Alignment Question

[Draco_Lord]

So, I have a character concept that I would like to play, this being more of a personality then a build, and I am curious what alignment people think he would be. Since personally, I want to stick him right between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, which of course sounds weird and insane, they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. But hear me out.

So this character would be raised by the Church, one dedicated to fighting evil. GM willing he'd be from a part of it that is very extreme, filled with Zealots, maybe slightly corrupt (depends on the nature of the world to be honest). Since he was young he would have two things drilled into him. That the church is good, and anything good must be followed. And two, that everything evil must be destroyed, like as quickly as possible. He'd basically be trained as a killer, meant to remove threats to the church, stamp out evil, what have you. If he believes something is evil (he would not be a Paladin, Cleric, or any Divine class, and I don't want him to have detect alignment spells.) then he would try to kill it. If anyone gets in his way he would generally see them as obstructing justice and thus they are evil and must be killed as well. The only real code he'd follow lies in a personal belief of good vs evil, created by his church, and only if he believes someone is good will he really listen to their advise, or consider their console, at least until he thinks they have proven themselves otherwise.

So, basically, I am curious what alignment think he is, cause his attitude is all chaotic evil, but only directed towards evil things. In the classic question of a Goblin Village is found with lots of baby goblins who have committed no crimes, he'd bring down the sins of the father onto them, claiming them as evil spawn. If a city guard was to stand in his way, he'd instantly view them as corrupt and try to remove them forcefully.

It does slightly relate to play, as I was thinking summoner for him, Synthesist makes the most sense from a what I want from him stand point, which is someone who turns into a monster to kill monsters, in his case he'd turn into a demon if I had my choice on which one I'd like to make him.

[digiman619]

If you search the forum, you can find a "super thread" that has handbooks for each alignment. Personally, I'd lean toward Neutral Good, as that has the "anti-evil" aspect of Good, with the "I don't care about Law or Chaos" of Neutral.

EDIT: Here's the link: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread&highlight=alignment

[Draco_Lord]

If you search the forum, you can find a "super thread" that has handbooks for each alignment. Personally, I'd lean toward Neutral Good, as that has the "anti-evil" aspect of Good, with the "I don't care about Law or Chaos" of Neutral.

Neutral Good is something I hadn't thought about. I see the Lawful Good coming from his views of his Church, their word is his law, no one else. So if the Church is follows tells him to do something, he will do it. If the King tells him to do something, he'll look to the church for advise, and then go from there.

I should also mention that he can be pretty murderous. Someone good does something he doesn't agree with, a rather good example would be trying to save a life he wants to end, protect someone who is evil, but not harmful for instance, he will kill that good person as well, now believing them to be evil, as only evil protects evil.

[digiman619]

Here's the link: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread&highlight=alignment

I replied to the tread because I don't know if the update will count as a 'new' post so you'd see it.

[LTwerewolf]

I'd peg him as LN or LE. He's not doing anything for righteousness or goodness, but simply because he's told and does so without question. Killing evil isn't necessarily a good act, else devils would be good aligned because they kill so many demons. The simple black and white point of view "if it gets in my way it's evil" is in itself evil.

[KillianHawkeye]

What you've described is a deranged sociopath who only understands violence, with a heaping side order of delusional. This screams Evil with a capital E and several exclamation points. Like Anakin at the end of Revenge of the Sith, on steroids.

You could argue that he's Lawful Evil because he follows a strict code of organized monstrosity. I would say that he is actually Chaotic Evil, because his so-called code boils down to "my way or the highway" and is in practice about a half step from total anarchy. Or you could split the difference and call him Neutral Evil.

The important thing is that, since the character is a raving lunatic, his beliefs regarding his own morality are irrelevant. His insanity precludes him from accurately and rationally judging himself or his actions (or the alignments of his many, many victims). While he incorrectly believes that he serves the cause of Good, his inability to feel compassion or mercy coupled with his crippling lack of self-control makes him basically a demon in mortal form.

I would really, really not suggest playing this character in a serious game.

[Draco_Lord]

What you've described is a deranged sociopath who only understands violence, with a heaping side order of delusional. This screams Evil with a capital E and several exclamation points. Like Anakin at the end of Revenge of the Sith, on steroids.

You could argue that he's Lawful Evil because he follows a strict code of organized monstrosity. I would say that he is actually Chaotic Evil, because his so-called code boils down to "my way or the highway" and is in practice about a half step from total anarchy. Or you could split the difference and call him Neutral Evil.

The important thing is that, since the character is a raving lunatic, his beliefs regarding his own morality are irrelevant. His insanity precludes him from accurately and rationally judging himself or his actions (or the alignments of his many, many victims). While he incorrectly believes that he serves the cause of Good, his inability to feel compassion or mercy coupled with his crippling lack of self-control makes him basically a demon in mortal form.

I would really, really not suggest playing this character in a serious game.

That is an accurate sum of him, actually. And he would work mostly because of a couple of things I intend for him, and certain conditions that the party kind of needs to fulfill. I'd like a paladin in the party/cleric/warpriest (or someone who is good and works with the church) though, kind of requires a GM who can be talked into letting that sort of thing happen without screwing over the paladin. Basically someone he believes he has to listen to, as they could control him. The whole point of him is to go from raving demon in mortal form, to actual person. I'd like to do the change through out a campaign. But you are right, I would not play this character without warning other players first, and doing my out of game best to keep him from trying to kill the other members of the party, because yeah, that is no fun.

[Inevitability]

Whenever I create a character who might not fit in the party, I ask myself the following simple question: is it likely this PC will be robbing, killing, or otherwise opposing the party within the first session? If the answer is 'yes', I play something else.

This guy is a raving lunatic fanatic to who the difference between 'heretical demonspawn' and 'random passer-by' is whether or not he likes said person. Imagine the following:

Psychopath: RAAARGH BE KILLED BABY GOBLINS.
Ridiculously reasonable PC: I really think this is not the morally right thing to do, my friend, and suggest you stop chopping off infant goblin heads. I'll have to cast a Calm Emotions spell on you so we can talk this out if you don't listen to me.
Psychopath: YOU SEEK TO OPPOSE MY HOLY QUEST? YOU ARE EVIL! STAB STAB STAB.

So yeah.

Now realize that the previous interaction was with a PC whose pacifism and patience was extreme even for Exalted characters with Vow of Peace. Imagine how he'd function in a less reasonable group (say, roughly neutral).

Psychopath: RAAAARGH BE KILLED BABY GOBLINS.
Other PC: Stop killing goblins; I don't like it and will attack you if you continue.
Psychopath: YOU SEEK TO OPPOSE MY HOLY QUEST? YOU ARE EVIL! STAB STAB STAB.

