PDA

View Full Version : What alignment is this character?



NRSASD
2015-12-30, 04:05 PM
I'm running a rather standard D&D game, 2nd/3.5 hybrid if you must know. Alice is a primary henchman for Morden, the main villain of the campaign. These aren't their actual names, just fyi

She grew up on the streets of the capital as a street urchin, but caught Morden's attention by being really gifted in hand-to-hand combat. Since the villain runs a sword fighting school for duelists, he took her in and she became one of his best students. The villain taught a small handful of his finest students how to be blood magic duelist/mages in exchange for their loyalty and their help overthrowing the king, claiming that it needs to be done for the "good of the kingdom". Since Morden saved her from the streets and has fostered her skills, Alice signs on without hesitation.

A few points that need a little explaining:

Alice feels she owes the king (and the kingdom in general) nothing since they left her on the streets, but she doesn't bear any ill will towards its citizens. She doesn't want anyone to grow up the way she did, so she doesn't want to destroy the kingdom so much as change its policies

The blood magic is a new invention that very few people know about (Morden's been keeping it very secret). It relies on manipulating other people's innate magic to do them harm, but it isn't as overtly evil as say necromancy. While no real public opinion has formed over its morality, it's clearly a very dark shade of grey.

Morden says he's overthrowing the king for the good of the country, but he's straight up lying. He wants to cause chaos and bloodshed. Alice believes him anyways because she looks up to him as a mentor and trusts him.

Alice and her colleagues infiltrate the court, poison the king subtly (so he looks like he's dying of a disease), and eventually secret him out of the capital. Along the way, Alice has worked with a necromancer and killed good-aligned soldiers of the kingdom, but tried to avoid killing innocents whenever necessary (by knocking out unaware guards, threatening nosy civilians to stay away rather than offing them, etc.). When the king disappears, a civil war flares up and Morden signs on with one of the major factions. She and Morden's other students carry out sabotage and scouting roles for this faction, leaving their opponents miserable and in disarray but not committing any overtly evil acts (poisoning a fortress' well with non-lethal toxins? Yes. Murdering a soldier's family to demoralize the troops? No.).

Much later into the war, as Morden's faction is losing, Morden gets into a violent argument with one of his allies over where they should hide the kidnapped king. Morden reveals himself as a vampire and massacres his erstwhile ally, his court, and anything living inside his ally's castle. Using the carnage he just created, Morden offers to turn his surviving students into vampires, and all except Alice accept his offer. She is appalled by Morden's real identity and willingness to kill innocents, and they fight. He leaves her for dead and bugs out, taking the king to his lair. Alice, betrayed by her mentor, sells out to the good guys in exchange for amnesty.

I was aiming for NG, but I'm really not sure now. What do you think Alice's alignment is, and why?

Flame of Anor
2015-12-30, 05:13 PM
No way is this character Good-aligned. Poisoning and murdering legitimate authorities? Working with "overtly Evil" necromancy? Those aren't the actions of someone who can have a clean conscience afterwards. Good intentions might get her up to a True Neutral, but that's as far as I'd go.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-30, 05:34 PM
While the character seems to avoid the worst evil actions - I don't see any good actions there either. I second that they're not good.

I'd actually say that they're probably CN, though that's harder to tell from what you wrote. (Actual CN - not the excuse to be a murderhobo which many people pick CN to do.)

Edit: grammar

veti
2015-12-30, 08:56 PM
I'd go with TN or CN. She has enough scruples to keep clear of an Evil alignment, but not enough to get into G territory.

Probably CN, given her overt disregard for laws and customs, and apparent indifference towards taboos (blood magic sounds like something that would be frowned on, but as I read it she just doesn't give a damn'. Ditto poisoning. To say nothing of king-napping.)

Geddy2112
2015-12-30, 09:40 PM
I would say a solid true neutral. She is by no means a good person, but she avoids evil acts as well. She is not lawful, but I don't think she is solidly chaotic either. She might do things that are sociatial taboos and engage in nonlawful actions, but she would rather see the kingdom change, not be destroyed or torn down. Maybe leaning a bit chaotic, but I would still say true neutral for now.

You pegged her as nG, which would be a good point to aspire to after she sides with the good guys,saves the king/kills her mentor and whatnot...

denthor
2015-12-30, 09:54 PM
Conspiring to kill good aligned Gaurds and then proceeding is True N if one of those is a Paladin Alice is NE without a doubt. She may be redeemable. Good luck

Seto
2015-12-31, 04:06 AM
Conspiring to kill good aligned Gaurds and then proceeding is True N if one of those is a Paladin Alice is NE without a doubt. She may be redeemable. Good luck

Killing a LG Paladin is no more Evil than killing a LG Fighter (it's Evil, but it doesn't make it irredeemable or anything), or for that matter, a CE Fighter who's doing he's job as a guard and getting in your way.

I'd agree with either CN or TN (chaotic tendencies) : "doesn't care about the kingdom, doesn't owe it anything" makes her solidly non-lawful. If she thinks laws are necessary to defend the people, and is ready to submit to a set of laws she'd consider just, then she's TN.

DiscipleofBob
2015-12-31, 11:00 AM
I would argue NG, possibly CG, as long as it's clear Alice was being manipulated and legitimately believed she was only hurting bad people for good reasons, and now that she knows the truth she recognizes how wrong her actions were and seeks to make things right. She goes out of her way to avoid hurting innocents whenever possible. That strikes me as definitively good. Most of your evil associations are either out of lack of IC knowledge or pure necessity. You're not a Paladin. You don't become evil or fall just by associating with evil characters. Arguably chaotic as you're actively rebelling against a legal authority.

Madbox
2015-12-31, 11:10 AM
True neutral. Her actions are too heavily mixed between good and evil to be deserving of either label. One or two minor evil acts more and she qualifies as evil, but from what you've told us, I could also see her atoning for her acts and qualifying as good. As for law/chaos, overthrowing the kingdom is chaotic, but obeying and following another is pretty lawful behavior, in the sense of "follows some sort of code and listens to a self-selected authority", not the "follows the law and listens to a designated authority not of their choosing".

neonchameleon
2015-12-31, 12:27 PM
OK. What's your understanding of alignment? Supernatural cosmic forces or personal codes?

NRSASD
2015-12-31, 04:10 PM
@Neonchameleon: personal codes. Supernatural cosmic forces exist, but they're more the law vs chaos variety

ThreadNecro5
2015-12-31, 06:03 PM
I would say Chaotic Neutral or just plain Neutral. She has no particular desire or intent to do harm unless she feels it necessary, cooperated mainly to support her mentor (if she was particularly motivated by loyalty in this choice you may manage a LN). Thinking about it I could imagine an LN who became a CN in some cases. The problem with choosing Chaos or Law is that both easily come to the same conclusions with different reasoning.

In any case definitely not Good or Evil, not really helping anyone just because she can, and not harming anyone just because she can (I know these are grossly simplified versions of good and evil, but I think the point is clear)

Cealocanth
2015-12-31, 06:25 PM
Her defiance against authority and desire to undermine it strikes me as Chaotic, but her understanding that laws need to be instilled to fit her means pushes her slightly towards Neutral, so somewhere in-between on that spectrum is where I would place her. As far as Good to Evil goes, she does very, very bad things for good reasons, but has limits and an understanding of morality that isn't abandoned at the drop of a hat. Were she actually Evil, she would either be doing things because she enjoyed making others suffer, or wouldn't have any qualms about harming the citizens of the kingdom, but were she neutral, she would consider working with a higher power to usurp the king in a more moral manner. Assassination and poisons are highly evil, as is accepting and working with an objectively evil necromancer.

True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral if working in a campaign with good-aligned players, or generally doing good-aligned things. This is if you play the character by swaying towards her nicer tendencies.

You could actually pass her off as Chaotic Evil, in a comic book supervillain kind of way. She has personal qualms and issues about her evil actions, but justifies those for herself and performs evil deeds. You would need to show that in her heart, she actually enjoys what she has done a little too much, and any sense of morals is easily subverted by the rewards of personal gain at other's expense. Right now, you're on the spectrum of Neutral-Chaotic and Neutral-Evil. To refine this more, we will have to see how she is roleplayed.

Jay R
2015-12-31, 11:13 PM
If you already know what she will do in any situation, you don't need alignment for any purpose except what spells protect or hurt her. She's probably true neutral, unless you want her stopped by an anti-Chaotic spell.

Fable Wright
2016-01-01, 12:03 AM
What I read is a character development arc, shifting from Neutral Evil to Chaotic Neutral, headed towards to Neutral/Chaotic Good. Alignments are not set in stone. They shift, and just because they were a darker alignment doesn't mean they can't rise up from that. Sometimes Good calls just as much as Evil does.

Malifice
2016-01-01, 05:03 AM
Pretty clearly CN for mine.

neonchameleon
2016-01-01, 10:45 AM
@Neonchameleon: personal codes. Supernatural cosmic forces exist, but they're more the law vs chaos variety

Then she's closer to good than many good-aligned PCs. Grey magic isn't black and the magic described isn't as evil as evocation, never mind necromancy.

