Need help understanding alignment?

[SuchADiceGuy]

Seeing that other topic about alignment inspired me to make this thread.

For my first D&D campaign, I had no idea which alignment to use for my character, and I'm really still not sure how to classify him. Could you guys help me out?

So, my PC was a rather dimwitted young man who was kicked out of his clan because of an accident he caused (it was a pretty big accident), so he ventured off into the world to find a place to live and a place to work. Eventually, he found himself in a major city, drinking alone in a bar, when he noticed a tiefling was getting beaten up by a bunch of racists. He beat up the tiefling's attackers, and in exchange, this tiefling gave my PC a steady job.

Turns out, the tiefling was actually a criminal, and my PC was an enforcer--some one who either beat up or killed any of his boss' enemies whenever he was asked. He was basically an armed thug. So, bad guy, right? Well, my PC actually did have moral qualms about this sort of work that he brought up to the tiefling. The tiefling told him that the people he was either killing or beating up were bad guys, and that it was okay to kill bad guys. My PC was dimwitted and naive, so he believed him and never felt bad about what he was doing again... until a certain point in the campaign, which I'll get to in a bit.

Later, he ended up joining the city watch as a mole, working under the same tiefling boss. While there, he seemed to genuinely enjoy his cover job--he liked helping out innocent folks and catching the bad guys. He genuinely cared about the lives of his teammates, and did whatever he could to help them out.

Although, something changed at one point in the campaign. Basically, my character was working as a mole in the City Watch, when he got a simple, but vague, mission--find out who patrols a certain part of the city at night, convince that person to take over the shift, and then not show up to work that night. My PC did exactly that, expecting that his tiefling boss needed to "take out some bad guys." However, something different happened; people in a local hostel were slaughtered--brutally. It was as if they were crushed to death.

My character was horrified that something like this could have happened--even more so since it was partially his fault. He confronted his boss and demanded to know what the hell was going on. His boss told him that he was merely contracted to fulfill this job from a third party--that he had no idea that something as brutal as this would happen. My PC argued that whoever WAS responsible was a crazy maniac who needed to be put down. My PC's boss saw the danger in being associated with an unpredictable lunatic, so he helped my PC track him down. All the guilt that my PC had about his association with this crime just washed away at this point--after all, if he didn't KNOW that his actions would lead to some people dying, then he wasn't a bad person! And if he was going to catch the guy who did it, then he'd be a GOOD guy!

What do you guys think? Which alignment did my character have? If you need more information or want me to elaborate on something, let me know.

[Airk]

Some sort of non-lawful Good alignment. The character appears to legitimately care about other people (that's "other people" as a generic category, not specific "other people" like family and friends) which indicates a Good alignment. The fact that he's dumb as hell and easily snookered doesn't alter this.

That said, alignment is kinda dumb a lot of the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Honest Tiefling]

Have you asked your table? After all, the use of alignment is often to communicate character concepts or to handle moral dilemmas at the table, so their perspective is valuable.

As for the character, I would say that he is True Neutral onto the path of becoming Neutral Good. He seems more determined to do the right thing as opposed to caring about law and order. In his past he seemed lost and taking orders, but now he's developing his own ideas and striking out on his own to do what he thinks is right and needed to help people.

Also, I think it would be a fun RP experience to go from a TN peasant to a NG hero, provided your table is okay with that alignment.

(And for future reference, when in doubt, write down True Neutral. Just let the DM change as they wish if they even pay attention to your character sheet. If you don't take alignment based classes, it won't even matter.)

[SethoMarkus]

Exactly how mich of a simpleton is this character? Is he unintelligent, or merely naive?

From what you've described so far I would place him as Neutral on the Good/Evil axis. Although unwitting and under a delusion of doing good, he still is committing acts that fall under Evil in D&D. I am leaning towards Chaotic over Lawful for the second axis, if only because he seems to act more out of misplaced loyalty and friendship than order or societal rules. (True he did work with the watch, but continued looking out for the Tiefling's best interest. It seems he wants to do right by society, but follows it more for direction than a strict code to follow.)

If, however, he is a complete simpleton, someone who needs help with basic tasks, I'd peg him as true Neutral. His behavior is swayed more by his surroundings and thise near to him than any personal morals.

[SuchADiceGuy]

Have you asked your table? After all, the use of alignment is often to communicate character concepts or to handle moral dilemmas at the table, so their perspective is valuable.

Well, one player told me that he believed that my PC was Neutral Good when the campaign ended. I haven't asked anyone else at the table--this campaign ended a while ago, and the players have gone their separate ways. I can get in touch with them, though.


(And for future reference, when in doubt, write down True Neutral. Just let the DM change as they wish if they even pay attention to your character sheet. If you don't take alignment based classes, it won't even matter.)

That's exactly what I ended up doing, actually. I wasn't 100% sure that was the right call though, so I thought I'd ask around here.

I appreciate the replies, guys!

[Honest Tiefling]

That's exactly what I ended up doing, actually. I wasn't 100% sure that was the right call though, so I thought I'd ask around here.

I appreciate the replies, guys!

Then tell your DM this is what you are doing. They can't really blame you for being confused when a single character can be said to have nine different alignments. (And the only reason there aren't more is because of a lack of more options...)

[Darth Ultron]

What do you guys think? Which alignment did my character have?

Neutral Good is the best fit. Your character is a basic ''good person''.

[SirBellias]

If it really matters, then probably the neutral good to true neutral range, as others suggested.

It's a bit too abstract and annoying for me to pay much attention to, but the basics are that the Good/Evil axis is how the character reacts to strangers (with benevolence or malevolence, respectively) and the Law/Chaos axis is how the character makes decisions (societaly focused decision making or personally focused decision making). That's how I interpret it, anyways.

[Shpadoinkle]

Each alignment encompasses a wide assortment of personalities, values, and outlooks on life. Two Lawful Good characters could easily be completely at odds with each other when it comes to personality, what they value, and how they see the world. This is why arguments about who's which alignment tend to be so pervasive and drawn out.

Personally, I use alignment as an indicator of my character's general outlook, and the kind of person he wants to be.

In your shoes I'd have just gone with what Honest Tiefling suggested.

[Mystral]

He's true neutral. He cares about himself and his friends, but is unwilling to cross certain moral tresholds.

[2D8HP]

When Gygax added the Good - Evil axis to the existing D&D Law - Chaos alignment axis in the article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf), he wrote:

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil..
So unless the PC is an Elf, put down Lawful neutral.
Boom.
Done.

[Airk]

He's true neutral. He cares about himself and his friends, but is unwilling to cross certain moral tresholds.

He also clearly cares about random strangers, at least as far as not wanting to be responsible for their deaths, so I don't think TN is appropriate.

[hamishspence]

"Unwilling to be directly responsible for the deaths of strangers" falls a bit short of the traditionally Good "Willing to make sacrifices for strangers."