What is this character's alignment

[NecroDancer]

I'm currently playing CoS and my character is a teifling warlock who's mottos are "selfishness for the greater good is awsome" and "learn to burn" his current actions are

1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares

2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them

3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components

4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)

5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).

6. Almost never keeps his promises

7. Has little respect for authority

8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek

9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine

10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant

11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it

12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin

Needless to say strahd has taken an intrest in him. My question is what do you think his alignment is?

[uraniumrooster]

Sounds like Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies.

[gfishfunk]

Chaotic Neutral.

And this is how alignment should work: come up with the individual elements and then use it as a descriptor.

[RickAllison]

1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares

Definitely Neutral on the G-E axis, but depending on his personal code could also be considered Chaotic. Thieves can be Lawful, adhering to a code from their organization.


2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them

Hard to peg. What king of rituals? Without more information, I'd say TN act.


3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components

What kind of revenge? If it is for righteous indignation at a scoundrel cheating customers, CN to CG. If it is for personally losing money, TN to CN. Downgrade down on the G-E axis if it is violent revenge.


4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)

Chaotic, but doesn't really factor into G-E axis.


5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).

TN. Power by itself is not evil.


6. Almost never keeps his promises

Probably more of an Evil thing (Chaotic is about believing in personal accountability, so it doesn't go there).


7. Has little respect for authority

The epitome of Chaotic


8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek

Neutral to Evil.


9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine

Bizarre.


10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant

How fun, doesn't affect alignment.


11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it

TN without more information. Without appearing as a real threat, it could be kept for various reasons including cultural preservation or study to help defeat evil.


12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin

Nothing on alignment normally, but could be Evil if he does it because he knows the paladin objects.


Needless to say strahd has taken an intrest in him. My question is what do you think his alignment is?

Chaotic Neutral, with some tendencies toward Evil. Play it by ear to see which way it goes.

[Tanarii]

My question is what do you think his alignment is?I think you're trying to do it backwards. In 5e, actions don't determine Alignment. Instead, Alignment is a description of the characters overall moral & social attitudes, and includes a one sentence description of resulting typical, but not required, general behavior. In other words, not only does do actions not determine alignment, but alignment doesn't determine specific individual actions. Alignment just tends to result in an overall pattern of behavior, which is summarized in the PHB as a single sentence, and doesn't override other aspects of the character's personality (as defined by Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw).

That said, any of these might fit, depending on the rest of the personality:
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm currently playing CoS and my character is a teifling warlock who's mottos are "selfishness for the greater good is awsome" and "learn to burn" his current actions are

The thought that "selfishness for the greater good" is even possible is contradictory. Knowing that selfishness is evil, and thinking it "is awesome" anyway, already place you in the realm of evil, in my book.

"Learn to Burn" is likewise evil (if it is acted upon). This is a means/ends thing. If you think that either can justify the other, it's usually just a license to be evil in the same way that "selfishness for the greater good" is just a license to be evil. Any action that is evil, whether it is a means or an end.


1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares

Range: LN/LE/N/NE/CG/CN/CE (depends on reasons).


2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them

Largely depends on the activities undertaken while in the cult. Roughly could fall under: LE/N/NE/CG/CN/CE.


3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components

Depends on what the planned means of revenge is, it's spirit and it's degree. Range: any alignment.


4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)

Range: Any alignment. Again this depends on degree to some extent. I'd apply the golden rule here as a rough measure of the extent of disrespect.


5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).

This is pure self-interest. It's basically saying "I'll use anyone I want for power." This goes beyond the neutral view, in my opinion. Range: LE/NE/CE.


6. Almost never keeps his promises

The problem here is that there is no need to ever make a promise. Intention and mental capacity come to the fore. Range: all alignments.


7. Has little respect for authority

Pretty open. You can have no respect for authority yet still obey it. It comes down to behaviour.


8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek

Range: LE/NE/CE.


9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine

Context? Range: any.


10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant

Taking this literally, he doesn't care about anyone else. Range: LE/NE/CN/CE.


11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it

Range: LE/NE/CE.


12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin

Range: any. If you think raising dead carries restrictions then they apply. Doing it in front of a paladin makes no difference, in my opinion.


Needless to say strahd has taken an intrest in him. My question is what do you think his alignment is?

I think he's: LE/NE/CE, mostly because of 5, 8, and 11.