Heck, this guy wouldn't even work with other CE murderhobos.

Psychopath: RAAAARGH BE KILLED BABY GOBLINS.
Murderhobo: No! We can sell them into slavery!
Psychopath: YOU SEEK TO OPPOSE MY HOLY QUEST? YOU ARE EVIL! STAB STAB STAB.

[LTwerewolf]

There's places for a lot of characters in groups, but as soon as you get to "almost always completely unreasonable" you're not really playing a team game anymore. Think to yourself: "if the dm didn't make them, why would the other members of the party have a reason to take me along?" If you don't have a real answer within 15 seconds, the character shouldn't be played with other people, even if they are warned.

[Bohandas]

I'd say somewhere in the Lawful-Evil quadrant of the spectrum (LE, NE, LN, or TN/NN) due to the rigid unbendingness and unnecessary but predictable violence. The kind of thing he's doing is almost exactly how the Baatezu got started.

[Geddy2112]

A character's sole purpose in life is to run around and kill people they think are evil. On simply their own judgement, they go and take life because they think it is the right thing to do and they have the authority to decide such? Chaotic Evil. You could say lawful evil in the beginning as the church doctrine holds strong, but that stuff is going to go out the window once they start becoming the sole authority and doctrine becomes more of a suggestion.


And he would work mostly because of a couple of things I intend for him, and certain conditions that the party kind of needs to fulfill. I'd like a paladin in the party/cleric/warpriest (or someone who is good and works with the church) though, kind of requires a GM who can be talked into letting that sort of thing happen without screwing over the paladin. Basically someone he believes he has to listen to, as they could control him. The whole point of him is to go from raving demon in mortal form, to actual person. I'd like to do the change through out a campaign. But you are right, I would not play this character without warning other players first, and doing my out of game best to keep him from trying to kill the other members of the party, because yeah, that is no fun.

Yeah, I think this would only be acceptable if he had a very strong leader he had to respect in the party. That can be done, but it takes another player willing to play that role, and you not being a total murderhobo about it. The good cop bad cop thing works really well. I was once a neutral good gnome wizard who was best friends and partners with an evil ninja. Early in our adventuring career, we were in the same caravan and when he died as a sword pierced his heart, I was able to put my bonded object (clockwork machine) into him and have it function as a heart. He owed his life to me and would stand down if I asked, but sometimes the threat of "I am the good guy, you don't want my friend to get involved, as he thinks diplomacy is a knife in the back" kind of thing. It worked incredibly well.

However, you are asking other players to cater to this-don't be shocked if they say no and if they say yes respect them as players. Asking for a paladin to do this is double fallbait, but you address that. One thing I worry is saying "doing my best out of game" like you can't control your character. Every choice your character makes is your choice, and every time in the history of roleplaying games somebody has said "it is what my character would do" they are asking for the party to give them a free pass on being a toxic ahole. It sounds like you don't want to be that player, but seriously, don't use "in character" as an excuse to be an ahole. Even if it means not doing that action, or not playing that character.

[Draco_Lord]

Sounds like I need to dial him back a bit. Make him less kill crazy. This is what I guess happens when I take a character from a non-team focused thing to a team focused one. But luckily, he isn't going to be in a game any time soon, so I have time to work on him a bit.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Reads as very plainly lawful evil to me.

Lawful tickboxes: unyielding obeisance to an authority (his church), extremely systematic approach to life (if evil, kill. If not, do not kill. Seek evil to kill.) His lack of concern to the laws of the land he's travelling through isn't an issue in light of his utter and unquestioning devotion to his "faith." None of your description suggests a chaotic bent to me at all, as chaotic denotes a distinct distaste for structure and tradition. A chaotic evil character doesn't kill for any particular reason beyond, "I felt like it." The primary thing staying a CE's hand in that circumstance is largely an understanding of action and consequence; you'd have to be retarded to think you could just kill anybody you felt like without any reprecussions.

Evil tickboxes: killing without compunction for the most minor of transgressions, showing an utter disregard to other creatures lives. No thought, whatever, of redemption as a possibility. No charity, "if it's in the way it -must- be evil." There are -no- good qualities that you've mentioned and a solid chunk of evil. This is -unquestionably- an evil character.

Seems to me that, while certainly a tragic incarnation of it, this is very much a lawful evil character.

[gooddragon1]

He's following a strict code: Lawful. He's killing without compassion, but not with cruelty or self interest: Neutral.

Lawful Neutral imo.

See inevitables for further details.

[Gildedragon]

Depending on his Wis
Lower than 6: TN or CN
His perception of the world has been warped by the noxious enviornment he's in, he does not realize the disjoint between his ideals and actions.

Though he follows a code it is not one that has been reasoned out or focused to any rule beyond his gut.

Wis 6 or more: CE, as above, but he how has a mind that can notice that he is inconsistent as to what he means as good and evil, and that his system is self serving; and yet he continues.

Either way: not a playable character.

[gooddragon1]

Depending on his Wis
Lower than 6: TN or CN
His perception of the world has been warped by the noxious enviornment he's in, he does not realize the disjoint between his ideals and actions.

Though he follows a code it is not one that has been reasoned out or focused to any rule beyond his gut.

Wis 6 or more: CE, as above, but he how has a mind that can notice that he is inconsistent as to what he means as good and evil, and that his system is self serving; and yet he continues.

Either way: not a playable character.

I disagree that it's self serving. What does he hope to gain?

However, I agree: Not a playable character. People in your group will probably not like this sort of character.

On a side note to your sig:
"DM: It's not even animate, let alone sentient.
Player: That's ok. I'll take the penalty."
...
DM: The masonry is not moved by your performance.

[hamishspence]

He's following a strict code: Lawful. He's killing without compassion, but not with cruelty or self interest.

If you think of evil as a "tainting force" then every Evil act committed, regardless of whether the character believes their acts to be justified, will imbue them with Evil energy, until eventually they gain an Evil alignment.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it unplayable but this will be a very difficult character to play in such a way that he doesn't grate mightily on the other people at the table.

At my table I'd probably give you a reminder that I don't forbid PVP and advise that you shouldn't be surprised if one of the other PC's puts a blade to him at some point.

The important thing, IMO, to getting this to work is to have this be his attitude but let him be convinced by his allies that discretion is the better part of valor in most cases. Eager but contained is infinitely more tolerable than unswerving, slavish adherence to the pattern you've described. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if he didn't get himself killed, either by biting off more than he can chew or by being arrested, tried, and hung, in short order.

