What Alignment is this Character?

[UrsusArctos]

I thought up an interesting character concept, and was discussing it with my group. We couldn't really decide what alignment it fit into:

The character is a member of the cult of an eldritch abomination that believes this abomination will return to the world and devour it completely, leaving nothing behind. They know it will be centuries before this actually occurs and the being eats the world.

Their goal is to 'season' the world for the being to eat - would you like to eat a diseased meal, or a healthy one? They believe the 'tastiest' world will be one that is without war, disease, or conflict, and has happy individuals, so they go out into the world to attempt to make the world good. After all, there will be no world to eat if everyone destroys it.

In essence, he is doing Lawful Good acts (saving the world) for Chaotic Evil reasons (so an eldritch abomination can eat it.)

Would this character be more Chaotic Evil, or Lawful Good?

[Red Fel]

Lawful Evil. If you have to ask, either your character is Lawful Evil, or should be. Best alignment. Buy my book.

Seriously, though. Think about it. He is devoted to a cause - preparing the world for the Beast To Come - so he's probably pretty Lawful. And although he's doing Good, he's doing it for the worst possible reason - to entice and satisfy a world-devouring abomination. He's saving the puppies now so they can be eaten later, and that's terrible.

Lawful Evil, baby. I'm on a roll tonight!

[Geddy2112]

Chaotic evil. Long term planning is more common of lawful alignments, but chaotic people can have long term plans. The idea that everything is a grand deception-making everything better only to prepare a greater deception in the end, and an utter end, is flat out evil, sure.

But this person KNOWS they are sinking the ship, going down with it, and sending everything down to the depths. Evil loves sending the bus full of innocents over the cliff, but only chaotic evil would drive the thing. To condemn ones self to such a fate and such a nihilistic end of the world is pretty chaotic.

The pathfinder deity Rovagug comes to mind as such an eldritch horror...and seriously who can lawfully worship anything Lovecraft created. Then again, who can define a Lovecraftian deity on the good/evil law/chaos scale?

[Zombulian]

Lawful Evil. If you have to ask, either your character is Lawful Evil, or should be. Best alignment. Buy my book.

Seriously, though. Think about it. He is devoted to a cause - preparing the world for the Beast To Come - so he's probably pretty Lawful. And although he's doing Good, he's doing it for the worst possible reason - to entice and satisfy a world-devouring abomination. He's saving the puppies now so they can be eaten later, and that's terrible.

Lawful Evil, baby. I'm on a roll tonight!

Indeed. Although the alignment system and your DM may be at odds with this, intent is usually more important than action in situations such as this.

[ThinkMinty]

Lawful Evil. If you have to ask, either your character is Lawful Evil, or should be. Best alignment. Buy my book.

Seriously, though. Think about it. He is devoted to a cause - preparing the world for the Beast To Come - so he's probably pretty Lawful. And although he's doing Good, he's doing it for the worst possible reason - to entice and satisfy a world-devouring abomination. He's saving the puppies now so they can be eaten later, and that's terrible.

Lawful Evil, baby. I'm on a roll tonight!

I'll agree with Red Fel that it's possible for a Lawful being to be devoted to a Chaotic being or cause while still being Lawful.

The Cultist is clearly capital-E Evil. Lawful or Chaotic depends on their motive for serving the... awful thing that I'd go on some cosmic quest to vanquish. If they're drawing spells from it, Chaotic Evil is most likely, although a Neutral Evil hedonist who's planning on squeezing every last ounce of personal pleasure out of their nefarious paradise before scuttling it all into the tum-tum of some world-devouring jackass.

Unless there's mechanical reasons to do otherwise, go for Neutral Evil so you can act like whichever one you need to in the moment.

[Seto]

According to my policy of "actions before intent", in my campaign world your character would certainly not be Evil, and would probably be Neutral leaning Good. As for the L/C axis, mindless devotion and placing the cult's rules and goals before your own points to Law, but it could go any way. It depends a lot on what the character believes is the best way to "season" the world : through individual acts of kindness? or are regulations and hierarchies necessary to promote everyone's well-being?