[Kurt Kurageous]

In my world, CE or at best NE. This character seems pretty evil to me because nothing he does seems to help the poor Barovian society. He just brings about more chaos and suffering by reckless actions that bring about change for the sake of change he feels necessary, hang the long term consequences. Chaotic in that he believes his goals (if he actually has a goal) will be best served by individual action, not collective action. Neutral in that he doesn't really care how he gets what he wants as long as he gets what he wants.

What is 'good' depends on your aesthetic. Tell me that, and I can tell you the alignment.

In my (world's) aestetic, 'good' means your actions support the building of and sustaining of the 'good' humanoid races (human, dwarf, elf, gnome). 'Evil' is anything that tends to destroy, weaken, or put unnecessary strain on those civilizations (eg. orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, and random a-oles like this guy). An orc is 'evil' only because he fights for the 'wrong' cause/side. This character is evil because the human society (such as it is) will have to clean up after him everywhere he goes.

Neutral lies between the good and evil points of view, not in avoiding taking sides. In my world, those that oppose the expanse of any humanoid civilization at the expense of the primordial (fey or nature) are neutrals. Those who don't take sides are closer to evil than good because they are a burden on the civilization. Someone else must take up their pacifist slack when the orcs appear. If they don't like civilization, let them try the alternative. The hobgoblins will always welcome new slaves.

I also have neutral characters who are from the underdark. They want a coexistence where the underdark stays put, and surface dwellers stay out of the underdark. They don't really care about surface politics or who controls what on the surface or in the underdark. They would fight against whoever is insurgent.

I've had neutral characters (bards, clerics) who were neutral between the "good" anti-monarchists and the "evil" monarchists. It's not that they didn't take sides, it's more that a conflict (open warfare) got in the way of what they wanted to do.

Now on to the lawful/chaotic spectrum. Lawful believes that collectivism is the best way (and in extremes, the only way) to bring about their goals. This is typical of the short-lived races because it's the only way they can obtain immortality; codification of their actions. Chaotics believe that the best way (and in extremes the only way) to bring about their goals is through personal liberty and individual free will of action. Their goal is not immortality but long term happiness in the here and now. This is typical of the long-lived races whose lives need enduring values to be meaningful, not laws.

Absolutists become abusive no matter what alignment you consider. And they tend to be boring and dangerous to be around.

First define your aesthetic. Then you can know your alignment.

BTW, my Strahd would waste no time taking this guy and making him a thrall/spawn. As a mortal, he's endangering the lives of every souled Barovian. Strahd needs to feed upon those people and can't have they dying off because this guy just feels like starting a civil war in Vallaki. As an undead under Strahd's tutelage, he can be taught restraint.

[Belac93]

1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares
Neutral act. The merchant wasn't corrupt, but nor was he extremely poor and would have suffered from the lost.

2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them
Good/Neutral act. It depends. If he was focused on destroying them, then it is good. If it was rituals, and the destroying them was a bonus, then Neutral.

3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components
Neutral. But the severity of the revenge could change alignment (e.g, killing or severely wounding would be evil, but just being all talk and actually letting him go free would be good).

4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)
Neutral. From his perspective, they are just bodies.

5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).
Neutral, possibly Chaotic if he is making deals with shady beings.

6. Almost never keeps his promises
Chaotic.

7. Has little respect for authority
Chaotic.

8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek
Neutral. Dealing with the corrupt man was good, killing him in cold blood was neutral/evil (D&D alignment is more loose on those things). They even out.

9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine
Chaotic.

10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant
Neutral. Not caring about people isn't a bad thing, as long as you aren't a jerk.

11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it
If the mirror is harmful to people or risky, Evil. If the mirror could be used for decent ends, Chaotic Good. If it won't harm anyone, and he just likes it, Neutral.

12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin
Neutral. Raising the dead isn't evil, doing it in-front of someone sworn to kill the dead, while trollish, is not bad.

[Sigreid]

I think he's CE. He's all about him and to hell with everyone else.

Even CE characters can be the hero in the right circumstances. Think Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer saying something to the effect of "Of course I want to stop the demon that is going to destroy the world. I live here too you know. And besides I quite like it here."

[Tanarii]

Time to stir up some trouble. :smallbiggrin:

All y'all answering line by line with Alignments are doing it wrong. At least for 5e Alignment. There is no such thing as Alignment for single specific acts in 5e.

