[pathfinder] What alignment is this character? (Character #3)

[Zhentarim]

This is the third character thread I've made. Again, this is for Pathfinder.

My character, Canker Soren, is a Male Human Fighter. He took the duel talented trait. He has STR 20, DEX 15, CON 14, INT 13, WIS 7, CHA 7. His AC is 25.

Now on to the personality traits and alignment specific hints:

Canker grew up in a ghetto in Cheliax. He had to watch his mother give up so much money to those wealthier than themselves, and the Chelish government never gave back to the people. Canker also saw many uprisings in his Chelaxian home, which where quickly squashed by the infernal dictatorship. Canker eventually escaped the country, but found greedy people in other regions as well as dictators. This led to Canker holding the ideal of democratic socialism close to his heart, believing everybody is essentially equal. As such, he actively fights to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots, and will attempt to overthrow any non-democratic government. He is vulgarly honest and will not lie to anybody, friend or foe, because he feels this deprives them of their basic dignity. He speaks his mind, regardless of the consequences, and is quick to anger. If he so much as sees an obviously wealthy person even walk by somebody who is obviously impoverished, he will attack them right then and there, and force them to donate to that person at swordpoint. He frequently performs smash-and-grab operations in order to free up wealth horded by the wealthy so he can redistribute it among the community. Save for the bare minimum needed to sustain himself, he keeps no loot, instead choosing to be charitable to those in need. He is quick to rush in and punch those he feels is exploiting somebody weaker or less fortunate than themselves, and is very likely to decapitate the offender and post it in the town square as an example to others who would dare to pray upon the weak. He derives great pleasure in punishing the wealthy, but he derives even greater pleasure from making everybody equal and eliminating beggars and the poor through charity. Also, if he overthrows a local ruler for not being democratic and/or socialist, he tries to put a democratic socialist government in...as per his rather radical commitment to his ideals. Nobody said he was wise or likeable, so I'll just make it clear here that he isn't. He's a little bookish, though.
When he heard there was prize being offered in Korsova during the breaching festival for the first team to break into the heavily warded academae, he knew he had to break in and redistribute all of that wealth to those in need. He also had to make sure none of his would-be teammates pocketed any themselves.

The first 2 threads went well, so I'm going to do this with every character I'm not sure of.

[Zalphon]

He strikes me as Chaotic Good.

[Zhentarim]

He strikes me as Chaotic Good.

Which parts stood out most to you as CG?

[Zalphon]

Which parts stood out most to you as CG?

His blunt views of dignity and unwillingness to bend in certain regards, especially with his democratic-socialist views.

[Zhentarim]

Does everybody else pretty much agree?

[PrincessCupcake]

Without a shadow of a doubt he is Good aligned. Because he has such a strong focus on personal honor (a lawful tendency) and yet is willing to do whatever it takes for his ideals (a chaotic tendency), I would make an argument for Neutral Good. Militantly Neutral Good, but Neutral Good nonetheless.

[Zalphon]

Without a shadow of a doubt he is Good aligned. Because he has such a strong focus on personal honor (a lawful tendency) and yet is willing to do whatever it takes for his ideals (a chaotic tendency), I would make an argument for Neutral Good. Militantly Neutral Good, but Neutral Good nonetheless.

I could see Neutral Good.

[Anderlith]

Chaotic Neutral. He is willing to kill a man for the sin of a heavy coinpurse. Whether it is his lifesaving being taken to market to buy needed equipment or just a frugal miser. Capitalism isn't "evil", sure its easy to make tons of money being evil, but it doesn't mean every weathy person is evil. A king collects taxes to build infrastructure that benefits everyone, by disrupting that so wholeheartedly you cause everyone to suffer more. Even taking the small picture view the man is borderline evil, bullyingunless & killing/harming anyone who doesn't give him their wealth. It only barely balances because of his charity.

[Zhentarim]

He derives great pleasure in punishing the wealthy, but he derives even greater pleasure from making everybody equal and eliminating beggars and the poor through charity. Also, if he overthrows a local ruler for not being democratic and/or socialist, he tries to put a democratic socialist government in...as per his rather radical commitment to his ideals. Nobody said he was wise or likeable, so I'll just make it clear here that he isn't. He's a little bookish, though.