There's a motivation question. Why she poisons the king. And what she believes her master to be. If he#s been filling her head with pretty stories about making the world a better place and she genuinely believes them there's a possibility she's misguided-good. If it's personal loyalty she's neutral.

As for law vs chaos, I'm going with again asking what she believes she's doing.

Kryztyfyr
2016-01-02, 05:30 PM
I would say that Alice is Aberrant while her master is Diabolic. I'm using the Palladium alignment system. Both are evil alignments. :smallwink:

--Christopher Chance

Seppo87
2016-01-02, 08:43 PM
I would go with misleaded CG.

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

"A chaotic good character does what's necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well.[8] Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society."

frost890
2016-01-02, 09:46 PM
I know I may be in the minority here but I would actually call her true neutral. It sounds like she is following her own personal code.
She does not want the chaos but will do the shady work needed to bring about change. They play with the side that works with their goals.

goto124
2016-01-04, 01:26 AM
Why are assassinations and poison considered Evil, as opposed to Chaotic? The former is essentially sneak attack, while the latter... back to the "is it realistic poison or DnD poison" argument.



Honor systems generally exist for the benefit of a ruling class's long term interests. They're there to keep people in their place.

Honor states that men may not gang up because nobles are individually better armed, trained, and educated, while peasants are numerous. Honor states that poison and assassination is vile, because it deals with the individual who transgresses rather than making war on their minions while they hide within their castles. Honor states that fire and swords are honorable, because castles do not burn like cottages, and steel does not slice like linen.

The guys in power are individually better trained, better armed, healthier, and fewer in number, so of course you're supposed to let them see you coming and not team up, because then they'll win. Giving people the idea that that kind of fight is "honorable" and "fair" (even though it's anything but) gives an advantage to the ruling warrior-thug class.

Generally, if something can make a peasant beat a knight, it's "dishonorable."


Alice had no reason to distrust whatever information that led her to believe the king is something other than evil. When she found out her necromancer 'friend' was the evil one, she became highly distraught and sought new friends.

Heck, I think she's Good. She does her darnest to make sure no one dies or, barring that, suffers the least. It's reflected even in the use of her poisons (might want to be careful about poisoning wells though, even if the poison's nonlethal. What does that poison do anyway?). To drive that point in, you could have her mourn for every person she's killed, accidentally or otherwise.

I'll peg her as Chaotic Good. It's also my favorite alignment, if the quote I quoted above wasn't an indication.

Might also want to look at how you judge the alignments of your other characters (they should all be judged equally - can't have Alice be CG and Bob be CE even though they use non-lethal poison in the same way), as well as what your players think (if a player has a history of thinking "assassination + poison = Evil"... actually I don't know what to do here, apart from advising caution).

Satinavian
2016-01-04, 05:43 AM
Some good alignement would have worked if not for all the poison. Poisoning the king, poisoning wells (even if non-lethal) ... secrecy and poisoning seems to be one of her preferred methods of action next to the blood magic and the duellist stuff.
While the whole "overthrow the evil king" would not take the good out of reach, even if good guards get killed, the poisoning does. It is one of the things D&D declares to be evil.

So overall, i go with CN, maybe TN (not enough information to decide between those two). But if the DM declares poison to not be automatically evil, CG might actually work.



Poison, slavery, (a lot of) necromancy ... D&D has declared some things to be always evil that regularly lead to arguments when actually decent guys use them in not very offensive ways. Either stick to the books or not. Personally i would rule using nonlethal poison to avoid lethal methods to not be evil at all, but that is not standard D&D and would require houserules.

goto124
2016-01-04, 07:30 AM
the poisoning does. It is one of the things D&D declares to be evil.

Poison, slavery, (a lot of) necromancy ... D&D has declared some things to be always evil that regularly lead to arguments when actually decent guys use them in not very offensive ways. Either stick to the books or not. Personally i would rule using nonlethal poison to avoid lethal methods to not be evil at all, but that is not standard D&D and would require houserules.

Er? Declaring poison be not automatically Evil doesn't take much houseruling, does it? It's just saying "poison is not inherently Evil. How you use it can be Evil, but ultimately poison is just a weapon, like a sword or a spell'.

Realistic poison isn't instant - it causes a lot of pain over a period of time, during which the victim is highly sick. DnD poison is more like an attack that deals damage over time, or sets a status effect that doesn't cause any more harm or pain than a normal spell or a good ol' club over the head. If the last two are neutral, DnD poison should not get hit with the "Evil" thing somehow.

Satinavian
2016-01-04, 08:00 AM
It may be a small houserule, it may be a reasonable houserule, but it is still a houserule.

You can't answer a "What D&D-alignment would a certain character be"-question based on houserules.

goto124
2016-01-04, 08:54 AM
On a tangent, the OP is the DM right?

NRSASD
2016-01-04, 05:51 PM
@Kryztyfyr: After looking up the Palladium alignment system, Aberrant describes Alice to a T. But I have no idea why it's classified as Evil :P

@goto124: "On a tangent, the OP is the DM right?" I'm not sure what you're asking...?

@neonchameleon: She's helping her mentor overthrow the king because she thinks it's good for the public, but more importantly because her mentor asked for her assistance

Ah, the "is poison inherently evil?" question. I'm not sure what side of the argument I fall on to be honest, but the non-lethal toxins in question make their victims extremely sick and out of commission without permanently harming them. Think a 3-5 day horrendous stomach flu. It's not evil in the way that a detect evil would register, but it most certainly is not nice or honorable.

I forgot to mention, but Alice has been using the blood magic to dominate soldiers for short periods of time. She wounds them, dominates them, uses them to get past doors or distract their comrades, then turns them loose once she's in the clear.

I've been really enjoying the discussion so far. I like that there's several equally valid and well-supported ideas for her alignment. While I originally wanted her to be a "good guy doing bad things" without resorting to the "ends justify the means" argument, I'm not sure she's stayed true to her initial alignment. While the objective has never wavered and her principles still stand (albeit with some serious stains and tarnishes), her means may have pushed her off into the deep end. I'm really not sure where her alignment truly lies. Thanks for the feedback and if you've got anything to add, please go right ahead!

Kryztyfyr
2016-01-04, 07:01 PM
@Kryztyfyr: After looking up the Palladium alignment system, Aberrant describes Alice to a T. But I have no idea why it's classified as Evil :P

Probably because the writers viewed "no regard for human life" (if I'm remembering that correctly, if not, mea culpa) characteristic in the Aberrant list as being evil. Though, I would think it would be interesting if there were no Good or Evil dividers in the Palladium alignment system.


Ah, the "is poison inherently evil?" question. I'm not sure what side of the argument I fall on to be honest, but the non-lethal toxins in question make their victims extremely sick and out of commission without permanently harming them. Think a 3-5 day horrendous stomach flu. It's not evil in the way that a detect evil would register, but it most certainly is not nice or honorable.

I would always say poisoning people is evil, but the way you described it puts that in a gray area for me as well.


I forgot to mention, but Alice has been using the blood magic to dominate soldiers for short periods of time. She wounds them, dominates them, uses them to get past doors or distract their comrades, then turns them loose once she's in the clear.

Yeah, I think this is putting her in the deep end of the alignment pool. :smallamused:


I've been really enjoying the discussion so far. I like that there's several equally valid and well-supported ideas for her alignment. While I originally wanted her to be a "good guy doing bad things" without resorting to the "ends justify the means" argument, I'm not sure she's stayed true to her initial alignment. While the objective has never wavered and her principles still stand (albeit with some serious stains and tarnishes), her means may have pushed her off into the deep end. I'm really not sure where her alignment truly lies. Thanks for the feedback and if you've got anything to add, please go right ahead!

You're welcome! :smallbiggrin:

--Christopher Chance

CharonsHelper
2016-01-04, 07:25 PM
I forgot to mention, but Alice has been using the blood magic to dominate soldiers for short periods of time. She wounds them, dominates them, uses them to get past doors or distract their comrades, then turns them loose once she's in the clear.

Yeah - as said above - I think that pushes her to NE.

Of note - I really think that there should be sub-categories of evil (maybe good too - but especially evil). There is capital E EVIL which is demons/devils/The Joker etc. - and then just evil - people who are bad, but you might even hang out with.

I'd say that she's NE - lowercase evil - and her change of heart/betrayal of Morden puts her on the fast-track for CN, and possibly CG eventually. (To her - going less evil would likely inherently mean going more chaotic since her evil actions were inherently tied to her devotion to Morden, though other things could obviously shift her more lawful.)

Edit: grammar

Strigon
2016-01-05, 10:41 AM
...Were she actually Evil, she would either be doing things because she enjoyed making others suffer, or wouldn't have any qualms about harming the citizens of the kingdom, but were she neutral, she would consider working with a higher power to usurp the king in a more moral manner.