A few words on why I disagree with the other posters here, several of whom are fellow alignment enthusiasts whose opinion I highly value.
First, there's my aforementioned policy of inherent, non-motive-dependent alignment component in actions. I hold that it is a valid interpretation of the alignment system, but admittedly I implemented it with such enthusiasm (adding and removing a few things myself) that it counts as a houserule. I'm something of a relativist in real life, but when it comes to D&D I take seriously the premise that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are objective principles and building blocks of the multiverse. It's fantasy morality. To make it work, I like to emphasize the symmetry between Good and Evil, for example. They're opposites in almost every way, but in the end, they've got to be equally powerful, and that includes the same capacity to affect souls.
Now, a difference between Good and Evil that is often brought up (I remember Red Fel doing so on several occasions), is that you can't be Good when you do Evil acts for noble reasons, but you can be Evil when you do Good acts for vile reasons. I take issue with that, to an extent. I think that, just as Evil exerts corruption upon the souls it touches, Good has a symmetrical power, and it's called grace. Doing Good, or having Good done to you, touches your soul. A Good act is never lost. It makes you see things as if you were a better person, and in doing so steers you ever so slightly towards Good. And if you do nothing but Good acts, no matter what you believe, at some point the forces of Good will claim your soul. In other words, as far as morality is concerned, intent tends to follow actions.
The symmetry is not perfect, though. Corruption is unwavering and follows almost mechanically from Evil acts, whereas grace is an opportunity that you need to seize. Metaphysically speaking : the way Evil claims your soul is by just taking it. The way Good claims your soul is by calling you and showing you its way. So, I agree that intent matters in that, in order to be truly Good, you have to do Good for its own sake, to willingly walk this path. What I'd like to point out, though, is that a few months of doing Good acts for vile reasons is 90% likely to make you legitimately want redemption.

Going back to OP's character : your character spends his life doing Good, refrains from hurting people and is not actively malevolent towards them. I have read nothing to make me believe that his cult tries to summon the abomination : they just believe that it will come eventually, and that it might as well enjoy its meal. It's not that different from believing in whatever other Armaggedon. The rub lies in his believing that this apocalypse is a good thing. That might keep him in Neutral territory and away from Good. But let him live a lifetime of Good acts, experience heartfelt gratitude of the people he helps, witness selflessness in others inspired by his own acts, and you'll notice that the things he does will start mattering more than his reasons for doing them. And when, in some defining moment, he's called to choose what defines him more, what he believes or what he's done all his life, well... His choice may surprise you.

Tl;dr : Good or Neutral going towards Good, and presumably Lawful but not enough intel to be sure.

[Randomthom]

This is a question of time & scope and perspective.
Important questions someone in-world might consider with regards to how they gauge their reaction:

Are these world-ending events due to happen soon?
If not then perhaps the good work this cult will do could e considered an acceptable "evil" because nobody alive will see the end days, merely profit from the current status-quo.

Can they be stopped and how?
Does stopping the cult = stopping the abomination? Could the abomination be stopped without the cult knowing (who then go on doing good deeds). Do these circumstances that lead to the world being eaten predicate upon the world being mostly good and is it therefore in the world's continued existence's interests to maintain a balance between good & evil?

Should they be stopped?
Many will see their good works and accept that all good things must come to an end sometime so might as well enjoy them while they are good. Others will fight to save a world, even a very broken one because it is the only one they have. If that is the case, you might've just come up with a true campaign of good vs good!

[Zaq]

Interesting concept. I think part of it comes down to the specifics of what's going to be involved with the eldritch abomination waking up. Is this character expecting to live long enough to see that happen? Is this character going to be actively contributing to this happening? Or is this character just going about their world-improving ways in the hopes of making things enjoyable for the abomination at some point in the very distant future?

If this character expects to live to see the abomination waking up and destroying the world, and especially if this character plans to actively participate in helping that happen, I can see you falling somewhere on the Evil side of the spectrum. You're doing good deeds for evil purposes, and what's more, you're actively trying to make those evil purposes come about, so you're not actually having a net good effect on the world. That's pretty clearly south of Neutral.