[Devils_Advocate]

An important thing to recognize is that a character can use the words "good" and "evil" to mean things other than what those words mean in the context of the alignment system. Basically, this dude has a system for sorting beings into friends and foes, and the fact that he uses the same labels that the alignment system itself uses means precisely bupkis.


He's following a strict code: Lawful. He's killing without compassion, but not with cruelty or self interest: Neutral.

Lawful Neutral imo.

See inevitables for further details.
I'm not at all convinced that he doesn't qualify as cruel, though.

I think that killing loads of other sentient beings out of hate is pretty cruel. And if you want to feel righteous about doing that, well, that's not too difficult. Just have elaborate standards of behavior that everyone you're liable to meet falls short of, and have those standards demand that you kill everyone who doesn't meet those standards. Then murder away!

Even if he does think that he's serving the interests of sentient beings as a whole, I doubt that he believes that because he has good reason to believe that. More likely he believes what he does because that's what allows him to slaughter basically everyone and think of himself as the good guy. And while there is a degree of vagueness as to which attitudes qualify as Evil-aligned, I think that searching for any reason you can think of to hurt everyone you meet falls pretty squarely into the Evil category.

Limit it to looking for any "moral" reason you can find to kill everyone you meet... and that's Lawful, sure, at least if your "morality" is actually received from an authority instead of just a thing that you personally made up. Still pretty Evil, though. To qualify as non-Evil, I think that you'd at least have to counterbalance that with sincerely considering the merits of not murdering someone.


If you think of evil as a "tainting force" then every Evil act committed, regardless of whether the character believes their acts to be justified, will imbue them with Evil energy, until eventually they gain an Evil alignment.
I'm honestly not sure whether or not you recognize the irony in this context...

"These creatures are tainted with EVIL, and must be purged from this world!!!"

Heh.

Isn't the alignment of an act the intent behind it or its expected consequences or something along those lines, and that's why animals are supposedly all Neutral? Also, if an alignment represents a creature’s general moral and personal attitudes, which is what alignment is introduced as meaning, then individual actions don't even have alignments, and saying that they do is just a category error. Nevertheless, it seems easy to see how an action can be seen as in keeping with certain attitudes and contrary to others, even if the creature taking the action doesn't hold those attitudes in most of its interactions with other beings. That seems to me like the obvious way to relate "act alignment" to character alignment.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Isn't the alignment of an act the intent behind it or its expected consequences or something along those lines, and that's why animals are supposedly all Neutral? Also, if an alignment represents a creature’s general moral and personal attitudes, which is what alignment is introduced as meaning, then individual actions don't even have alignments, and saying that they do is just a category error. Nevertheless, it seems easy to see how an action can be seen as in keeping with certain attitudes and contrary to others, even if the creature taking the action doesn't hold those attitudes in most of its interactions with other beings. That seems to me like the obvious way to relate "act alignment" to character alignment.

What's going on in the creature's mind does weigh heavily in determining how an action is aligned but it's not the sole determining factor. Immediately forseeable consequnce and results are also measured. This guy's (relatively) indiscriminate killing will push him into evil in pretty short order once he starts adventuring. His justifications for killing are false ones and -that- keeps them from being excusable as neutral, much less good.

[Kelvarius]

Seems Lawful Evil to me.

He follows a strict adherence to the church, and despite his own personal justifications to the contrary, he goes around murdering people without pity or remorse. Further, it sounds like he would have no problem at all betraying friends and allies at the slightest provocation, with the only caveat being them being a higher ranking member of the church. Sounds pretty clear to me.

But as an aside, I really like the idea of this character. It sounds like a lot of fun. However, as has been pointed out, it doesn't sound like it would be fun for the rest of the group. And D&D is a game for the entire group to enjoy. But with a few tweaks, I think it would be a blast.

Good luck!

[Nibbens]

To quote a phrase that gets thrown around my table quite a lot: "Lawful Good does not necessarily mean Lawful Nice."

Lawful good can be violent and cruel as long as it follows the rules. A LG person calling the town guard on a person who commits a crime, even when the LG person knows that the crime has unusually harsh punishments attached to it is acting perfectly within his alignment, as is the farmer who joins a posse to burn a witch plaguing the town - he may regret his actions later, or he may not - either way this is a roleplay and inner soul-searching chance for a character, rather than a strict alignment question.

The question you should really be asking is does this character concept have room to grow and evolve as a personality. Not, which alignment should he be, because the answer is "it really doesn't matter" as alignments and personalities can (and should) change and grow over the course of the campaign. Complex characters are always the most interesting, and being able to grow into them is very important.

[Gildedragon]

To quote a phrase that gets thrown around my table quite a lot: "Lawful Good does not necessarily mean Lawful Nice."

Lawful good can be violent and cruel as long as it follows the rules. A LG person calling the town guard on a person who commits a crime, even when the LG person knows that the crime has unusually harsh punishments...

Not cruel. never cruel. LG is a balancing act between GOOD and law. Cruelty is, by its own nature, Evil, no matter how lawful it is. An LG character is by nature opposed to the the idea of cruel and unusual punishment: the law ought spring from and further Good, further acts spring from and further Lawful systems.

An LG character can be a hard-donkey, gruff, unpersonable, stern, and harsh; but not cruel.
While it may be adequate for an LG character to turn a criminal in even if the punishment is beyond proportion, that behavior shouldn't be representative of how the character deals with conflicts between Law and Good. If the character always (or generally) prioritizes the laws over Good, regardless of how Evil the laws are, then the character is more of a LN type.

[ATHATH]

Hey, has anyone else noticed that Draco_Lord's name is awfully similar to Lord Draco's name?

[denthor]

Ok I have to go with the evil and lawful.

Now let us fix it so that it a playable character.


Rather than killing as first option if someone disagrees with you.

role play 1 Entering a city you notice that a man has been pick pocketed your character as written: chases and kills to retrieve perceived stolen item returns to victim after a long search. Meanwhile police are hunting you for murder of one of its citizens.


Option 1 follow thief and then ask local authorities to help in the capture for trial. Boring

option 2 talk to victim not real productive thief gets away but gives opportunity to help victim.

Option 3 follow thief and set yourself up to be pick pocketed then beat the unholy out of him with non lethal damage.



Role play 2 You come across a small band of adventures that are pursuing a magic item. guess what you want the same magic item

Your character says on I would use it properly and for good and proceeds to kill the other band.


Option 1 break bread to show you are a good guy. Proceed and beat them the race is on. See James Bond in the spy who loved me. Nobody does it better!!