Neither of these are true.
A person who reliably does Evil things, but doesn't enjoy them is still Evil. A neutral person may seek another way to usurp the king, but depending on the setting and how plausible that is, a darker neutral could very well go for the kill.
Evil doesn't have to be moustache-twirling, maniacal-laughing, granny-tripping sadists; an Evil character could very well be a nice guy who genuinely doesn't know he or she has crossed the line.
It sounds like she starts off CN - doesn't owe the king or kingdom anything, sounds very much like she lives by her own rules - but as she begins working for Morden, begins drifting toward NE.
She kills good people, and she tries not to kill civilians. This is important; trying not to do something if it can be helped is not the same as completely ruling it out as an option. These two things - combined with the blood magic/controlling people - sound pretty Evil to me, even if she has compunctions about it. At the very least, not the NG you were going for. At this point, I'd consider her a lighter shade of NE; but still NE in the end.
It also sounds like she's almost looking for excuses to be Evil; she follows Morden's commands simply because he helped her, even when those commands involve killing the very people she wants to save. This also depends on how good the king actually is. No matter how great your king is, there's going to be some people on the streets, somebody who fell through the cracks in society. How is the rest of the kingdom doing? If it's all sunshine and daisies, and she's blind to that, then all the more case for NE. If it's one giant pit of despair and the king genuinely is awful, then there might be a case for TN here.

Anyway, once they get rid of the king, I'm pretty sure she starts heading back toward Neutral territory. Certainly, by the time she denounces Morden, she's made it back to TN.

Malifice
2016-01-05, 11:17 AM
Why are assassinations and poison considered Evil, as opposed to Chaotic?

If someone comes to your house and kills you for money, thats not a good act. I assure you, the killer could argue the toss in court all he wanted, but the killer is going to be condemned as an evil person. Its not a chaotic act either [its certainly breaking the law, but the assasin may be a very disciplied person who always keeps his word, and always fulfills a contract].

In 3.5 evil is defined as opressing, harming and killing others. Assasination fits that bill.

Strigon
2016-01-05, 11:44 AM
If someone comes to your house and kills you for money, thats not a good act. I assure you, the killer could argue the toss in court all he wanted, but the killer is going to be condemned as an evil person. Its not a chaotic act either [its certainly breaking the law, but the assasin may be a very disciplied person who always keeps his word, and always fulfills a contract].

In 3.5 evil is defined as opressing, harming and killing others. Assasination fits that bill.

I think it was meant as a question of automatically considering assassination to be Evil; as in, why would assassinating Hitler be considered Evil in D&D?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-05, 02:46 PM
I think it was meant as a question of automatically considering assassination to be Evil; as in, why would assassinating Hitler be considered Evil in D&D?

It wouldn't be.

In D&D terms - assassination is being paid to kill someone where the pay is the only motivation. (As in - an assassin.) Killing Hitler would be war/execution.

Edit: more in depth explanation

Strigon
2016-01-05, 03:24 PM
It wouldn't be.

In D&D terms - assassination is being paid to kill someone where the pay is the only motivation. (As in - an assassin.) Killing Hitler would be war/execution.


What, you can't be paid to kill Hitler?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-05, 04:10 PM
What, you can't be paid to kill Hitler?

Note how I put "ONLY" motivation.

If someone who theoretically knew absolutely nothing about Hitler and killed him for $ - that would be evil.

If the $ is NOT the ONLY motivation - it's not inherently evil.

Seppo87
2016-01-05, 06:07 PM
Note how I put "ONLY" motivation.

If someone who theoretically knew absolutely nothing about Hitler and killed him for $ - that would be evil.

If the $ is NOT the ONLY motivation - it's not inherently evil.

So every professional soldier ever will be evil regardless of who he's working for?

For example - let's assume a noble hires a skilled bodyguard.

The bodyguard must kill an assailant to properly do his job and ensure his future income.

The bodyguard is now evil.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-05, 07:44 PM
So every professional soldier ever will be evil regardless of who he's working for?

For example - let's assume a noble hires a skilled bodyguard.

The bodyguard must kill an assailant to properly do his job and ensure his future income.

The bodyguard is now evil.

No. The bodyguard was hired to protect the noble - not to kill a specific individual. Entirely different circumstances.

Edit: Please don't straw-man me.

Malifice
2016-01-05, 08:41 PM
I think it was meant as a question of automatically considering assassination to be Evil; as in, why would assassinating Hitler be considered Evil in D&D?

If the assassin was reasonably acting in self defence or the defence of others and no other option reasonably presented itself, then it wouldnt be.

Still wouldnt be a good act. Killing someone never is.


So every professional soldier ever will be evil regardless of who he's working for?

Not necessarily. Evil acts happen in war [murdering POWs etc] but killing in self defence of the defence of others [when no other option reasonably presents itself] is not an evil act. Its not a good act [good = not killing] but its not evil.

If a police officer is forced to shoot a murderer armed with a knife to protect himself or an innocent victim, that act cannot be said to be 'evil'. If the murderer surrenders and the cop shoots him anyway execution style, then it's a different kettle of fish. Objective context for the act is important [subjective justification is not].

In this case, our heroine sought to avoid killing in a battle against a tyrant. I would ordinarily place her at CG but her practice of blood magic [even if she used it not to kill people, only to avoid killing] pushes her into CN.

Icewraith
2016-01-05, 09:03 PM
I'm running a rather standard D&D game, 2nd/3.5 hybrid if you must know. Alice is a primary henchman for Morden, the main villain of the campaign. These aren't their actual names, just fyi

She grew up on the streets of the capital as a street urchin, but caught Morden's attention by being really gifted in hand-to-hand combat. Since the villain runs a sword fighting school for duelists, he took her in and she became one of his best students. The villain taught a small handful of his finest students how to be blood magic duelist/mages in exchange for their loyalty and their help overthrowing the king, claiming that it needs to be done for the "good of the kingdom". Since Morden saved her from the streets and has fostered her skills, Alice signs on without hesitation.

A few points that need a little explaining:

Alice feels she owes the king (and the kingdom in general) nothing since they left her on the streets, but she doesn't bear any ill will towards its citizens. She doesn't want anyone to grow up the way she did, so she doesn't want to destroy the kingdom so much as change its policiesThe blood magic is a new invention that very few people know about (Morden's been keeping it very secret). It relies on manipulating other people's innate magic to do them harm, but it isn't as overtly evil as say necromancy. While no real public opinion has formed over its morality, it's clearly a very dark shade of grey.

Morden says he's overthrowing the king for the good of the country, but he's straight up lying. He wants to cause chaos and bloodshed. Alice believes him anyways because she looks up to him as a mentor and trusts him.

Alice and her colleagues infiltrate the court, poison the king subtly (so he looks like he's dying of a disease), and eventually secret him out of the capital. Along the way, Alice has worked with a necromancer and killed good-aligned soldiers of the kingdom, but tried to avoid killing innocents whenever necessary (by knocking out unaware guards, threatening nosy civilians to stay away rather than offing them, etc.). When the king disappears, a civil war flares up and Morden signs on with one of the major factions. She and Morden's other students carry out sabotage and scouting roles for this faction, leaving their opponents miserable and in disarray but not committing any overtly evil acts (poisoning a fortress' well with non-lethal toxins? Yes. Murdering a soldier's family to demoralize the troops? No.).

Much later into the war, as Morden's faction is losing, Morden gets into a violent argument with one of his allies over where they should hide the kidnapped king. Morden reveals himself as a vampire and massacres his erstwhile ally, his court, and anything living inside his ally's castle. Using the carnage he just created, Morden offers to turn his surviving students into vampires, and all except Alice accept his offer. She is appalled by Morden's real identity and willingness to kill innocents, and they fight. He leaves her for dead and bugs out, taking the king to his lair. Alice, betrayed by her mentor, sells out to the good guys in exchange for amnesty.

I was aiming for NG, but I'm really not sure now. What do you think Alice's alignment is, and why?

LE, with a personal code about not killing innocents. Evil isn't just killing things, it's also about causing pain and torture, and Alice has no problems tormenting people, making them miserable, or using highly questionable magic as long as she doesn't actually kill innocents. She values the structure society brings and once she commits to a course of action sees it through, as long as it doesn't violate her personal ethos of not killing innocents.

She doesn't have an issue with killing people in general, just not "innocents".

Strigon
2016-01-05, 09:18 PM
Still wouldnt be a good act. Killing someone never is.


Not true at all, unless your definition of "someone" is "someone good". Killing a cannibal who tortures and murders families, then eats them one by one? That's good.
There isn't a Good person alive who'd let that continue.

goto124
2016-01-06, 12:25 AM
Evil isn't just killing things, it's also about causing pain and torture, and Alice has no problems tormenting people, making them miserable, or using highly questionable magic as long as she doesn't actually kill innocents.

... huh. I was under the impression she has a lot of problems causing pain and suffering, and does her best to minimize it. That's what Good adventurers do. The mind control spells in DnD aren't marked Evil are they? Well you could mark them Evil, just explain why and be consistent.

What sort of impact would alignment have in this game? I see it's a 2nd/3.5 hybrid DnD system, so I suppose there're a lot of alignment-dependent spells and abilities? How are the different alignments affected, exactly?