I was pretty convinced when I made him he was Lawful Neutral, since he sticks to his ideals for good or ill. It's pretty neat he is so controversial.

[Anderlith]

Though he has strong ideas that he sticks to, he is an unstablizing force in the world & is toppling governments. That's chaotic

[Zhentarim]

Though he has strong ideas that he sticks to, he is an unstablizing force in the world & is toppling governments. That's chaotic

That seems to be the consensus. Most of my characters are chaotic, it seems.

[Drakefall]

Righty ho. I'm going to break down your post into bite-sized chunks and give my impressions on them. Bear in mind, that this is an alignment discussion and therefore terribly murky waters. My opinion is just my opinion, yo.

Breakdown:

Canker holds the ideal of democratic socialism close to his heart, believing everybody is essentially equal.
I'm honestly unsure where on the Law-Chaos axis democratic socialism would fall, but I certainly don't wont to get into a political philosophy debate. Given it's ultimate focus on economic and social equality, and representation by general election by the citizens, I'm going to just say Chaotic and be done with it.



As such, he actively fights to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots, and will attempt to overthrow any non-democratic government.
General robin hood styled hi-jinks? Chaotic.


He is vulgarly honest and will not lie to anybody, friend or foe, because he feels this deprives them of their basic dignity. He speaks his mind, regardless of the consequences...
Possibly Lawful depending on whether he believes he has to be honest because of some outside influence such as dogmatic adherence to a specific philosophical belief, but more likely just a personality trait, and therefore Neutral.


If he so much as sees an obviously wealthy person even walk by somebody who is obviously impoverished, he will attack them right then and there, and force them to donate to that person at swordpoint.
Attempted murder at worst. Threatened assault and mugging at best. Definitely Evil.

Also diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick.


He frequently performs smash-and-grab operations in order to free up wealth horded by the wealthy so he can redistribute it among the community.
Chaotic. Possibly also Evil depending on the circumstances of each robbery, and how much suffering is being caused as a result.


Save for the bare minimum needed to sustain himself, he keeps no loot, instead choosing to be charitable to those in need.
Good.


He is quick to rush in and punch those he feels is exploiting somebody weaker or less fortunate than themselves, and is very likely to decapitate the offender and post it in the town square as an example to others who would dare to pray upon the weak.
Actual murder this time, as these actions sound like they would rarely constitute private defence. Not to mention public displays of excessive violence and the parading of mutilated corpses. Certainly Evil.


When he heard there was prize being offered in Korsova during the breaching festival for the first team to break into the heavily warded academae, he knew he had to break in and redistribute all of that wealth to those in need. He also had to make sure none of his would-be teammates pocketed any themselves.
There was a festival where people were legitimately challenged to break in? Neutral then.

If the proceeds were donated to the needy, that bit could be Good.

Forcing your teammates to give up legitimately earned wealth may be Lawful and/or Evil depending on their willingness in the matter and the methods used.

Tally:
Good: \\
Evil: \\
Neutral: \\
Lawful: \
Chaotic: \\\

Conclusion:
The tally I get puts him around Chaotic Neutral I guess. However, given that the Evil actions are ones which he appears to engage in often and repeatedly, even if to ultimately obtain Good results, I'd say that this fellow is firmly in Chaotic Evil territory.

One of the hallmarks of many villains is that they believe they do what they do for the greater good, and sometimes what they do actually is. It does not excuse the moral blameworthiness of their actions however.

He also sounds like a violent nut job for what it's worth. :smalltongue:

[Seto]

Yeah, pretty much Chaotic Neutral, if not Evil. If he stuck to threatening rich people and making them give at swordpoint, he'd be a good example of a Good character who's a big jerk (which is a rare and thus interesting thing), but decapitation is really pushing it several steps too far.

[goto124]

Bascially, Chaotic Good who took his actions too far and slipped into Evil?

[Zhentarim]

Yeah, pretty much Chaotic Neutral, if not Evil. If he stuck to threatening rich people and making them give at swordpoint, he'd be a good example of a Good character who's a big jerk (which is a rare and thus interesting thing), but decapitation is really pushing it several steps too far.