Option 2 investigate see if they are in fact the same church if so help has arrived. If not the race is on.

Option 3 Team up marvel style and work alone



Role play 3 You are in an inn you get in to conversation with the local bard. She feels that there should be freedom of choice for her merry 1/2 orc band to perform. You kill them all. How dare they say that freedom outside of the church is allowed.

Option 1 leave them alone watch them perform throw copper at high speed and see if you can cause welts

Option 2 pump (You just have to decide how much pumping is needed) them for information about the local area Adventure hooks right the wrongs. Nobody does it better!!




Role play 4

You are in a cave with Ogres you kill them all

Option 1 you are whats for dinner

Option 2 kill them all I guess you can play what you want after all!!?


I am smiling with this post sue me I thought it was fun

[EvilCookie]

If he is killing things out of hate, I would label him as True Evil
Why Neutral - he does not follow the laws or code of the land, nor is he following the dogma of the church, his actions do not promote any law or change. Laws and customs are a distant second to Evil which is his defining characteristic.

If he is killing things because his church says it's what he should do, that sounds Lawful Evil

Why Lawful - while he might come into conflict with local laws or customs (killing people often does that) he follows a code for which he believes is of higher value, making him seem like a chaotic ******* to the people that meet him (and live), but objectively being Lawful

I honestly believe one of the big things in this discussion, and a major problem in dnd are objective and subjective alignments.

For a necromancer, raising hordes of the dead to work fields, mills and forges to help his town in a time of famine is a subjectively good intention, but the necromancer is still considered Evil by the alignment chart (and detect/smite spells)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I honestly believe one of the big things in this discussion, and a major problem in dnd are objective and subjective alignments.

For a necromancer, raising hordes of the dead to work fields, mills and forges to help his town in a time of famine is a subjectively good intention, but the necromancer is still considered Evil by the alignment chart (and detect/smite spells)

I don't really think of it as a problem. It's simply a question of adjusting your perspective. You have to realize that Good and Evil (note the caps) are not value judgements but cosmic forces from before the beginning of time. These forces are.... I don't want to say sapient but they do have a will of sorts. That is what's painting -all- creatures as being on the side of those cosmic forces.

If you're an evil character, you're -probably- a very unpleasant person since that's the most common way of being painted with that cosmic brush but there's an off-chance that you're a relatively decent guy, like your necromancer example, that has simply been tainted by the cosmic force you're courting directly for the magical effect you wanted.

Think of it like this: if you're in a pub and see some guys wearing futbol jersies covered in muck, they probably got that way by being futbol hooligans playing a game in the park. One of them, however, might just be a normal fan who was standing too close to the road when someone drove by at speed. Whether they did so intentionally or not, all these fellows are covered in muck because they got too close to the stuff. So it is with alignment; you work too close to it and you'll get covered in it whether you meant to or not.

Does that make it any clearer? (in spite of the tortured metaphor)

[TheBrassDuke]

We should let Red Fel answer this.

Red Fel could take a stab at it and see if this is salvageable.

Red Fel needs to comment on this thread.

[Red Fel]

We should let Red Fel answer this.

Red Fel could take a stab at it and see if this is salvageable.

Red Fel needs to comment on this thread.

Ugh... And it's my day off... Fine...


So, I have a character concept that I would like to play, this being more of a personality then a build, and I am curious what alignment people think he would be. Since personally, I want to stick him right between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, which of course sounds weird and insane, they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. But hear me out.

"[R]ight between Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil" is a place called True Neutral, where, in my opinion, fun goes to die slowly.


So this character would be raised by the Church, one dedicated to fighting evil.

Suggesting an LG upbringing.


GM willing he'd be from a part of it that is very extreme, filled with Zealots, maybe slightly corrupt (depends on the nature of the world to be honest).

How? LG Zealots are notoriously difficult to corrupt, since at the first sign of corruption or bribery they'd straight-up murder your obviously Evil face in the face.


Since he was young he would have two things drilled into him. That the church is good, and anything good must be followed. And two, that everything evil must be destroyed, like as quickly as possible. He'd basically be trained as a killer, meant to remove threats to the church, stamp out evil, what have you. If he believes something is evil (he would not be a Paladin, Cleric, or any Divine class, and I don't want him to have detect alignment spells.) then he would try to kill it.

At this point, irrespective of the Church's alignment, he's LN. That's because he's being taught absolute, unquestioning obedience to the code of another, irrespective of morality. It's not really about doing Good, it's about doing the will of the Church, which may be Good or not.


If anyone gets in his way he would generally see them as obstructing justice and thus they are evil and must be killed as well. The only real code he'd follow lies in a personal belief of good vs evil, created by his church, and only if he believes someone is good will he really listen to their advise, or consider their console, at least until he thinks they have proven themselves otherwise.

Incorrect. He's not following a "personal belief of good vs evil." He's following what the Church has told him, which is:
This is Good. See that? It's Good. Smell it, touch it, kiss it, it's Good.
Everything that's not Good is Evil. Everything.
You need to straight-up murder Evil. In its smug Evil face.
There's nothing personal about that. It's purely the invention of the Church. All he's doing is parsing this external code. ("Is this Good? Then I'll listen to it. Is it not? Time for some murder.")


So, basically, I am curious what alignment think he is, cause his attitude is all chaotic evil, but only directed towards evil things. In the classic question of a Goblin Village is found with lots of baby goblins who have committed no crimes, he'd bring down the sins of the father onto them, claiming them as evil spawn. If a city guard was to stand in his way, he'd instantly view them as corrupt and try to remove them forcefully.

A very murderous LN, edging towards LE. He's not able to be Good, he's far too murderous for that. He's not truly Evil, because he's at least trying to do Good. He is zealously Lawful. Because of his murderous tendencies, it's not too far for him to dip into Evil, but it's something he'll at least try to avoid. Except for all of the murdering, of course.

Basically, he's Inspector Javert. Find crime, doggedly pursue same. Find criminal, bring that sucker down, even if it turns out that he's the only moral man in a hideously corrupt world.


It does slightly relate to play, as I was thinking summoner for him, Synthesist makes the most sense from a what I want from him stand point, which is someone who turns into a monster to kill monsters, in his case he'd turn into a demon if I had my choice on which one I'd like to make him.

So, Javert meets Batman. Got it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ugh... And it's my day off... Fine...

Ya know, there's a reason that powerful fiends try to keep knowledge of their names from being easily known to mortal plebs.

[Draco_Lord]

How? LG Zealots are notoriously difficult to corrupt, since at the first sign of corruption or bribery they'd straight-up murder your obviously Evil face in the face.