NRSASD
2016-01-06, 01:00 AM
@goto124: Alignment has basically no impact from a gameplay point of view. Protection from/detect evil/good/etc exist, but we've only really applied them to creatures of pure alignment (like angels/demons/slaadi), their immediate servants, or characters who ooze their alignment (like Morden. He's EVIL, no doubt whatsoever). I'm just curious to see how people perceive Alice and her actions because I created her to see if I could play a good-aligned, sane villain who opposes the PCs. This far in, I'm not sure I succeeded. But it was a lot of fun in the attempt!

goto124
2016-01-06, 02:02 AM
If there's no mechanical effect to the point of Detect Alignment not working on morally ambiguous human(oid)s...

Determining an alignment for Alice isn't that important, is it? One could just play this character by her motivations/personality/flaws/etc and watch the players' reactions.

Seppo87
2016-01-06, 03:33 AM
No. The bodyguard was hired to protect the noble - not to kill a specific individual. Entirely different circumstances.

Edit: Please don't straw-man me.

The bodyguard is "killing" yes or not? Yes.
The only reason is money? Yes.
Does it, therefore, adhere to the definition you provided? Yes it does, 100%

1) Please don't claim fallacies you don't understand. I know it's a trend but it's embarassing, all you guys do is using buzzwords pretty randomly.

2) The only strawman I see is assuming that the premise "being hired to kill a specific individual" is the one being discussed.
IT IS NOT.
The phrase being discussed is about killing for the sole reason of getting money.

I can prove how this is true.

Imagine the bodyguard hasn't been hired yet. He's walking by the street. Then the nobleman screams for help: the assailant is going to do baaaad things.
Assailant says: "I won't leve you alone until I live! I hate youuu" - draws weapon and makes a let's get dangerous face
Noble sees the bodyguard: "I'll give you money if you kill this guy here!"
Bodyguard doesn't care about the noble personally or morally, and being a bodyguard is only his job to him.
He's being offered a very quick and remunerative work, tho.
Should he accept, it would by all means qualify as an assassination.

And, standing by your definition, which I'm following and not "strawmanning" in any way, accepting this job makes the bodyguard evil.

Oh and the same applies to bounty hunters and even executioners.


If a police officer is forced to shoot a murderer armed with a knife to protect himself or an innocent victim, that act cannot be said to be 'evil'.
But what if the cop doesn't really believe in laws and ideals and being nice and whatnot and he's just following orders so he can pay the rent?
Isn't it LITERALLY killing for money?

goto124
2016-01-06, 04:03 AM
"But what if the cop doesn't really believe in laws and ideals and being nice and whatnot and he's just following orders so he can pay the rent?
Isn't it LITERALLY killing for money? "

Now, how to draw the line between LN and LE...

Seppo87
2016-01-06, 05:08 AM
Now, how to draw the line between LN and LE...

So the cop who works in a LG country and does just his job, is no better than:

-A corrupt cop killing for the joy of killing
-A minion of the evil army

I have nothing to add. This is absurd and nobody should take seriously a system that leads to these consequences.

goto124
2016-01-06, 08:00 AM
Someone who kills for the joy of killing would behave quite differently from someone who kills only when job procedure says so.

A LG code and a LE code would also be quite different, affecting the actions of the cops/minions that follow the codes.

To be honest, I'll put "a minion of the evil army" to be a slightly darker shade of LN than "cop who works in LG country", assuming both are working purely to earn some money.

Millennium
2016-01-06, 09:38 AM
I'm going to say TN here, at least at first, but there is a point where it would be plausible to change it.

Law/Chaos comes from her relative state of non-commitment. She cares little for the established order, and has been convinced that it was necessary to kidnap the king, but it sounds like she would very much have preferred to keep the established order in place and just tweak it a bit. Her heart's not in creating chaos, the way her mentor's is.

Good/Evil is again a state of relative non-commitment. She avoids doing unnecessary harm, taking this to degrees that even many Good characters fail to reach. There are seeds of possible change in there. But even without taking the blood magic into account, "the greater good" is a distant endpoint for her, not the central focus. She seems to see herself as something akin to the old cliche of "the dogs of war"; she fights for (what she believes is) a good cause, but despite being on the side of the angels, she has no illusions of being one.

That said, her break with her mentor is an interesting opportunity for alignment change. She's just been disillusioned. Much of what she's been taught for most of her life is a lie, and now she knows that for a fact. Her first impulse was disgust: she recoiled from her mentor and her friends. There are definitely seeds of Law and Good within her psychological makeup: not enough to affect her past, but with a little nudging in those directions at just the right time, she could easily break toward them. This is someone the PCs could work to redeem. Alternatively, this could make a good backstory for a paladin: the point when they first felt the call of the light, after living for so long in darkness.

Icewraith
2016-01-06, 08:39 PM
... huh. I was under the impression she has a lot of problems causing pain and suffering, and does her best to minimize it. That's what Good adventurers do. The mind control spells in DnD aren't marked Evil are they? Well you could mark them Evil, just explain why and be consistent.

What sort of impact would alignment have in this game? I see it's a 2nd/3.5 hybrid DnD system, so I suppose there're a lot of alignment-dependent spells and abilities? How are the different alignments affected, exactly?

She spends a bunch of time working as a saboteur. She's willing to poison wells. That's a hard thing to do without killing people, and the odds of tainting the local water supply (or killing off a bunch of livestock) is actually pretty good. The only thing it's stated the character won't do is murder innocents. She's fine learning to use freaky-but-not-as-evil-as-necromancy blood magic. She's more than willing to work with necromancers and kill people actively opposing her, regardless of their alignment.

When trying to create a good aligned villain, it's very hard to not accidentally create a LE villain whose moral code simply doesn't allow certain acts.

Strigon
2016-01-06, 09:18 PM
...The only thing it's stated the character won't do is murder innocents. She's fine learning to use freaky-but-not-as-evil-as-necromancy blood magic. She's more than willing to work with necromancers and kill people actively opposing her, regardless of their alignment.

Actually, it's not even said that she won't murder innocents; from the OP:

...but tried to avoid killing innocents whenever necessary...
That's the only word on killing innocents, and it's entirely different from not doing it at all. This is the difference between a character saying "No, I don't care how important this is, it's not worth an innocent life" and "Well, if there's no way around it... Sorry, you're time's up."

CharonsHelper
2016-01-06, 09:28 PM
The bodyguard is "killing" yes or not? Yes.
The only reason is money? Yes.
Does it, therefore, adhere to the definition you provided? Yes it does, 100%


No. No it doesn't.

I said "assassination is being paid to kill someone...".

The bodyguard is NOT being paid to kill someone. The bodyguard is being paid to protect someone, they just happened to kill someone when carrying out such duties.

Saying that it is the same as assassination by my definition is straw-manning me.

Edit: grammar

Fable Wright
2016-01-06, 09:50 PM
Saying that it is the same as assassination by my definition is straw-manning me.

I think I see what Seppo's trying to say. Take the following scenario:

"Five hundred gold to whoever brings me the head of the man who murdered my wife!"

Is collecting on this bounty necessarily evil? Does this change if the questgiver asked one specific person to do it for him rather than make it an open bounty?

Seppo87
2016-01-06, 10:23 PM
No. No it doesn't.

I said "assassination is being paid to kill someone...".

The bodyguard is NOT being paid to kill someone. The bodyguard is being paid to protect someone, they just happened to kill someone when carrying out such duties.

Okay, so
The guard is killing out of professionalism... ? :smallconfused:

Maybe what you meant is that the phrase
"I kill because my job requires me to" ?
Has morally different implications from
"I kill, so I get paid"

Is this what you're saying? Right?

If so,

When we add:
"And I only do my job for the money"
It still is... somehow... better than straight out killing for money

Is this your position?

I'm asking because you seem very fond of the word strawman, so, if something's wrong with my logic, please point it out in a clear, detailed way.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 12:13 AM
Okay, so
The guard is killing out of professionalism... ? :smallconfused:

Maybe what you meant is that the phrase
"I kill because my job requires me to" ?
Has morally different implications from
"I kill, so I get paid"

Is this what you're saying? Right?

If so,

When we add:
"And I only do my job for the money"
It still is... somehow... better than straight out killing for money

Is this your position?

That's most of it, though I'd say that in the case of bodyguard a bit of self-defense comes into play. In addition, if the killer has secondary motivations (like in the above mentioned killing of Hitler where the killer is sympathetic with the jews being murdered) then the assassination isn't inherently evil and might become an execution and/or simply part of the war.

If that wasn't the case - then everyone who has a job which might require killing and doesn't like their job would be inherently evil. (Cops/soldiers/armed security who didn't like their jobs.)

My apologies if you were just misunderstanding me as opposed to an intentional straw-man.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 12:15 AM
I think I see what Seppo's trying to say. Take the following scenario:

"Five hundred gold to whoever brings me the head of the man who murdered my wife!"

Is collecting on this bounty necessarily evil? Does this change if the questgiver asked one specific person to do it for him rather than make it an open bounty?

In that case it isn't an assassination. It's a bounty/execution as it's an attempt to bring them to justice. (Albeit in a wild west sort of way by today's standards.)

Fable Wright
2016-01-07, 12:25 AM
]If that wasn't the case - then everyone who has a job which might require killing and doesn't like their job would be inherently evil. (Cops/soldiers/armed security who didn't like their jobs.)
So a cop who hates his job because of the fact that he might have to kill someone becomes inherently evil? :smallconfused:


In that case it isn't an assassination. It's a bounty/execution as it's an attempt to bring them to justice. (Albeit in a wild west sort of way by today's standards.)
Right. But it's
1. Killing someone and
2. The bounty hunter's only doing it for the money.

