PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying What Alignment is this Character?



Jormengand
2016-05-29, 05:00 PM
I know that there are issues with the D&D alignment system, so feel free to use another alignment system if you like, but what alignment would you put this character in, given this description:

Repentant rapist, unrepentant thief - though never from anyone who would be noticeably harmed by it, or she'd have qualms about it. However, committed, and willing to sacrifice her comfort or even her life for the good of others. Liberal, open-minded, and devoted to freedom of every living being. Swore a vow of nonviolence, and keeps it. Also swore a vow to a friend that she would help them for as long as they both lived, without exception. Keeps many lovers, but each understands the terms and she loves them all dearly. Brimming with righteous indignation, she tries to keep her principles even in a world that seems determined to be against her. Wishing never to harm anyone again, she takes extreme psychological measures to control herself, but even they are not always enough.

Despising of any authority that is given without good cause and unafraid to challenge it, she fights for the rights of the downtrodden. Willing to forgive anything, she consorts with any from the greatest heroes to the most despicable villains, because she believes no-one deserves to be ill-treated, even if they have done terrible things as she has. Modest and reserved most of the time, she will stand to defend anyone in their time of need.

What alignment is she?

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-29, 05:04 PM
Assuming that she really is repentant for the raping...I kinda assume Chaotic Neutral. She values certain values (her friends, freedom, well-treatment of everyone) over the ideas of good. That is assuming ideas of punishment and such are considered 'good', as well as restraining people from doing more bad stuff. She's got hints of Chaotic Good, but without more details I would say it's just inclinations.

Jormengand
2016-05-29, 05:24 PM
That is assuming ideas of punishment and such are considered 'good',

Rather than diving into the silly D&D world of "Killing evil people is good, having sexual fetishes and doing drugs is evil, poisoning evil people is bad but using poison-equivalents that only work on evil people is good", I'd rather ask whether you consider it good.

AMFV
2016-05-29, 05:26 PM
Rather than diving into the silly D&D world of "Killing evil people is good, having sexual fetishes and doing drugs is evil, poisoning evil people is bad but using poison-equivalents that only work on evil people is good", I'd rather ask whether you consider it good.

I think that without properly defining what Good is, that's going to careen into real world morality very quickly. What I consider Good is based exclusively on Real World morality. What I consider Good in game is based on textual proofing from the game, so I can separate that from reality. Without a similar basis any separation is impossible.

I would instead ask, "Why is the character's morality important in terms of alignment?" Once you know why you need to know the character's alignment that can affect a lot more. Obviously your character isn't a Paladin, and isn't a cleric, so if your acted alignment doesn't match what's written on the sheet, it won't have huge consequences.

ExLibrisMortis
2016-05-29, 05:26 PM
This character is a 'repentant rapist', and rape is clearly Evil. However, in typical D&D (well, 3e anyway), there is absolute Evil, but also absolute Repentance. If, as Honest Tiefling says, the repentance is true (and also lasting), the past rape doesn't continue to negatively affect their alignment. This is what I would put in my universe as well - repentance is meant to be absolute, especially in a world where immortal beings have the ability to hold grudges.

I would personally not rate any not-really-causing-harm thief as Good, unless the following were true:
- The thieving is paired with immediate or well-known need - "these orphans are hungry now!" rather than "I might run into a hungry orphan someday...", when stealing from a baker's.
- Not being wealthy, or at least a lot poorer than whoever you're stealing from - having a periapt of wisdom +6 is well and good, but that's 36.000 gp, or 360.000 people fed for a day. Why are you still stealing from bakers, when you have that kind of money? Of course, since typical survival needs are measured in sp, D&D 3e characters can quickly afford to feed entire villages, so you'd soon be unable to justify stealing, just to feed orphans.
- If you do have money: inability to buy goods, or obtain them legally otherwise - slightly different from the above, in that some bakers may simply refuse to sell to you, like an orc to an elf or vice versa.
- (this may override the second and third point) Target is irredeemably Evil, particularly patrons of greed, like Mammon, or evil dragons.

Essentially, I'd accept a CG Vow of Poverty occasional-harmless-Robin Hood as true to their alignment, but not a rich CG steal-me-some-nice-clothes-he-won't-miss-it kind of thief, that'd be CN. For your character, depending on the quantity of the thieving, and the frivolity of the spending, CN or CG would be appropriate, but CN would be the most obvious choice.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-29, 05:33 PM
Rather than diving into the silly D&D world of "Killing evil people is good, having sexual fetishes and doing drugs is evil, poisoning evil people is bad but using poison-equivalents that only work on evil people is good", I'd rather ask whether you consider it good.

I think it depends on the results of her actions. If she's just chumming it up with evil people when she is not in a position of authority or respect so such does no harm...Who cares? It's a bit shaky, sure, but it might not do anything. If she is in such a position which cause people to be more sympathetic to such evil people and possibly even accept them...Whoops.

I'm also curious, given her devotion to the ideals of being treated well and to their freedom, how DOES she react to criminals? How has she reacted to criminals who have slipped back into criminal habits?

Also, would she follow her friend and help them even if that meant betraying her ideals of helping the downtrodden or restricting freedom?

Jormengand
2016-05-29, 05:38 PM
If she is in such a position which cause people to be more sympathetic to such evil people and possibly even accept them...Whoops.
She would rather people accept evil people (or people who do actions, especially herself - being a rapist probably makes it hard to make friends), even if they don't accept evil people's actions, though she'd rather people forgive each other if the transgressor is genuinely repentant.


I'm also curious, given her devotion to the ideals of being treated well and to their freedom, how DOES she react to criminals? How has she reacted to criminals who have slipped back into criminal habits?
She is a criminal. She is in criminal habits. And she realises that doesn't make her a bad person.


Also, would she follow her friend and help them even if that meant betraying her ideals of helping the downtrodden or restricting freedom?

Almost certainly no, although the decision would be a hard one.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-29, 05:44 PM
She would rather people accept evil people (or people who do actions, especially herself - being a rapist probably makes it hard to make friends), even if they don't accept evil people's actions, though she'd rather people forgive each other if the transgressor is genuinely repentant.

Is it that she accepts evil people, or people who have done evil? I mean, would she pal around with a person who took over another country and started murdering that country's people? I'm a little confused here.


She is a criminal. She is in criminal habits. And she realises that doesn't make her a bad person.

Has...She not stopped raping people? If the answer is no, I'm going to say Chaotic Evil with heavy denial. Theft is a more grey area, and I am not talking about that, unless she's stealing for her own benefit.


Almost certainly no, although the decision would be a hard one.

That does, in my mind, shift her to good/neutral territory.

Jormengand
2016-05-29, 05:48 PM
Is it that she accepts evil people, or people who have done evil? I mean, would she pal around with a person who took over another country and started murdering that country's people? I'm a little confused here.

She accepts that they're still people and still don't deserve to be mistreated. If you try to torture someone because they're evil so it's okay, she's against that. She doesn't prefer to hang out with evil people by choice, but if people are nice to her, she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't.


Has...She not stopped raping people? If the answer is no, I'm going to say Chaotic Evil with heavy denial. Theft is a more grey area, and I am not talking about that, unless she's stealing for her own benefit.

She has stopped raping people (she only did so once), and steals rarely, and mainly on impulse (but yes, mainly for her own benefit, though sometimes to make her friends happy).

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-29, 05:53 PM
So...Her crimes are essentially petty theft from those who can afford it, and her ideas do seem to be centered around or not incompatible with redemption of evil.

I'm not going to say she's exalted, but I still peg her as Chaotic Neutral, with the likely possibility of Chaotic Good with additional information. That isn't meant as a insult, just characters and morality are both hard things to describe and explore, so I doubt a few paragraphs would be sufficient for more then a quick judgement.

The fact she's unwilling to condemn evil people is what gets me. And I don't mean people who were once evil, or questionably evil, but actively evil.

Jormengand
2016-05-29, 05:55 PM
The fact she's unwilling to condemn evil people is what gets me. And I don't mean people who were once evil, or questionably evil, but actively evil.

It's mainly "I don't like what you've done, but that doesn't mean that you deserve to be hurt and I think you can become better". She may condemn what they've done, but condemning the person themself she sees as pointless and self-abnegating.

Geddy2112
2016-05-29, 07:08 PM
Chaotic good, maybe a bit closer to chaotic neutral in practice.

Mystral
2016-05-30, 02:05 AM
Maybe chaotic neutral, maybe chaotic good. Certainly not good enough to qualify for an exalted feat.

Jormengand
2016-05-30, 06:26 AM
Maybe chaotic neutral, maybe chaotic good. Certainly not good enough to qualify for an exalted feat.

See, this is why I wanted to avoid the 3.5-style silliness of "Masochists who don't drink alcohol on principle or pacifist drug-users are both exalted good and vile evil at the same time". :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2016-05-31, 01:44 PM
BoED did have that Repentant Mind Flayer with the exalted feats. And the vow of nonviolence as well, as I recall.
Sufficiently repentant ex-villains can work their way up to exalted status.

Kyberwulf
2016-05-31, 02:18 PM
She sounds like she is pretty Lawful Neutral. Like... HEAVY on the Law.. Almost Bordering Heavy on Evil side of things. It sounds like to her, everyone is accountable to Law, to some type of Rules. Enough so that EVERYONE should be weighed by their merits. It doesn't matter what laws other people are using to judge people. It's her laws that matter.

Jormengand
2016-05-31, 02:39 PM
She sounds like she is pretty Lawful Neutral. Like... HEAVY on the Law.. Almost Bordering Heavy on Evil side of things. It sounds like to her, everyone is accountable to Law, to some type of Rules. Enough so that EVERYONE should be weighed by their merits. It doesn't matter what laws other people are using to judge people. It's her laws that matter.

Huh. Her laws? You've got about the diametrically opposite view to everyone else (You're saying LN(E) as opposed to CN(G)) so I'm wondering if you could elaborate.

EDIT: As in, I'm interested, not I'm criticising you.

Kyberwulf
2016-05-31, 03:28 PM
She seems very paladin-y or monk-y... hey monkeys....

Rules exists to her. Good and evil doesn't matter to much. Everyone is accountable. She seems like she is very close to "Making" everyone follow the rules. Like a Paladin or a Monk, the rules of the land don't matter so much. Just what feels right inside. Also a strict code of what that right means.

Everyone thinks she is Chaotic. That isn't true. TO be Chaotic, no one is accountable to anything, or anyone. To be good, there has to be a certain level of respect for everyone. The people she hangs out with don't always subscribe to that.

Jormengand
2016-05-31, 03:42 PM
She seems very paladin-y or monk-y... hey monkeys....

Rules exists to her. Good and evil doesn't matter to much. Everyone is accountable. She seems like she is very close to "Making" everyone follow the rules. Like a Paladin or a Monk, the rules of the land don't matter so much. Just what feels right inside. Also a strict code of what that right means.

Everyone thinks she is Chaotic. That isn't true. TO be Chaotic, no one is accountable to anything, or anyone. To be good, there has to be a certain level of respect for everyone. The people she hangs out with don't always subscribe to that.

She isn't forcing anyone to follow any rules, though. And she isn't accountable to anyone except herself. I'm not sure I get what you mean here.

Kyberwulf
2016-05-31, 04:02 PM
Repentant rapist, unrepentant thief - though never from anyone who would be noticeably harmed by it, or she'd have qualms about it. However, committed, and willing to sacrifice her comfort or even her life for the good of others. Liberal, open-minded, and devoted to freedom of every living being. Swore a vow of nonviolence, and keeps it. Also swore a vow to a friend that she would help them for as long as they both lived, without exception. Keeps many lovers, but each understands the terms and she loves them all dearly. Brimming with righteous indignation, she tries to keep her principles even in a world that seems determined to be against her. Wishing never to harm anyone again, she takes extreme psychological measures to control herself, but even they are not always enough.

Despising of any authority that is given without good cause and unafraid to challenge it, she fights for the rights of the downtrodden. Willing to forgive anything, she consorts with any from the greatest heroes to the most despicable villains, because she believes no-one deserves to be ill-treated, even if they have done terrible things as she has. Modest and reserved most of the time, she will stand to defend anyone in their time of need.

She would rather people accept evil people (or people who do actions, especially herself - being a rapist probably makes it hard to make friends), even if they don't accept evil people's actions, though she'd rather people forgive each other if the transgressor is genuinely repentant.

She is a criminal. She is in criminal habits. And she realises that doesn't make her a bad person.

"Also, would she follow her friend and help them even if that meant betraying her ideals of helping the downtrodden or restricting freedom?"
Almost certainly no, although the decision would be a hard one.

She accepts that they're still people and still don't deserve to be mistreated. If you try to torture someone because they're evil so it's okay, she's against that. She doesn't prefer to hang out with evil people by choice, but if people are nice to her, she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't.



This almost sounds like The Punisher, or Rorschach. Without the HARDnose point on punishing without mercy. Witch would be decidedly Lawful Evil.
Evil and goodness doesn't matter so much as following rules. As long as people follow the rules, she seems okay with them.

Jormengand
2016-05-31, 05:11 PM
This almost sounds like The Punisher, or Rorschach. Without the HARDnose point on punishing without mercy. Witch would be decidedly Lawful Evil.
Evil and goodness doesn't matter so much as following rules. As long as people follow the rules, she seems okay with them.

Again, what rules? What rules does she expect any creature other than herself to follow?

Kyberwulf
2016-05-31, 05:19 PM
Again. What rules do a Paladin or a Monk have to follow. They just have them.

Jormengand
2016-05-31, 05:32 PM
Again. What rules do a Paladin or a Monk have to follow. They just have them.

Yeah, but chaotic exalted characters, paladins of freedom, hell, even paladins of slaughter have to follow codes. Barbarians, bards, and druids have to follow alignment codes just like a monk. Does having a code you follow make you lawful?

Kyberwulf
2016-05-31, 06:13 PM
Nope. doesn't make you lawful. Just means you have rules you have to follow. It seems like you already have an alignment picked out for the character. So why bother asking?

Saintsqc
2016-05-31, 06:26 PM
Law/chaos :




Sworing vows
Lawful

Liberal, open-minded, and devoted to freedom of every living being.
Chaotic

Keeps many lovers, but each understands the terms and she loves them all dearly.
Chaotic

Brimming with righteous indignation, she tries to keep her principles even in a world that seems determined to be against her.
Having principles dont make you lawful or chaotic...who doesnt have some kind of principles ?

