Alignment Discussions

[cerin616]

Every once in a while I hop on here with a thought in my head for the premise of a character
Usually its because i cant quite place where their moral compass points.

I was hoping to get some personal feelings on this, and maybe even some ethical reasoning to justify how you would place the alignment of the following.

for lack of better words, Justice Lust.

A character who seeks an eye for an eye. Hunting those who wrong others to serve justice.
The catch here though, is that they rant motivated by some sort of higher good, or to improve society, but because in the metaphor of "an eye for an eye", they love the feeling of taking the eye.

Not to say they wantonly hurt others, but they love to bring evil to its knees and watch as it suffers.

I often like to ethically debate in my head over characters that have seriously evil flaws that they distort into a good cause.

[Starkeeper]

Sounds like a case of bad cop (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil) there, one vote for Lawful Evil.

[Segev]

Yeah, the fact they're motivated by sadism tempered by a desire to only do it according to the rules puts them in LE. They might be only Acheron-level LE, not Hell-level, but they're definitely south of Mechanus.

[Geddy2112]

Is that justice, or revenge? Justice is a societal thing, revenge is personal. Justice is impartial and impersonal. Revenge is partial and personal. Justice restores balance, revenge is retaliation. This character does not pursue these actions for society, they do it for themselves. That is revenge.

Justice is generally lawful neutral, as it can be just lawful, lawful good, or lawful evil. Revenge is generally chaotic neutral, as it can be chaotic neutral, chaotic good, or chaotic evil.

Enjoying inflicting pain or getting even points evil, unless they are objectively evil monsters, in which case getting even is good. Likewise, refusing to hurt innocent people is generally non evil.

Lust is also generally a chaotic thing. Perhaps the character is a follower of this fine lass (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Calistria). Probably a chaotic neutral character.

[BowStreetRunner]

Check out the thread "Compliance Will Be Rewarded: A Guide to Lawful Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil)" and I think you will find everything you need here. I would say the archetype is Zealot, motivation is Vengeance, method is Cruelty.

[Deadline]

Sounds like Lawful Evil to me as well.

[cerin616]

The closest possible "example" I can come up with is the sheriff from "The Devils Rejects"

Its not exactly personal the motivation, but its not necessarily society either.

So, when I think personal motivation and revenge, I think "You hurt me, I will hurt you back"
This is more "You hurt someone, I will bring that pain to you as well"
But the character loves it. It gives him a thrill to be the force that causes evil to shudder.

Its not exactly sadism as I have seen it classically defined. (enjoying the suffering of others)
The character would love the suffering of those he feels deserve to suffer.

Bad Cop archetype is flawed in that the bad cop often knows he is bad, and uses society as a shield to protect his behavior.
The character would feel that his actions are justified as it is forcing the evil to know the feeling they bring on others.

The Zealot is probably the closest allegory I have for him, probably this is the best example, in a slightly less "zealoty" form. The character wouldn't be willing to "capture a goddess and force her to fix the world".

The characters primary motivation is the satisfaction gained by acting out vengeance, but not in his own name.
If someone took his eye, it would be much less of a punishment than if someone took his neighbors eye.

I like this, the discussion is forcing me to flesh out the characters personality more. Thanks for all the input so far guys. Im feeling Lawful Evil would almost certainly be the classification at this point. I think this character is mostly reflected as "the falling paladin". I'm thinking of sorts (if anyone played warcraft 3) Arthas, in the early-mid human campaign. notable line being "Vengeance must never be a part of what we do" when he wants to make the scourge pay for his peoples suffering.

Another kicker to add in, the character would never go beyond the "Eye for an Eye"
The nature of "punishment". The lust he experiences isnt necessarily from the suffering of his victim, its from forcing them to experience what they wrought in the world.

[Hurnn]

Lawful evil for sure

[dascarletm]

It's close to LN, based on his motivations. I would say the fact he enjoys inflicting the pain (regardless if they are evil or not) pushes it towards evil. Is the enjoyment in inflicting pain based on him feeling joy in punishing evil, or the suffering evil feels?

The character as a whole I think could be LN depending on what else they are doing or if they are tweaked slightly.