Maybe it would be a growth point for him to try to minimize the actual suffering he inflicts...however, he will still be a mean, cantankerous man who won't take no for an answer.

[Ravian]

Definitely sounds true or chaotic neutral to me. The guy has good intentions, and does plenty of good, but his methods are too overly zealous and violent for him to be considered purely good. As for the law and chaos axis. Despite his code of ethics he's too much of a destabilizing force to be considered lawful. The question is whether the code is strong enough for him to be considered True Neutral or if he's simply too destabilizing to be called anything but chaotic with some neutral leanings.

If it were me I would go with true neutral, particularly since they're some of the best alignments for pursuing goals that are more independent of particular alignments. But I'd probably watch the characters actions carefully. If his code ends up as a pretty strong force in guiding him from some of his larger excesses, I'd keep it at true neutral and he'd probably be more likely to move toward the good alignment as well. If he continues his more destructive aspects, he's likely to go chaotic neutral and might even start moving towards chaotic evil.

[DaveSonOfDave]

First off, he has an awesome name! Second, I'm inclined to believe he's Chaotic Good. Good in the sense that there is a desire to make sure that people are able to be taken care of and have a standard of living that doesn't suck, indicating that he does care about people enough to be aware of their well being. But Chaotic in the sense that he either isn't aware or doesn't care that the same ideals of people's lives not sucking crossing over to the people that he's stealing from. He has a code of conduct, but doesn't seem to have thought through the code to the point where all the potential hypocrisies and problems might be ironed out.

[Zhentarim]

First off, he has an awesome name! Second, I'm inclined to believe he's Chaotic Good. Good in the sense that there is a desire to make sure that people are able to be taken care of and have a standard of living that doesn't suck, indicating that he does care about people enough to be aware of their well being. But Chaotic in the sense that he either isn't aware or doesn't care that the same ideals of people's lives not sucking crossing over to the people that he's stealing from. He has a code of conduct, but doesn't seem to have thought through the code to the point where all the potential hypocrisies and problems might be ironed out.

He justifies it by largely leaving those who essentially only wealthy enough not to have sucky lives alone, as well as having slightly more patience with those who are applying their wealth towards the welfare of the community and not hording it for themselves. The moment he smells greed, though, blood's gonna fly.

[Keltest]

I would call him Chaotic Neutral, leaning towards Evil. Furthermore, his compulsive assault on those of a higher wealth level than those nearby inclines me to call him Chaotic Stupid as well. I highly recommend mitigating or outright ditching that facet of his character, because it is neither going to endear him to a group nor serve his cause particularly well (when the poster boy for a specific cause is a compulsive mugger/murderer, it tends to reflect poorly on it).

[Zhentarim]

I would call him Chaotic Neutral, leaning towards Evil. Furthermore, his compulsive assault on those of a higher wealth level than those nearby inclines me to call him Chaotic Stupid as well. I highly recommend mitigating or outright ditching that facet of his character, because it is neither going to endear him to a group nor serve his cause particularly well (when the poster boy for a specific cause is a compulsive mugger/murderer, it tends to reflect poorly on it).

Hmmm...I may make him a tad less homicidal, but I still wanted to play an uncomfortably blunt character who is a democratic socialist. I will admit I was vaguely inspired by a candidate I like and hope wins, I just made the character based on him more coarse, vulgar, and morally gray. This is him IC:

"While you knuckleheads are just f*cking around with 'laws and principles', that creep is hurting people and lining his pockets. We will take him out now!"

[Keltest]

Hmmm...I may make him a tad less homicidal, but I still wanted to play an uncomfortably blunt character who is a democratic socialist. I will admit I was vaguely inspired by a candidate I like and hope wins, I just made the character based on him more coarse, vulgar, and morally gray. This is him IC:

"While you knuckleheads are just f*cking around with 'laws and principles', that creep is hurting people and lining his pockets. We will take him out now!"

that sounds less like 'Democratic socialist" and more like "Anarchist with a chip on his shoulder against the rich."