The best comparison for the type of Corruption would be Medieval Churches. But corrupt isn't exactly the right word. Big headed, stubborn, one sided, and generally ***** about the whole thing. The kind of following the letter of the law over the rule. It does work a bit better with a more Christian kind of view, where evil is bad, good is good, and once you are one you are never the other.

But I think this thread has shown me this character would need polishing. He was originally made not for DND, and the kind of setting he was in involved more personal conflict.

[TheBrassDuke]

Ugh... And it's my day off... Fine...

And now I'm satisfied.

[Devils_Advocate]

What's going on in the creature's mind does weigh heavily in determining how an action is aligned but it's not the sole determining factor. Immediately forseeable consequnce and results are also measured. This guy's (relatively) indiscriminate killing will push him into evil in pretty short order once he starts adventuring. His justifications for killing are false ones and -that- keeps them from being excusable as neutral, much less good.
Say WHAT? Do you think that foreseeing a consequence and/or having a false justification for an action doesn't happen in a creature's mind? :smallconfused:


Lawful good can be violent and cruel as long as it follows the rules.
What the heck do you think differentiates Lawful Good characters from Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters, if you believe that?


For a necromancer, raising hordes of the dead to work fields, mills and forges to help his town in a time of famine is a subjectively good intention, but the necromancer is still considered Evil by the alignment chart (and detect/smite spells)
Except that literally no part of the alignment system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) says that someone who does that has to be Evil-aligned, or even can't be Good-aligned. So, uh, y'know... there's that.


I don't really think of it as a problem. It's simply a question of adjusting your perspective. You have to realize that Good and Evil (note the caps) are not value judgements but cosmic forces from before the beginning of time. These forces are.... I don't want to say sapient but they do have a will of sorts. That is what's painting -all- creatures as being on the side of those cosmic forces.
Other problems aside, I'm not sure how you reconcile that last sentence with, well, the full range of alignment options: "lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil."

But honestly, even though the alignment system makes no sense without it, a lot of people don't seem to quite grasp this idea, and frankly it is kind of a counterintuitive way for things things to be set up. So in hopes of clearing things up, let me spell this out:

"IS THIS LAWFUL OR CHAOTIC?" AND "IS THIS GOOD OR EVIL?" ARE FALSE DICHOTOMIES. FOR EACH CASE, IT IS EXPLICITLY POSSIBLE TO BE NEITHER. The question "Is it Good or Evil?" is totally allowed to have an answer of not "Good", not "Evil", but instead simply... "No". In fact, "No" is pretty much the default answer to the question "Is it Good or Evil"?

Neutral: It's A Thing That Something Can Be!TM


If you're an evil character, you're -probably- a very unpleasant person since that's the most common way of being painted with that cosmic brush but there's an off-chance that you're a relatively decent guy, like your necromancer example, that has simply been tainted by the cosmic force you're courting directly for the magical effect you wanted.

Think of it like this: if you're in a pub and see some guys wearing futbol jersies covered in muck, they probably got that way by being futbol hooligans playing a game in the park. One of them, however, might just be a normal fan who was standing too close to the road when someone drove by at speed. Whether they did so intentionally or not, all these fellows are covered in muck because they got too close to the stuff. So it is with alignment; you work too close to it and you'll get covered in it whether you meant to or not.

Does that make it any clearer? (in spite of the tortured metaphor)
Well... Magic infamously works however the author says it works, but just because you can have magic work any way doesn't mean that you should. Animating the dead turning the spellcaster Evil has as much basis within the alignment system itself as animating the dead turning the spellcaster Good, so why do either?

But I think that what you're getting at is not the idea that any spell can arbitrarily make characters who cast it Evil, but the surprisingly popular idea that a character can be Evil without being Evil. Well, I personally disfavor that approach to alignment, not just because it's plainly 100% pure unmitigated bull****, but because I believe that it's bad bull****. See, I don't deny that it's possible -- maybe even necessary, in some cases! -- to have good bull**** that's conducive to a fun game; I just think that what you're possibly talking about here is the opposite of that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Say WHAT? Do you think that foreseeing a consequence and/or having a false justification for an action doesn't happen in a creature's mind? :smallconfused:

Don't cut-off that "immediately." It's important.

You have to remember that there is an outside, objective force making the determination here, not the character taking the action. Whether justifications are valid or not is determined by the guidelines in BoED and BoVD which are the guidelines that the cosmic forces are making their associations.


Other problems aside, I'm not sure how you reconcile that last sentence with, well, the full range of alignment options: "lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil."

Neutrality is where you land if you're being painted by both sides of an axis in roughly equal measure or refraining from aligned action for the most part. It can be a deliberate moral or ethical choice on the part of the neutral creature but it usually isn't.

Also, it looks like you think I didn't include law and chaos as cosmic forces on the same level as good and evil. They very much are and they're putting their marks on mortal souls too.


But honestly, even though the alignment system makes no sense without it, a lot of people don't seem to quite grasp this idea, and frankly it is kind of a counterintuitive way for things things to be set up. So in hopes of clearing things up, let me spell this out:

"IS THIS LAWFUL OR CHAOTIC?" AND "IS THIS GOOD OR EVIL?" ARE FALSE DICHOTOMIES. FOR EACH CASE, IT IS EXPLICITLY POSSIBLE TO BE NEITHER. The question "Is it Good or Evil?" is totally allowed to have an answer of not "Good", not "Evil", but instead simply... "No". In fact, "No" is pretty much the default answer to the question "Is it Good or Evil"?

Neutral: It's A Thing That Something Can Be!TM

I'm well aware. However, the character in questions actions align with evil. For killing to even be justified as neutral it has to be necessary to survival. It's neither good nor evil to kill a cow to make burgers, steaks, and leather. It's neither good nor evil to kill someone that's trying to kill you. It -is- however, evil to kill something because it's different from you or because it's in your way. Those latter examples exemplify the contempt for life that is characteristic of -evil- characters.

For killing to be good requires it to be in -genuine- service of cosmic good. It has to be directed at creatures of pure evil or whose existence alone causes harm, such as evil outsiders and undead, or performed as a necessary component of stopping evil mortals from preying on innocent victims -and- preventing or punishing deserving evil-doers must be the primary motivation.



Well... Magic infamously works however the author says it works, but just because you can have magic work any way doesn't mean that you should. Animating the dead turning the spellcaster Evil has as much basis within the alignment system itself as animating the dead turning the spellcaster Good, so why do either?