But if this character isn't expecting the abomination to wake up in their lifetime, or even in the lifetime of any (non-ageless) mortal currently around? If they aren't going to help it wake up by any means other than making the world better (and therefore tastier)? I think that might be a little more complex. Again, we've got good deeds done for evil reasons, but when we talk about good deeds done with evil intent, we usually think of it in the context of those good deeds enabling greater evil somewhere down the line, right? We have the corrupt official helping out the oppressed poor in the hopes of winning popular support (and solidifying his power while he continues to embezzle and order assassinations and do all kinds of other nasty things). We have the BBEG sparing the life of the hero in the hopes of tricking the hero into furthering the BBEG's plot. That sort of thing, probably in less cartoonishly obvious terms. But that isn't necessarily the case here, at least not in this scenario. If this character isn't going to actually help the abomination wake up and they just want the abomination to be happier when it does wake up, then we're not actually enabling any greater evil (unless the abomination will only wake up if the world is sufficiently happy/tasty, but that conflicts with our assumption that we aren't actively helping the abomination wake up). Honestly, I have a hard time calling that straight up Evil. You might call it Good or you might call it Neutral depending on how much weight you give to intent and how much weight you give to deed, but I don't think it's Evil if we genuinely aren't expecting the abomination to wake up anytime soon.We're making the world a better place, we're not doing it in a way that enables us to do evil things later, and we're having a net positive effect on people. They might be doing Good in order to please an Evil creature, but they aren't doing Good to strengthen or enable that Evil creature, so they're still doing Good. And Good deeds don't become Evil just because an Evil creature happens to like them, after all. If those deeds are done to strengthen the Evil creature and enable more Evil acts, that's one thing, but something doesn't become Evil just because an Evil critter approves.

So I guess that's what it comes down to for me. Is this character going to help the abomination wake up in any way, or are they just trying to make the abomination happy if/when it does wake up?

As far as Law/Chaos goes, I don't think we've got enough information to decide. But as far as Good/Evil goes, it really depends on the endgame and whether we're actually enabling the Evil world-eater or just pleasing the Evil world-eater.

[Afgncaap5]

I'd say Lawful Evil, but potentially merely Neutral Evil.

I'd say take a look at the character's day to day actions, though. If the character's honest to badness first instinct is to bend over backwards to help people before they even get to considering how it'll make it tastier for the eldritch thingy, then you might be able to lift that up to Lawful Neutral or True Neutral.

[Bohandas]

Neutral Evil or True Neutral

[Cazero]

Neutral Good. We're not in the situation where insane cultist summon the world-eating abomination because they want to be eaten first.

Here, the abomination cannot be stopped. The end of the world will happen no matter how hard anyone tries, and nothing anyone does can possibly change how, when or why it will happen. And instead of taking a nihilistic approach (nothing matters, rape and pillage) or a stupidly dellusional one (maybe if we murder enough babies it won't eat the world), the cult chose a win-win situation : making the world a better place and a better meal. There is litteraly nothing Evil about that, and the Law-Chaos axis doesn't really play a role here.

Even the reason the cult does Good acts is Good : feeling empathy for a creature so alien it doesn't realise or care about the millions of victims it will do. Why else would you try to improve the quality of it's food?

[Bohandas]

So Dysfunctional Good then.

[Caedes]

Lawful Evil. If you have to ask, either your character is Lawful Evil, or should be. Best alignment. Buy my book.

Seriously, though. Think about it. He is devoted to a cause - preparing the world for the Beast To Come - so he's probably pretty Lawful. And although he's doing Good, he's doing it for the worst possible reason - to entice and satisfy a world-devouring abomination. He's saving the puppies now so they can be eaten later, and that's terrible.

Lawful Evil, baby. I'm on a roll tonight!

The best villains hide behind good intentions...

[Troacctid]

Since the "deity" they venerate is Chaotic Evil, any clerics in the cult must be Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Evil. That's just the rules of being a cleric.

If it were me, I would probably choose to make the cult Chaotic Neutral overall. Since they're not intended as an enemy for the PCs to face off against, there's no need for them to be evil. As a side organization that's probably not crucial to the main plot, it makes more sense for them to be neutral.

[GreyBlack]

I've always been in favor of a 3 axis alignment system: Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos, and Sane vs Nutters. This is one instance where such a distinction is necessary.

The character is doing Good. Objective Good. Law vs Chaos, he's not big on, so we'll say Neutral. However, his motivation is one step removed from the South Park episode on Scientology. This character is not in his right mind, and can easily fit under Nutters in my 3 axis system. If you're insistent on the 2 axis, then Lawful Evil, but otherwise Neutral Good Crazy.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Do the actions of the cult cause or hasten the apocalypse (Cthulhu* will only eat the world/eat the world sooner if it is tasty), or are they incidental to it(Cthulhu will eat the world whatever, we just want it to be tasty when he does for some reason)?

If the former, then the cult is evil, no questions asked - they desire the end of the world (an evil goal) and deliberately act to bring about or hasten the end of the world (an evil action). This action may bring about an incidental good, but it is just that - incidental, and unequal to the suffering eventually caused by the act. It is no more righteous to help end the world by kissing a puppy than it is to fire randomly into a crowd and strike, among others, one who deserves to die, or to enrich a town by establishing an industry that will eventually poison its water supply)

If the latter, it's a little more ambiguous. I'd still lean towards evil because wanting the world to be eaten by Cthulhu is somewhat morally suspect, but there exists some scope for a neutral member.