Wishing never to harm anyone again, she takes extreme psychological measures to control herself, but even they are not always enough.
Sounds kinda lawful

What alignment is she?

Neutral or a bit on the chaotic axis

Good/evil :




unrepentant thief
not Good

However, committed, and willing to sacrifice her comfort or even her life for the good of others.
Good

Swore a vow of nonviolence, and keeps it.
Good

Also swore a vow to a friend that she would help them for as long as they both lived, without exception.
Good

Wishing never to harm anyone again, she takes extreme psychological measures to control herself
Good

she fights for the rights of the downtrodden.
Good

Willing to forgive anything, she consorts with any from the greatest heroes to the most despicable villains, because she believes no-one deserves to be ill-treated
Good

Modest and reserved most of the time, she will stand to defend anyone in their time of need.
Good



Quite obvious IMO

Overall, I would say this character is chaotic good or neutral good...


She sounds like she is pretty Lawful Neutral. Like... HEAVY on the Law..

Uh ?

Kriton
2016-05-31, 06:34 PM
Angstful-Edgy

Kyberwulf
2016-05-31, 07:14 PM
Repentant rapist- Still kind of evil.
unrepentant thief- though never from anyone who would be noticeably harmed by it, or she'd have qualms about it.- Sounds neutral
However, committed, and willing to sacrifice her comfort or even her life for the good of others- meh good
Liberal, open-minded, and devoted to freedom of every living being.- Sounds more neutral then good.
Swore a vow of nonviolence, and keeps it.- Lawful, and good.
Also swore a vow to a friend that she would help them for as long as they both lived, without exception. Lawful and neutral.. because the friend could do evil.
Keeps many lovers, but each understands the terms and she loves them all dearly.- this sounds more neutral. Not really chaotic.
Brimming with righteous indignation- This sounds more neutral then good.
she tries to keep her principles even in a world that seems determined to be against her. -Again.. lawful. neither good nor evil.
Wishing never to harm anyone again, she takes extreme psychological measures to control herself, but even they are not always enough. Again, Sounds more lawful then good or evil.

Despising of any authority that is given without good cause and unafraid to challenge it- Sounds lawful and kind of good
she fights for the rights of the downtrodden.- Sounds more neutral.
Willing to forgive anything- Sounds more neutral then either good or evil.
she consorts with any from the greatest heroes to the most despicable villains- Sounds more neutral
because she believes no-one deserves to be ill-treated, even if they have done terrible things as she has.- again sounds more Lawful then anything else.
Modest and reserved most of the time- again sounds lawful, neither good or evil.
she will stand to defend anyone in their time of need- sounds lawful. Not good, since it could be an evil person.

She would rather people accept evil people even if they don't accept evil people's actions,- Sounds evil.
though she'd rather people forgive each other if the transgressor is genuinely repentant. Sounds lawful.

She is a criminal. Not good.
She is in criminal habits. again not good.
And she realises that doesn't make her a bad person. Not good.

"Also, would she follow her friend and help them even if that meant betraying her ideals of helping the downtrodden or restricting freedom?"
Almost certainly no, although the decision would be a hard one.- Sounds lawful. and neutral.

She accepts that they're still people and still don't deserve to be mistreated.-Sounds lawful and good
If you try to torture someone because they're evil so it's okay, she's against that. Sounds Lawful, and neutral.. Just because she knows its bad doesn't make her good.
She doesn't prefer to hang out with evil people by choice- Neutral.
but if people are nice to her, she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can- Again sounds neutral
and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't- again sounds neutral.

Again, she may live on the outside of societies laws.. but she does follow her own rules. Her good/evil, is pretty neutral. Most of what is describe is mostly Meh, some of it is evil. When she is good, again.. it's mostly.. meh. A lot of what she does do that is good, is kind of selfish in desire. The only time it doesn't seem so meh, is when it's a stance on law versus chaos.

Thrudd
2016-05-31, 08:02 PM
"consorts with the most despicable villains"...how much "consorting" are we talking about? Brief alliances of necessity, or long term associations? Does this mean she tolerates villainous behavior in her presence, but simply doesn't take part in it? Or do you mean she gives everyone a chance to show who they are without judging them for past deeds, but if they show themselves to be unrepentant and villainous then she will try to stop them, reform them, or leave their company?

If she consorts with villains in long term relationships/alliances and does not try to prevent their actions, then she is neutral or chaotic neutral. If she refuses to tolerate villainous behavior and works to stop or reform the villains, then she could be chaotic good.
Good cannot consort with evil on a long term basis or turn a blind eye to villainous behavior. That is a main factor separating good from neutral.

Malifice
2016-06-01, 03:33 AM
Chaotic Neutral.

A few shades of evil, and a few shades of good, but mostly sits in the middle there.

Saintsqc
2016-06-01, 06:38 AM
Again, she may live on the outside of societies laws.. but she does follow her own rules. Her good/evil, is pretty neutral. Most of what is describe is mostly Meh, some of it is evil. When she is good, again.. it's mostly.. meh. A lot of what she does do that is good, is kind of selfish in desire. The only time it doesn't seem so meh, is when it's a stance on law versus chaos.

Are you sure you are not trying to prove your initial position (LN/LE) at all cost lol ?

Also, who doesnt live by following their own rules (IRL) ? Everyone has some kind of value/ethic/code/ideal that they live by. This is shouldnt be a defining trait between law/chaos.

Again, anyone who does good deeds does it because of selfish desire (IRL). True altruism doesnt exist. This shouldnt be a defining trait neither.

From wiki :

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

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

According to the early rulebook, lawful characters are driven to protect the interest of the group above the interest of the individual and would strive to be honest and to obey just and fair laws. Chaotic creatures and individuals embraced the individual above the group and viewed laws and honesty as unimportant.

Underlined : a description that fit the character. I dont see how lawful could fit this character given this description.



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

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

OP clearly states that the character will get out of her way to helps other, she's ready to make sacrifices. Whether she might end up helping an evil person is irrelevant (unless it makes her kill other people). She's more interrested by helping other individual and she's not judgmental toward others (wich is a non-lawful trait).


I could see this character fitting some alignments (CN, CG, NG, N) but not lawful and evil alignments (LG, LN, CE, NE, LE).

Jormengand
2016-06-01, 06:51 AM
Angstful-Edgy

Ha. Ha. Ha. Care to elaborate?


Despising of any authority that is given without good cause and unafraid to challenge it- Sounds lawful and kind of good

Wait, what? Doesn't like authority and is therefore lawful?


Or do you mean she gives everyone a chance to show who they are without judging them for past deeds, but if they show themselves to be unrepentant and villainous then she will try to stop them, reform them, or leave their company?

This one. I mean, she's a rapist, and apparently a chaotic good one in most people's perceptions, so she kinda has to forgive people's past deeds or she'd be a hypocrite.

Kriton
2016-06-01, 08:49 AM
Ha. Ha. Ha. Care to elaborate?

Sure, why not.

I think the 2 dimensional morality system dnd uses, can't describe anything interesting or playable, in any meaningful way. As far as a character's behavior is concerned, that is.

So I decided to replace it with a 2 dimensional behavioral grid. That I just pulled out of my ass(in the zoological sense, if you find the other one offensive).

One dimension is the Angstful – Sociopathic axis.

The other one is the Badass – Edgy axis.

So a character can have 1 of 9 Alignments:

Angstful – Badass: A lot of feelings, but mostly internalized. No time to talk about them when you're in the business of kicking ass and taking names.

Ordinary – Badass: Ordinary amount of feels, just kinda ends up having beaten everything in their path to a pulp.

Sociopathic – Badass: A meat grinder. This character just causes mayhem without batting an eyelid.

Angstful – Ordinary: A tormented soul, that inflicts as much destruction in the world and them selves, as the next person.

Boring – Ordinary: Meh, just the average person. MEDIOCRE!!!

Sociopathic – Ordinary: This one blend in society pretty well. But when their interests are involved they can be ruthless in pursuing them. No inherent sense of morality, but they minimize the harm they inflict upon others mostly out of self interest.

Angstful – Edgy: So many feels… Self destructive and a bit immature. Preferably wears things with spikes and or leather. That is black.

Ordinary – Edgy: This character mostly looks dangerous, but can be a pretty reasonable person. Albeit with an unusual fashion-sense.

Sociopathic – Edgy: Likes to impale small animals on their armor spikes to whatch them bleed, and maybe scare their enemies. Creates as much terror as possible.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-01, 10:31 AM
Sure people have personal Codes and "laws" the live by. By they are more guidelines. All to often people sacrifices those ideals to survive or get ahead in life. Some people don't even have those.

She doesn't though. She has rules she lives by and doesn't deviate.
"Also, would she follow her friend and help them even if that meant betraying her ideals of helping the downtrodden or restricting freedom?"
Almost certainly no, although the decision would be a hard one.

She almost sounds chaotic. Except one thing. The thing that sets Lawful apart from Chaotic. Chaotic people tend to not plan into the future. They are more immediate. This character is the complete opposite of that. She has made vows, promises. These things are very important to her. Now I know people will say, but Chaotic people can make vows too. I mean technically they can. I really doubt they will keep them though. If you where playing the character right.

She isn't good either. Or evil, per se. Like I said, neutral. She does good, that doesn't MAKE her good. She associates with evil and tolerates them FAR to much for her to be good. To forgive is good, to be Forgiving of everything is enabling. Which isn't good.

Now I know she does stuff that is all over the spectrum of the alignment system. Just because she deviates from time to time, doesn't mean she is That alignment. Everyone deviates. She isn't a paladin though, it doesn't matter so much if she breaks oaths and stuff that would make a Paladin fall. None of her abilities are tied intrinsically to her alignment.

Thrudd
2016-06-01, 10:36 AM
This one. I mean, she's a rapist, and apparently a chaotic good one in most people's perceptions, so she kinda has to forgive people's past deeds or she'd be a hypocrite.

You said she is repentant of her past misdeed (singular) and presently goes to great lengths to avoid hurting anyone ever again. So she might have been CN or even CE before, but has now shifted to Good, so long as she persists in this behavior.
She is clearly Chaotic because of the style of her thievery and no respect for any authority.

Saintsqc
2016-06-01, 11:04 AM
The thing that sets Lawful apart from Chaotic. Chaotic people tend to not plan into the future.

Chaotic character vs vows : I really doubt they will keep them though. If you where playing the character right.

To forgive is good, to be Forgiving of everything is enabling. Which isn't good.



You're making up your own definition of law/chaos and good/evil. So I guess, if we use your definitions, you are right. But if we are making up definitions, why not use Kritton's system ? It seems much more precise than the dnd's alignment system.

If we use dnd's definition though, you are wrong.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-01, 11:14 AM
oh, Nice to see you didn't put the whole thing in bold. Despising of any authority that is given without good cause and unafraid to challenge it Just because you despise something, and are unafraid to challenge something, doesn't make you chaotic.

Those two things don't automatically make her good. One is just being sorry for something you did. You still have the stain of Rape on you. Just because you repent doesn't make you good. I would say that makes you neutral. Going to great lengths to not hurt anyone isn't a good thing either. It is pretty neutral. If you see something that requires you to hurt someone for the greater good.

Themrys
2016-06-01, 11:20 AM
She has stopped raping people (she only did so once), and steals rarely, and mainly on impulse (but yes, mainly for her own benefit, though sometimes to make her friends happy).


Why did she rape once? Most rapists are repeat offenders, because plain and simple, one needs a certain (evil) mindset to do such a thing, and unlike with theft, there are no outside circumstances that could lead to an otherwise decent person deciding to rape. Was it one of those contrived situations that only happen in fantasy worlds? Like, she had sex with someone who unbeknownst to her had been given a love potion by a third party?


My verdict: Chaotic evil. Not as evil as others, but I wouldn't consider stealing for her own benefit neutral.

So, chaotic evil with a potential to become chaotic neutral.

dude123nice
2016-06-01, 11:20 AM
There are honestly just to many character traits rolled into one to seem like a believable character. This sounds like you made a character that's just to complex. But to give my two cents regarding the question you asked: if she really is trying to atone for her mistakes then I would say that it's not her current alignment that matters, but the journey of going from evil to neutral/good.

Jormengand
2016-06-01, 11:26 AM
Why did she rape once?

Partly overwhelmed by temptation and lust, but mainly not feeling real in her own mind. It felt to her like playing a video game would to you or me: it doesn't really matter, after all, if you decide to go on a killing spree in a video game, and it says very little about your alignment (I think even Lawful Exalted people would probably do "Evil" things in a world where there were no consequences for them and it didn't make any difference except to you), so it didn't feel as though raping someone would really matter. Of course, it did, she realised that when she was in a better state of mind, and felt absolutely awful about what she'd done - as would most people if they'd raped someone in a fit of dissociative pique.


There are honestly just to many character traits rolled into one to seem like a believable character. This sounds like you made a character that's just to complex.

Oh? What makes you say that?

Saintsqc
2016-06-01, 11:37 AM
Going to great lengths to not hurt anyone isn't a good thing either.

My god, what kind of deeds would be defined "good" in your opinion ?




My verdict: Chaotic evil. Not as evil as others, but I wouldn't consider stealing for her own benefit neutral.

So, chaotic evil with a potential to become chaotic neutral.

Chaotic evil :

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Doesnt sound like the character at all ?


Chaotic good :

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
It seems like it fits the character quite well, no ?

dude123nice
2016-06-01, 12:51 PM
Oh? What makes you say that?

Too many contradictory good and bad traits rolled up into one character. If someone is an unrepentant thief it means that they have very little respect for other people's property, but despite this she is supposed to have an enormous respect for their life? This just doesn't add up. I'm not saying that a thief wouldn't have qualms against killing, but I don't think they would be a super pacifist either. Your narration also brings up stuff that doesn't refer to just your character, but to other people as well. How do you know that all her other partners are OK with her polygamy? Is this what she thinks? Do you know some way for sure? Is it part of her backstory and you just decided that it would be so? Because that would be a very ideal and unrealistic situation for her. Realistically, if she has as many lovers as you claim there is a very good chance that at least some of them wouldn't be OK, no matter what they claimed. To me this just seems like the description of a repentant Mary Sue. Or a self righteous hypocrite who is fixated on keeping up a set of moral standards because she thinks it will help her repent, not because she really is becoming a better person.

