Can you give this guy an alignment for me?

[SangoProduction]

I was thinking something along the lines of Lawful Neutral or Evil (leaning neutral), but I seek more knowledgeable opinions.

This character is a practitioner of "pure balance." He believes in bringing peace and happiness to everyone, but also that without threat, one becomes complacent - willing to let the work of Good be undone. Without Evil, Good can't be appreciated, so it creeps back in to the heart of the weak for much more strife than if it was constantly battled.

As such, he fights off the things that plight the world, championing the Good fight, but makes sure not to eradicate them. And when things swing too heavily in favor of Good, he brings tragedy, making sure to give enough to incite the need for Good, but not to overwhelm.

[Âmesang]

So he's basically Mordenkainen's version of "true neutral" from WORLD OF GREYHAWK?® :smalltongue: I kid, I kid…

Perhaps Wizards' old alignment test (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b) might help? Could pose some questions/answers you hadn't thought of, either (I keep meaning to retake it for my chaotic-evil sorceress and print out the answers I give).

[Crake]

So he's basically Mordenkainen's version of "true neutral" from WORLD OF GREYHAWK?® :smalltongue: I kid, I kid…

As much as you joke, this is pretty much exactly that haha.

I'd probably call it lawful neutral/lawful evil depending on how bad the evil he performs is. If it's mostly just fearmongering without inflicting much pain suffering and death, then I'd say lawful neutral. If on the other hand he sends plagues out to cull the population and calls it the heralding of some elder evil and follows up with an invading army to slaugher half the population in an effort to have the reamining people band together and help eachother, yeah, probably lawful evil. Good intentions and all, but the road to hell is paved with those.

[Macros]

Yeah. While at first, the guy seems like a shoe-in for a lighter shade of lawful neutral, if he is willing to "bring tragedy" to ensure the Balance is respected, it falls squarely into Lawful Evil territory, just not self recognized lawful evil. Incidently...

"Without Evil, Good can't be appreciated, so it creeps back in to the heart of the weak for much more strife than if it was constantly battled."

looks like something a well intentioned Lawful Evil would think.

[Andreaz]

Sounds lawful evil to me.

[Yahzi]

As such, he fights off the things that plight the world, championing the Good fight, but makes sure not to eradicate them. And when things swing too heavily in favor of Good, he brings tragedy, making sure to give enough to incite the need for Good, but not to overwhelm.
I would classify his alignment as NPD. That is, narcissistic personality disorder. He puts his own goals (and frankly, entertainment) over the feelings, needs, or lives of others.

Seriously I would classify this character as Neutral Evil.

[Seto]

Depends on what kind of "tragedy". If it's not too much, he can get away with being Neutral. Beating back Evil without finishing it off is clearly Neutral, for one thing. "Pure balance" is normally Neutral (but his interpretation of it is dubious).

As for the L/N/C component, I'd hesitate. The denunciation of complacency, the appeal to a militaristic mindset, and the will to unite people in the fight for Good all are Lawful undertones in an otherwise fairly Neutral harmony.

So, without further info I'd say either LN (Neutral tendencies) or TN (Lawful tendencies). Depending on the nature and extent of the tragedy, leave it as is (for a light tragedy), add Evil tendencies (for a medium tragedy) or switch to Evil (for a serious tragedy).

[Macros]

Just curious, what would you define as light, medium and serious tragedy?

[Seto]

Not sure. Actually, "tragedy" as commonly understood is pretty automatically "serious", but I was trying to get OP to define what his character does.

I'd say shouting on people, making them afraid, destroying material goods, qualifies as light stuff. (I mean "light" in the context of "inflicting tragedy" of course, not in a vacuum). It makes you mean, and probably indicates Evil tendencies if you enjoy it too much or if your intent is to hurt people, but it's still arguably Neutral (at least in my games). Actually hurting them or beating them up, burning down their houses and leaving them homeless and penniless, etc. is more serious, it's clearly an Evil act, but not something that turns you Evil instantly (at least not in my games). If you're prone to doing that, even once, it warrants Evil tendencies on your Neutral alignment (and makes you switch to Evil if you do it repeatedly). In both of those cases, I'm taking into consideration that OP's character actively champions Good for the most part.
Going around committing bloody murder, torturing people and scarring psychologically for life everyone who witnesses your actions, that's something a Neutral alignment will never be able to accomodate, whatever the reason, no matter the Good you can do otherwise. It's instant Evil without question.

That's what I meant. But yeah, speaking of "light, medium or serious tragedy" was kind of clumsy. I should have thought twice before writing it like that.

[Strigon]

I'd say somewhere between LN and LE.
For Good, I normally say you have to go pretty much all-in, which he specifically avoids doing. So no Good alignments.

He focuses on balance, but - and this is very important - balance between good and evil, not law and chaos. He does this in a very methodical way, checking the results of his actions and responding accordingly. Sounds pretty Lawful to me.

Finally, he's willing to bring Evil into the world. Now, this is where things get blurry. Because there's a huge difference between helping repair a goblin settlement that was harassing a local trade route and got destroyed by adventurers, and setting fire to an orphanage, or unleashing famine across the land. One is slightly Evil, but really more of a dark grey, and the other is Evil, full stop.

Now, from the sounds of it, this character's defining moral belief is balance, and as such would be willing to do anything necessary to maintain that balance - in which case, they're in very real danger of crossing that threshold, and probably will someday.
If I'm mistaken, and he prefers small Evil acts, I'd say you could get away with a darker shade of neutral. Of course, a Paladin would still be perfectly fine with wiping you off the face of the earth, so watch out for anyone shining Good.