Edit: Correction ... there is one, and only one, act in 5e that has an alignment associated with it. Using Necromancy magic to create undead is not a good act. That's it.

[Draco4472]

Chaotic-Neutral with semi-evil tendencies at first glance, depending on what our character intends by these actions. If these are meant to be 'pranks' (that being the best word I can think of off the top of my head to otherwise describe this list of actions) you might be a carefree Chaotic-Good character with some evil potential in them.

I agree with the posts above for the most part.

[Sigreid]

Time to stir up some trouble. :smallbiggrin:

All y'all answering line by line with Alignments are doing it wrong. At least for 5e Alignment. There is no such thing as Alignment for single specific acts in 5e.

Edit: Correction ... there is one, and only one, act in 5e that has an alignment associated with it. Using Necromancy magic to create undead is not a good act. That's it.

I disagree, if we were talking about one or two information points, yes. But the OP asked for an alignment with several examples including he really doesn't give a damn about anyone.

For the rule thing, that's not true either. Embracing lycanthropy also comes with a hard alignment descriptor. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I disagree, if we were talking about one or two information points, yes. But the OP asked for an alignment with several examples including he really doesn't give a damn about anyone.I agree that it's possible, if still somewhat backwards, to use the aggregate off 12 data points to compare that to the PHB descriptions of each Alignment's typical, but not required, behavior. And see which one (in a poster's opinion) matters.

But trying to give each act a specific Alignment isn't possible within the D&D 5e Alignment's framework. That's not how Alignment works in this edition.


For the rule thing, that's not true either. Embracing lycanthropy also comes with a hard alignment descriptor. :smallbiggrin:Does it? Page reference please. Or at least general description of where I can find and verify that. ('cause I'm lazy :smallwink: )

Edit: Okay found it. Not only is that an example of an act carrying alignment, it's actually an example of forced Alignment change in D&D 5e. Amazing. OTOH, at least this gives us a good example of what it takes to change alignments in this edition.

[Sigreid]

I agree that it's possible, if still somewhat backwards, to use the aggregate off 12 data points to compare that to the PHB descriptions of each Alignment's typical, but not required, behavior. And see which one (in a poster's opinion) matters.

But trying to give each act a specific Alignment isn't possible within the D&D 5e Alignment's framework. That's not how Alignment works in this edition.

Does it? Page reference please. Or at least general description of where I can find and verify that. ('cause I'm lazy :smallwink: )

I agree with the points having alignment ratings not being the way it works. For non-supernatural creatures I tend to dispense with alignment all together.

It is in the few background pages right before they start discussing the were's themselves. Same section that says the DM can take the character if you surrender to the curse and turn you into an NPC.

[RSP]

I go with "evil" in alignment terms meaning more like "selfish and willing to step on others to get what s/he wants" much like Cersi (NE shifted to CE) or Tywin Lannister (LE) in GoT.

As such, I'd say this character is CE. Clearly doesn't care about others in general and is willing to kill to obtain their desires (evil) and doesn't seem to abide by any sort of law, code or moral value (chaotic).

[RickAllison]

I disagree, if we were talking about one or two information points, yes. But the OP asked for an alignment with several examples including he really doesn't give a damn about anyone.

For the rule thing, that's not true either. Embracing lycanthropy also comes with a hard alignment descriptor. :smallbiggrin:

Additionally, acts do not have to be in keeping with alignment, but patterns do. If someone consistently employs Chaotic methods, it is a fair bet that Chaotic is the default rather than an exception forced upon them by other personality descriptors. A Paladin doesn't stop being LG because he agreed with the Bard that blowing up an armory was the best way to rescue some prisoners, despite being a patently Chaotic act, but the Paladin who is choosing breaking the law for good reason as Plan A consistently has likely evolved to where he is either NG or CG.

Alignment is only one of the aspects of a character's personality, but it is still one. An LG paladin should employ Lawful methods if it wouldn't serve his other aspects more to do so, and that is the way it should be. An LG who consistently lets orphans off the hook for stealing bread could be motivated by having been a starving child himself or similar personality-based decisions, but it could also mean that he doesn't care about being Lawful so much as being Good.

[Tanarii]

I agree with the points having alignment ratings not being the way it works. For non-supernatural creatures I tend to dispense with alignment all together.Personally I like Alignment in this edition. I think it's really a useful tool. Players can consider that one sentence description, along with all their other motivations that are part of their personality (formal or informal), when trying to make in-character decisions. Or to but it another way, it helps them get in-character.