GrayDeath
2016-06-01, 01:37 PM
Hmmm........Magenta.

Straybow
2016-06-01, 01:38 PM
Doing what is right in your own eyes, based on feelings = chaotic evil, more or less. If "lesser degree of evil" is what qualifies for "neutral" then it could be CN.

Both chaos and evil are refutation of authority, in separate dimensions of justice and morals. The law/chaos axis isn't about legalism, it is about justice.

Deciding not to hurt other people is not the same as being good. "Nice" is not equivalent to "good." If you are good, you must oppose evil. "Nice" is making yourself feel good, even if through some measure of selflessness. There is goodness to it, but it is incompletely good. That incompleteness could be assigned a place as "neutral," even though it isn't very neutral.

Similarly, "mean" isn't equivalent to "evil." "Mean" is just making yourself feel good at others' expense. It could be "neutral" in the sense that it isn't really dedicated to evil.

If you kinda oppose evil, but only if you don't have to hurt anybody because "everybody deserves respect," that isn't really neutral. If you don't oppose evil, you are evil. The idea of neutral ground in morals is a slippery slope, in which you end up opposing evil only when it suits you to do so. Maybe you have opposed evil when it wasn't convenient, or even cost you something of value. But that was on a whim, and today you decide not to oppose evil because the evil you see isn't really hurting anyone at the moment (as far as you can tell).

Opposing evil is also a measure of justice. Justice is not merely trying to achieve an outcome. Opposing evil through vigilante action isn't justice. That's chaos. Opposing evil only when you feel like it is also chaos. The standard of justice exists to serve the good. If law exists for some other reason, it isn't good. It can even be chaos, if it bars actions that are just and good.

It isn't confusing until you start adding in "gods" who are something other than LG. If a god establishes a standard of conduct, it is in essence a law, so you have "laws" of chaos, and "laws" of evil.

Jormengand
2016-06-01, 02:04 PM
Too many contradictory good and bad traits rolled up into one character. If someone is an unrepentant thief it means that they have very little respect for other people's property, but despite this she is supposed to have an enormous respect for their life?
Uhm, yes?


This just doesn't add up. I'm not saying that a thief wouldn't have qualms against killing, but I don't think they would be a super pacifist either.
They could be, easily.


Your narration also brings up stuff that doesn't refer to just your character, but to other people as well. How do you know that all her other partners are OK with her polygamy? Is this what she thinks? Do you know some way for sure? Is it part of her backstory and you just decided that it would be so? Because that would be a very ideal and unrealistic situation for her. Realistically, if she has as many lovers as you claim there is a very good chance that at least some of them wouldn't be OK, no matter what they claimed.
Polyamourous relationships where everyone is okay with it are not exactly uncommon, and I know this because I'm in one, unless my partners have been lying gratuitously about being okay with it (bearing in mind most of them have more than one lover too. Yeah, my relationship status is a mess).


To me this just seems like the description of a repentant Mary Sue. Or a self righteous hypocrite who is fixated on keeping up a set of moral standards because she thinks it will help her repent, not because she really is becoming a better person.

Maybe. Doesn't that just mean that she's wrong, not that she can't exist?

goto124
2016-06-02, 02:01 AM
How do you know that all her other partners are OK with her polygamy? Is this what she thinks? Do you know some way for sure? Is it part of her backstory and you just decided that it would be so? Because that would be a very ideal and unrealistic situation for her. Realistically, if she has as many lovers as you claim there is a very good chance that at least some of them wouldn't be OK, no matter what they claimed.

Might want to read up on RL polyamory. This should have no bearing on her alignment anyway.

Back on topic, I put her as somewhere between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good. You could play up her trying to redeem herself after her rape, and at some point she could shift from Neutral to Good.

Unless you think the GM doesn't take well to CNs, then CG :smalltongue: But such a GM probably wouldn't accept an ex-rapist anyway :smallbiggrin:

Saintsqc
2016-06-02, 08:44 AM
Doing what is right in your own eyes, based on feelings = chaotic evil, more or less.
Nope, see the definition of chaotic evil. It says nothing about « doing whats right in your eyes based on feelings ». It’s more about destruction and violence.

The law/chaos axis isn't about legalism, it is about justice.
Nope, see the definition of law/chaos axis. Justice might be included in the definition of this concept, but it’s not the defining trait.

If you are good, you must oppose evil.
If you don't oppose evil, you are evil.
Following your logic, the vast majority of population is evil. Only a % of the police force and the army are good-aligned ? Doctors and nurses, who dedicated their whole life to the health of others are….evil ? Lol, what ?



So, following your logic, if someone :
Do what is right in is own eyes, based on feelings -> chaotic evil
Doesnt oppose evil -> evil

That would mean the majority of our societies are composed by evil people (and a lot of chaotic evil people). It doesnt make any sense.

Kriton
2016-06-02, 09:06 AM
So, following your logic, if someone :
Do what is right in is own eyes, based on feelings -> chaotic evil
Doesnt oppose evil -> evil

That would mean the majority of our societies are composed by evil people (and a lot of chaotic evil people). It doesnt make any sense.

If you are talking about real world morality, the very concept that evil is something you can describe a person as, is arguably silly.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 09:42 AM
If you are talking about real world morality, the very concept that evil is something you can describe a person as, is arguably silly.

If you can't describe a person in a certain way, how can you describe a character - who is, in essence, a person - in that way? Do you mean that if this person were real, they'd not have an alignment at all?

Kyberwulf
2016-06-02, 09:55 AM
This character is WAY to accepting of Evil characters to be considered good. True she doesn't judge people, yet she doesn't go out of her way to stop evil characters from being evil. As an Chaotic good character would do.

She has WAY to many rules she follows to be considered Chaotic. She doesn't just go out on a whim and dilly around the countryside, as Chaotic people tend to do. I would say True Neutral. Again though, she just has WAY to many rules she follows. Again, it might not be Societies laws she follows. As Monks and Paladins prove, you don't need to follow society's laws. Just respect the just ones.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 09:59 AM
I still don't get how being a redemptionist rather than a condemnor makes you evil, nor how having a code (the same way, again, paladins of slaughter do) makes you lawful. Chaotic people don't "Go out on a whim and dilly around the countryside" either; in fact that's pretty much the poster child for how not to play chaotic.

Saintsqc
2016-06-02, 10:41 AM
This character is WAY to accepting of Evil characters to be considered good. True she doesn't judge people, yet she doesn't go out of her way to stop evil characters from being evil. As an Chaotic good character would do.

But she does go out of her way to help others...wich good characters do.


She has WAY to many rules she follows to be considered Chaotic. She doesn't just go out on a whim and dilly around the countryside, as Chaotic people tend to do. I would say True Neutral. Again though, she just has WAY to many rules she follows. Again, it might not be Societies laws she follows. As Monks and Paladins prove, you don't need to follow society's laws. Just respect the just ones.

Look at the CG definition, it says nothing about "whiming and dillying around the countryside".

Kyberwulf
2016-06-02, 11:47 AM
Going out of your way to help others, does not fall solely under the purview of being good. It can also be a Neutral act.

True, Chaotic Good doesn't say that. That is understandable, if you judge her to be Chaotic Good. Which I don't. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. "Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

This character follows to much personal laws that just don't abide the Chaotic moniker.

She isn't a redemptionist. She is an enabler. There is a HUGE difference. Nowhere in her description does it say she tries to get people to change their ways. She accepts people for who they are.

I don't know to much about the other classes. I suspect though, that the rules and stuff the follow are a mockery of the Lawful alignment. Things put there to justify their actions. Or just plain outright put there by designers to placate people who want to play paladins, but don't want to be restricted by the negative connotations of being a Paladin.

Most people seem to be doing this thing where they have an alignment picked out. Then use the actions that fit those preconceived notions.

On the surface, this character appears to be chaotic. And maybe even good. If you look behind the surface and you look at her motivations. You can see everything she is doing, isn't for the goodness. Its all to justify her actions. She judges people, not on their merit. But on how she feels they should be judged. If you are willing to hang out with evil people. You aren't good.


The way she is written, is meant to inspire sympathy with her. To take her side. If you take a step back and look at what is being said, you can see she isn't a good character. Her redeeming feature, is her willingness to follow her own code, which isn't the fickle code of someone who is Chaotic.

I can see this being a Character like, Furiosa, or Selene.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 11:53 AM
True, Chaotic Good doesn't say that. That is understandable, if you judge her to be Chaotic Good. Which I don't.

So you're saying that she's not chaotic good because she doesn't live up to a standard that isn't actually a chaotic good standard, but that doesn't matter because she's not chaotic good, because she doesn't live up to a standard that isn't actually a chaotic good standard, but that doesn't matter...


She isn't a redemptionist. She is an enabler. There is a HUGE difference. Nowhere in her description does it say she tries to get people to change their ways. She accepts people for who they are.
she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't.


The way she is written, is meant to inspire sympathy with her. To take her side.

Clearly, I do this by immediately calling her a rapist and a thief before listing her redeeming features.

Saintsqc
2016-06-02, 12:14 PM
Kyberwulf…you are trying to hard to prove your point…


Going out of your way to help others, does not fall solely under the purview of being good. It can also be a Neutral act.

From PHB 3.5 : « Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others »

So yeah, going out of your way to help others directly fall under the perview of being good…


True, Chaotic Good doesn't say that. That is understandable, if you judge her to be Chaotic Good. Which I don't.

See my comment at the beginning of my post…



This character follows to much personal laws that just don't abide the Chaotic moniker.

From PHB 3.5 : « CG follows his own moral compass »

Personnal laws ? Fit perfectly with the CG aligment, altough it also fits lawful alignment.



She isn't a redemptionist. She is an enabler. There is a HUGE difference. Nowhere in her description does it say she tries to get people to change their ways. She accepts people for who they are.

Let’s say it isnt written in the description of the character (even though it’s right there…)…why does it even matter ?



On the surface, this character appears to be chaotic. And maybe even good. If you look behind the surface and you look at her motivations. You can see everything she is doing, isn't for the goodness. Its all to justify her actions.

So what ? She still try her best to cause no violence/harms plus, she goes grenth length (and makes sacrifices) to help other. Even if, deep down she is not altruist...she repetitively doing good deeds. An evil character will not do that.

It's not that different than a LG cleric/paladin who does good deeds because that's what their god tell them to do.


She judges people, not on their merit. But on how she feels they should be judged. If you are willing to hang out with evil people. You aren't good.

From PHB 3.5 : « Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings ».

Having respect for everybody and not being judgemental toward others fits the good description perfectly.

It’s like the doctor or the nurse who give their best shot to cure a prisonner/killer/thief/rapist/etc. They doesnt care about their deeds, they just do everything they can to help an individual in needs. That’s like the archetype of « good ».

By the way, she has no mean to know if she is hanging out with evil people.

Typewriter
2016-06-02, 01:06 PM
I know that there are issues with the D&D alignment system, so feel free to use another alignment system if you like, but what alignment would you put this character in, given this description:

Repentant rapist, unrepentant thief - though never from anyone who would be noticeably harmed by it, or she'd have qualms about it. However, committed, and willing to sacrifice her comfort or even her life for the good of others. Liberal, open-minded, and devoted to freedom of every living being. Swore a vow of nonviolence, and keeps it. Also swore a vow to a friend that she would help them for as long as they both lived, without exception. Keeps many lovers, but each understands the terms and she loves them all dearly. Brimming with righteous indignation, she tries to keep her principles even in a world that seems determined to be against her. Wishing never to harm anyone again, she takes extreme psychological measures to control herself, but even they are not always enough.

Despising of any authority that is given without good cause and unafraid to challenge it, she fights for the rights of the downtrodden. Willing to forgive anything, she consorts with any from the greatest heroes to the most despicable villains, because she believes no-one deserves to be ill-treated, even if they have done terrible things as she has. Modest and reserved most of the time, she will stand to defend anyone in their time of need.

What alignment is she?

When I DM I generally don't care what alignment my players have, I don't track it, I don't regulate it. That being said I would define this character as Chaotic Neutral. She does what she does and rationalizes it however she feels best fits. She's not evil because she is repentant for her past actions, but then she just sort of ignores those past actions when she sees them in others. She doesn't approve but she doesn't really care either. You say she steals, but it's OK because the people she stole from aren't harmed by it - you know what that would probably mean? Their servants are being beaten, or hung, for stealing. She's nonviolent, but she consorts with the most evil people around because she finds a way to justify it, then pats herself on the back saying to herself, "It's OK, they don't deserve to be judged".

You describe a character who 'cares' but whose actions and behavior contradict caring. She pretends to care because rationalization is how she survives, but she's not good because she doesn't actually care about evil. She's not evil because she doesn't want to hurt others. She simply is doing her own thing and not answering to anybody but herself along the way because she's convinced that nobody else has any right to pass judgment on her (or anyone else).

GrayDeath
2016-06-02, 01:08 PM
I stand by my answer.

Even though, as it is often the case with uncomfortable truths, its being ignored.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 01:10 PM
You say she steals, but it's OK because the people she stole from aren't harmed by it - you know what that would probably mean? Their servants are being beaten, or hung, for stealing.
I should point out that she exists in a modern setting. I'm more interested in her alignment for reasons of, well, interest than anything else.


She's nonviolent, but she consorts with the most evil people around because she finds a way to justify it, then pats herself on the back saying to herself, "It's OK, they don't deserve to be judged".

Well, she doesn't go out of her way to hang with evil people, but nor does she desert people for being evil.


You describe a character who 'cares' but whose actions and behavior contradict caring. She pretends to care because rationalization is how she survives, but she's not good because she doesn't actually care about evil. She's not evil because she doesn't want to hurt others. She simply is doing her own thing and not answering to anybody but herself along the way because she's convinced that nobody else has any right to pass judgment on her (or anyone else).

She does care about evil acts and would endanger her health to prevent them. But she doesn't think that gives you the right to harm evil people on the basis that they "Deserve" it.


I stand by my answer.

Even though, as it is often the case with uncomfortable truths, its being ignored.

"My colour is purple. I value individuality and thought, I value justice and personal benefit, I value natural and mechanical. I take what I see as the best aspects of the world out of their context, and live it to the full, but also stand by my own way of thinking with utter disregard for the opinions of others. At my best, I am innovative and a maverick. At my worst, I am debased and an outcast. Nominally, my ally colours are blue and black, and my enemy colours are green and, to a lesser extent white and red, but in reality, I could be anyone's ally and my own worst enemy."

