall prey to those ruthless people, and the ones who simply watch. He got the strong advice to not become any of the first two.

Later on, this NPC becomes forced to join an adventuring party which is the exact definition of the first group. He despises their vile deeds and wants to stop them more than anything, but is not strong enough to take on any of the party members by himself. Instead, he tries to become the voice of reason in the group (which partially succeeds) and guide them gently towards less evil goals.

This NPC is not actively performing evil deeds himself, but neither is he actively trying to stop them, and when forced to choose between his own death or someone else's he'd kill. He has had a few opportunities to just leave his party, but prefers to stay, claiming that if he didn't they'd return to their evil ways of the past.

So what alignment is he? TN? NE? LE?

[ThinkMinty]

I have this idea for an NPC, but I'm not sure what his alignment would be.

At a young age, the NPC was taught that there are three kinds of people. The ones who are ruthless, bloodthirsty, and don't mind killing others to get what they want, the ones who fall prey to those ruthless people, and the ones who simply watch. He got the strong advice to not become any of the first two.

Later on, this NPC becomes forced to join an adventuring party which is the exact definition of the first group. He despises their vile deeds and wants to stop them more than anything, but is not strong enough to take on any of the party members by himself. Instead, he tries to become the voice of reason in the group (which partially succeeds) and guide them gently towards less evil goals.

This NPC is not actively performing evil deeds himself, but neither is he actively trying to stop them, and when forced to choose between his own death or someone else's he'd kill. He has had a few opportunities to just leave his party, but prefers to stay, claiming that if he didn't they'd return to their evil ways of the past.

So what alignment is he? TN? NE? LE?

True Neutral, or a very hapless, ineffectual Neutral Good. So, ya know, regular Neutral Good.

[Seto]

Seems like the poster boy for Neutrality to me. I'd say TN. (possibly LN or CN, since what you said doesn't account for much on the Law/chaos axis).
However, if he stays in the party long enough and starts taking part actively to more and more evil deeds, that's a slippery slope to Evil.

[DrMotives]

I agree with TN. Sounds like if he had more confidence & power, he could act like a Rilmani, the examplars of violent neutrality.

[ThinkMinty]

Seems like the poster boy for Neutrality to me. I'd say TN. (possibly LN or CN, since what you said doesn't account for much on the Law/chaos axis).
However, if he stays in the party long enough and starts taking part actively to more and more evil deeds, that's a slippery slope to Evil.

In my opinion, the difference between Neutral and Evil is that Evil enjoys it. It's the whole amorality vs immorality thing.

[Seto]

In my opinion, the difference between Neutral and Evil is that Evil enjoys it. It's the whole amorality vs immorality thing.

This is true to a certain extent, but you can't really get away with repeated horrible murder even if you don't enjoy it. (And the kicker is that, if you do it enough, you rationalize it into enjoying it)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'd put him closer to lawful than chaotic. True, a paladin style character would outright oppose or at least leave thr group because they don't agree with his view of life, that's lawful too. But this guy tries to chance their ways to what he thinks would be better, he sticks with his plans despite setbacks, he feels bad about doing evil things but chalks them up as a necessary part of his work for a greater good.

Since he tries to change the evil folks to being less evil I wouldn't peg him as evil himself, maybe misguided at most. He's a bit too practical in his daily dealings and associates with evil a little too much to really be lawful good, so I guess I'd see him as lawful neutral, perhaps true neutral and maaaaaybe even neutral good, but probably that first one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Definitely neutral (for now). Couldn't say one way or the other on the law/chaos axis.

[Inevitability]

This is true to a certain extent, but you can't really get away with repeated horrible murder even if you don't enjoy it. (And the kicker is that, if you do it enough, you rationalize it into enjoying it)

Repeated horrible murder? Isn't that done by like 95% of all adventurers? :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Repeated horrible murder? Isn't that done by like 95% of all adventurers? :smalltongue:

Hey, that orphanage was coming right at me. If I hadn't fireballed it to kindling we'd all be dead by now........ what? Why are you looking at me that way?