I always tell my players, right before the session begins, pretend for a second that they are a really pretentious actor. Ask "what's my motivation?" Review the PC's motivations they've previously decided on, including the Alignment description. Then I do the recap, and we start play.

[Zaydos]

1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares

On the evil side of neutral.


2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them

Not enough information. Most devil cult rituals are evil and trying to learn them to use them is also evil, destroying the cult could be good depending upon motivation but without more information this comes off as evil.


3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components

Any, depends upon type of revenge.


4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)

Chaotic with definite shades of non-Good.


5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).

Extremely Chaotic, with tinges of Evil.


6. Almost never keeps his promises

Extremely Chaotic, with tinges of Evil.


7. Has little respect for authority

The prime definition of Chaotic.


8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek

Way it's framed sounds Chaotic but really could be any alignment without the blames it on his henchman part (it's definitely non-lawful at that point) depending upon how corrupt and motive could run the gamut from Good to Evil (Evil death cult trying to destroy the town is operating from the burgomaster's basement and when charmed fingered him as their leader and you're trying to stop him and the cult so they don't hurt innocents, probably Good, the cold blood part makes me a bit more suspicious). Also is Izzek the burgomaster's henchman or the character's (blaming it on your own subordinate is Chaotic Evil).


9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine

Puerile with Chaotic tendencies.


10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant

Indicative of non-lawful non-good but not necessarily aligned.


11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it

Not even considering destroying it tells a little about the motives and pushes it to non-Good, but not enough info to know more than that.


12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin

I assume you mean necromantically animating the dead which is as has been pointed out strictly an Evil act in 5e, doing it in front of the paladin makes it Chaotic as well and possibly more Evil.


Needless to say strahd has taken an intrest in him. My question is what do you think his alignment is?

Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral, really Pandemonium aligned, assuming that these actions are indicative of normal behavior, as opposed to 'let's pick the 12 worst things he's ever done and ignore 95% of his actions'.

[RickAllison]

Personally I like Alignment in this edition. I think it's really a useful tool. Players can consider that one sentence description, along with all their other motivations that are part of their personality (formal or informal), when trying to make in-character decisions. Or to but it another way, it helps them get in-character.

I always tell my players, right before the session begins, pretend for a second that they are a really pretentious actor. Ask "what's my motivation?" Review the PC's motivations they've previously decided on, including the Alignment description. Then I do the recap, and we start play.

Oh yeah. Like for the Magic Mirror, a Sage could have these issues with it:

1) "There's nothing I like more than a good mystery." The sage wants to figure out what is going on with the mirror before deciding what to do with it.
2) "I'm willing to listen to every side of an argument before making my judgement." He wants to see what the mirror's perspective is first, maybe it is redeemable or there is a worse evil out there?
3) "No Limits. Nothing should fetter the infinite possibility inherent in all existence." By destroying the mirror simply for being evil at first glance, they could be destroying countless possibilities. That is not something to do lightly.
4) "I work to preserve a library, university, scriptorium, or monastery." The evil mirror could be a great boon for further studies!
5) "Unlocking an ancient mystery is worth the price of a civilization." Civilizations rise and fall every century. Knowledge, however, is universal. This mirror may cause one place to be destroyed, but the knowledge gained could save countless future civilizations!

This mirror could seek to do unspeakable things, but a Good character with any or all of these personality aspects may feel obligated to either risk such, or to actually encourage it to happen. After all, isn't it better to potentially save the entire world by studying the destruction of a small society? (That is a hypothetical question from the perspective of the PC. Yes, there are major problems associated with such an outlook, but it does merit consideration, especially in-character.)

[Naanomi]

Alignment matters very little in this edition, so I don't worry about it in most circumstances. Sprites can detect it; and some magic items care... But that's about it mechanically

That aside, I'd say that character is CE with CN leanings... But not the sophisticated type of evil that tends to attract Strahd's attention

[NecroDancer]

To be fair I have a feeling the DM will force me to confront my actions very soon (or the paladin will finally have a excuse to kill me). Overall the interaction between my warlock and paladin is pure gold with each of us prepairing for the inevitable confrontation between the knightly warrior of good and the happy go lucky pycopath. The entire group is ok with my actions IRL I'm not being "that guy"

[Malifice]

CN (with E tendencies).