Well, actually...

Typewriter
2016-06-02, 01:29 PM
I should point out that she exists in a modern setting. I'm more interested in her alignment for reasons of, well, interest than anything else.


Well hangings are less likely then :P, but it's still a sign of rationalization for the character to do it then justify it. Even if someone's not getting hung someone is going to get blamed when things go missing. Is a maid going to get fired? Is a son going to get in trouble? Do you know for sure that the things you're taking don't have any sentimental value? Is she stealing from people she knows, people who would be deeply hurt that she betrayed them if they found out? There's all these and probably a dozen more (and likely even more beyond that) questions that could be asked - and you may have an answer to each one, but that's my point - those answers are justifications. When you sit around having to justify every single thing you do, it's evidence that you know you shouldn't be doing it and all the words that come out of your mouth at that point are nothing more than justifications to make you feel better about them.



Well, she doesn't go out of her way to hang with evil people, but nor does she desert people for being evil.


And what impact does this leave on people? If you know I'm evil and you hang out with me and call me friend then it makes me feel good. It gives me an avenue of justification. There's nothing wrong with me, sure I like to murder people, but that obviously doesn't make me unlikable. What if you buy me dinner and I take the money I saved and use it for something evil? Associating with evil promotes evil, unless you're literally just sitting there doing nothing than preaching at people trying to get them to change. And even then - they don't change, they look you in the eye and say, "That's really interesting, I'm going to go set someone on fire now" and you do what? Nothing? As written the character isn't going to go to the police right? So what do you do? Follow them and throw yourself into the path of the flames? OK, good job - now let's say two people tell you they're going to set someone on fire and they go in two different directions - you can only follow one of them to sacrifice yourself before.

The character is nothing but justification for behavior in an attempt to make herself feel better. She's skirting the edge of evil, but refusing to participate - she's made her own rules regarding what she considers good and she follows that and nothing else because she doesn't care about anything else. If she did she'd probably be closer to True Neutral rather than Chaotic Neutral.



She does care about evil acts and would endanger her health to prevent them. But she doesn't think that gives you the right to harm evil people on the basis that they "Deserve" it.


How do you define harm? How do you prevent evil acts in what I imagine is a game with conflicts of some sort as a pacifist unless you literally just plan on blocking bullets with your body or using magic to alter someone's personality? And then you'd oppose the rules of society to punish someone because you arbitrarily decided that you follow your own rules instead of that of society?

Kyberwulf
2016-06-02, 01:34 PM
Again, Just because you go out of your way to help people. Doesn't mean she is good. You could go out of your way to help someone steal something. To help someone mug some. To help someone kidnap someone. If he had said, She goes out of her way to do good. Then you would have something.
"She is a criminal. She is in criminal habits. And she realises that doesn't make her a bad person." "unrepentant thief"


Paladins, don't have to worship gods. Clerics, don't even have to worship gods.


From what is said, She knows they are evil.
"She would rather people accept evil people (or people who do actions, especially herself - being a rapist probably makes it hard to make friends), even if they don't accept evil people's actions, though she'd rather people forgive each other if the transgressor is genuinely repentant."

So what ? She still try her best to cause no violence/harms plus, she goes grenth length (and makes sacrifices) to help other. Even if, deep down she is not altruist...she repetitively doing good deeds. An evil character will not do that.

Evil people Could do it, if they wanted to go under the radar.

It’s like the doctor or the nurse who give their best shot to cure a prisonner/killer/thief/rapist/etc. They doesnt care about their deeds, they just do everything they can to help an individual in needs. That’s like the archetype of « good ». Again, that isn't good. That's a neutral act. They don't judge, they do their job. Do the accpet the fact they are prisonner/killer/thief/rapist? Do they condone their actions?

"She doesn't prefer to hang out with evil people by choice, but if people are nice to her, she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't."
She is explicitly stated she doesn't care about what they do. She doesn't care... if they change their ways.. just if they are happy or sad.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 01:41 PM
Again, Just because you go out of your way to help people. Doesn't mean she is good. You could go out of your way to help someone steal something. To help someone mug some. To help someone kidnap someone. If he had said, She goes out of her way to do good. Then you would have something.
She goes out of her way to do good. There we go.
I'm not a he.


Evil people Could do it, if they wanted to go under the radar.

That's not her intention.


Do they condone their actions?
She doesn't either...


She is explicitly stated she doesn't care about what they do.

Uhm, what you literally just quoted says the exact opposite:

"She doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't."

@Typewriter: I'll point out that she's a shoplifter, stealing for convenience and I don't think she ever stole any more than about £5-worth of stuff in one go. And she lets people know that what they're doing is wrong and they should stop, and if someone tried to do something massively evil she'd try to stop them. Once they have, though, there's no point in condemning them, only trying to help them be better. It's hard to be better when everyone's mistreating you. And not all games involve violence. This one involves, well, a fair bit but not much that she's even really had the direct opportunity to involve herself with, let alone a good reason to.

Saintsqc
2016-06-02, 01:48 PM
Jorgmengand : What is her alignment, IYO ?

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 01:51 PM
Jorgmengand : What is her alignment, IYO ?

I don't know. That's why I'm asking other people. Though, to be honest, the discussion has got me to thinking that she's probably CN(G), and could work her way to CG or even CX if she tried. I'm finding the arguments to the contrary somewhat lacking.

theNater
2016-06-02, 02:26 PM
Aside from the non-violence, how is she different from Haley Starshine? Criminal history, including some outright nasty stuff she's trying to get away from. Doesn't particularly care for rules and decidedly isn't into authority for authority's sake. Hangs out with Belkar, and is willing to work with Bozzok and the theives guild. Would help out Roy any way she can. Will help the downtrodden at risk to herself with no expectation for recompense. Really sounds similar.

If you think she's very different from Haley, could you maybe give a few examples of situations where she and Haley would behave differently? 'Cause if she is basically Haley, we can just say CG and call it a night.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 02:29 PM
If you think she's very different from Haley, could you maybe give a few examples of situations where she and Haley would behave differently? 'Cause if she is basically Haley, we can just say CG and call it a night.

I wouldn't say Haley's devoted to freedom of every living thing, or that she works with evil people for any reason other than necessity, and certainly isn't hanging around with them to make them better, and does judge them for being evil, and certainly wouldn't endanger her health in the defence of practically anyone who needed it.

GrayDeath
2016-06-02, 02:43 PM
"My colour is purple. I value individuality and thought, I value justice and personal benefit, I value natural and mechanical. I take what I see as the best aspects of the world out of their context, and live it to the full, but also stand by my own way of thinking with utter disregard for the opinions of others. At my best, I am innovative and a maverick. At my worst, I am debased and an outcast. Nominally, my ally colours are blue and black, and my enemy colours are green and, to a lesser extent white and red, but in reality, I could be anyone's ally and my own worst enemy."

Well, actually...


OK, seems I need to explain the Joke, and hence render it nonfunny (even though the purple analogy is not THAT bad^^).....


Magenta is a not very much liiked to despised Color just about everywhere (be it because its ugly, because its girly/not girly enough to be pink, or the Magenta Toner is always empty...or maybe because of the German Telecom?).
It is a misunderstood Cousin of pink, Purple and some other more well liked and understood colors, less common, but no less necessary.
It often feels sorry for itself and is at times at odds with much of the world.
It is part of the trinity you need to print all colors.

Get it now? :roach:




If I HAD to answer this from a D&D pov (and with a serious face) I would say that, while on the surface it looks complicated, due to you citing many different examples of how she acts, it truly is not if you look at the clear tendencies in the text.
She is Cahotic Neutral.
All she values aside from Life are her own opinions of how the world should work, and thats how she acts.
Depending on who she is "helping" at a given time she might lean towards Chaotic Good a bit, but not seriously enough to overcome her rationalization and impudence for ignoring all laws and authority she does not approve of.


But in a more in depth, funnier and obviously tongue-in.cheek- aligment system she is magenta (and likely Magenta).
Sometimes also known ans:
The Alignment of the self-centered, Law-ignoring, slightly misunderstood, angsty teenagers with a conscience. ^^

Typewriter
2016-06-02, 02:45 PM
@Typewriter: I'll point out that she's a shoplifter, stealing for convenience and I don't think she ever stole any more than about £5-worth of stuff in one go. And she lets people know that what they're doing is wrong and they should stop, and if someone tried to do something massively evil she'd try to stop them. Once they have, though, there's no point in condemning them, only trying to help them be better. It's hard to be better when everyone's mistreating you. And not all games involve violence. This one involves, well, a fair bit but not much that she's even really had the direct opportunity to involve herself with, let alone a good reason to.

Again though, this seems vague. 'She'd try to stop them' - how? She's a pacifist, and doesn't seem to want to involve police right? So someone is going to do something evil and she's going to stop it, and somehow she's going to do this without violating her moral codes. She seems like she's defined herself as powerless - unable and unwilling to do the right thing in almost every situation because she won't rely on others to stop evil from happening and her ability to do so herself is hampered. And yes - I know many games avoid violence, but when you talk about hanging out with evil people or evil acts violence is generally something that comes to mind - at least for me.

As for your comment, "It's hard to be better when everyone's mistreating you." - I don't want to say very much regarding this because we're talking about a modern character in a modern setting dealing with modern, similar to real life things, and real world morality is lurking nearby, but I personally feel like this is a prime example of what I mean. I feel (opinions) that a good person rises above how they're treated, while an evil person would use the way they're treated as an excuse to do evil things. A neutral person simply uses it as a justification to do whatever they want because they either have no interest in, or think they're better than, the rest of society.

Themrys
2016-06-02, 02:47 PM
If you think she's very different from Haley, could you maybe give a few examples of situations where she and Haley would behave differently? 'Cause if she is basically Haley, we can just say CG and call it a night.

Haley never raped anyone. I think. Only the Giant knows. Though I think if he ever envisioned rape-as-backstory as part of this comic, and it is not absolutely essential, he'd have removed it by now.

Also, Haley actively fights evil.

Slipperychicken
2016-06-02, 02:48 PM
You lost me at "rapist". I wouldn't allow this character within ten feet of my table. Her alignment is "chaotic garbage", because she belongs in the shredder.

edit: Maybe you could try this concept with me once you've cut out the rape, but not before. If you handed this to me in real life, I'd seriously consider not inviting you to the game at all.

Typewriter
2016-06-02, 02:50 PM
You lost me at "rapist". I wouldn't allow this character within ten feet of my table. Her alignment is "chaotic garbage", because she belongs in the shredder.

Yeah, I probably wouldn't want the character at my table because it lends itself to discussions like this which I personally don't want at my table, but some people do and there's nothing wrong with asking for outside opinions on such a character at a place like this.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 03:16 PM
She's a pacifist, and doesn't seem to want to involve police right?
She'll involve police if she has to. She just would rather not have people locked up for years because they did something wrong, but as an alternative to standing there and letting someone set a building or twenty on fire? Yeah, she'll call the police then.


when you talk about hanging out with evil people or evil acts violence is generally something that comes to mind - at least for me.

There are loads of types of evil. Why limit yourself to handling just one?


As for your comment, "It's hard to be better when everyone's mistreating you." - I don't want to say very much regarding this because we're talking about a modern character in a modern setting dealing with modern, similar to real life things, and real world morality is lurking nearby, but I personally feel like this is a prime example of what I mean. I feel (opinions) that a good person rises above how they're treated, while an evil person would use the way they're treated as an excuse to do evil things. A neutral person simply uses it as a justification to do whatever they want because they either have no interest in, or think they're better than, the rest of society.

I would think that being maltreated would predispose you a little further towards doing bad things. Depression can certainly arise from mistreatment and lead to having no ability to resist temptation. Some people just break and go crazy from being treated wrong.


Yeah, I probably wouldn't want the character at my table because it lends itself to discussions like this which I personally don't want at my table, but some people do and there's nothing wrong with asking for outside opinions on such a character at a place like this.

Yeah, pretty much. The game she's in is largely one ABOUT morality, and about how people treat each other. And for all the veering close to real-world morality, the number of gamers who would rather pretend that rape doesn't exist (and in some cases, apparently ostracise those who like to remember it does) is quite shocking to me. Maybe I like my RPGs to be a little more than "Stab goblin. Forget moral consequences of stabbing goblin. Get loot and XP"? Maybe this whole character never existed and is just an advanced metaphor for the human condition? Maybe this forum is all an illusion? Maybe, maybe, you'll never know. But whether she'd be allowed at your table isn't the issue either way. She's allowed at the table she's run at. That's all you need to know.

Slipperychicken
2016-06-02, 03:18 PM
Yeah, I probably wouldn't want the character at my table because it lends itself to discussions like this which I personally don't want at my table, but some people do and there's nothing wrong with asking for outside opinions on such a character at a place like this.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with asking about it here.


I wish more people with disturbing and cringeworthy backstories, especially ones that cast doubts on the player's maturity level, could get them vetted like OP instead of inflicting them on real gaming groups that often lack the courage to reject them.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 03:39 PM
I wish more people with disturbing and cringeworthy backstories, especially ones that cast doubts on the player's maturity level, could get them vetted like OP instead of inflicting them on real gaming groups that often lack the courage to reject them.

I game with some people who are happy to have this kind of character around. I mean, "Rape as a backstory element" is pretty light when I've actually had one of my characters (in a different game) attempt (and fail) grapple attempts to escape... we'll call it "To escape a grapple" and let your imagination fill in the details. Everyone took the entire incident maturely, and it wasn't played up, the details weren't mentioned, and a rather solemn roll on a table determined the consequences as far as her body was concerned (she wasn't, incidentally). There was much discussion about what to do with the perpetrator, and everyone (OOC) had fun. Some people IC probably had fun too, but UGH, let's not think about that.

Trust me when I say I wouldn't play this character in a heroic swords'n'sorcery slay-the-dragon game, and even in a game of gritty morality (like, the one where rape was actually mentioned as happening in-game was HEAVY) I would check that she was appropriate for the game. With a lot of sobriety and maturity, this kind of character, with an actual, in-depth, nuanced - dare I say it - character, and evil characters who are more than a stereotypical necromancer who also throws fireballs because hey, fireballs are fun, can be played. No, it's not for every game. Nor would I try to bring her to every one.