[Troacctid]

If the actions are evil, the character is going to have an evil alignment, regardless of their intentions. Repentance and atonement could bring them back to neutral or good, but otherwise, this person would be evil. Since their methods and motivations are structured and rule-based, Lawful Evil seems like the best alignment, but they could be Neutral Evil if there are chaotic elements in their personality to balance it out.

I will add that torture, per FC2, is a corrupt act, and according to the Pact Primeval, can taint your soul enough to guarantee a lawful character an afterlife of torment in Baator.

[Red Fel]

I know I haven't been invoked, but when a quorum of people mention Lawful Evil in one place, I feel a strange urge to pop up and congratulate them on a job well done.

And as I've often observed, whenever someone asks "What is this character's alignment," my default answer is Lawful Evil. Because either the character is LE, or should be LE.

Either way, it's the best answer.

Also, to those who cited my guide? You guys are awesome. I'm totally going to probably consider maybe sparing some of you. Perhaps.

In all seriousness, yeah, this guy is a classic Zealot. 100% ends-justify-the-means cultist of justice, so Lawful all the way, with a passion for brutality, so Evil all the way.

Not saying I'd invite this guy to dinner, but I can respect his consistency.

[Zhentarim]

I really feel like this is an Inquisitor of Calistria from Pathfinder, probably CN since he embodies both justice and revenge.

[Deophaun]

I wouldn't classify Daredevil as Lawful Evil, and if you've seen the Netflix series, you know that he really, really does enjoy his vigilantism. That helps set up his contrast with Kingpin, who never wastes an opportunity to say that he takes no pleasure in whatever terrible thing he's doing at the moment.

Daredevil is in conflict with himself because he takes pleasure in what he does, not in spite of it. He understands that there is a selfish component to his actions, which causes him to question himself and seek moral guidance. Kingpin, meanwhile, believes that the absence of pleasure must mean that he is acting altruisticly. It allowed him to dellude himself, as he explains, that he was the good Samaritan, not the man of ill-intent who robbed and beat the traveler.

My answer is that you have the begining of a character there. What determines his alignment is not how he feels, but what he does with that feeling.

[Svata]

I wouldn't classify Daredevil as Lawful Evil, and if you've seen the Netflix series, you know that he really, really does enjoy his vigilantism. That helps set up his contrast with Kingpin, who never wastes an opportunity to say that he takes no pleasure in whatever terrible thing he's doing at the moment.

Daredevil is in conflict with himself because he takes pleasure in what he does, not in spite of it. He understands that there is a selfish component to his actions, which causes him to question himself and seek moral guidance. Kingpin, meanwhile, believes that the absence of pleasure must mean that he is acting altruisticly. It allowed him to dellude himself, as he explains, that he was the good Samaritan, not the man of ill-intent who robbed and beat the traveler.

My answer is that you have the begining of a character there. What determines his alignment is not how he feels, but what he does with that feeling.

Real life, maybe, maybe not. But things work differently in D&D 3.5 land. So say both the BoVD and BoED. Intent only matters if it is evil intent, not good, and that's that. Not saying its necessarily the right way to have made it, but thems the shakes.

[denthor]

Red Fel may be right depending on allies and who hehe will betray you could start as LN do acts of mercy only work for goods let them temper you

BEST OF LUCK WITH THAT

[Deophaun]

Real life, maybe, maybe not. But things work differently in D&D 3.5 land. So say both the BoVD and BoED. Intent only matters if it is evil intent, not good, and that's that. Not saying its necessarily the right way to have made it, but thems the shakes.
Just enjoying the act is not necessarily intent, though. If it was that clear cut, Murdock could not question his own motives. He gets enjoyment, ergo, ipso facto, res ipsa locaqator, mens rea, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, he must do it for the enjoyment. Case closed. No reason to see the priest.

But he does, because he wants to do it for the right reasons.

[cerin616]

I like the daredevil analogy, but I think there is one big difference between the characters. Daredevil is a vigilante, but he does what he does as en effort to "clean up hells kitchen" to stop kingpin from exploiting etc etc.

