Help defining a character's alignment?

[KindheartedKing]

I am about to start a new playthrough I wrote, and my friends are discussing characters when the following issue arises:

What alignment is someone who comes from a culture where major crimes are ignored by the people and left to the gods for punishment, and where minor crimes are ignored by the gods (since they wouldn't have time for the little things) and left to the people for punishment. Basically, if someone were to murder a family, these people would ignore that crime because they believe the gods will punish the murderer eventually. But, on the other hand, if you were to pick someone's pocket, the people of this culture would punish you by cutting a coin slot in your hand. Their punishment system is based on "punishments fitting the crimes" but it's limited to minor felonies.

My group is evenly split between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.

Lawful because he is technically following the laws of his culture, but Chaotic because the punishments are somewhat random, and definitely cruel and unusual. I personally think he would be more lawful...

I put this up to get a general feeling of other people's opinions so that we can finalize his character.

Thanks for any input!

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I am about to start a new playthrough I wrote, and my friends are discussing characters when the following issue arises:

What alignment is someone who comes from a culture where major crimes are ignored by the people and left to the gods for punishment, and where minor crimes are ignored by the gods (since they wouldn't have time for the little things) and left to the people for punishment. Basically, if someone were to murder a family, these people would ignore that crime because they believe the gods will punish the murderer eventually. But, on the other hand, if you were to pick someone's pocket, the people of this culture would punish you by cutting a coin slot in your hand. Their punishment system is based on "punishments fitting the crimes" but it's limited to minor felonies.

My group is evenly split between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.

Lawful because he is technically following the laws of his culture, but Chaotic because the punishments are somewhat random, and definitely cruel and unusual. I personally think he would be more lawful...

I put this up to get a general feeling of other people's opinions so that we can finalize his character.

Thanks for any input!

Society doesn't determine alignment. If any, that society is chaotic. But characters living in aligned societies can have different alignments. That's why societies have conflicts.

[Corran]

Not claiming to be an expert of any kind in the matter, but my thoughts are that alignment is defined by the underlying intent of an action. So if the person inflicting or passing a very cruel punishment, is doing that simply because that is the law in his society, then that person is lawful, even if his ways could be seen as unlawful by outsiders who do not grasp or accept the way that this society works.

[Ninja_Prawn]

A person's alignment is certainly not determined by the government they live under. I mean, you wouldn't impose an alignment shift on half the American population every time the White House changes hands, would you?

If you need to know the alignment of this government (and I can't think why you would), I would suggest that 'justice' is not equal to 'government' - that is to say, there are more elements you need to take into account. Having a system of punishments where X crime always results in Y punishment is a Lawful-leaning aspect of this government, but by escalating serious crimes to the Gods for judgement, you'd have to say that the personal attitudes of the Gods have a bearing as will. Assuming a somewhat balanced pantheon, that element is probably Neutral.

What economic system is being implemented? Free-market capitalism, for example, is Chaotic. That would have a bearing as well, among other things.

[KorvinStarmast]

Try this on for size, since your character comes from a dysfunctional social system:
Your alignment is Confused Evil or Confused Neutral.

What alignment is someone who comes from a culture where major crimes are ignored by the people and left to the gods for punishment, and where minor crimes are ignored by the gods (since they wouldn't have time for the little things) and left to the people for punishment.

Basically, if someone were to murder a family, these people would ignore that crime because they believe the gods will punish the murderer eventually.
But, on the other hand, if you were to pick someone's pocket, the people of this culture would punish you by cutting a coin slot in your hand. Their punishment system is based on "punishments fitting the crimes" but it's limited to minor felonies.

Thanks for any input!
My input is that it takes a special kind of stupid to steal something (and risk that kind of mutilation as punishment) when the thief could instead, by the norms of that society, just kill them (and take their shoes) and not get punished for killing them. (Until the gods get around to it).

I am not sure who ginned up this "society" but it's not even half baked. I found a non trivial loophole in no time. What I recommend to whomever is running this game is to take a few college level classes in social systems.