[Reltzik]

I'd actually flag this guy as some flavor of good. He's not committing the evil acts. He's IS actively opposed to the evil acts... he's just constrained in his methodology by the simple fact that he's not strong enough to physically put a stop to them. He's trying to stop the evil acts through non-violent methods, and to a degree he's succeeding. Without more of a notion of where he falls on the order-chaos axis, I'd peg him as NG, but really any of the goods could fit.

[MyrPsychologist]

I want to echo the notion of good here. The character seems focused on the concept of redeeming these evil doers and that is definitely a good behavior.

[Seto]

Repeated horrible murder? Isn't that done by like 95% of all adventurers? :smalltongue:

No, no. See, murder is when the bad guys kill people and set whole city blocks on fire. When we do it, it's called urbanism.

[GameSpawn]

Yeah, I'd argue for something good too (or at least neutral leaning good) based on the actions you describe. The complicating factor that keeps him from clearly being good is a willingness to kill in order to preserve himself. The question that raises in my mind, however, is "to what extent?". Is he willing to kill someone who's actively trying to kill him? At least by D&D ethics, that's perfectly fine. Is he willing to run away from a wizard who's killing innocent children? That's neutral, and I'd argue if he's otherwise good, he's still good overall. Is he willing to frame an innocent person for a crime he committed and let them be executed? Yeah, that's pretty evil.

[Seto]

Yeah, I'd argue for something good too (or at least neutral leaning good) based on the actions you describe. The complicating factor that keeps him from clearly being good is a willingness to kill in order to preserve himself. The question that raises in my mind, however, is "to what extent?". Is he willing to kill someone who's actively trying to kill him? At least by D&D ethics, that's perfectly fine. Is he willing to run away from a wizard who's killing innocent children? That's neutral, and I'd argue if he's otherwise good, he's still good overall. Is he willing to frame an innocent person for a crime he committed and let them be executed? Yeah, that's pretty evil.

This guy is not willing to endanger himself in order to save people (doesn't take on the party, fear of being victimized). He "doesn't actively try to stop" evil deeds. He has a very pessimistic worldview (the weak are victims, the strong are bullies - no place for strong protectors who'd defend the weak). Selflessness and willingness to sacrifice for the life and dignity of others are the essence of Good in D&D. He is clearly not Good. He prefers Good to Evil and would like the world to be a better place, but at no great cost to himself. Seems to me like the textbook example of Neutral with good ideals but who doesn't act on them. Like the majority of people.

And as I and others have said, if he gets dragged into Evil business and fails to influence his party but is instead influenced by it, he risks gravitating towards Evil.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, sounds like textbook TN to me. Averse to evil, but not willing to fight for good, and with no particular leanings toward law or chaos.

[GameSpawn]

This guy is not willing to endanger himself in order to save people (doesn't take on the party, fear of being victimized). He "doesn't actively try to stop" evil deeds. He has a very pessimistic worldview (the weak are victims, the strong are bullies - no place for strong protectors who'd defend the weak). Selflessness and willingness to sacrifice for the life and dignity of others are the essence of Good in D&D. He is clearly not Good. He prefers Good to Evil and would like the world to be a better place, but at no great cost to himself. Seems to me like the textbook example of Neutral with good ideals but who doesn't act on them. Like the majority of people.

And as I and others have said, if he gets dragged into Evil business and fails to influence his party but is instead influenced by it, he risks gravitating towards Evil.

It sounds like he's trying to stop evil deeds. Maybe not as "actively" as he could be, but if he can prevent more evil deeds by picking his battles and persuading the PCs to be less evil instead of using force and getting killed and thus not preventing any more evil deeds, that is, at least arguably, the best course of action, and is consistent with a good alignment. Beyond that, even if he's not as good as he could be, if he's trying to decrease the number of evil things that happen in the world, then he's clearly going beyond just thinking of good as better than evil.

[Inevitability]

Everyone, thanks for your advice! I think I'll go with him being TN.