In the case of -most- evil spells it's simply a matter of calling directly on cosmic evil itself and furthering is influence on the world. In the particular case of animating the dead its because undead are inherently anathema to life. Simply having enough undead creatures in the same place or for long enough blights the area.


But I think that what you're getting at is not the idea that any spell can arbitrarily make characters who cast it Evil, but the surprisingly popular idea that a character can be Evil without being Evil. Well, I personally disfavor that approach to alignment, not just because it's plainly 100% pure unmitigated bull****, but because I believe that it's bad bull****. See, I don't deny that it's possible -- maybe even necessary, in some cases! -- to have good bull**** that's conducive to a fun game; I just think that what you're possibly talking about here is the opposite of that.

IRL, evil is a subjective term applied to people you or your society determine to be bad. In D&D it's the name of a cosmic force that associates itself with bad people -and- certain magics.

You very much can be evil without being a bad guy in D&D. If you don't like it, you're free to change it in your own game but that's how it is by default. It's rarer even than spellcasters in general but it -does- happen on occasion.

If that bugs you, then how bad does it mess you up to realize that demons and devils; beings made up, in part, of cosmic evil made flesh; can have a good alignment?

[Red Fel]

But I think that what you're getting at is not the idea that any spell can arbitrarily make characters who cast it Evil, but the surprisingly popular idea that a character can be Evil without being Evil. Well, I personally disfavor that approach to alignment, not just because it's plainly 100% pure unmitigated bull****, but because I believe that it's bad bull****. See, I don't deny that it's possible -- maybe even necessary, in some cases! -- to have good bull**** that's conducive to a fun game; I just think that what you're possibly talking about here is the opposite of that.

I'd like to take on the bolded language, if I may. Remember me?

The problem with your statement, as I see it, is that you are defining Evil to have, well, only one definition. And in D&D, it does not. Evil can be:
A person who is a horrible, nasty sort who tortures children and kicks puppies
A being formed from concentrated Cosmic Evil, such as a Demon or Devil
A mindless being otherwise tainted by Evil or negative energy, such as (inexplicably) most Undead
An otherwise decent person who does horrible things and justifies them in his mind
A tyrant who creates jobs, promotes the public health and safety, creates a system of physical and mental education, and brutally executes any who oppose his reforms
And so on.

Look, I'm a big fan of nuanced alignments. And in some ways, D&D doesn't promote that; in other ways, however, it does. In this context, anybody who does Evil things eventually becomes Evil, even if that person is otherwise a positive, friendly, upstanding citizen. The end result is that D&D Evil is not monolithic; it is varied and diverse.

<shameless plug>I've written a handbook on my favorite flavor of Evil. It's worth a read. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil)</shameless plug> The gist is:


You very much can be evil without being a bad guy in D&D.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-44378-wreck-it-ralph-bad-guy-speech-EbGH.gif

[Devils_Advocate]

Could you please put animated images in spoiler boxes? I find them distracting. :/

Anyway, what does it even mean for a being to have an alignment? Let's check what the PHB has to say.

3.5E, p. 103: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment".

Oh, wait, did I say the PHB? :smallamused:

5E, p. 122: "A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes."

4E. p. 19: "A character’s alignment (or lack thereof) describes his or her moral stance".

2E, p. 46: "The character’s alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes".

... and, well, I don't want to go through every single version of D&D, but at the very beginning alignment was introduced as "what stance the character will take". What each alignment means and which alignments even exist may be subject to endless change, but the core concept of what type of thing all alignments are is something that has actually been pretty consistent throughout the various iterations of the game.

Alignment exists to represent a character's general attitudes towards other sentient beings, rules, and the like, and thus serve as an aid to roleplaying that character. You can use the labels of "lawful good", "chaotic evil", and so on for something else, but at that point you're not really using them as alignments anymore, now are you?


there is an outside, objective force making the determination here, not the character taking the action. Whether justifications are valid or not is determined by the guidelines in BoED and BoVD which are the guidelines that the cosmic forces are making their associations.
Are you serious? Those books are jokes. The Book of Vile Darkness considers the hypothetical situation of a character poisoning a town's water supply because he wrongly believes that the townsfolk are evil fiends who must be destroyed. "Is that evil?" asks the book. And it then proceeds to answer "Yes" and "Probably not" -- in the same paragraph! Speaking of poison, the Book of Exalted Deeds explains that using a poison that deals ability damage is an evil act, and immediately thereafter introduces a special variety of such poisons for good characters to use against evil creatures.

Look, in what we may regard as "the real world", the determination of whether something in a game of D&D counts as good or evil isn't made by cosmic forces, it's made by real human beings, most prominently Dungeon Masters. Having that determination depend on which of several conflicting statements one decides to apply doesn't strike me as helpful.


Also, it looks like you think I didn't include law and chaos as cosmic forces on the same level as good and evil.
... You didn't even mention them in the post I quoted. But I didn't give any indication that I think that you think that Law and Chaos work differently from Good and Evil in this regard.


For killing to even be justified as neutral it has to be necessary to survival. It's neither good nor evil to kill a cow to make burgers, steaks, and leather.
Um, that's not necessary to survival, as a general rule. My word, are you using the BoED and the BoVD as role models, here? Please, stop it. It's making me sad. :(


In the case of -most- evil spells it's simply a matter of calling directly on cosmic evil itself and furthering is influence on the world. In the particular case of animating the dead its because undead are inherently anathema to life. Simply having enough undead creatures in the same place or for long enough blights the area.
But you can have any spell do arbitrarily horrible things. You can say "Light spells are powered by destroying lantern archons! So EBIL!", and saying that is enough to make it true in your setting, and it even makes an odd sort of sense, but is it really a good idea?

"Every time you cast deathwatch, a god kill a kitten. Please, think of the kittens."


IRL, evil is a subjective term applied to people you or your society determine to be bad. In D&D it's the name of a cosmic force that associates itself with bad people -and- certain magics.

You very much can be evil without being a bad guy in D&D. If you don't like it, you're free to change it in your own game but that's how it is by default.
Evil characters are selfish at best and malevolent at worst. If you don't like it, you're free to change it in your own game but that's how it is by default.


If that bugs you, then how bad does it mess you up to realize that demons and devils; beings made up, in part, of cosmic evil made flesh; can have a good alignment?
It doesn't really make sense to say that something is made of evil, what with evil being a property rather than a substance. Furthermore, what a creature is made of is contained within its body, and thus is very much local rather than cosmic. So fiends are made of non-cosmic non-evil, it would seem.