(Note that by 3.5 RAW, as Troaccid mentioned , the cult can be any alignment within one step of Cthulhu, and thus can be neutral. However, the act of worshipping Cthulhu is itself evil by RAW, and thus presumably balanced out by other actions of behalf of the neutral cultists)

*Cthulhu substituting for nameless eldritch abomination. Also, it is assumed that said abomination is in fact of evil alignment(

[UrsusArctos]

Thank you for all the responses!

It was my idea that a couple things were true:

A) By the time the abomination actually shows up, the character in question will be dead, along with most individuals alive today that aren't immortal.

B) The cult does not believe the abomination can be stopped. That may not actually be true, but the cult thinks it is.

C) Making the world 'tastier' is more appeasement, or trying to make their death less meaningless (We might all die, but it'll be the best meal it ever had!), not attracting the abomination.

With that in mind, a lot of the comments seem to say he leans more to the Good side of things. My personal belief is that he may be evil, but he'll get along fine with a Good party.

[Bohandas]

True Neutral leaning towards good. Maybe.

[5ColouredWalker]

I've always been in favor of a 3 axis alignment system: Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos, and Sane vs Nutters. This is one instance where such a distinction is necessary.

The character is doing Good. Objective Good. Law vs Chaos, he's not big on, so we'll say Neutral. However, his motivation is one step removed from the South Park episode on Scientology. This character is not in his right mind, and can easily fit under Nutters in my 3 axis system. If you're insistent on the 2 axis, then Lawful Evil, but otherwise Neutral Good Crazy.

I like your alignment cube.

[Cazero]

The character is doing Good. Objective Good. Law vs Chaos, he's not big on, so we'll say Neutral. However, his motivation is one step removed from the South Park episode on Scientology. This character is not in his right mind, and can easily fit under Nutters in my 3 axis system. If you're insistent on the 2 axis, then Lawful Evil, but otherwise Neutral Good Crazy.

What makes the Neutral Good Nutters cult Lawful Evil (and still insane loonies) if there isn't an axis for insanity?

[Seto]

(Note that by 3.5 RAW, as Troaccid mentioned , the cult can be any alignment within one step of Cthulhu, and thus can be neutral. However, the act of worshipping Cthulhu is itself evil by RAW, and thus presumably balanced out by other actions of behalf of the neutral cultists)

*Cthulhu substituting for nameless eldritch abomination. Also, it is assumed that said abomination is in fact of evil alignment(

That's only if they are the Cleric class. (Troacctid remarked "any Clerics within the cult"). Non-Cleric worshippers or cultists of a being can be of any alignment.

[Bohandas]

What makes the Neutral Good Nutters cult Lawful Evil (and still insane loonies) if there isn't an axis for insanity?

It's too bad tbere's no "Dysfunctional Good" alignment

[GreyBlack]

What makes the Neutral Good Nutters cult Lawful Evil (and still insane loonies) if there isn't an axis for insanity?

Easy: They're devoted to their dogma and are doing things for evil reasons. An Evil person can do good, but a Good person can't do evil under standard DnD definitions (specific attention to the capitalization here). Good is always beholden towards other sentient beings; you don't intentionally destroy sentient beings if at all possible. Evil, however, has no such compunctions. However, they are beholden to a certain dogma in standard DnD: ergo Lawful Evil. Again though, I feel this is somewhat moot and we really should consider it on a 3 axis system rather than a 2 axis system.

[Cazero]

Easy: They're devoted to their dogma and are doing things for evil reasons.

I reiterate : while it's clearly insane to dedicate your life to cooking one meal for a creature that might be incapable of appreciating it, what's evil about that dogma? And more importantly, why would it stop being evil if Sane/Bananas is an axis?

[Bohandas]

They're not actually contributing to the destruction of the world as such. This is equivalent to helping Asmodeus re-paint his living room; not evil per se, despite the company.

[Dragonfan]

I think where this character stands on the Good vs Evil axis depends on how he is trying to 'season' the world. For example, you can try to rid the world of disease by killing all ill people or by curing them.

[GreyBlack]

I reiterate : while it's clearly insane to dedicate your life to cooking one meal for a creature that might be incapable of appreciating it, what's evil about that dogma? And more importantly, why would it stop being evil if Sane/Bananas is an axis?