By the definition you provided, this would be an assassination. But it's not inherently evil now. What makes this case different? :smallconfused:

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 12:32 AM
So a cop who hates his job because of the fact that he might have to kill someone becomes inherently evil? :smallconfused:

No - that was an example of the logical conclusion if my reasoning ISN'T correct.

Note: "If that wasn't the case".

Malifice
2016-01-07, 04:45 AM
Not true at all, unless your definition of "someone" is "someone good". Killing a cannibal who tortures and murders families, then eats them one by one? That's good.

No its not. If you think murdering someone is 'good' I'm slightly terrified.


There isn't a Good person alive who'd let that continue.

Who said anything about letting it continue? There are other options to stopping him than murdering him. You murder him and you're no better than he is.

In 3E:

Good = altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil = implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

The cannibal commits an act of evil when he harms and kills others. You harm and kill him, you're just commiting an evil act yourself.

Your probably have a 'greater good' intent. But thats irrelevant to the act being evil.

theNater
2016-01-07, 05:20 AM
Not true at all, unless your definition of "someone" is "someone good". Killing a cannibal who tortures and murders families, then eats them one by one? That's good.
There isn't a Good person alive who'd let that continue.

No its not. If you think murdering someone is 'good' I'm slightly terrified.



Who said anything about letting it continue? There are other options to stopping him than murdering him. You murder him and you're no better than he is.

In 3E:

Good = altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil = implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.

The cannibal commits an act of evil when he harms and kills others. You harm and kill him, you're just commiting an evil act yourself.

Your probably have a 'greater good' intent. But thats irrelevant to the act being evil.
Why does everyone always forget about Neutral? People who are Neutral have compunctions against killing the innocent, which this murderer is not. Killing this murderer in order stop him from killing others is Neutral behavior, even if done in a murdery way. A Good character will try to avoid it if at all possible, because it's not Good. But "not Good" isn't the same as "Evil" in D&D.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-01-07, 05:36 AM
Why does everyone always forget about Neutral? People who are Neutral have compunctions against killing the innocent, which this murderer is not. Killing this murderer in order stop him from killing others is Neutral behavior, even if done in a murdery way. A Good character will try to avoid it if at all possible, because it's not Good. But "not Good" isn't the same as "Evil" in D&D.

But in that case the killing is still an evil act. If they were doing it to stop him from killing others/innocents and didn't have any other ways to deal with the killer it can also be a good act, the action as a whole can become neutral or even good that way. But they still had to get their hands dirty, from a standpoint of good the solution would have been better if they had found a way to deal with this without anyone dying. It's like how people generally prefer if people suspected of murder are arrested, rather than having airstrikes called on their position. It can sometimes be (seen as) a necessary evil, but that's still a type of evil.

Whether in any specific case it's worse to stand by idly and allow for things to happen because you have no clean way to deal with it or to perform evil acts while preventing others from committing some of their own, that's a moral dilemma. They're a feature, not a bug.

Seppo87
2016-01-07, 08:55 AM
Right. But it's
1. Killing someone and
2. The bounty hunter's only doing it for the money.

By the definition you provided, this would be an assassination. But it's not inherently evil now. What makes this case different? :smallconfused:
Probably the vague notion and prejudice that "assassins must be bad and assassination victims are victims", while "bounty hunters are law enforcers and criminals deserve to be punished"

The simple truth however is that bounty hunting is just INSTITUTIONAL murder.

Someone (the government) wants someone dead (the criminal) and is paying an executioner (the bounty hunter) to do the job.
There is no difference with an assassination.
It IS an assassination - only legal.

In fact, the difference between assassination and bounty hunting is on the law/chaos axis probably.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-01-07, 09:17 AM
That might depend a little bit on the circumstances. The A-team for some reason only ever got approached by innocent underdogs who needed help fighting off some evil rich bastard, and they always managed to completely on accident not shoot anyone. This does not seem to be a very realistic view on life as a mercenary, but there are less blatant ways to try and be not too bad. It's one thing to work as an assassin for whoever will hire you, or one in the employ of a notorious ruthless crime boss, it's another thing to work as a bounty hunter for official governments, refusing work from states that regularly get called out for violating human rights and not executing a strike unless you're reasonably sure you can do it with only one casualty: the target. I agree that the terms are almost interchangeable, and one is not necessarily better than the other, but there is quite a bit of wiggling room within those concepts. A ruthless bounty hunter working for Saddam Medievalfantasein is probably evil while Robin Assasinhood might border on good. Even on the law/chaos axis they can be all over the place, even though in general both often work for powerful folks who use them to get rid of those who disturb the order they created. I don't think we can put much of an alignment restriction on the difference between the two jobs.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 11:54 AM
No its not. If you think murdering someone is 'good' I'm slightly terrified.



Who said anything about letting it continue? There are other options to stopping him than murdering him. You murder him and you're no better than he is.

I agree that killing the cannibal wouldn't be good - but it wouldn't be evil either. It'd be a neutral act. (And it probably wouldn't be murder.)

By your logic Paladins are doing evil acts all the freakin' time.

Strigon
2016-01-07, 12:36 PM
I agree that killing the cannibal wouldn't be good - but it wouldn't be evil either. It'd be a neutral act. (And it probably wouldn't be murder.)

By your logic Paladins are doing evil acts all the freakin' time.

Exactly; the fact is that, if you're forced to kill him or do nothing, killing him is the good option. This entire argument is predicated on killing being evil, or never being good when that is simply not the case.

Mr.Moron
2016-01-07, 01:02 PM
I'll just go through her story bit by bit. Assuming she starts at "Totally Unaligned/True Neutral" and just plot her moves on alignment across the story. Where 1 to 100 scale indicates how strong that alignment is.



She grew up on the streets of the capital as a street urchin, but caught Morden's attention by being really gifted in hand-to-hand combat. Since the villain runs a sword fighting school for duelists, he took her in and she became one of his best students. The villain taught a small handful of his finest students how to be blood magic duelist/mages in exchange for their loyalty and their help overthrowing the king, claiming that it needs to be done for the "good of the kingdom". Since Morden saved her from the streets and has fostered her skills, Alice signs on without hesitation.


No Change. Still totally neutral.

Law: 0/100
Good: 0/100
Evil: 0/100
Chaos: 0/100





Alice feels she owes the king (and the kingdom in general) nothing since they left her on the streets, but she doesn't bear any ill will towards its citizens. She doesn't want anyone to grow up the way she did, so she doesn't want to destroy the kingdom so much as change its policies

The blood magic is a new invention that very few people know about (Morden's been keeping it very secret). It relies on manipulating other people's innate magic to do them harm, but it isn't as overtly evil as say necromancy. While no real public opinion has formed over its morality, it's clearly a very dark shade of grey.

Blood magic is no worse a method of killing someone than the sword or immolating them with a fireball. Still no alignment change.




Morden says he's overthrowing the king for the good of the country, but he's straight up lying. He wants to cause chaos and bloodshed. Alice believes him anyways because she looks up to him as a mentor and trusts him.


His actions & intentions don't weigh on her. No Alignment change.



Alice and her colleagues infiltrate the court, poison the king subtly (so he looks like he's dying of a disease), and eventually secret him out of the capital. Along the way, Alice has worked with a necromancer and killed good-aligned soldiers of the kingdom, but tried to avoid killing innocents whenever necessary (by knocking out unaware guards, threatening nosy civilians to stay away rather than offing them, etc.). When the king disappears, a civil war flares up and Morden signs on with one of the major factions. She and Morden's other students carry out sabotage and scouting roles for this faction, leaving their opponents miserable and in disarray but not committing any overtly evil acts (poisoning a fortress' well with non-lethal toxins? Yes. Murdering a soldier's family to demoralize the troops? No.).


Slow Death for king (essentially torture): Major Shift to evil
Knowingly killing innocents: Moderate shift to evil for each count
Conducting combat without regards to collateral damage, knowingly harming non-combatants (poison in the well): Major shift to evil
Disregard fair rules of engagement: Moderate chaotic shift
Personal code against harming innocents ("avoid killing innocents"): Minor lawful shift
Violating that code when expedient("only, whenever possible"): Minor Chaotic Shift

Current Alignment: Neutral Evil

Law: 10/100
Good: 0/100
Evil: 65/100
Chaos: 35/100






Much later into the war, as Morden's faction is losing, Morden gets into a violent argument with one of his allies over where they should hide the kidnapped king. Morden reveals himself as a vampire and massacres his erstwhile ally, his court, and anything living inside his ally's castle. Using the carnage he just created, Morden offers to turn his surviving students into vampires, and all except Alice accept his offer. She is appalled by Morden's real identity and willingness to kill innocents, and they fight. He leaves her for dead and bugs out, taking the king to his lair. Alice, betrayed by her mentor, sells out to the good guys in exchange for amnesty.

I was aiming for NG, but I'm really not sure now. What do you think Alice's alignment is, and why?