[Reaper34]

CN but pushing CE.

[Goober4473]

Sounds like his alignment is Jared Leto.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Time to stir up some trouble. :smallbiggrin:

All y'all answering line by line with Alignments are doing it wrong. At least for 5e Alignment. There is no such thing as Alignment for single specific acts in 5e.

Edit: Correction ... there is one, and only one, act in 5e that has an alignment associated with it. Using Necromancy magic to create undead is not a good act. That's it.

You're not stirring up trouble. You're just necessitating that someone point out to you again that not everyone plays D&D exactly as you do, nor are they required to.

[BurgerBeast]

Time to stir up some trouble. :smallbiggrin:

All y'all answering line by line with Alignments are doing it wrong. At least for 5e Alignment. There is no such thing as Alignment for single specific acts in 5e.

Edit: Correction ... there is one, and only one, act in 5e that has an alignment associated with it. Using Necromancy magic to create undead is not a good act. That's it.

I think there is a big difference between "intended alignment" and actual, objective alignment. I know this doesn't have much bearing on 5e because of the lack of abilities that focus on alignment identification, but the principle remains.

Many religious zealots, for example, behave in a LE way because they misguidedly strive to be LG. So I do think that one's alignment is the sum of their individual actions, weighted by significance. The effect of any one action is essentially nil, but the cumulative effect is one's true alignment.

[Tanarii]

You're not stirring up trouble. You're just necessitating that someone point out to you again that not everyone plays D&D exactly as you do, nor are they required to.Sure, you're free to ignore how 5e tells you to use Alignment all you like. Play the game any way you like. It's kind of silly to actively do it on a 5e forum though, especially when the way it's done is usually old edition thinking on how Alignment used to work.


I think there is a big difference between "intended alignment" and actual, objective alignment. I know this doesn't have much bearing on 5e because of the lack of abilities that focus on alignment identification, but the principle remains.

Many religious zealots, for example, behave in a LE way because they misguidedly strive to be LG. So I do think that one's alignment is the sum of their individual actions, weighted by significance. The effect of any one action is essentially nil, but the cumulative effect is one's true alignment.
But it's explicitly the other way around. 5e Alignment is, per the PHB, about the attitudes the creature holds. Those attitudes tend to result in typical overall/cumulative behavior.

Note that in no way implies Alignment is somehow "intended" alignment or non-objective. A creature may believe it's attitudes to morality & society/order are LG, but actually they're objectively LE. (Assuming you play with objective Alignment. IMO various things in the rules imply it.)

But regardless, the PHB goes out of its way to say the Alignment behavior is typical, but individuals may vary. And that few creatures are perfect or consistent in upholding the precepts of the Alignent.

The point is Alignment gives players an additional data point for Roleplaying, aka making in-character decisions. That's why I said trying to determine Alignment from actions, even aggregate ones, is back to front. Alignment is there so you, as a player, can use it to help inform your actions, along with the rest of your PC personality. Outside of that, it doesn't really matter that much.

It's still a valid question to ask a variation of: hey, in your guys opinion, am I playing X alignment properly, given these other personality traits / motivations? Of course, without knowing those other personality traits/motivations, it's really hard (bordering on impossible) to work it backwards, because Alignment (by the 5e rules for how to use it) is just supposed to be one of the motivations driving decision making /Roleplaying. In other words, even with a bunch of aggregate actions, we don't know for sure there weren't some other overriding motivations involved.

Also I'll put in my standard disclaimer: Actions should have appropriate consequences. Actions not having associated Alignment doesn't change that.

[Arkhios]

It could be said that there are only two types of paladins regarding undead.

Those who oppose undeath, and those who don't give a damn.

Those who might have an incentive to oppose undeath are Oath of Devotion paladins, since they have the Channel Divinity option to Turn Undead.

Oath of the Ancients is more anti-fey & anti-fiend. (they have a channel divinity option to turn fey and fiend)

Oath of Vengeance simply doesn't care. (their channel divinity options don't discriminate)

Oathbreaker (still don't quite get it's a sub-class instead of its own class): Pro-undeath, in fact. they have a channel divinity option to control undead.

So, as can be seen above, only Devotion Paladins might hate undead, and therefore object raising dead in front of them.

[smcmike]

CN (with E tendencies).

I'm shocked at this. I see attempted murder on that list. I thought I'd see a classic Malifice rant.