[atemu1234]

Chaotic Neutral. He is willing to kill a man for the sin of a heavy coinpurse. Whether it is his lifesaving being taken to market to buy needed equipment or just a frugal miser. Capitalism isn't "evil", sure its easy to make tons of money being evil, but it doesn't mean every weathy person is evil. A king collects taxes to build infrastructure that benefits everyone, by disrupting that so wholeheartedly you cause everyone to suffer more. Even taking the small picture view the man is borderline evil, bullyingunless & killing/harming anyone who doesn't give him their wealth. It only barely balances because of his charity.

Chaotic Neutral. He values destroying the establishment moreso than helping others.

[Eldonauran]

Conclusion:
The tally I get puts him around Chaotic Neutral I guess. However, given that the Evil actions are ones which he appears to engage in often and repeatedly, even if to ultimately obtain Good results, I'd say that this fellow is firmly in Chaotic Evil territory.

One of the hallmarks of many villains is that they believe they do what they do for the greater good, and sometimes what they do actually is. It does not excuse the moral blameworthiness of their actions however.

He also sounds like a violent nut job for what it's worth. :smalltongue:

I am in firm agreement with this conclusion. This person is willing to do just about anything to further his own idea of what is 'right' and 'good'. He seems to only be concerned with the 'fairness' of monetary distribution (regardless of the situation that lead to the gain or loss of money) and making sure that each person has a voice in elections. I see very little evidence that he values life (a staple of a good alignment) more than his own interpretation of fairness.

[Zhentarim]

I am in firm agreement with this conclusion. This person is willing to do just about anything to further his own idea of what is 'right' and 'good'. He seems to only be concerned with the 'fairness' of monetary distribution (regardless of the situation that lead to the gain or loss of money) and making sure that each person has a voice in elections. I see very little evidence that he values life (a staple of a good alignment) more than his own interpretation of fairness.

He is pretty result oriented, and he feels like the quickest path to change is to stir **** up and terrorize people.

[Keltest]

He is pretty result oriented, and he feels like the quickest path to change is to stir **** up and terrorize people.

again, I would like to reiterate that this is getting dangerously close to Chaotic Stupid territory. Beyond mugging people for no better reason than he runs into them, what does he do to promote his agenda? How are his actions actually helping his goals?

[Zhentarim]

again, I would like to reiterate that this is getting dangerously close to Chaotic Stupid territory. Beyond mugging people for no better reason than he runs into them, what does he do to promote his agenda? How are his actions actually helping his goals?

He helps organize uprisings among the poor, though with a cha of 7...he is a little course in his speeches.

[WalkingTheShade]

I was pretty convinced when I made him he was Lawful Neutral, since he sticks to his ideals for good or ill. It's pretty neat he is so controversial.
Well, I agree with the consensus regarding the moral axis.
Regarding the ethical axis, I have to disagree wholeheartedly. It is not because someone tries to subvert an existing social order that they are necessarily chaotic. The real question to ask is their motivation for doing so. A paladin under a Lawful Evil government he actively tries to subvert doesn't suddenly become Chaotic.

Now, regarding your character, the real question is how he regards his political ideal. Is he fighting for it because it is more just, because it is a more efficient system? Then I'd say he is Lawful.
Does he uphold this form of government, believing it will empower individuals and make them (more) free? Then I'd say he is Chaotic.
If it's both, I'd say he's Neutral on that axis.

EDIT:
(when the poster boy for a specific cause is a compulsive mugger/murderer, it tends to reflect poorly on it).
I'm tempted to give historical example that might contradict this point. However, that may be against forum rules and might also derail the thread. I'll just note that it doesn't seem so true in our world.

[Zhentarim]

Well, I agree with the consensus regarding the moral axis.
Regarding the ethical axis, I have to disagree wholeheartedly. It is not because someone tries to subvert an existing social order that they are necessarily chaotic. The real question to ask is their motivation for doing so. A paladin under a Lawful Evil government he actively tries to subvert doesn't suddenly become Chaotic.

Now, regarding your character, the real question is how he regards his political ideal. Is he fighting for it because it is more just, because it is a more efficient system? Then I'd say he is Lawful.
Does he uphold this form of government, believing it will empower individuals and make them (more) free? Then I'd say he is Chaotic.
If it's both, I'd say he's Neutral on that axis.

EDIT:
I'm tempted to give historical example that might contradict this point. However, that may be against forum rules and might also derail the thread. I'll just note that it doesn't seem so true in our world.