Willing to stand up for innocents code: Minor Lawful Shift
Willing to stand up against vampire/finding it vile: Minor good shift:

Current Alignment: Neutral Evil

Law: 20/100
Good: 5/100
Evil: 65/100
Chaos: 30/100



I would say she is NE but with limited room for redemption. She has done some nasty, inexcusable stuff in the name of getting things done and her good intentions do not absolve her of that. However she obviously understands and recognizes the value of life and respects it in theory if not deed, so this leaves room for redemption. She has a personal code it seems, but getting the job done comes before that except in the extreme (when he reveals he's literally a life sucking monster) so this is both lawful and chaotic tendencies that balance her out.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 07:06 PM
Exactly; the fact is that, if you're forced to kill him or do nothing, killing him is the good option. This entire argument is predicated on killing being evil, or never being good when that is simply not the case.

I wouldn't say that it's a GOOD act - but definitely not evil. (Good characters do neutral actions all the time - they don't push them away from being good.) The ending his killing spree is a good act, but I'd say that the actual killing itself is still just neutral. Otherwise it'd be less good to take the cannibal to court than to slay him. Both actions would be neutral themselves, but have good results due to stopping the killing spree, just done by different character types and/or different circumstances. (If in a city - it's easier to turn them into the authorities than if you have to risk them escaping on the two week trek back to town.)

Semantics? Possibly. But I consider the distinction to be significant.

Strigon
2016-01-07, 10:25 PM
I wouldn't say that it's a GOOD act - but definitely not evil. (Good characters do neutral actions all the time - they don't push them away from being good.) The ending his killing spree is a good act, but I'd say that the actual killing itself is still just neutral. Otherwise it'd be less good to take the cannibal to court than to slay him. Both actions would be neutral themselves, but have good results due to stopping the killing spree, just done by different character types and/or different circumstances. (If in a city - it's easier to turn them into the authorities than if you have to risk them escaping on the two week trek back to town.)
First off, I'd argue that it's more Lawful to take him into custody - especially if there's a chance he could escape.

I mean, in the heat of the moment; he's got his victim right there, nobody else is around. A rather forced scenario, I'll admit, but hardly out of the realm of possibility.
So he's got his victim, you're there, and you can try to kill him or leave it alone. Obviously the Good outcome is to kill him, but I'd argue it's the Good action, too - after all, I can't see how putting your life on the line for a stranger could be considered Neutral. Good doesn't always mean neat and tidy; sometimes Good actions involve people dying. It's not nice, it's not pretty, but I don't doubt it's true.

Now, of course, when you start treating on-the-spot executions as the rule rather than the exception, then we're moving swiftly away from the northern end of alignments, but that's another story. My only point is that killing can sometimes be a Good action.

denthor
2016-01-07, 11:01 PM
I'll just go through her story bit by bit. Assuming she starts at "Totally Unaligned/True Neutral" and just plot her moves on alignment across the story. Where 1 to 100 scale indicates how strong that alignment is.



No Change. Still totally neutral.

Law: 0/100
Good: 0/100
Evil: 0/100
Chaos: 0/100






Blood magic is no worse a method of killing someone than the sword or immolating them with a fireball. Still no alignment change.





His actions & intentions don't weigh on her. No Alignment change.



Slow Death for king (essentially torture): Major Shift to evil
Knowingly killing innocents: Moderate shift to evil for each count
Conducting combat without regards to collateral damage, knowingly harming non-combatants (poison in the well): Major shift to evil
Disregard fair rules of engagement: Moderate chaotic shift
Personal code against harming innocents ("avoid killing innocents"): Minor lawful shift
Violating that code when expedient("only, whenever possible"): Minor Chaotic Shift

Current Alignment: Neutral Evil

Law: 10/100
Good: 0/100
Evil: 65/100
Chaos: 35/100








Willing to stand up for innocents code: Minor Lawful Shift
Willing to stand up against vampire/finding it vile: Minor good shift:

Current Alignment: Neutral Evil

Law: 20/100
Good: 5/100
Evil: 65/100
Chaos: 30/100



I would say she is NE but with limited room for redemption. She has done some nasty, inexcusable stuff in the name of getting things done and her good intentions do not absolve her of that. However she obviously understands and recognizes the value of life and respects it in theory if not deed, so this leaves room for redemption. She has a personal code it seems, but getting the job done comes before that except in the extreme (when he reveals he's literally a life sucking monster) so this is both lawful and chaotic tendencies that balance her out.

I agree with your assessment for the most part. We disagree on the redemption part. I feel that is very possible for her to become Ng given time and a chance.

VERY GOOD WAY OF DOING THIS.

goto124
2016-01-08, 02:03 AM
Marking her as LE or NE is least likely to get the players mad about "she did this and that how can she be GOOD?!" when they eventually find out about her alignment :smalltongue:

theNater
2016-01-08, 05:02 AM
But they still had to get their hands dirty, from a standpoint of good the solution would have been better if they had found a way to deal with this without anyone dying.
That's correct, but what it means is that the action is not Good, which is not the same as being Evil.


Exactly; the fact is that, if you're forced to kill him or do nothing, killing him is the good option. This entire argument is predicated on killing being evil, or never being good when that is simply not the case.
The better of two bad options is not inherently Good. If you're forced to kill an innocent or do nothing, that doesn't make doing nothing Good.


I mean, in the heat of the moment; he's got his victim right there, nobody else is around. A rather forced scenario, I'll admit, but hardly out of the realm of possibility.
So he's got his victim, you're there, and you can try to kill him or leave it alone. Obviously the Good outcome is to kill him, but I'd argue it's the Good action, too - after all, I can't see how putting your life on the line for a stranger could be considered Neutral.
You've added some things here that weren't in the initial description; particularly that killing this person requires risk, which was not clear earlier. Certainly fighting him is Good, assuming the two characters are close enough in power that he can realistically be a threat. And if our hero scores a crit that sends the cannibal straight from fighting to dead, that's not a deliberate act, so our hero has taken only Good acts.

But if our hero is certain to be able to kill the cannibal; whether because of level differences, or because the cannibal is temporarily incapacitated, or whatever, then killing the cannibal requires no risk. And since Good requires personal sacrifice(where risk is the sacrifice of one's own safety), it's not going to be a Good act. So if the options are literally "kill him" or "do nothing", killing him is Neutral. That's a very different scenario than when the options are "fight him" or "do nothing".

Strigon
2016-01-08, 09:09 AM
The better of two bad options is not inherently Good. If you're forced to kill an innocent or do nothing, that doesn't make doing nothing Good.

No, but choosing between saving the life of an innocent and passing on by isn't choosing between to bad options.



You've added some things here that weren't in the initial description; particularly that killing this person requires risk, which was not clear earlier.

Not untrue, but irrelevant; the point I'm trying to disprove is that killing someone can never be Good. As long as there is one scenario in which it's good, my point is made.

Certainly fighting him is Good, assuming the two characters are close enough in power that he can realistically be a threat.

Now I'm confused; if the bystander is more powerful and takes the same action, it has a different rating in alignment? I can certainly see how it might be less impressive, or how it might weigh less on the overall alignment of a character, but having a different alignment altogether seems very questionable to me.


And if our hero scores a crit that sends the cannibal straight from fighting to dead, that's not a deliberate act, so our hero has taken only Good acts.

But if our hero is certain to be able to kill the cannibal; whether because of level differences, or because the cannibal is temporarily incapacitated, or whatever, then killing the cannibal requires no risk. And since Good requires personal sacrifice(where risk is the sacrifice of one's own safety), it's not going to be a Good act. So if the options are literally "kill him" or "do nothing", killing him is Neutral. That's a very different scenario than when the options are "fight him" or "do nothing".

I'd disagree, but that seems to be down to personal opinions, so I'll let it go.
Let's move on: Same scenario, but the cannibal is stronger than our hero. The only hope is an Arrow of Slaying, which he isn't certain will kill him. Let's put the odds at 50/50, shall we? He only has time to loose an arrow before the innocent is killed. So his options are to try to very specifically kill the murderer - which ends in he, himself dying ~50% of the time, but is the only way to save the innocent, he can try to find a way to incapacitate the killer, at the expense of an innocent life, or he can move on.
Personally, I view it this way: Killing him is Good. Trying to incapacitate him goes strictly under the Lawful category, while walking by is just a shade under Neutral - I wouldn't make a Paladin fall for it, but I'd certainly give him a warning that he very well could if something similar happened again.

goto124
2016-01-08, 10:25 AM
the cannibal is stronger than our hero. The only hope is an Arrow of Slaying, which he isn't certain will kill him. He only has time to loose an arrow before the innocent is killed. So his options are to:

1) try to very specifically kill the murderer - which ends in he, himself dying ~50% of the time, but is the only way to save the innocent,
2) he can try to find a way to incapacitate the killer, at the expense of an innocent life,
3) or he can move on.

Now that's interesting, when outcomes of actions are uncertain. Which does come up in dice-rolling games.

Strigon
2016-01-08, 01:50 PM
Now that's interesting, when outcomes of actions are uncertain. Which does come up in dice-rolling games.