Okay, so. There's a difference between evil and Evil in DnD. Capital E Evil is an objective force which puts your agenda above the desires of other sentient beings. Lower-case E evil is far more mundane and far less objective. However, in actively cooperating with a being which will end all sentient life without attempting to stop it, without the third axis, you fall into, at best, Neutral and, at worst, Evil. You aren't just painting Asmodeus's living room, you're painting it with the blood of orphans. Sure, maybe you didn't kill them yourself, but you're still complicit.

[Cazero]

Okay, so. There's a difference between evil and Evil in DnD. Capital E Evil is an objective force which puts your agenda above the desires of other sentient beings. Lower-case E evil is far more mundane and far less objective. However, in actively cooperating with a being which will end all sentient life without attempting to stop it, without the third axis, you fall into, at best, Neutral and, at worst, Evil. You aren't just painting Asmodeus's living room, you're painting it with the blood of orphans. Sure, maybe you didn't kill them yourself, but you're still complicit.

Bolded for emphasis. In a world with objective morality, Insanity isn't a free pass for murder.

In my opinion, wether or not the third axis exists doesn't change anything. Either what they do is active cooperation with Evil and they're Evil, or it doesn't qualify as active cooperation with Evil (because the thing itself isn't Evil at all, or more likely because it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the thing's nature, plans, behavior or thoughts) and they're Good.

[GreyBlack]

Bolded for emphasis. In a world with objective morality, Insanity isn't a free pass for murder.

In my opinion, wether or not the third axis exists doesn't change anything. Either what they do is active cooperation with Evil and they're Evil, or it doesn't qualify as active cooperation with Evil (because the thing itself isn't Evil at all, or more likely because it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the thing's nature, plans, behavior or thoughts) and they're Good.

The third axis actually does complicate things in my opinion, as it transfers the morality system in place from an objective system to one in which the individual must be capable of rational decisions to be judged as moral; slipping into Insanity creates a juxtaposition where you can believe yourself to be doing Good actions based on the information you are given, though the information is inherently flawed. Would you fault a man if he tried to save himself from a bear? What if that bear wasn't actually there, and wound up attacking a person he believed to be a bear?

[Cazero]

The third axis actually does complicate things in my opinion, as it transfers the morality system in place from an objective system to one in which the individual must be capable of rational decisions to be judged as moral; slipping into Insanity creates a juxtaposition where you can believe yourself to be doing Good actions based on the information you are given, though the information is inherently flawed. Would you fault a man if he tried to save himself from a bear? What if that bear wasn't actually there, and wound up attacking a person he believed to be a bear?

Creating a third axis actualy removes that possibility by defining Insanity as an objectively independant notion.
But I get your point.

[GreyBlack]

Creating a third axis actualy removes that possibility by defining Insanity as an objectively independant notion.
But I get your point.

Well, yes and no? An individual can still act towards Objective Good, even if for miguided reasons. And, despite their misguided reasons, this character is acting towards Objective Good (alleviation of suffering of sentient beings, helping others, etc.). However, and let's be clear here, their ends are because a squid said "I'm gonna eat you! Make things tastier for me!" The ends do not justify the means, but the means are Good. It's Good things for Crazy reasons, not Good for Evil, good for Evil, or Good for evil. Or even evil for Good. Just plain "it does not follow."

[Bohandas]

I'm leaning towards Good for this guy. Now that I think of it he seems kind of like the unambiguously good title character from Jimmy Two-Shoes, who's always helpful and friendly and nice to everyone, even including the unambiguously evil local curmudgeon Lucius Heinous who has not only explicitly dedicated his life to making people miserable but is also literally the devil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD8N5N6oifk

[Yahzi]

CE, because he accepts the deity's right to treat lesser beings as objects. In my view CE feels that strength alone is the decider of right. He's basically going along with the ride. Not NE, though, because true evil would object to anyone else raining on their parade.

A good character would try to organize against the deity, not appease it.

More interesting, then, is the anti-cultist who makes the world worse, so that the deity won't come and kill everyone. He goes around starting wars and kicking puppies, crying every time he does it, but knowing that each act pushes back the apocalypse another day. What alignment is that guy? :smallbiggrin:

[Bohandas]

I still think he potentially fits into the CG/NG archetype of the guy who wants to be friends with everyone, even with the supervillain (cf. "Jimmy Two-Shoes", "Wander Over Yonder", etc.)