Neutral evil, then?

[WalkingTheShade]

Neutral evil, then?
Neutral Evil, or True Neutral.
To me, on the moral axis, the difference between a Good, Neutral and Evil character is more or less as follows.
The Good character will try his best never to do Evil to someone else. They might even prefer death to doing Evil.
The Neutral character may do Evil to another person, if it matches their interest, their ideology, their religion, etc. meaning if they can construct a convincing motive for doing it. They won't be proud of doing an Evil act, but they'll believe it's a necessity. Obviously, there's an arbitrage to be done between the amount of Evil and the outcome of the act. Stealing from another starving person, in order so that one can survive is not necessarily Evil, while it might condemn the other person to death (a good character would try to find a third option, or let themselves starve, or even steal to give to someone who needs it even more). Going around the countryside and relieving starving peasants from all their valuables probably is Evil.
The Evil character won't give a second thought about committing an Evil act. They might even not regard it as problematic. They don't need an excuse or reason to do it. They might employ one, in order to convince associates the act was necessary, they might even use an excuse to fool themselves. At the extreme, an Evil character enjoys Evil for itself.
Honestly, with the description you gave, I could see arguments made for CN with good tendencies, CN, CE, NE, TN, LE and LN. It really depends more of the relationship of your character with his ideology.
If he honestly believes (either because of stupidity or inexperience) that it's the only way to free the poor and the needy from the rich man's oppression, then he's most probably CN.
If he believes there might be other way, but just has more fun assaulting, maiming and giving an outlet to his violent impulses, I'd vote CE.
If his ideas are just excuses for violent and anti-social behavior, he might be CE or NE.
If his ideas are just use as a leverage for personal gain (for example, fame and respect as a rebel leader), he might CE, NE, or LE.
If he believes the current order is flawed, and must be only replaced by a new order corresponding to his definition of "democratic socialism", whatever the costs, he may be LE.
If he believes the current order is flawed, and must be only replaced by a new order corresponding to his definition of "democratic socialism", but feels some empathy for the victims or at least tries to minimize collateral damage, he may be LN.
That's just my interpretation.

[Zhentarim]

Neutral Evil, or True Neutral.
To me, on the moral axis, the difference between a Good, Neutral and Evil character is more or less as follows.
The Good character will try his best never to do Evil to someone else. They might even prefer death to doing Evil.
The Neutral character may do Evil to another person, if it matches their interest, their ideology, their religion, etc. meaning if they can construct a convincing motive for doing it. They won't be proud of doing an Evil act, but they'll believe it's a necessity. Obviously, there's an arbitrage to be done between the amount of Evil and the outcome of the act. Stealing from another starving person, in order so that one can survive is not necessarily Evil, while it might condemn the other person to death (a good character would try to find a third option, or let themselves starve, or even steal to give to someone who needs it even more). Going around the countryside and relieving starving peasants from all their valuables probably is Evil.
The Evil character won't give a second thought about committing an Evil act. They might even not regard it as problematic. They don't need an excuse or reason to do it. They might employ one, in order to convince associates the act was necessary, they might even use an excuse to fool themselves. At the extreme, an Evil character enjoys Evil for itself.
Honestly, with the description you gave, I could see arguments made for CN with good tendencies, CN, CE, NE, TN, LE and LN. It really depends more of the relationship of your character with his ideology.
If he honestly believes (either because of stupidity or inexperience) that it's the only way to free the poor and the needy from the rich man's oppression, then he's most probably CN.
If he believes there might be other way, but just has more fun assaulting, maiming and giving an outlet to his violent impulses, I'd vote CE.
If his ideas are just excuses for violent and anti-social behavior, he might be CE or NE.
If his ideas are just use as a leverage for personal gain (for example, fame and respect as a rebel leader), he might CE, NE, or LE.
If he believes the current order is flawed, and must be only replaced by a new order corresponding to his definition of "democratic socialism", whatever the costs, he may be LE.
If he believes the current order is flawed, and must be only replaced by a new order corresponding to his definition of "democratic socialism", but feels some empathy for the victims or at least tries to minimize collateral damage, he may be LN.
That's just my interpretation.

By your definitions, Lawful Neutral