I'm genuinely confused as to what you're saying.

theNater
2016-01-09, 03:29 AM
No, but choosing between saving the life of an innocent and passing on by isn't choosing between to bad options.
Without further details, it appears to be choosing between two Neutral options. With those details, things change.


Not untrue, but irrelevant; the point I'm trying to disprove is that killing someone can never be Good. As long as there is one scenario in which it's good, my point is made.
Okay.


Now I'm confused; if the bystander is more powerful and takes the same action, it has a different rating in alignment?
Yes, because being Good entails making personal sacrifices to help others. Helping others without making a personal sacrifice is Neutral. So if Alladin gives a loaf of bread to a starving child and Louis XIV gives a loaf of bread to a starving child, only Alladin is doing Good, because only he is going hungry. Similarly, if a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter each protect a village from a marauding gang of kobolds, only the level 1 fighter is doing Good, because only she is going into danger.


Let's move on: Same scenario, but the cannibal is stronger than our hero. The only hope is an Arrow of Slaying, which he isn't certain will kill him. Let's put the odds at 50/50, shall we? He only has time to loose an arrow before the innocent is killed. So his options are to try to very specifically kill the murderer - which ends in he, himself dying ~50% of the time, but is the only way to save the innocent, he can try to find a way to incapacitate the killer, at the expense of an innocent life, or he can move on.
Personally, I view it this way: Killing him is Good. Trying to incapacitate him goes strictly under the Lawful category, while walking by is just a shade under Neutral - I wouldn't make a Paladin fall for it, but I'd certainly give him a warning that he very well could if something similar happened again.
In this scenario, releasing the arrow is Good. Note that it remains Good even if the arrow does not succeed; it's not the killing that is Good, but the attempt to stop the murder.

The attempt to incapacitate is also Good, under what I think are the reasonable assumptions that the cannibal will continue to kill other innocents if not stopped and will kill our hero upon discovering the hero is acting against him. Good characters are not obligated to help everyone, though most will try to help as many as they can. It's important to remember that there isn't just one right way to be Good; Roy, Haley, Durkon, and Elan all have different approaches to lots of problems, and all are equally Good.

Walking away is smack dab in the middle of Neutral. Neutral characters have no obligation to help anybody; the only obligation they have is to not be the cause of the harm themselves. A Paladin might fall from this, despite it not being Evil, because their code requires that they help those in need and that they punish those who harm or threaten innocents, on top of being Lawful Good. But those concerns don't apply even to other Good characters, much less Neutral ones.

Megaduck
2016-01-09, 05:33 AM
She grew up on the streets of the capital as a street urchin, but caught Morden's attention by being really gifted in hand-to-hand combat. Since the villain runs a sword fighting school for duelists, he took her in and she became one of his best students.


Neutral.

Law: 0/100
Good: 0/100
Evil: 0/100
Chaos: 0/100


The villain taught a small handful of his finest students how to be blood magic duelist/mages in exchange for their loyalty and their help overthrowing the king, claiming that it needs to be done for the "good of the kingdom". Since Morden saved her from the streets and has fostered her skills, Alice signs on without hesitation.

Big shift to good. The good of the kingdom is a primary motivation.
Overthrow societies order? Shift to chaos


Law: 0/100
Good: 25/100
Evil: 0/100
Chaos: 10/100




Alice feels she owes the king (and the kingdom in general) nothing since they left her on the streets, but she doesn't bear any ill will towards its citizens. She doesn't want anyone to grow up the way she did, so she doesn't want to destroy the kingdom so much as change its policies

Strong feelings for the good of society.
Doesn't want to destroy order, just modify it.


Law: 10/100
Good: 35/100
Evil: 0/100
Chaos: 10/100




The blood magic is a new invention that very few people know about (Morden's been keeping it very secret). It relies on manipulating other people's innate magic to do them harm, but it isn't as overtly evil as say necromancy. While no real public opinion has formed over its morality, it's clearly a very dark shade of grey.

Dark shades of gray are the path to the dark side.


Law: 10/100
Good: 35/100
Evil: 5/100
Chaos: 10/100




Morden says he's overthrowing the king for the good of the country, but he's straight up lying. He wants to cause chaos and bloodshed. Alice believes him anyways because she looks up to him as a mentor and trusts him.

Overthrowing the king? - Chaos (Already included so no change.)
Good of the country? - Still good. (Already included so no change.)
Being lied to? - No change in alignment for Alice.


Law: 10/100
Good: 35/100
Evil: 5/100
Chaos: 10/100



Alice and her colleagues infiltrate the court, poison the king subtly (so he looks like he's dying of a disease), and eventually secret him out of the capital.

Poison and long term suffering? Evil


Law: 10/100
Good: 35/100
Evil: 15/100
Chaos: 10/100



Along the way, Alice has worked with a necromancer and killed good-aligned soldiers of the kingdom, but tried to avoid killing innocents whenever necessary (by knocking out unaware guards, threatening nosy civilians to stay away rather than offing them, etc.).

Working with Necromancer - Slight Evil.
Tried to avoid hurting innocents - Strong good.


Law: 10/100
Good: 45/100
Evil: 20/100
Chaos: 10/100



When the king disappears, a civil war flares up and Morden signs on with one of the major factions. She and Morden's other students carry out sabotage and scouting roles for this faction, leaving their opponents miserable and in disarray but not committing any overtly evil acts (poisoning a fortress' well with non-lethal toxins? Yes. Murdering a soldier's family to demoralize the troops? No.).

Attempting to avoid killing. - Good
Dishonorable combat - Chaos.


Law: 10/100
Good: 50/100
Evil: 20/100
Chaos: 15/100




Much later into the war, as Morden's faction is losing, Morden gets into a violent argument with one of his allies over where they should hide the kidnapped king. Morden reveals himself as a vampire and massacres his erstwhile ally, his court, and anything living inside his ally's castle. Using the carnage he just created, Morden offers to turn his surviving students into vampires, and all except Alice accept his offer. She is appalled by Morden's real identity and willingness to kill innocents, and they fight. He leaves her for dead and bugs out, taking the king to his lair. Alice, betrayed by her mentor, sells out to the good guys in exchange for amnesty.

Rejecting power - Good.
Refusing to turn Evil - Good
Turn against mentor and comrades - Slight Chaos


Law: 10/100
Good: 60/100
Evil: 20/100
Chaos: 20/100



I was aiming for NG, but I'm really not sure now. What do you think Alice's alignment is, and why?

It's swinging between Neutral and Chaos but I think you nailed the good part. The main evil is slowly poisoning the king. Alice is consistently fighting for others, taking risks to save innocents and reduce bloodshed, and then then makes a firm stand against evil when all her comrades betray her. So yes, Neutral Good works.

Strigon
2016-01-09, 09:30 AM
Without further details, it appears to be choosing between two Neutral options. With those details, things change.


Okay.


Yes, because being Good entails making personal sacrifices to help others. Helping others without making a personal sacrifice is Neutral. So if Alladin gives a loaf of bread to a starving child and Louis XIV gives a loaf of bread to a starving child, only Alladin is doing Good, because only he is going hungry. Similarly, if a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter each protect a village from a marauding gang of kobolds, only the level 1 fighter is doing Good, because only she is going into danger.


In this scenario, releasing the arrow is Good. Note that it remains Good even if the arrow does not succeed; it's not the killing that is Good, but the attempt to stop the murder.

The attempt to incapacitate is also Good, under what I think are the reasonable assumptions that the cannibal will continue to kill other innocents if not stopped and will kill our hero upon discovering the hero is acting against him. Good characters are not obligated to help everyone, though most will try to help as many as they can. It's important to remember that there isn't just one right way to be Good; Roy, Haley, Durkon, and Elan all have different approaches to lots of problems, and all are equally Good.

Walking away is smack dab in the middle of Neutral. Neutral characters have no obligation to help anybody; the only obligation they have is to not be the cause of the harm themselves. A Paladin might fall from this, despite it not being Evil, because their code requires that they help those in need and that they punish those who harm or threaten innocents, on top of being Lawful Good. But those concerns don't apply even to other Good characters, much less Neutral ones.

It has become abundantly clear we have very different distinctions on what Good is.

denthor
2016-01-09, 01:46 PM
Megabucks did you take into your account only killing good aligned soldiers when working with the necromancer? Does that not tip the evil scale?
Straight out of the book a neutral evil will plot and follow through with plans to lay traps ambushes and kill Paladinsomeone by definition only Good aligned.

Megaduck
2016-01-09, 04:57 PM
Megabucks did you take into your account only killing good aligned soldiers when working with the necromancer? Does that not tip the evil scale?
Straight out of the book a neutral evil will plot and follow through with plans to lay traps ambushes and kill Paladinsomeone by definition only Good aligned.

I counted it. Killing enemy soldiers in wartime is a neutral act in my opinion, otherwise every soldier or adventurer ever would be considered evil. The important part is the following,


but tried to avoid killing innocents whenever necessary

So Alice is trying to avoid needless bloodshed, reduce collateral damage, and only kills when necessary. That's paladin behavior, so no ding on the evil scale with the exception of working with a Necromancer.