My character, while he would prefer for criminals to correct their ways, and would prefer his actions better society, he doesn't necessarily care.
Moreso he is focused on the retribution, to demonstrate, to evil, the pain it inflicts. If you take his neighbors eye, he will take your eye to ensure you fully understand the pain you brought on the other person. He would hope they learn from the experience, but if they don't it just means he will need to come back.

what does he do?
Punish evil to the exact amount evil hurts other.

Why does he do it?
Because he wants evil to know its nature.
to show evil the suffering it commits
To give evil a "taste of its own medicine"
possibly he lives in a society where an eye for an eye is the law because its the only "fair system"
possibly lives in a dystopian corrupt society where evil often goes unpunished (or punished little, to keep the facade of legality) and feels compelled to correct that.

Notable features
Prefers it to fix the problem, but isn't phased by the fact that it might not.
Committed to "an eye for an eye" or that his punishment cannot be more severe than the crime.
Loves what he does. Loves to see evil suffer (because in his mind it has earned the suffering)
Does not enjoy watching it suffer more than necessary. (would not enjoy seeing evil lose an eye for stealing an apple)

Probably his worst enemy is a chaotic evil masochistic "The Joker" type.
someone who would intentionally toy with his ideals. Who would laugh as his eye was taken, and ask when the other was due.

[Bohandas]

It definitely sounds like it's in the lawful evil quadrant of the alignment spectrum (NN, LN, NE, LE), possibly leaning towards NN or LN. When he dies I'd expect him to turn up in either Ribacge, Rigus, Automata, or Fortitude.

[PaucaTerrorem]

I say LN with an easy push towards E if he isn't careful. Mainly because this character is doing what he feels needs to be done to rectify the situation.

Yes he takes pleasure in what he does, but why shouldn't he? These are bad people that wouldn't be punished otherwise. To anyone that's not a goody two shoes type, what's wrong? This is your classic hard assed individual who is fed up with the current scenario. Sure, taking these scumbags to court and getting justice that way would be great. But the system is corrupt and no one else is doing anything. So what's wrong with doing it this way? Justice is served. Hell, I might make the argument that he's TN. He brings a balance. Only issue there is he won't do wrong if things are too peachy.

I just can't say he's evil because he takes pleasure in it. He's righting wrongs. Just in a very literal sense.

Now he could end up on the evil side of things if he doesn't maintain self control. But what superhero can't that be said of?

[TheYell]

Well wait. Would he take a hand for stealing an apple if that were the law, whether he enjoyed it or not? Does he impose his own measure of evil on chaotic evil foes or does he uphold a code? Because he is starting to sound a little chaotic himself. If Joker blows up a schoolbus there is a legal penalty (not much hes legally insane) but Batman doesnt mete out 32x the pain assessment for a life.

[Zhentarim]

This is a tough case, I admit.

[Bohandas]

I'm gonna say LN because he sounds similar to Cuthbert

[TheFamilarRaven]

As a point of order, we're not looking at an actual character. If you present a character with a background with choices he/she has taken with the reasons why he/she made those choices that we can take into account, THEN we can give you a better answer. Because even though it seems like the consensus is is some form of Lawful, leaning towards evil. I can shake up the pot by referencing THIS HANDY GUIDE (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook), and say that the aspect of said character ...


A character who seeks an eye for an eye. Hunting those who wrong others to serve justice.
The catch here though, is that they rant motivated by some sort of higher good, or to improve society, but because in the metaphor of "an eye for an eye", they love the feeling of taking the eye.

Not to say they wantonly hurt others, but they love to bring evil to its knees and watch as it suffers.

....fits the "Bully Killer" archetype nicely. Even though "is not motivated by a higher good" (I think that's what the OP meant), is specifically stated, it also states they specifically fight evil, and hunt down those who have wronged others.

To sum up. Alignment is unique to each character based on that character's circumstances and choices alone. You've given us butter with no bread, so to speak. You can't claim an alignment based on a few facts about a character. Like I could say "My character likes stabbing things"... Okay... does that make him/her evil? What if he/she likes stabbing evil things? Does that make him/her good? Neutral? We could argue all day, but we'd get no where.