Now, fiends may be manifestations of cosmic Evil, I'll grant, but efreet may likewise be manifestations of elemental Fire, and they aren't totally composed of fire like fire elementals. And I feel pretty okay with that. And, hey, maybe fiends as a whole better embody evil if they also contain the potential for good, because that makes their evil more of a choice?

So, in answer to your question, my jimmies are at most mildly rustled.


The problem with your statement, as I see it, is that you are defining Evil to have, well, only one definition. And in D&D, it does not.
Yeah, I know, it really has zero definitions. But I see that as a problem to be, if not corrected, then at least worked around.

Consider the case of "Neutral". In the context of the alignment system, "Neutral" is a word for things that are neither Lawful nor Chaotic, and a word for things that are neither Good nor Evil, and a word for things that are both Neutral and Neutral. This is needlessly confusing, to the point that a reader may have difficulty parsing my description of the situation. But we can mostly deal with it well enough by paying attention to context and clarifying where necessary.

It isn't appropriate to treat the different types of Neutrality as being the same. A Neutral Good character, for example, should not be regarded as being neither Good nor Evil. That really doesn't make sense, because Neutral Good characters are Good, and for something to be both Good and not Good is a contradiction, you see.

[Gildedragon]

Could you please put animated images in spoiler boxes? I find them distracting. :/

for a moment i read that as "animated mages" and wondered who'd let the wizards out of their crate.

but regarding other things:

Definitions of Alignments:
as to your contention on alignments: actions can be aligned, even when alignment is representative of general tendencies. in fact it is necessary for actions to be aligned in that case. A Lawful Good being tends towards doing Lawful and Good and Lawful-Good deeds; not always and not exclusively, but the deeds themselves do carry a moral weight.

Books of Erogenous Doilies and Valuable Domesticity:
Bo(E/V)D are pretty borked, but c'est la vie; they are the written guidelines we got. Each group is free to take them however they will, but they form a common grounds for discussion.

Outsiders:
Outsiders have no body-soul duality. them being, spiritually speaking, embodiments of cosmic Evil means they are, physically speaking, embodiments of the same.
Note that this is a difference between the inner and outer planes: the inner planes are about the building blocks of stuff; the outer planes are about the nature of souls.

Though all in all D&D doesn't have the soundest cosmology or philosophy; that wasn't its purpose. It falls on the players to figure out how to make the philosophy and cosmology work or how it ought be revised.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Anyway, what does it even mean for a being to have an alignment? Let's check what the PHB has to say.

3.5E, p. 103: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment".

Oh, wait, did I say the PHB? :smallamused:

5E, p. 122: "A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes."

4E. p. 19: "A character’s alignment (or lack thereof) describes his or her moral stance".

2E, p. 46: "The character’s alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes".


Hilighted for emphasis and struck out for irrelevance.

Alignment is -not- morals and ethics. They're reflections of one another. That's what's said there. I honestly don't care about what the rules said before or what changes may have been made since.


... and, well, I don't want to go through every single version of D&D, but at the very beginning alignment was introduced as "what stance the character will take". What each alignment means and which alignments even exist may be subject to endless change, but the core concept of what type of thing all alignments are is something that has actually been pretty consistent throughout the various iterations of the game.

A) You -did- just go through every version of D&D. There's only the 5 of them ya know.

B) What came before and after are as irrelevant as anyone's RL morals and ethics.


Alignment exists to represent a character's general attitudes towards other sentient beings, rules, and the like, and thus serve as an aid to roleplaying that character. You can use the labels of "lawful good", "chaotic evil", and so on for something else, but at that point you're not really using them as alignments anymore, now are you?

It's self evident that alignment is -far- more than just a representation of the outlooks of mortal creatures. If that's all it was then magic woudn't interact with it and outsiders wouldn't be made of it.

When you then dig into the lore, you see that alignment predates -everything- in the multiverse and the gods and outsiders sprang directly from those cosmic forces.


Are you serious? Those books are jokes. The Book of Vile Darkness considers the hypothetical situation of a character poisoning a town's water supply because he wrongly believes that the townsfolk are evil fiends who must be destroyed. "Is that evil?" asks the book. And it then proceeds to answer "Yes" and "Probably not" -- in the same paragraph! Speaking of poison, the Book of Exalted Deeds explains that using a poison that deals ability damage is an evil act, and immediately thereafter introduces a special variety of such poisons for good characters to use against evil creatures.

You can't throw out RAW just because you don't grasp it, at least not in a global sense. You can do what you want in your own games.

The BoVD example you hilighted is in the section describing the importance of context and intent. The maniac is acting of his own accord. He chose to kill those people without proper justification without any outside influence. He's also a maniac; someone prone to outbursts of unjustified violence. The good man who's been decieved, on the other hand, has been led to believe that he's doing something necessary and good. That he's wrong prevents the action from being good but his intent and the circumstances around the event prevent it from being evil when it otherwise might.

The BoED ravages are -explicitly- supernatural substances that are not poisons. You've also misrepresented the passage. It says that use of poison that deals ability damage is evil -unless- it's part of a creature's natural arsenal. Doing ability damage in itself isn't evil either. Ravages have the peculiar quality that they can -only- be used against evil. Different circumstance, different alignment.


Look, in what we may regard as "the real world", the determination of whether something in a game of D&D counts as good or evil isn't made by cosmic forces, it's made by real human beings, most prominently Dungeon Masters. Having that determination depend on which of several conflicting statements one decides to apply doesn't strike me as helpful.

It's made by DM's who are referencing the -rules- of the game. The rules only appear to be contradictory at a glance. Careful examination reveals -very- few corner cases where the rules conflict with themselves. They also leave -plenty- of room for interpretation in most things. Almost nothing is hardline set to a specific alignment but the broad guidelines aren't exactly difficult to understand. It's only in the trickier cases that you need to give it a closer look. People just focus on those relatively rare cases because there's not much to discuss when things are running smoothly.


... You didn't even mention them in the post I quoted. But I didn't give any indication that I think that you think that Law and Chaos work differently from Good and Evil in this regard.

Yes you did. You hilighted lawful neutral and chaotic neutral along with true neutral to point out what you percieved my statement to be lacking; room for neutrality in how I was parsing the text. I acknowledge that I could probably have phrased it more clearly but I did clarify in the post we're discussing now.



Um, that's not necessary to survival, as a general rule. My word, are you using the BoED and the BoVD as role models, here? Please, stop it. It's making me sad. :(

Humans are omnivores. Killing some animals for meat -is- necessary to survival in the vast majority of environments. We're also exceedingly vulnerable to environmental threats and aggressive neighbors, necessitating clothing and, sometimes, armor. Finally, domesticated animals exist for the explicit purpose of being put to use by intelligent creatures. In death they fulfill their role in the natural order; nature being a neutral force.