Typewriter
2016-06-02, 03:56 PM
She'll involve police if she has to. She just would rather not have people locked up for years because they did something wrong, but as an alternative to standing there and letting someone set a building or twenty on fire? Yeah, she'll call the police then.

That at least sounds closer to good then, but I would still lean towards neutral because of the fact that it doesn't feel grounded solely in the true nature of good/evil and more to your characters whims regarding things. Something is bad until I decide the alternative is worse, then I change my mind? I don't know, it just sounds neutral to me, not good or evil.



There are loads of types of evil. Why limit yourself to handling just one?


I don't, but in a conversation in a forum about roleplaying where 95% of roleplaying involves combat/murder/violence it's the safest assumption for where you can discuss things. If the conversation is solely based around petty theft then say that, not that she associates with the worst of the worst, which lends itself to discussions of bad things (amongst which acts of violence pretty much dominate the top of the list).



I would think that being maltreated would predispose you a little further towards doing bad things. Depression can certainly arise from mistreatment and lead to having no ability to resist temptation. Some people just break and go crazy from being treated wrong.


And sadly I think this forum has rules regarding discussion of real world morality, so I don't think I can respond any further than I already have.



Yeah, pretty much. The game she's in is largely one ABOUT morality, and about how people treat each other. And for all the veering close to real-world morality, the number of gamers who would rather pretend that rape doesn't exist (and in some cases, apparently ostracise those who like to remember it does) is quite shocking to me. Maybe I like my RPGs to be a little more than "Stab goblin. Forget moral consequences of stabbing goblin. Get loot and XP"? Maybe this whole character never existed and is just an advanced metaphor for the human condition? Maybe this forum is all an illusion? Maybe, maybe, you'll never know. But whether she'd be allowed at your table isn't the issue either way. She's allowed at the table she's run at. That's all you need to know.

I wasn't questioning that, I was responding to someone who said they wouldn't allow the character at their table. I understand that your game is different and I completely respect that. As for your example involving the Goblin - that's an extreme example at the polar end of the spectrum. There is plenty in between killing goblins without moral consequence and playing a character who raped someone once but feels bad about it now.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 04:02 PM
That at least sounds closer to good then, but I would still lean towards neutral because of the fact that it doesn't feel grounded solely in the true nature of good/evil and more to your characters whims regarding things. Something is bad until I decide the alternative is worse, then I change my mind? I don't know, it just sounds neutral to me, not good or evil.

"Something is bad until the alternative is worse" seems like the kind of rational moral thinking that most people hold.


I don't, but in a conversation in a forum about roleplaying where 95% of roleplaying involves combat/murder/violence it's the safest assumption for where you can discuss things. If the conversation is solely based around petty theft then say that, not that she associates with the worst of the worst, which lends itself to discussions of bad things (amongst which acts of violence pretty much dominate the top of the list).

Most of the people she associates with aren't violent. Many of them just do bad things, some minor, some worrying, none murderous.


And sadly I think this forum has rules regarding discussion of real world morality, so I don't think I can respond any further than I already have.

Inappropriate topics include Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming), Real-world politics (including political reactions to gaming), Graphic violence, Illegal drugs, Illegal/Criminal activity and Explicit sexuality. Real-world morality isn't on the list, although if a mod says we shouldn't talk about it (we've had real-world alignment threads that haven't been locked, though) then obviously we can't.


I wasn't questioning that, I was responding to someone who said they wouldn't allow the character at their table. I understand that your game is different and I completely respect that.
I know, hence why I started my comment by saying I agreed with you.


As for your example involving the Goblin - that's an extreme example at the polar end of the spectrum. There is plenty in between killing goblins without moral consequence and playing a character who raped someone once but feels bad about it now.

Well of course. But the overall point was, as I agreed with you about, play styles are different and different games are about different things.

Thrudd
2016-06-02, 04:22 PM
You lost me at "rapist". I wouldn't allow this character within ten feet of my table. Her alignment is "chaotic garbage", because she belongs in the shredder.

edit: Maybe you could try this concept with me once you've cut out the rape, but not before. If you handed this to me in real life, I'd seriously consider not inviting you to the game at all.

I tend to agree. Details about a character's sexuality really don't need to be elaborated on, in general. The whole rape thing and this character's background is kind of confusing, contrived and unnecessary, in my opinion, regardless of what game this was for. It is trying too hard to be controversial and edgy, in multiple ways, and the result is unbelievable.

The idea of a character that once did wrong and now feels bad about it and is atoning by adhering to a strict personal code, in general, is what I feel is the gist of this character. However, I would change the details to something more realistic and less controversial/contrived for a thief: like once committed an unplanned murder during a robbery gone wrong, or was accessory to a murder and watched as partners murdered an innocent family that weren't supposed to be home.

I am concerned about another statement which may change my verdict from good to firmly neutral. Jormungand, you are now saying the character is not like Hayley, who would only associate with evil out of necessity and actively tries to help people? I thought you had answered in the affirmative my question about that very subject, that she may forgive people for past wrongs but doesn't tolerate ongoing evil activity? So now, she does hang out with people she knows to be currently evil/villainous long-term? If so, she could not be good. She could tolerate people who once committed evil but are now trying to be good, like she is, but not someone that is still actively a violent criminal. Being an associate of violent criminals and having knowledge of their activities without doing anything to stop them is not good. If you attempt to turn them away from evil and they reject the notion, then you can't be their friend anymore and would probably inform the authorities the next time you know they are going to commit a violent crime: your vow to do no harm, and being a good person that cares about others would require that.

A good person can't keep company with people they know to be actively evil, unless there are some powerful extenuating (and temporary) circumstances. For instance, you are part of a team that has been formed and takes orders from some authority, like the Suicide Squad. You follow orders and complete the missions, and try to keep the excesses of your more violent teammates in-check. You are forced to tolerate them because it is your job and you lack the authority to change things. This is the only way I can see characters of such disparate moral codes associating with each other long-term.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 04:28 PM
Jormungand, you are now saying the character is not like Hayley, who would only associate with evil out of necessity and actively tries to help people? I thought you had answered in the affirmative my question about that very subject, that she may forgive people for past wrongs but doesn't tolerate ongoing evil activity? So now, she does hang out with people she knows to be currently evil/villainous long-term? If so, she could not be good. She could tolerate people who once committed evil but are now trying to be good, like she is, but not someone that is still actively a violent criminal. Being an associate of violent criminals and having knowledge of their activities without doing anything to stop them is not good. If you attempt to turn them away from evil and they reject the notion, then you can't be their friend anymore and would probably inform the authorities the next time you know they are going to commit a violent crime: your vow to do no harm, and being a good person that cares about others would require that.

A good person can't keep company with people they know to be actively evil, unless there are some powerful extenuating (and temporary) circumstances. For instance, you are part of a team that has been formed and takes orders from some authority, like the Suicide Squad. You follow orders and complete the missions, and try to keep the excesses of your more violent teammates in-check. You are forced to tolerate them because it is your job and you lack the authority to change things. This is the only way I can see characters of such disparate moral codes associating with each other long-term.

She DOES try to help people, even if those people may have done wrong. She would rather help evil people do good things than watch them do evil things, and she'd rather help them do neutral things for their own benefit than watch them fail to do so.

I still haven't seen a good argument for WHY you can't keep company with evil people. NOT keeping the company of someone you're trying to redeem, or at least prevent from doign further harm, strikes me as less "Good" and more "Frankly irresponsible". I don't see good as keeping its hands clean, personally. You can't clean anything without putting your hands up near it.



Also, to change her backstory would be to retcon stuff that's already happened, and influenced the game, so I can't do that. I'm afraid she is who she is, now. If you want to discuss that, feel free to make another thread about it I guess? The same if you don't think she's realistic.

Themrys
2016-06-02, 05:10 PM
I game with some people who are happy to have this kind of character around. I mean, "Rape as a backstory element" is pretty light when I've actually had one of my characters (in a different game) attempt (and fail) grapple attempts to escape... we'll call it "To escape a grapple" and let your imagination fill in the details. Everyone took the entire incident maturely, and it wasn't played up, the details weren't mentioned, and a rather solemn roll on a table determined the consequences as far as her body was concerned (she wasn't, incidentally). There was much discussion about what to do with the perpetrator, and everyone (OOC) had fun. Some people IC probably had fun too, but UGH, let's not think about that.

Does your group consist entirely of men?

I have found that men are much more fond of "rape for nitty gritty realism" than women are.

Actually, I don't even know women who want rape to be included in RPGs. All women with whom I talked about it told me they keep it out of games.

The reasons for this are obvious.

Not explicitly mentioning something is not the same as pretending it does not exist. What about cancer? Do people routinely die of cancer in your fictional RPG world? Probably not. That's not pretending it doesn't exists. It is just focusing on other things.

You may want to keep this in mind in case you play with a different group some time.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 05:16 PM
Does your group consist entirely of men?

Well, given that I am not a man, I would have to say no to that. All told, the men are outnumbered by the non-men, as are the women by the non-women, so... yeah, basically what happens when you add a nonbinary person to a 50-50 split.

(Actually, the "Two teenage boys, one man and me" group is erring more on the side of high fantasy and necromancers and stuff, so I'm not sure quite what that says about your "Findings".)


I have found that men are much more fond of "rape for nitty gritty realism" than women are.

Actually, I don't even know women who want rape to be included in RPGs. All women with whom I talked about it told me they keep it out of games.

The reasons for this are obvious.

Not explicitly mentioning something is not the same as pretending it does not exist. What about cancer? Do people routinely die of cancer in your fictional RPG world? Probably not. That's not pretending it doesn't exists. It is just focusing on other things.

You may want to keep this in mind in case you play with a different group some time.

Cancer has been mentioned. Two of this character's good friends died of cancer during the course of the game. Player characters aren't immune to nonmagical disease just at random because that's how diseases happen, either (not that cancer is on the same level as other diseases...). The world isn't massively full of rape and devoid of other detail, but the fact of the matter is that cancer has nothing to do with this character's morality. I figured rape might have something to do with it, which is why I brought it up.

Kriton
2016-06-02, 05:20 PM
If you can't describe a person in a certain way, how can you describe a character - who is, in essence, a person - in that way? Do you mean that if this person were real, they'd not have an alignment at all?

DnD rules don't apply to real life and morality is not objective.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 05:22 PM
DnD rules don't apply to real life and morality is not objective.

But if morality is subjective, you should at least be able to say what you think, no?

Liquor Box
2016-06-02, 05:22 PM
Too many contradictory good and bad traits rolled up into one character. If someone is an unrepentant thief it means that they have very little respect for other people's property, but despite this she is supposed to have an enormous respect for their life? This just doesn't add up. I'm not saying that a thief wouldn't have qualms against killing, but I don't think they would be a super pacifist either. Your narration also brings up stuff that doesn't refer to just your character, but to other people as well. How do you know that all her other partners are OK with her polygamy? Is this what she thinks? Do you know some way for sure? Is it part of her backstory and you just decided that it would be so? Because that would be a very ideal and unrealistic situation for her. Realistically, if she has as many lovers as you claim there is a very good chance that at least some of them wouldn't be OK, no matter what they claimed. To me this just seems like the description of a repentant Mary Sue. Or a self righteous hypocrite who is fixated on keeping up a set of moral standards because she thinks it will help her repent, not because she really is becoming a better person.

Strongly disagree with this. People are complex. Most people have facets of their personality that would usually be viewed as negative (evil using DnD terminology) rolled in with positive (good) facets.

Certainly I see no contradiction between her being a thief and non-violent.

As to the promiscuity, my own view is that it is not evil unless there is a breach of trust (one or more of her lovers thinks they are exclusive). It may be slightly chaotic if it goes against the conventions of her society. Even if there is a breach of trust, cheating is not such a major thing (in my opinion) to outweight all the other stuff there - not as bad as thieving or raping, and not enough to make someone non-good if they otherwise would be.

Saintsqc
2016-06-02, 05:31 PM
Does your group consist entirely of men?

I have found that men are much more fond of "rape for nitty gritty realism" than women are.

Actually, I don't even know women who want rape to be included in RPGs. All women with whom I talked about it told me they keep it out of games.

Strong generalisation.

How many ttrpg players are male and how many are females ? Obviously, the vast majority of ttrpg are males...chances are, if a player use rape in the story, its going to be a male.

Actually, i dont even know men who wants rape to be included in rpgs.

You might want to keep this in mind next time you make this kind of generalisation.

Liquor Box
2016-06-02, 05:33 PM
I agree, there's nothing wrong with asking about it here.


I wish more people with disturbing and cringeworthy backstories, especially ones that cast doubts on the player's maturity level, could get them vetted like OP instead of inflicting them on real gaming groups that often lack the courage to reject them.

Different groups have different level of maturity than others. Disturbing backstories might be a bad thing in less mature tables, but might form an interesting part of the story at more mature ones. A bit like movies - certain elements have no place in childrens movies, but are acceptable (and add to the story) in films focused on adults.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 05:38 PM
Actually, i dont even know men who wants rape to be included in rpgs.

The main reason that you don't know any men - or women - who want rape in their RPG is that it takes far more away when it goes wrong than it adds when played well. Like, it doesn't add anything to the story that isn't added by hundreds of other details, but could easily be triggering or what-have-you.

EDIT: Incidentally, it strikes me that most of the people claiming she's unrealistic would do the same if you laid down a description before them of a real person, especially a real rapist.

theNater
2016-06-02, 05:46 PM
I wouldn't say Haley's devoted to freedom of every living thing, or that she works with evil people for any reason other than necessity, and certainly isn't hanging around with them to make them better, and does judge them for being evil, and certainly wouldn't endanger her health in the defence of practically anyone who needed it.
Most of those push your character further to Good. The only possible exception is working with Evil people, and as long as she's not helping them to do Evil, I don't see that outweighing the others.


Haley never raped anyone. I think. Only the Giant knows. Though I think if he ever envisioned rape-as-backstory as part of this comic, and it is not absolutely essential, he'd have removed it by now.
I concur that Haley hasn't raped anyone, but I strongly suspect she has some Evil acts in her past. If you want to hold the position that rape is special among Evil acts and therefore irredeemable, that's perfectly reasonable; I won't say anything other than "I don't believe that's supportable by the D&D rulebooks".