[Joe the Rat]

Sounds like a good wicked set up for a highly corrupt Theocracy. Powerful clerics can ignore or smite felonies as they see fit (or likely, as benefits the High Thearch... or whichever cleric is in the neighborhood). Are the clerics not the agents of the gods? Should they not be the agents of punishment? If someone kills your husband, you can kill them in return. Neither of you has anything to fear, save the will of the gods.

The whole setup seems deeply corruptable, and generally designed towards mayhem and mob justice. This bends me more towards CE for the society.

So what does the character think? Is he an exemplar of the social values? Does he think that the laws are right and just, and uses this as his "karmic" default? Is it the scale of human involvement in justice (the little things), or the form of justice (corporal and potentially torturous) that is most important (If he goes to a land where pickpockets are simply paddocked for a day, is this fair (as it's the law) or ridiculous (as there's no blood)? That is where their alignment comes through.

[eastmabl]

Since, mechanically at least, alignment doesn't mean a lot in 5e, why not just ditch alignment?

My experience is with alignment has been "I do X because I'm lawful evil," instead of your alignment being a fluid representation of what your character does.

[KorvinStarmast]

Since, mechanically at least, alignment doesn't mean a lot in 5e, why not just ditch alignment?

That's how murderhoboes happen ... alignment is a tool. It's one of those deals where what one gets out of it depends upon what one puts into it. (True for both the DM and the players).


"I do X because I'm lawful evil,"
A very good illustration of how not to do alignment. I find your point on it's being a barometer of actions, and change, the more productive approach.

[eastmabl]

That's how murderhoboes happen ... alignment is a tool. It's one of those deals where what one gets out of it depends upon what one puts into it. (True for both the DM and the players).

Murderhobos happen because the players don't have sufficient motivation to the right thing, and are merely allowed to kill things and take their stuff.

Shackling a character to alignment is silly. "You wouldn't do that because you're lawful good" ignores a player's free will to control his PC.

Asking questions like "Would you do that, given you oath of devotion?" or "Would you really kill the evil merchant in front of his children, given the fact that you too were an orphan who was forced to grow up on the streets?" are much better ways to encourage good roleplaying.

Giving the player an idea of what his alignment means and how it can change is my preferred way of running games.

[KorvinStarmast]

Asking questions like "Would you do that, given you oath of devotion?" or "Would you really kill the evil merchant in front of his children, given the fact that you too were an orphan who was forced to grow up on the streets?" are much better ways to encourage good roleplaying.

Giving the player an idea of what his alignment means and how it can change is my preferred way of running games.
We appear to be in violent agreement. :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

"Would you really kill the evil merchant in front of his children, given the fact that you too were an orphan who was forced to grow up on the streets?"

"They must know my pain as well! I shall make every child an orphan!"

A sadistic, but RP-based solution for murderhobos :smallwink:

(I prefer knockouthobos myself, but I like creating Blue-and-Orange-Morality characters anyway)

[Gtdead]

OP you need to give more details about your character.
The society's alignment seems lawful and evil, but that doesn't say anything about your character.

If your character is capable of casual murder, no matter if murder is a casual thing in this society, he is evil.
Lawful or chaotic depends on his principles. Can't say. If he feels that the rules are just then he is probably lawful, if he thinks the rules are flexible then he is probably chaotic. If he respects the rules but don't care about them he is probably neutral.

[eastmabl]

"They must know my pain as well! I shall make every child an orphan!"

A sadistic, but RP-based solution for murderhobos :smallwink:

(I prefer knockouthobos myself, but I like creating Blue-and-Orange-Morality characters anyway)

At least it's a better reason than a Monty Haul style home invasion through the dining room of the nice goblins who are very confused about why an elf, a dwarf, a halfling and a human have interrupted their dinnner party.

[KindheartedKing]

Thanks for all of the feedback everyone!
Sorry I didn't have too much information about his character, he only gave me a brief overview.
I agree that this fictional society is highly corruptible and not very plausible, but we have decided as a group to have a playthrough where most non-game-breaking things will be indulged. :smallwink:
The alignment is also somewhat important for spells he was planning on learning that required a certain alignment.
I agree with Gtdead, the best way to determine his alignment is what his character does when given another set of rules when in a new town. If he is lawful he should follow all rules imposed on him. If he's chaotic he would ignore new laws/rules that don't coincide with his need for torturous punishment. I'll ask him what he would do when given new laws to follow. If he choses to respect them, then I think we have our answer.
...But he's definitely evil :smallbiggrin:
Thanks!