My own morals and ethics are no concern of yours and your feelings are no concern of mine. You can be as sad as you please and I'll thank you not to insinuate flaws in my character.


But you can have any spell do arbitrarily horrible things. You can say "Light spells are powered by destroying lantern archons! So EBIL!", and saying that is enough to make it true in your setting, and it even makes an odd sort of sense, but is it really a good idea?

You can say things like that but you're changing what's actually printed in the doing of it. Light spells are evocations and evocations call upon the basic elements of reality to produce their effects, not the outer planes or any creature of any stripe. Have you even read the lore? The fluff, as it were?


"Every time you cast deathwatch, a god kill a kitten. Please, think of the kittens."

Painfully obvious editing error is painfully obvious. This is drown-healing in a different form.



Evil characters are selfish at best and malevolent at worst. If you don't like it, you're free to change it in your own game but that's how it is by default.

Typically, yes, but corner cases are just that. I don't have to change anything for those corner cases to exist. In fact, actively choosing -not- to change what's written creates those corner cases.


It doesn't really make sense to say that something is made of evil, what with evil being a property rather than a substance. Furthermore, what a creature is made of is contained within its body, and thus is very much local rather than cosmic. So fiends are made of non-cosmic non-evil, it would seem.

Substances made of ideas are a common trope in mythology and fantasy fiction. The cosmic alignments predate -everything- and the first outsiders and gods sprang from these forces fully formed when there was nothing else. This is another one of those things you're rejecting because you don't get it, rather than because it's not what's actually in the books.


Now, fiends may be manifestations of cosmic Evil, I'll grant, but efreet may likewise be manifestations of elemental Fire, and they aren't totally composed of fire like fire elementals. And I feel pretty okay with that. And, hey, maybe fiends as a whole better embody evil if they also contain the potential for good, because that makes their evil more of a choice?

Outsiders are comprised of cosmic forces made flesh. In the case of genies, it's cosmic elemental forces. How they manifest can vary quite dramatically from one creature to the next but that's what they are, explicitly.


Yeah, I know, it really has zero definitions. But I see that as a problem to be, if not corrected, then at least worked around.

Just the opposite. IRL evil (and good) have far too many definitions. Having them cut down to relatively specific guidelines is intended to simplify matters. That people try to simplify it further to the point that any nuance is lost is the root of most problems with alignment at the table.


Consider the case of "Neutral". In the context of the alignment system, "Neutral" is a word for things that are neither Lawful nor Chaotic, and a word for things that are neither Good nor Evil, and a word for things that are both Neutral and Neutral. This is needlessly confusing, to the point that a reader may have difficulty parsing my description of the situation. But we can mostly deal with it well enough by paying attention to context and clarifying where necessary.

Case in point. You want to reject the rules and lore altogether and just use your own best judgement. The problem there is that you may disagree with one of your players and, without an official set of rules to fall back on, your only recourses are to either grind the game to a halt to argue it out to everyone's satisfaction or to simply overrule the player and risk breeding resentment.


It isn't appropriate to treat the different types of Neutrality as being the same. A Neutral Good character, for example, should not be regarded as being neither Good nor Evil. That really doesn't make sense, because Neutral Good characters are Good, and for something to be both Good and not Good is a contradiction, you see.

Where did you get this nonsense? Neutral good means neutral on the law/chaos axis and good on the good/evil axis. There's -nothing- confusing about that. There's a reason it's neutral good, not good neutral. The law/chaos axis is always listed first because there are -two- axes. You can be neutral on either axis, both, or neither. It's not that complicated.

[hamishspence]

A lot of outsiders aren't just "cosmic force" but "mortal soul + cosmic force" - those who were mortals in life - many demons and devils, some celestials.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A lot of outsiders aren't just "cosmic force" but "mortal soul + cosmic force" - those who were mortals in life - many demons and devils, some celestials.

You're right, of course, but mortal souls being mixed into the alignment-substance to create petitioners and devils doesn't mark a significant change to the point.

For completeness sake, we should probably mention the corner case of mortals become outsiders through class features as well but most, if not all, of those also deal with contacting those cosmic forces on some level.

[hamishspence]

Another way of looking at it, might be that mortal souls are these cosmic forces - all combined.

Take a fragment of Law, a fragment of Chaos, a fragment of Good, and a fragment of Evil and combine them, and you have a soul - and it's the deeds of these mortals that alter their souls - increasing the amount of some energy, decreasing the amount of others.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Another way of looking at it, might be that mortal souls are these cosmic forces - all combined.

Take a fragment of Law, a fragment of Chaos, a fragment of Good, and a fragment of Evil and combine them, and you have a soul - and it's the deeds of these mortals that alter their souls - increasing the amount of some energy, decreasing the amount of others.

That's an interesting take but I don't think I've seen anything to suggest that.

So far as I've been able to discsern, souls are made up of some blending of a divine seed, positive energy, essentia, incarnum, a bit of astral ectoplasm (not to be confused with ethereal ectoplasm), and the mind of the creature. Whether the mind springs from the blending of the other elements or something else is, as yet, unclear to me.

[Clistenes]

If you search the forum, you can find a "super thread" that has handbooks for each alignment. Personally, I'd lean toward Neutral Good, as that has the "anti-evil" aspect of Good, with the "I don't care about Law or Chaos" of Neutral.

EDIT: Here's the link: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448812-Alignment-Handbook-Super-Thread&highlight=alignment

Not Neutral Good. I would say that the character is True Neutral at best, and upon killing the baby goblins, he would be close to Neutral Evil.

I don't think alignments should be just different-colored hats. If you do exactly the same things to the goblins that they do to you, then there isn't a difference of alignment between both; you are just two evil factions trying to destroy each other.

Neutral characters should be able to do quite horrible stuff out of pragmatism or necessity. They would probably leave the baby goblins alone (and yes, I know they would probably die anyways, and killing them may be cleaner, but you need to have darkness in your heart to be able to kill the babies yourself).

Good characters, on the other hand, should try to find another solution. It would take effort, but Good requires sacrifice and effort. Not going out of your way to hurt others is Neutral. Going out of your way to help others is Good. The Good choice should always be one that tries to minimize the suffering to the greatest number of people.

And yes, I undestand that some players want to murder everything on sight and still be considered Good. If so, don't include baby goblins in your game, and pit them against Mindflayers or Vampires or Ghouls or rapist Ogres. However, if they want to have some depth in their game, well, they should make some effort to roleplay their alignments.