Also, Haley actively fights evil.
Jormengand's character "fights for the rights of the downtrodden". Violating the rights of the downtrodden is oppression, which is explicitly Evil. This character is fighting Evil, the fact that she's using words rather than arrows is irrelevant in that regard.

There may be confounding issues in that "Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others", and fighting with arrows automatically includes the sacrifice of one's own safety in a way that fighting with words may not. But Jormengand's character is "willing to sacrifice her comfort or even her life for the good of others", so as long as she actually does that regularly, rather than just being willing, she is satisfying that requirement of Good.


A good person can't keep company with people they know to be actively evil, unless there are some powerful extenuating (and temporary) circumstances.
What are your thoughts on the Order continuing their association with Belkar after they believed Xykon to be destroyed? Roy lies to keep Belkar on the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html), despite the lack of powerful extenuating circumstances.

Jormengand
2016-06-02, 05:53 PM
What are your thoughts on the Order continuing their association with Belkar after they believed Xykon to be destroyed? Roy lies to keep Belkar on the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html), despite the lack of powerful extenuating circumstances.

A certain astral deva has some interesting views on that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html), actually... something about redemption, IIRC? :smallamused:

(Not really directed at you, incidentally)

Thrudd
2016-06-02, 05:54 PM
She DOES try to help people, even if those people may have done wrong. She would rather help evil people do good things than watch them do evil things, and she'd rather help them do neutral things for their own benefit than watch them fail to do so.

I still haven't seen a good argument for WHY you can't keep company with evil people. NOT keeping the company of someone you're trying to redeem, or at least prevent from doign further harm, strikes me as less "Good" and more "Frankly irresponsible". I don't see good as keeping its hands clean, personally. You can't clean anything without putting your hands up near it.



Also, to change her backstory would be to retcon stuff that's already happened, and influenced the game, so I can't do that. I'm afraid she is who she is, now. If you want to discuss that, feel free to make another thread about it I guess? The same if you don't think she's realistic.

Sounds like a helluva game. It's not important, except for the understandable idea that some people have that rape is an unforgivable and unredeemable offense, regardless of any circumstances or claimed repentance.

In regards to good keeping company with evil: at what point is the "redeemer" really just fooling themselves? You can try for a little while to get them to change their ways, but if the evil activity continues unabated, you need to be honest with yourself and realize that those people have no interest in changing and you aren't preventing evil. If you have the option of leaving their company, at that point you would.

For this particular character, it depends at what stage they are in their association and redemption. If she has just recently decided to try to be good, and this whole process is just beginning, then the judgment about her alignment is still up in the air, which would generally leave her at neutral until such time as she has decided one-way or another. Since you are the one inside her head, only you know whether she is fooling herself about the ability to redeem her companions or prevent their evil. If she is just making excuses to continue hanging out with her old criminal buddies, then she is at best neutral. If she honestly believes she can help them be better and redeem their evil ways, and this hasn't yet become obviously false, then her goodness is contingent on how she reacts to whatever happens next. If she finds her companions unwilling to change like she has, but stays with them and watches them commit evil, then she stays neutral, or even evil, depending on how severe the crimes of her companions are (she's an accessory to whatever crimes they commit). If she is successful in getting one or more of them to also repent or at least prevents them from harming people and committing evil, then she is justified in believing she can do good in their company and should stay there. You could say she's neutral trying to be good, and where she ends up ultimately will be dictated by how she reacts if evil is committed in her presence in the future.



What are your thoughts on the Order continuing their association with Belkar after they believed Xykon to be destroyed? Roy lies to keep Belkar on the team (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0139.html), despite the lack of powerful extenuating circumstances.

Belkar is clearly shifting towards good. It is implied that they began as more of a business arrangement, but now he genuinely cares for his companions and is starting to perform more acts of heroic self-sacrifice. (or they are together because of meta-game reasons, it's a pastiche of D&D games where there is regularly someone who always wants to have an evil character, even in a heroic/good game. So he gets forced in there, despite it not making sense.)

He was also one evil guy in the company of good characters, and generally taking orders from them, so it is easy to claim that they were doing greater good by keeping him with them, in-check, rather than have him off committing crimes (which I think is exactly what Roy says at one point).

The opposite is likely true of a single good person in the company of mostly evil characters. How likely is it that the single good person (unless they are in some kind of authority, like a military commander), is keeping an entire group of evil people from committing evil? It's possible, I suppose, but I don't think it's as likely. It really depends on the party composition, and how committed to good/evil they are overall.

Liquor Box
2016-06-02, 06:30 PM
I think the character is chaotic neutral (tending toward good)

Good/evil axis

Being a repentant rapist is an interesting one, because it raises the question of whether a bad past which is regretted (and not repeated) pulls alignment toward evil or not. In my view if the character genuinely repents and has not repeated the act then it does not mean she is more evil (although she may still deserve punishment).

Stealing is, in my opinion, evil. Factors such as need (which doesn't exist here) or the circumstances of the victim may mitigate the evil somewhat, but it is still a fundamentally evil act. It is the characters theft, in my opinion, that prevents her from being "good".

Working for the good of others is a clear example of goodness, and her vow to help her friend strikes me as an example of this. It is this aspect that draws her toward good, and overall I think it outweighs her theft sufficiently so that she veers toward goodness within the neutral alignment.

In my opinion, consorting with evil is not itself evil unless she intentionally assists the evil by her consorting.

I don;t think being Liberal, open-minded, and devoted to freedom, righteous, non-violent or promiscuity are relevant to an assessment of good vs evil.

Law vs chaos axis

Rape and thieving are both chaotic acts assuming that they are against the laws of the society where she lives - although the rape may not be relevant as she has repented. The theft draws her strongly toward chaos.

Being liberal and devoted to freedom suggest non-comformity with convention, if not laws. These also draw her toward chaos, although not as much as her thievery (which presumably contravenes law).

Swearing and adhering to vows (rather than just being non-violent and helpful without a vow) is a lawful act in my opinion, as it recognises the vow as something binding. This draws her toward lawfulness.

Being non-judgmental of evilness, in my view, draws her toward chaos.

Seeing the world as against her may be a minor indicator of chaos and being self righteous may be a minor indicator of lawfulness.

I don't think being open-minded, working for the good of others and promiscuity (assuming that does not contravene social convention) are relevant to the question of law vs chaos.



I would be interested to know what the original poster thinks of her own character in terms of alignment.

Kriton
2016-06-02, 07:10 PM
But if morality is subjective, you should at least be able to say what you think, no?

In real life I pass judgement on people. Lots of it. I just don't judge them as good or evil, that is a thing societies do.

I judge people on several levels.

One is, whether they are beneficial, or detrimental to me, or my goals. If I am not directly affected by the character you are talking about (if she hypothetically existed) and if she is of no particular historical significance, she would be irrelevant to me. If I was somehow to consort with her, I would find her mostly innocuous and it would depend on the kind of evil actions her friends commit. Still an oath of non-violence in a generally non-violent environment strikes me as an attempt to justify cowardice, so I would probably keep that in mind.

An other is, how pleasant I find their presence. Being a petty thief, if not a matter of survival I find distasteful, hanging out with people that they consider evil I find weak, moping around for things they have done, if not actively trying to rectify them, I find tiresome. Overall I probably wouldn't like her.

Lastly I might judge someone that I don't find absolutely repulsive in the previous two levels, based on their abilities and skills. I might come to admire someone I don't find very likeable if they exhibit impressive prowess in something. I have no clue what your character does so I can't offer an opinion on this level.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-02, 11:24 PM
Well first off...

"She goes out of her way to do good. There we go." That is the most obvious moving of the goalpost.

"She doesn't prefer to hang out with evil people by choice, but if people are nice to her, she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't."

I did the whole quote, not just the part you want to use to prove a point.

Malifice
2016-06-02, 11:59 PM
This one. I mean, she's a rapist, and apparently a chaotic good one in most people's perceptions, so she kinda has to forgive people's past deeds or she'd be a hypocrite.

Shes a repentant rapist. In that she realsies what she did in the past was wrong, and is genuinely remorseful and is taking steps to make up for it by being a better person.

Shes CN (at present) havin crawled up from E.

goto124
2016-06-03, 01:05 AM
A piece of what I consider important OOC context:


The game she's in is largely one ABOUT morality, and about how people treat each other.

To be honest, that sounds quite interesting. How has the game gone so far? What are the more memorable ways morality has been dealt with?

AMFV
2016-06-03, 01:50 AM
Yeah, pretty much. The game she's in is largely one ABOUT morality, and about how people treat each other. And for all the veering close to real-world morality, the number of gamers who would rather pretend that rape doesn't exist (and in some cases, apparently ostracise those who like to remember it does) is quite shocking to me. Maybe I like my RPGs to be a little more than "Stab goblin. Forget moral consequences of stabbing goblin. Get loot and XP"? Maybe this whole character never existed and is just an advanced metaphor for the human condition? Maybe this forum is all an illusion? Maybe, maybe, you'll never know. But whether she'd be allowed at your table isn't the issue either way. She's allowed at the table she's run at. That's all you need to know.

Well then we'd really need to know how your folks want to handle morality in-game. Games that are largely about morality typically need to involve a much more in-depth awareness of morality and much hashing that isn't present in the rules. For your character I would probably rule her CN, or maybe CG. But we only know her motivations and a few of her actions.

Here is what I would advise. Don't put your alignment at first. Keep a tally of every action you consider Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, or Good that your character does in game for a few sessions. Then go back and score her past taking only really big events and giving them a smaller value. Basically that'll give you what your character's morality is at the start of the game, and you'll be able to develop morality based on actual in-game behavior, not just written backstory, which is liable to be much more accurate in reality.

Sylian
2016-06-03, 03:45 AM
Given the amount of information we've been given, I'd tag her as Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies. I'm not sure about the Chaotic part though, could we get some information about how she views the Law vs Chaos axis?

Saintsqc
2016-06-03, 06:46 AM
Well first off...

"She goes out of her way to do good. There we go." That is the most obvious moving of the goalpost.

"She doesn't prefer to hang out with evil people by choice, but if people are nice to her, she doesn't condemn them for being evil, only try to make them better if she can, and accept that it's out of her power and a happy evil person is better than a sad evil person if she can't."

I did the whole quote, not just the part you want to use to prove a point.

These 2 quotes dont contradict themselves, so what is your point ?

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 10:02 AM
She exists within a society but she's not interested in the rules of society. She has done evil, but repents for it. She repents for these actions but then associates (willingly) with those who have done those same actions and not repented. She has a code, but it's flexible depending on the situation. Someone made a case for your character being lawful neutral and, to be honest, it's where I originally went when I was thinking about it. Your character doesn't seem 'lol wacky', she seems neutral - definitively - but on the law/chaos spectrum it's a bit harder to latch onto. So I latched onto chaos - or in this context - conflict. She has a strong personal code, which can lend itself towards neutrality - but the problem is that it's a code that I feel would cause a lot of internal struggle and debate. Someone has done something evil. You accept that and move on. Someone else is going to do the same thing that someone else has done that you've already come to peace with - but you feel inclined to stop it. You don't want people to be punished for their wrongs, but you do thing people should avoid doing wrongs. The code is flexible - in such a way that only your character can define it at any given point. It's unpredictable and knowable only to her. So I'd say it's chaotic.

The character may see herself as 'good' but I'd argue that's a delusion. If I had a player telling me his character was 'good' and then hung around with evil people and tolerated their past actions with a stern talking to, and sometimes considered getting involved I'd have a laugh. Writing down that she cares about doing good doesn't mean she actually does if the rest of the way you describe her doesn't back that up. It means the character is conflicted.

PC: "Yeah, my character has a vow of peace after having murdered someone long ago. He's repentant for it though. Also my character lives in the Continental, you know the assassination hotel from John Wick"
DM: "So you repent for your murders, but still associate with murderers?"
PC: "Yeah, but I try to get them out of the game. Tell them how it affected my life and everything."
DM: "So you're neutral, your character cares about himself and gets by without making past mistakes?"
PC: "Well, I mean he's a good guy, he tries to help others"
DM: "While associating with murderers?"

This is not your character (murder vs theft) but it displays a similar mindset - you've decided what is acceptable and you're just sort of doing it. The character pats herself on the back for what she thinks is good, but doesn't care about good as a general concept. What if she was a sociopath? What if she wasn't repentant for her rape, but instead just felt like it wasn't a big deal? She might argue that it wasn't evil and consider herself a good person based off of her own viewpoints of morality but that's all irrelevant. She may not be evil, despite her evil acts - she might just be mentally ill. But she's definitely not good at this point.

Again, not your character - what is your character? Repentant, but accepting of others who haven't (but should) repent. Against punishment or hatred, but willing to subject people to those if it goes against her own personal code (her own code - not law, not 'good', just what she decides). She's complex and conflicted, but in the sort of way that makes her boring. She's experienced a lot and hurt people and rather than evolve from that she's decided to reform reality to fit what she thinks makes sense. She thinks she's got it all figured out and so she doesn't need the law or rules or anything getting in her way. But what happens when something pushes against her stance? She relies on the law because she refuses to handle things on her own. She puts herself into situations that she can't handle despite having it all figured out. I'm not saying she would say the words, "I have everything figured out", but your character description screams arrogance in this regard.

I don't know, you've made it perfectly clear in your posts that this character has a long and storied reason for existing and doing all the things that she's done, and people are judging based off of the snippets you've provided. Based off the snippets you've provided it just seems to me that the character is internally driven and heavily conflicted - which couldn't be anything other than Chaotic Neutral in my eyes.

EDIT:

These 2 quotes dont contradict themselves, so what is your point ?

While I'm not the one who quoted that originally I wanted to throw my two cents in there regarding this particular quote.

You go out of your way to do good, but you don't want evil people to be sad or punished, and you believe that making evil people happy is better than making them sad. And that's your interpretation of doing good? OK, that's mental illness - you've just stated a goal, and then explained the way you accomplish the goal in a completely contradictory way.

If my neighbor beat his wife (it's done now, it's over) how would I do good in this situation? Would I call the police? No, being in jail might make the abuser sad, so I guess I'll go over and have a beer with him. Make him feel better because right now he's a bit upset about his past actions. I'll make him know I accept him no matter how many times he hospitalizes his wife. And then I'll go home with a smile on my face because I did good today! Maybe if he starts beating her again, I'll call the police, but only if I think they can get there in time to stop it because once it's done it's done. This isn't neutral or evil, it's mental illness. This character isn't doing good, but if he thinks he is then he is out of touch with reality.