[Blas_de_Lezo]

If you want more information about government systems related to alignments, just click on my signature. :smallwink:

[KindheartedKing]

If you want more information about government systems related to alignments, just click on my signature. :smallwink:

Haha, thanks! :wink:

[lebefrei]

If he is lawful he should follow all rules imposed on him.

This is a strange and frequent misinterpretation of the rules called "Lawful Stupid." Being Lawful doesn't mean "I must do everything I am told to do!" It means that one believes a set of laws and order, for whatever purpose they follow, is more important and logical to a society than having each person follow their own whims and personal code.

A chaotic person believes in personal freedom. If they are good, they do their own good instead of the rule of the law. A chaotic evil person is a true monster. These people chafe at unnecessary rules controlling their personal freedom.

A lawful person believes that a well ordered society is best. Most don't think they should follow every law to the letter, they are not slaves to society. They are lawful because they want laws to guide them (and those alongside, above and below them.)

If a lawful person is good, they believe that through law one can do the best good (a strong justice system that punishes and protects with the common good in mind)

If one is lawful neutral, they believe that the structure of law is the highest order. These are often people that are most strict on law, and that hold it even above life. They believe in order over their own needs and those of others. Order is what everyone needs to thrive, they would claim.

A lawful evil person believes law is the best method of control, and punishing others and being protected themselves is best done under an orderly, but self-promoting system. These people rarely see themselves as evil, only as naturally self-interested. They may be the most likely to use legal loopholes for gain over any lawful other, but would want enemies punished for doing the same. They are usually opposed to wanton, uncontrolled evil. You probably know lawful evil people. You may think they're a jerk, but they hide most of it behind their desire to prosper in society.

A chaotic evil person, in contrast, is the most blatantly and obviously evil. These people do not do well in a society. They are murderous, cruel, and difficult to manage. I don't personally believe in allowing CE players. This is asking for a bad campaign. If your character would murder other players in their sleep, just because they annoy you and you thought you could get away with it, then you may be CE.

[RickAllison]

snip

Indeed. I'm running a LN monk who is a devotee of Amaunator. He doesn't care about following the laws of the land himself, as he never agreed to live under their influence, however, he fiercely enforces the law when those who are supposed to ascribe to the laws break them. He views the laws as critical to the function of the land and those who choose to live there are beholden to them.

[MBControl]

I'm going to play devil's advocate, and say that the culture has shaped the society and not the other way around.

I wouldn't say this is an evil society. Major or minor crimes are not encouraged, and both are believed to be punished in one way or another. I would lean towards Lawful or Chaotic Neutral, probably Lawful if they practice due process.

[Belac93]

That I would say is a CE, or possibly (because I like second options), CN culture. Seems like it would deteriorate really quickly though. It would just be a bunch of bandits of rival gangs punishing each other for pick-pocketing, and then not doing anything when the pick-pocket murders the guards.

[KindheartedKing]

A lawful evil person believes law is the best method of control, and punishing others and being protected themselves is best done under an orderly, but self-promoting system. These people rarely see themselves as evil, only as naturally self-interested. They may be the most likely to use legal loopholes for gain over any lawful other, but would want enemies punished for doing the same. They are usually opposed to wanton, uncontrolled evil. You probably know lawful evil people. You may think they're a jerk, but they hide most of it behind their desire to prosper in society.

Ok, this makes sense. I still believe that LE describes his character the best. I was using the hypothetical second set of rules to see if he would embrace them to protect himself while still using "legal loopholes". I agree that lawful doesn't mean blindly following the law, I was just gauging his willingness to indulge another societies' laws in order to remain in good standing/"prosper" in their society rather than begin using vigilante justice to wantonly punish people.

Either way, I still think that his character would fall under LE. Thanks for your help!