[Arkhios]

I'm shocked at this. I see attempted murder on that list. I thought I'd see a classic Malifice rant.

I suppose there's only so much one can rant about same things before it turns indifferent to you :P

[NNescio]

I'm currently playing CoS and my character is a teifling warlock who's mottos are "selfishness for the greater good is awsome" and "learn to burn" his current actions are

1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares

2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them

3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components

4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)

5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).

6. Almost never keeps his promises

7. Has little respect for authority

8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek

9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine

10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant

11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it

12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin

Needless to say strahd has taken an intrest in him. My question is what do you think his alignment is?

Chaotic Neutral with evil tendencies.

(i.e. classic Murderhobo alignment. Of the loonie kind, not munchkin.)


I think you're trying to do it backwards. In 5e, actions don't determine Alignment. Instead, Alignment is a description of the characters overall moral & social attitudes, and includes a one sentence description of resulting typical, but not required, general behavior. In other words, not only does do actions not determine alignment, but alignment doesn't determine specific individual actions. Alignment just tends to result in an overall pattern of behavior, which is summarized in the PHB as a single sentence, and doesn't override other aspects of the character's personality (as defined by Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw).

That said, any of these might fit, depending on the rest of the personality:
Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

A Lawful Good Paladin of Vengeance can start backsliding towards Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil depending on how extreme his methods start to become (still get to remain Paladins though depending on the nature of his oath). Like, say, blowing up or burning down an orphanage full of children to get at a demon or criminal the corrupt director is sheltering inside ("Hey, they're going to be ritually sacrificed or sold into slavery anywa"y), or say, torturing a villain's wife or loved one (or children) to get information on his whereabouts. Even if the Paladin is doing it for a Good Cause™ and would lead to less people dying than if he did nothing.

(And yes, I consider Bryan Mills to be Evil because he has consistently shown a careless disregard of the lives of people other than his family, including innocent ones which he will not hesitate to personally shoot to interrogate their family members. Plus all the car accidents and random explosions all over the place.)

A character's starting alignment provides a certain measure of his worldview and personal ethics. It may change over time, depending on the drives and motivations of the character and the actions he takes. It is not static -- a changing alignment can be part of character development, as a character becomes more ruthless the achieve a personal goal, or, in the opposite direction, if he learns compassion and begin to repent his earlier actions.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You're all going about this the wrong way. You start an alignment discussion by agreeing on which alignment Batman is, then you work out everything else from there.

[RickAllison]

You're all going about this the wrong way. You start an alignment discussion by agreeing on which alignment Batman is, then you work out everything else from there.

Flexible Good :smalltongue:

[IShouldntBehere]

Chaotic Neutral standing on the line to Chaotic Evil with one tippy-toe over the line with a ****-eating grin on his face waiting to see if anyone is going to object before he jumps over.

[RickAllison]

Chaotic Neutral standing on the line to Chaotic Evil with one tippy-toe over the line with a ****-eating grin on his face waiting to see if anyone is going to object before he jumps over.

That really might be the most accurate determination.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm currently playing CoS and my character is a teifling warlock who's mottos are "selfishness for the greater good is awsome" and "learn to burn" his current actions are

1. Trying to cheat a merchant out of his wares

2. Joining a devil cult in order to learn more rituals and someday destroy them

3. Swearing revenge on a preist for charging him an extra 5 gp for spell components

4. Having no respect for the dead (because they are gone and can't effect him)

5. Making a deal with any being who promises him more power (he is willing to betray them if they force him to do things he disagrees with).

6. Almost never keeps his promises

7. Has little respect for authority

8. Try's to kill a corrupt Burgomaster in cold blood than burns down his house and blames it on his henchman, Izzek

9. Giving Strahd a jar full of urine

10. The two people he cares about are his undead raven familiar and his unseen servant

11. Keeping an evil mirror and not even considering destroying it

12. Raise the dead in front of the paladin

Needless to say strahd has taken an intrest in him. My question is what do you think his alignment is?

Honestly, anything on the chaos side could fit.

You can be good and do evil deeds. You can be good and not nice.

Belkar is the perfect example of someone who has been doing good (more recently) and cares for something deeply (and other things less deeply) but is still evil.

CG, CN, or CE.

CE if he uses "greater good" as an excuse.

CG if he really means "greater good"


Edit

Alignment isn't a line, it's a wibbly wobbly mess. You can go from good to evil without passing neutral or collecting 200 bucks.