Themrys
2016-06-03, 11:19 AM
If my neighbor beat his wife (it's done now, it's over) how would I do good in this situation? Would I call the police? No, being in jail might make the abuser sad, so I guess I'll go over and have a beer with him. Make him feel better because right now he's a bit upset about his past actions. I'll make him know I accept him no matter how many times he hospitalizes his wife. And then I'll go home with a smile on my face because I did good today! Maybe if he starts beating her again, I'll call the police, but only if I think they can get there in time to stop it because once it's done it's done. This isn't neutral or evil, it's mental illness. This character isn't doing good, but if he thinks he is then he is out of touch with reality.

Interesting that you choose this exact example, this being one of the few you could have chosen where this mindset is rather common. Perhaps not the "It's over now" part, but the "poor man woud be sad in jail" part, and the not considering it a big enough issue to do something about it.

What might make the character mentally ill is not just partaking in collective self-deception, but doing it all on her own.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-03, 11:35 AM
I didn't say they contradicted themselves. As I pointed out. He only did the part that supported his statement. I shown the whole quote and showed how they support my idea.

I think the OP has a specific Idea about the alignment of this character.. So much so that the op is changing the way she is described, so that the character comes out a certain way.

I don't see it that way. The way she is described, is she sees the world a certain way. She thinks everything should run that way. The only time she is described as having conflict. Is it's someone she knows. Even then, it is said she would do what she sees as right, and not play favorites.

AMFV
2016-06-03, 11:36 AM
I could see this character fitting some alignments (CN, CG, NG, N) but not lawful and evil alignments (LG, LN, CE, NE, LE).

Exactly! Because the character fits more than one potential alignment, it's more useful to track their behavior and determine what alignment best fits your playing of the character, rather than their general outlook.

Jormengand
2016-06-03, 11:42 AM
If my neighbor beat his wife (it's done now, it's over) how would I do good in this situation? Would I call the police? No, being in jail might make the abuser sad, so I guess I'll go over and have a beer with him. Make him feel better because right now he's a bit upset about his past actions. I'll make him know I accept him no matter how many times he hospitalizes his wife. And then I'll go home with a smile on my face because I did good today! Maybe if he starts beating her again, I'll call the police, but only if I think they can get there in time to stop it because once it's done it's done. This isn't neutral or evil, it's mental illness. This character isn't doing good, but if he thinks he is then he is out of touch with reality.

Obviously, she'd try to change the guy and if locking him up would help his wife, and he has no signs of stopping beating his wife, then my character would call the police, or at least try to help the wife (in the best of all possible worlds, she'd convince him to stop, second best is getting her out of the situation, third best is to force him out of the situation, even if that means calling the police). She doesn't have a mindset that she follows mechanically like some kind of inevitable, otherwise that would dump her straight into the LN box with the rest of them. She has a preference for resolving situations without harming anyone, good or evil, friend or foe, and if that fails she tries a different tack. If someone's doing things which are generally jerkish but not actually illegal (or in some cases overly evil but for whatever reason still not illegal) so she can't call the police on them, then she might simply give up and accept that it's out of her control, and there's no way to stop it short of physically preventing the perpetrator from acting.


I didn't say they contradicted themselves. As I pointed out. He only did the part that supported his statement. I shown the whole quote and showed how they support my idea.

I think the OP has a specific Idea about the alignment of this character.. So much so that the op is changing the way she is described, so that the character comes out a certain way.

I don't see it that way. The way she is described, is she sees the world a certain way. She thinks everything should run that way. The only time she is described as having conflict. Is it's someone she knows. Even then, it is said she would do what she sees as right, and not play favorites.

I'm not making anything up or changing anything. I'm clarifying. This is the "What alignment is this character" thread, not "Produce bizarre conspiracy theories about this character" thread.

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 12:51 PM
Obviously, she'd try to change the guy and if locking him up would help his wife, and he has no signs of stopping beating his wife, then my character would call the police, or at least try to help the wife (in the best of all possible worlds, she'd convince him to stop, second best is getting her out of the situation, third best is to force him out of the situation, even if that means calling the police). She doesn't have a mindset that she follows mechanically like some kind of inevitable, otherwise that would dump her straight into the LN box with the rest of them. She has a preference for resolving situations without harming anyone, good or evil, friend or foe, and if that fails she tries a different tack. If someone's doing things which are generally jerkish but not actually illegal (or in some cases overly evil but for whatever reason still not illegal) so she can't call the police on them, then she might simply give up and accept that it's out of her control, and there's no way to stop it short of physically preventing the perpetrator from acting.


Honestly at this point I'm really unsure of what your character is supposed to be. You say in your OP that she consorts with the most despicable villains and that she's an unrepentant thief, but every time you clarify some point it's to downplay these things. She's not a thief, she's a petty criminal. She hangs out with the worst villains but actively sabotages them unless she's involved in the criminal business they're doing? She doesn't think they should be punished but she will try to stop them? She knows these things are 'bad' and she claims to be adherent to 'good' but she puts her own moral superiority over 'good' in many cases doesn't she? That's what it sounds like. Specifically:

She has a preference for resolving situations without harming anyone, good or evil, friend or foe

This is what I meant in one of my earlier posts - she doesn't care about good. She cares about freedom. If you're trying to prevent evil people from being punished for their evil actions because you think that freedom/happiness is more important then you don't care about good - you care about things you think are good, like freedom, which is not necessarily the same as something actually being 'good'.

Jormengand
2016-06-03, 02:09 PM
Honestly at this point I'm really unsure of what your character is supposed to be. You say in your OP that she consorts with the most despicable villains and that she's an unrepentant thief, but every time you clarify some point it's to downplay these things. She's not a thief, she's a petty criminal. She hangs out with the worst villains but actively sabotages them unless she's involved in the criminal business they're doing? She doesn't think they should be punished but she will try to stop them? She knows these things are 'bad' and she claims to be adherent to 'good' but she puts her own moral superiority over 'good' in many cases doesn't she? That's what it sounds like. Specifically:

She has a preference for resolving situations without harming anyone, good or evil, friend or foe

This is what I meant in one of my earlier posts - she doesn't care about good. She cares about freedom. If you're trying to prevent evil people from being punished for their evil actions because you think that freedom/happiness is more important then you don't care about good - you care about things you think are good, like freedom, which is not necessarily the same as something actually being 'good'.

I'll admit that I overplayed many of the aspects of what she'd done wrong in the original post. And I'm not really sure who she's "Supposed to be" any more than I'm sure what you or I or the guy down the road is meant to be. People just are. Characters just develop. Things just happen. And sure, as players we get to choose how our characters act, but as people we get to choose how we act, and we still don't follow specific character archetypes. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't know what she's supposed to be, I'm doing something right.

I would personally count freedom from suffering to be more good than retribution, but to each their own.

theNater
2016-06-03, 02:10 PM
If you're trying to prevent evil people from being punished for their evil actions because you think that freedom/happiness is more important then you don't care about good - you care about things you think are good, like freedom, which is not necessarily the same as something actually being 'good'.
By the D&D alignment system, punishment is not inherently Good behavior. In a Good society, the purpose of punishment is to prevent future Evil behavior

It seems to me(and I hope Jormengand will correct me if I'm wrong) that this character believes, rightly or wrongly, that punishment is generally counterproductive for this purpose. She seems to think that most Evil behavior arises from a place of pain, so causing additional pain isn't effective. She'd rather try to soothe the underlying pain, and make sure that those who have committed Evil acts in the past always know that there is a non-Evil solution to their problems.

You can absolutely argue that she may be mistaken, but you can't conflate not believing in punishment with not caring about Good.

SirBellias
2016-06-03, 02:18 PM
Because of group dynamics, I'd put this as anywhere between "Highly Amusing" to "Gamebreakingly Difficult." If the rest of the players are willing to work around the vows and other quirks, they may potentially be fun to be around, or good drama fodder. If not, then I probably wouldn't allow it, due to not meshing with the groups expectations of the game. For d&d, I'd go CN, and nothing else I play has any sort of alignment system, so that's all I got.

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 02:28 PM
I'll admit that I overplayed many of the aspects of what she'd done wrong in the original post. And I'm not really sure who she's "Supposed to be" any more than I'm sure what you or I or the guy down the road is meant to be. People just are. Characters just develop. Things just happen. And sure, as players we get to choose how our characters act, but as people we get to choose how we act, and we still don't follow specific character archetypes. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't know what she's supposed to be, I'm doing something right.


Oh, I agree. And in the real world I don't think there's really such a thing as a truly evil person. Almost everyone believes that what they're doing is 'good', few people look at a course of action and think, 'this is evil, I'm going to do it anyways because I want to'. We have reasons, we have justifications, we have opinions, and all of that clouds up the meaning of good and evil. But when you talk about something like 'alignment' I think you have to try and look beyond an individuals moral compass and consider who they are from as close to a neutral standpoint as you can. As I've said several times your character strikes me as, above all else, conflicted. She cares about evil acts and she wants to do good, but her desires and opinions on how to balance all this out are confusing and hard to properly articulate.

That's on a grand scale - when it comes to your character the reason I have a hard time understanding her is because her whims seem a little 'random' at times. You've said now that you may have overstated some things initially and maybe that's why, but beyond that she seems unpredictable - but not in a believable way. People are damaged and they make mistakes and then they grow from those. Your character just sort of has traits that feel tacked on.

MINOR GOT spoilers ahead

Your character reminds me of my least favorite character in Game of Thrones - Daenarys. She's written tragically and she starts to develop these strong growth curves that come from her experiences. But along the way she just sort of does things that never fit right. At this point in the series you're supposed to be rooting for her, but she's the character who wants to unleash a horde of murderers and rapists on the seven kingdoms unlike what they've ever seen before. To many fans (of the books at least) she's written in such an uneven manner that people are wondering if she didn't inherit the Targaryen madness and we're watching it unfold because it's the only real justification for a lot of her behavior.

When I read about your character you're providing these snippets and you can sort of see some sort of order cropping out of it. But then she does things that seem completely contradictory or weird that the only justification would be mental illness.


I would personally count freedom from suffering to be more good than retribution, but to each their own.

I feel like it depends on the situation. If someone steals something to feed their family that is an unlawful action. What if they accidentally cause harm to the one they steal from - either directly or indirectly? Maybe at some point in there it becomes an evil action, but still one that was worth doing. You could offer comfort to that person, you could help them find solace. They probably deserve peace, even if they made mistakes.

But some people don't deserve redemption. The worst of the worst aren't people who are going to make the mistake one time and move on. Those are the people that are repeat offenders, who find joy in hurting others, or can't help themselves from doing so. I feel that it's damaging to offer solace or comfort to those people. You're reaffirming their lifestyles, you're making them think that what they do is acceptable.

But this is a discussion regarding our personal opinions on morality - what about alignment. Are you doing 'good' by comforting evil or would you be doing 'good' by turning evildoers into the police to prevent them from doing further evil? Not your in character opinion - do you actually feel the character is doing 'good' or do you feel that she's trying to do 'good'?


By the D&D alignment system, punishment is not inherently Good behavior. In a Good society, the purpose of punishment is to prevent future Evil behavior

It seems to me(and I hope Jormengand will correct me if I'm wrong) that this character believes, rightly or wrongly, that punishment is generally counterproductive for this purpose. She seems to think that most Evil behavior arises from a place of pain, so causing additional pain isn't effective. She'd rather try to soothe the underlying pain, and make sure that those who have committed Evil acts in the past always know that there is a non-Evil solution to their problems.

You can absolutely argue that she may be mistaken, but you can't conflate not believing in punishment with not caring about Good.

But that's been my point all along - claiming to care about good may make the character feel good, but it doesn't actually make her good. Alignment isn't your opinion on yourself, it's what you are. Sure, the character thinks she's good, but I've yet to see a single argument for that being accurate.

Jormengand
2016-06-03, 03:46 PM
It seems to me(and I hope Jormengand will correct me if I'm wrong) that this character believes, rightly or wrongly, that punishment is generally counterproductive for this purpose. She seems to think that most Evil behavior arises from a place of pain, so causing additional pain isn't effective. She'd rather try to soothe the underlying pain, and make sure that those who have committed Evil acts in the past always know that there is a non-Evil solution to their problems.

You're not wrong.

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 03:49 PM
You're not wrong.

Which means you're character is self important and puts her own ideals over actually doing good, unless she is going to turn every dangerous individual into the police to prevent them from harming others. How can you say she actively tries to do good and that she is concerned with people doing evil acts when she wants to 'help' the people doing the hurting? The more and more you talk about this character the less and less it feels like she actually has a personality and more and more like she's just trying to be edgy.

EDIT:
The character makes sense to you, but with the snippets you've provided it doesn't to me. The character is complex and it seems to you like it justifies everything, but to someone who has read what you've written it seems simple - the more you add the more certain aspects make sense while others make less. What was the point of this thread when you asked your OP when it's obvious that you seem to think the only way someone could understand your character is if you wrote a novel about her because she's so complex? I don't get it.

Jormengand
2016-06-03, 03:51 PM
Which means you're character is self important and puts her own ideals over actually doing good

Wait, let me get this straight: you think that hurting people solely on the basis that they've done something wrong, therefore you get to be evil right back at them, is not only good, but something that would be evil to oppose?

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 03:57 PM
Wait, let me get this straight: you think that hurting people solely on the basis that they've done something wrong, therefore you get to be evil right back at them, is not only good, but something that would be evil to oppose?

I think that preventing evil people from doing evil things is good. I think that people who do evil things should be separated from the rest of society. I think that the feelings of those who don't care about the feelings of others is a waste of time and energy unless they are actually capable of redemption. And in cases where you're dealing with the worst of the worst, that is not something you're going to encounter often.

Batman does good, he tries to help his enemies - he's even tried to sit down with the joker and offered to work things out with him - to help rehabilitate him. But he puts protecting the innocent, the victims, ahead of helping the rest. Your character doesn't seem to make that distinction in any regard other than 'what she feels like at the moment'.

EDIT: Typos

Jormengand
2016-06-03, 04:04 PM
I think that the feelings of those who don't care about the feelings of others is a waste of time and energy

What about the feelings of those who don't care about the feelings of those who don't care about the feelings of others? Again, I'm sensing a lot of "They're evil, so we can mistreat them" going about.