Strigon
2016-01-09, 07:06 PM
So Alice is trying to avoid needless bloodshed, reduce collateral damage, and only kills when necessary. That's paladin behavior, so no ding on the evil scale with the exception of working with a Necromancer.



and only kills when necessary. That's paladin behavior, so no ding on the evil scale with the exception of working with a Necromancer.




and only kills when necessary. That's paladin behavior.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

No. No it's not. Paladins aren't "just try not to be Evil; it's okay if you murder a few civilians, just try not to make it a habit", they're "you are Good all the time. When you're not good, you're on the upper side of Neutral - and normally Lawful Neutral".

Killing civilians on purpose is Evil. Period.
You could make an argument for an accidental, unforeseen death being the exception, but that's not what's being described. What's being described is someone who'd rather not kill civilians, and feels bad if they do, but in the end will do whatever it takes to further their cause.
Imagine if someone said "Oh, I try not to murder people, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do!" - are you picturing this person being Good? Because I'm not!

Now, you could argue the semantics on killing soldiers in this conflict - which isn't a war, but a rebellion. However, the fact that it's a rebellion implies it's for the people. But sometimes they kill innocent civilians for the good of the rebellion - does that make sense to you?

goto124
2016-01-09, 11:15 PM
Hmm. Let's try to imagine a situation where a civilian may have to be killed.

A civilian, by sheer luck, manages to find out a secret action the rebellion was performing. The rebellion manages to catch the civilian. Here's the thing - if set free, the civilian could report to the government about the secret action (for money, protection, whatever), endangering the entire rebellion.

There're no memory-wiping spells either! What Good action could be done that also ensures the rebellion doesn't fall flat on its face?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-10, 12:31 AM
There're no memory-wiping spells either! What Good action could be done that also ensures the rebellion doesn't fall flat on its face?

It's a bit immersion breaking - but the RAW easiest method is if a character with maxxed out Bluff just tells them that they didn't see what they saw at all! (Random citizens are unlikely to have decent Sense Motive.)

If it's a bard with glibness - they can convince them of ANYTHING! http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html

Edit: Of note - you can't actually make a potion of glibness because it's a spell with an effect of 'personal'. That's why every PC doesn't carry a few on hand in case they need to get out of a tight spot.

NRSASD
2016-01-10, 01:19 AM
@goto124: In this case, Alice would either try to find some blackmail leverage on the civilian to silence them, lock him/her up/incapacitate until the rebel action is carried out and the civilian's intel is out of date, or try to discredit the civilian by sabotaging their reputation. If all these methods failed and no other possibilities existed, she would kill the civilian, but only reluctantly and with regret.
Morden would kill the civilian. And shrug.

I'm not trying to sway opinions, just stating what she'd do.

Megaduck
2016-01-10, 01:59 AM
[video=youtube;ztVMib1T4T4]
Killing civilians on purpose is Evil. Period.
You could make an argument for an accidental, unforeseen death being the exception, but that's not what's being described. What's being described is someone who'd rather not kill civilians, and feels bad if they do, but in the end will do whatever it takes to further their cause.
Imagine if someone said "Oh, I try not to murder people, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do!" - are you picturing this person being Good? Because I'm not!


Yes, Killing Civilians is Evil, and it specifically says Alice Doesn't do this.

It states that she even tries to avoid killing enemy guards.


Now, you could argue the semantics on killing soldiers in this conflict - which isn't a war, but a rebellion. However, the fact that it's a rebellion implies it's for the people. But sometimes they kill innocent civilians for the good of the rebellion - does that make sense to you?


Which is why Alice is displaying Paladin behavior. You can argue the semantics of killing soldiers, but she tries not to do it anyway, and she's not hurting the civilians.

Now we don't know how hard she tries, a Paladin would go beyond extremes to make sure civilians aren't getting hurt, but this is in no way Evil behavior which wouldn't try at all.

Satinavian
2016-01-10, 02:14 AM
As several people have said it :

Why should working with a necromancer count as evil ? There is no guilt by association. And we are discussing alignment, not paladin codes.

theNater
2016-01-10, 03:01 AM
It has become abundantly clear we have very different distinctions on what Good is.
I'm talking about Good as described in the D&D 3.5 SRD. If you're using the definition from another edition or game, I'd be happy to talk about that instead, though you may have to provide that definition. Note that I won't talk about real-world goodness, as that's against the rules of the forum.


Hmm. Let's try to imagine a situation where a civilian may have to be killed.

A civilian, by sheer luck, manages to find out a secret action the rebellion was performing. The rebellion manages to catch the civilian. Here's the thing - if set free, the civilian could report to the government about the secret action (for money, protection, whatever), endangering the entire rebellion.

There're no memory-wiping spells either! What Good action could be done that also ensures the rebellion doesn't fall flat on its face?
There's no Good way to force someone to do something(or not do something), because Goodness cares for the dignity of sentient beings, which includes letting them make their own decisions even if you disagree with those decisions. Fortunately for Good characters, they are allowed to do Neutral things; keeping the civilian as a well-fed prisoner in a comfortable room for a few days would be acceptable to most.

Seppo87
2016-01-10, 03:27 AM
There're no memory-wiping spells either! What Good action could be done that also ensures the rebellion doesn't fall flat on its face?
"What would Robin Hood do?" is your chaotic-good answer
(in 3.5 Robin Hood is canonically your "standard" CG hero)

Now note that if the civilian decides to report the rebels, he is in fact an enemy and an ally of the evil power the rebels are trying to eradicate.
Should Robin Hood set free a servant of an evil power so that the tiniest chance of bringing justice would fade and all his CG friends died?
I don't think so.
Actually, I think he and his friends would do something really bad to the civilian.

(note: Good is not Nice. Bad is not Evil)

Satinavian
2016-01-10, 09:49 AM
In most stories or depictions, Robin Hood would not do more than inconvenience or temporarily imprison a civilian servant. Maybe rob him too. But no, he would not kill or maim him.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-01-11, 06:33 AM
In most stories or depictions, Robin Hood would not do more than inconvenience or temporarily imprison a civilian servant. Maybe rob him too. But no, he would not kill or maim him.

It's one of the cool things about chaotic good heroes: they generally find a way to achieve their goal without much bloodshed. Morality in those stories can be like a self imposed challenge, they're beating the bad guys while putting restrictions on how well they can fight back. Yes, chaotic folks can have restrictions. They might not disapprove of and even prefer dishonorable or downright weird tactics, but they're good because they don't like evil. When the writing turns a little worse the universe often helps the heroes a little (or a fair) bit. It's not feasible to just humiliate the villain and send him on his way this time, he knows too much. So a bear eats him, while he has the heroes tied up, because if they weren't they'd have to save him from the bear. What any of these folks would do if they got into a situation where they simply have no options but to let evil happen or stoop to using evil themselves is tricky, these situations don't tend to come up very often in these stories, because they force the hero to choose between the two things that define them as a character. Nobody wants to see Zorro blow up the evil headquarters with all the traitorous dons and accomplishes still inside, that's what they read Punisher for.

In a role playing game where these situations do occur I'd say it's probably acceptable for a CG character to perform evil deeds in order to prevent greater evil from happening. But the greater evil must at least partially the fault of the person they're targeting (you can shoot someone who is going to sell you out, but not fire at the evil governor while a completely random civilian is standing right in front of him) and they must not see a semi-reasonable other way to do things. Even if the CG hero has to take a big personal risk, they will choose a non-lethal solution over the easy way out.

It becomes a lot more muddled for true neutral characters with a tendency towards chaotic good, which is what most real life people who might self-identify as chaotic good probably are. But for larger than life heroes the principle of the thing matters.

As an afterthought it's probably easier to play a chaotic good character if they have a very diverse set of options. A fighter who's very good at fighting might at some point not see an option but to strike down the snitch with lethal force before it flees the scene. A batmanesque character could try following them, talking them out of their plans, tagging them with a tracking devise, catching them with a non-lethal (ranged) weapon, activating a trap they set earlier, spreading rumors about the snitch so that when he gets to the palace nobody will believe him, get his son into detention at school and putting a note in his home that the kid has been kidnapped and that he will be killed if the snitch talks etc etc. Yes, chaotic in this context often means impractical.

This character sounds pretty diverse. That she still did some pretty evil things here and there could mean two things: either she's chaotic neutral at best, or this is a pretty crapsack world where you often simply have to kill to accomplish your goals and real CG heroes as we see in other stories simply aren't feasible.

goto124
2016-01-11, 09:44 AM
When the writing turns a little worse the universe often helps the heroes a little (or a fair) bit.

What any of these folks would do if they got into a situation where they simply have no options but to let evil happen or stoop to using evil themselves is tricky, these situations don't tend to come up very often in these stories, because they force the hero to choose between the two things that define them as a character.

either she's chaotic neutral at best, or this is a pretty crapsack world where you often simply have to kill to accomplish your goals and real CG heroes as we see in other stories simply aren't feasible.

Thank you for expressing my concerns when playing Good characters. In single-author fiction, I can change the entire world so that the Good heroes' hands stay clean. In an RPG, that would mean constantly asking the GM to bend the world over its back. Whatever that entails.