But he puts protected the innocent, the victims, ahead of helping the rest. Your character doesn't seem to make that distinction in any regard than 'what she feels like at the moment'.

She has her priorities. Put simply: save everyone>save the victim>save the perpetrator>save no-one. It seems that the last inequality has been blown up by some people into a massive fault in her morality and I'm not quite sure why.

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 04:13 PM
What about the feelings of those who don't care about the feelings of those who don't care about the feelings of others? Again, I'm sensing a lot of "They're evil, so we can mistreat them" going about.

Because intent matters. When you punish someone who does evil by putting them in prison it's not to hurt them - it's to help the rest of society. I'm not saying your character needs to beat people up or condone of the death penalty or anything, just that the idea that you want to help the innocent and do good things is contradicted by the fact that you want to bring peace to people who don't deserve it - guess what happens when you tell a child abuser, "You're not a bad person, but you should really stop doing that?" - they go home feeling good about themselves and beat their child again. You've done no good.



She has her priorities. Put simply: save everyone>save the victim>save the perpetrator>save no-one. It seems that the last inequality has been blown up by some people into a massive fault in her morality and I'm not quite sure why.

It's the 'save the perpetrator' thing that I (personally) have a problem with. It's shortsighted. It's not caring about repercussions or aftermath. Yes, some people can be 'helped' but number one - your character doesn't sound like she has the capacity to help people, she should rely on professionals, but sadly she thinks they're the problem, and two - waiting around helping people while they continue to do evil and *hoping* that they eventually do better isn't actually doing good.

Consider this - Peter Parker didn't help stop the criminal who eventually shot his uncle. I wouldn't argue that not stopping the criminal was an evil act, but neither was it a good one. He didn't do good in letting a criminal get away that he could have easily stopped - even though he felt at the time that the business deserved to be robbed (depending on continuity and all that). Then evil occurred because of his inaction. He is not responsible for that evil - but it makes nothing he did good. Your character takes that a step further - actively helping the criminal because theft isn't that big of a deal in her eyes, and then doing what after the murder occurs? Nothing? Consoling the murderer because he feels bad about his actions?

EDIT: I'm about to head home from work, and I'm actually on a week long vacation after that so this is probably the last chance I'll get to respond. Based off of your original post I can understand the argument for lawful neutral, but I feel like the character is more chaotic neutral. If things in the OP were blown out of proportion or there are mitigating circumstances, etc. etc. then fine - but nobody can give you an opinion on the character based off of information you haven't provided. If you're looking less for an opinion on the character and more for a debate on ethics and morality in real life things are obviously a lot more complex than what is going to be accomplished here I'd say.

Jormengand
2016-06-03, 04:25 PM
Because intent matters. When you punish someone who does evil by putting them in prison it's not to hurt them - it's to help the rest of society. I'm not saying your character needs to beat people up or condone of the death penalty or anything, just that the idea that you want to help the innocent and do good things is contradicted by the fact that you want to bring peace to people who don't deserve it - guess what happens when you tell a child abuser, "You're not a bad person, but you should really stop doing that?" - they go home feeling good about themselves and beat their child again. You've done no good.

Explaining why it's wrong and working with them to be better - which is exactly what happened to her - is better than punching them because hey, they deserved it. I don't like the idea that some people deserve some things and others don't, because it's basically a combination of prejudice and vigilantism - here is a class of people who you are allowed to mistreat because of who they are or what they've done.

Further, most domestic abuse happens as a reflection of the perpetrator's ill temper, so you chose a really bad example.


It's the 'save the perpetrator' thing that I (personally) have a problem with. It's shortsighted. It's not caring about repercussions or aftermath.

It isn't not caring about repercussions. It's actively trying to prevent them. She doesn't want anyone to be hurt. She minimises the number of people, good or evil, lawful or chaotic, who are hurt. She would save a criminal who was bleeding out (she actually has first aid ability far better than the minimum standard to be qualified in real life, which she learned to help people in their time of need) because she has compassion and can forgive people. Of course, if someone has to be imprisoned to protect others, that's fine, but to put someone in prison, or harm them, or persecute them to harm them is utterly abhorrent to her. Worse to her than those who harm people for their own benefit are those who deliberately send to harm someone with the end goal of harming them, and nothing else.

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 07:20 PM
Explaining why it's wrong and working with them to be better - which is exactly what happened to her - is better than punching them because hey, they deserved it. I don't like the idea that some people deserve some things and others don't, because it's basically a combination of prejudice and vigilantism - here is a class of people who you are allowed to mistreat because of who they are or what they've done.

Further, most domestic abuse happens as a reflection of the perpetrator's ill temper, so you chose a really bad example.


My example is based off of what I know from personal experience. People like your character who think they're 'helping' usually aren't (and in case it's not clear they are often making things worse). If you recognize something bad is happening and you're not a professional trained to deal with things like domestic abuse stay out of it or get professionals involved. You comforting the abuser is only going to confuse the victim.



It isn't not caring about repercussions. It's actively trying to prevent them. She doesn't want anyone to be hurt. She minimises the number of people, good or evil, lawful or chaotic, who are hurt. She would save a criminal who was bleeding out (she actually has first aid ability far better than the minimum standard to be qualified in real life, which she learned to help people in their time of need) because she has compassion and can forgive people. Of course, if someone has to be imprisoned to protect others, that's fine, but to put someone in prison, or harm them, or persecute them to harm them is utterly abhorrent to her. Worse to her than those who harm people for their own benefit are those who deliberately send to harm someone with the end goal of harming them, and nothing else.

The intent of punishment is not to harm - it's to protect others from that individual. Your character involves herself into situations and tries to do the right thing, but she actively avoids doing anything 'good' because it contradicts her personal belief system.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-03, 08:04 PM
This person being to described to us.

It feels like a game of 20 questions. Where the person with the answer, keeps purposely giving out cryptically worded clues so that they can wiggle out of any correct "guesses".

Like for example, if we say.. Is it purple? Then we get an affirmative. Then we go down the line of is it lavander, periwinkle, lilac,... an so for. With the person going nope nope nope... nope nope .... Give up.. The answer was .....ROYAL BLUE!.

To which we go, hey, that's not purple.

to which is replied... It's blue.. which is a PART of Purple... Sorry. You lose.

Typewriter
2016-06-03, 08:58 PM
This person being to described to us.

It feels like a game of 20 questions. Where the person with the answer, keeps purposely giving out cryptically worded clues so that they can wiggle out of any correct "guesses".

Like for example, if we say.. Is it purple? Then we get an affirmative. Then we go down the line of is it lavander, periwinkle, lilac,... an so for. With the person going nope nope nope... nope nope .... Give up.. The answer was .....ROYAL BLUE!.

To which we go, hey, that's not purple.

to which is replied... It's blue.. which is a PART of Purple... Sorry. You lose.

This is sort of how I feel. The original question posed was an interesting one (which is why I'm still looking at this thread instead of relaxing) and it led people to multiple perspectives on the matter. But the more information that's provided just causes more confusion, and what's more it makes it seem as if the original question was intentionally misleading. The question, at this point, feels less like "what's the alignment of this character" and more "this character does x, y, and z which I've already decided are good despite most people disagreeing so I'd like to have a debate about those subjects".

theNater
2016-06-03, 10:20 PM
...I've yet to see a single argument for that being accurate.
Well, let's get that fixed.

The d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) offers 5 points in the description of Good characters. From the initial summary, this character seems to meet 3 of them.

1. Respect for life-the character has taken a vow of nonviolence, presumably out of a desire not to harm others.

2. Concern for the dignity of sentient beings-the character is devoted to the freedom of every living being, fights for the rights of the downtrodden, and believes that no-one deserves to be ill-treated.

3. Makes personal sacrifices to help others-this is unconfirmed; the character is described as willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of others. Giving Jormengand the benefit of the doubt, I assume that this is known about the character due to it having actually happened.

Similarly, the description of Evil contains 6 points, and she meets none of those.

A sizable chunk of Good, no ongoing Evil(one Evil act from which she is repenting), that's Good.


This person being to described to us.

It feels like a game of 20 questions. Where the person with the answer, keeps purposely giving out cryptically worded clues so that they can wiggle out of any correct "guesses".
Jormengand has provided a summary of an extant character, from which you have extrapolated. When you present your extrapolations, Jormengand points out that they are erroneous, and attempts to fill in the gaps on which you erred. This isn't some kind of "gotcha", it's just you making incorrect guesses.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-03, 10:54 PM
Yet, the SRD doesn't say the alignment system is a point based system. It also doesn't say that those 5 points are the endall of what is considered "Good" There are mitigating circumstances.

If you take the whole Paladin thing of "Not associating with evil or they fall," which it was explicitly said she did. She is pretty much not evil. It is was said that she didn't try to change anyone. She would ask.. but if they didn't she was fine with that, and still associated with them. There is a difference between clarifying a mistake, and just switching something because you don't like the answers being provided.

Saintsqc
2016-06-03, 10:58 PM
Well, let's get that fixed.

The d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) offers 5 points in the description of Good characters. From the initial summary, this character seems to meet 3 of them.

1. Respect for life-the character has taken a vow of nonviolence, presumably out of a desire not to harm others.

2. Concern for the dignity of sentient beings-the character is devoted to the freedom of every living being, fights for the rights of the downtrodden, and believes that no-one deserves to be ill-treated.

3. Makes personal sacrifices to help others-this is unconfirmed; the character is described as willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of others. Giving Jormengand the benefit of the doubt, I assume that this is known about the character due to it having actually happened.

Similarly, the description of Evil contains 6 points, and she meets none of those.

A sizable chunk of Good, no ongoing Evil(one Evil act from which she is repenting), that's Good.


Jormengand has provided a summary of an extant character, from which you have extrapolated. When you present your extrapolations, Jormengand points out that they are erroneous, and attempts to fill in the gaps on which you erred. This isn't some kind of "gotcha", it's just you making incorrect guesses.

Hey you ! Stop that !

Logical thinking is not welcome here, its boring. Dont you see people are trying to make this as complex as possible ? The goal is not to find the correct answer....please let your analysis skills at the door.

Thanks !

Edit : ninjaed

theNater
2016-06-04, 03:25 AM
It also doesn't say that those 5 points are the endall of what is considered "Good"
Those five things are the things it describes in the definition of Good. That's what Good is, anything else you choose to add is your houserule.


If you take the whole Paladin thing of "Not associating with evil or they fall," which it was explicitly said she did.
Why would you take that? She's not a Paladin, and she's not trying to be.

There isn't just one way to be Good. Roy, Haley, and Celia are all Good, and none of them follow the Paladin code.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-04, 03:31 AM
Why would you take that? She's not a Paladin, and she's not trying to be.

There isn't just one way to be Good. Roy, Haley, and Celia are all Good, and none of them follow the Paladin code.

contradicts

Those five things are the things it describes in the definition of Good. That's what Good is, anything else you choose to add is your houserule.

theNater
2016-06-04, 04:03 AM
Why would you take that? She's not a Paladin, and she's not trying to be.

There isn't just one way to be Good. Roy, Haley, and Celia are all Good, and none of them follow the Paladin code.

contradicts

Those five things are the things it describes in the definition of Good. That's what Good is, anything else you choose to add is your houserule.
If a character has those five traits, the character is Good. A character can (and probably will) have other traits in addition to that, but one Good character having them doesn't mean every Good character must. The Paladin code is one such extra.

Jormengand
2016-06-04, 07:10 AM
If a character has those five traits, the character is Good. A character can (and probably will) have other traits in addition to that, but one Good character having them doesn't mean every Good character must. The Paladin code is one such extra.

This is a good point. Also notably, the Paladin of Freedom/Tyranny both have looser limits on associating with evil/good characters. Plus, a fallen paladin can still be lawful good.

Kyberwulf
2016-06-04, 12:18 PM
How many points of Neutrality did she have? How many points of good where initially contradicted in the same sentence?

theNater
2016-06-04, 02:00 PM
How many points of Neutrality did she have? How many points of good where initially contradicted in the same sentence?
So...I'm guessing this is a setup for a joke, because it would be silly to ask me to make your argument for you. I like to laugh, so I'll play along.

I don't know, Mr. Kyberwolf. How many points of Neutrality does she have? How many points of Good were initially contradicted in the same sentence?

Straybow
2016-06-13, 02:49 AM
So, following your logic, if someone :
Do what is right in is own eyes, based on feelings -> chaotic evil
Doesnt oppose evil -> evil

That would mean the majority of our societies are composed by evil people (and a lot of chaotic evil people). It doesnt make any sense.
It does make sense. You are simply inured to the constant presence of suppressed evil. This is primarily from the Judeo-Christian ethic rather than the d20 description of what Good alignment might be. The bible is chock full of examples. The phrase "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" appears in four places in the book of Judges to indicate some of the times in which the tribes of Israel had descended into sin and disobedience, and consequently God allowed their enemies to raid and oppress them. In one (Judges 19) a man's concubine is attacked and raped to death, so the man cuts the body into twelve pieces sent out to the twelve tribes as a warning that if they don't unite and destroy the wicked men who did it they would all be judged.

Other example that don't use the phrase abound. The prophet Jeremiah warns that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked. We think we're good when we're not. New Testament examples would make a lengthy post.

Yes, it does mean that the majority of societies are populated by people of barely restrained evil intent. Almost all urban areas (75%+ of population) are dangerous and crime-ridden. If people were by nature good, then larger groups of people would tend to reduce crime. If by nature neutral, then large group crime would differ little from small group. Sociologists explain lack of crime in small towns as stemming from tribalism, i.e., when we feel connected in community we restrain from acting on evil tendencies toward people in the community, but not necessarily toward outsiders.

People will lie, cheat, and steal whenever they think they can get away with it. For anecdotal support, take a look at youtube "wallet drop" videos. Then there are people who think it is right to start riots because they feel offended even though they have no personal involvement in a situation, and political leaders who order their police to let rioters attack bystanders perceived as sources of offense, and both are evil.

One cannot say more without violating the posted limitations on free speech that we agree to follow in this forum, imposed because of the way people justify bad behavior when shielded by the relative anonymity of the internet.

QED

hamishspence
2016-06-13, 06:19 AM
Eberron at least suggests that if you Detect Evil randomly in a city, you could expect 3 in 10 people to ping as Evil.