Tiefling wizard's alignment. what would you rule it to be?

[Reaper34]

I was just curious due to a similar thread by Necrodancer. it's interesting to see other's opinion on it.

My character in a sandbox game is a tiefling wizard That has been ruled to be NE by our DM. I don't really argue with it since even I think he's CN at best and CE at worst. his accomplishments include:

1: Being raised by his succubus prostitute grandmother. His education of right and wrong was a little different as a child.(he's a disappointment since he doesn't do evil for evil sake.)
2: having a courtesan license in one of the main cities.
3: seducing/bespelling multiple people for personal gain.
4: attending a cannibal cult dinner and sampling the Halfling and Elf, but not the human since "He's not a cannibal." (intelligent non-humonoids "Dragons, giant eagles, mantocores, ect) are regularly eaten by "good" races.)
5: Stealing small items from shops/others when he thinks he can get away with it.
6: Setting up a "innocent" thief to take the fall for his (the character's) crimes.
7: making a binding contract with a begger for his (begger) soul then using the contract to pay off a balor he (character) had made a deal with.
8: using innocent bystanders as cover.
9: hiring out as a crimelords bodyguard.
10: occasional necromancy because "suitable servants aren't about" so he had to make due with what he had. (carrying his pack, drawing water for a bath, ect.) he usually just sets them loose when he's done with them.

to the good though

1: gives a fair amount of earnings (some of them stolen) to orphanages because they need a nicer start than he had. though he has been known to use street urchins as spies.
2: condemns non-licensed non-guild courtesans
3: lead the guard to the next feast of the cannibals. done not because he felt it was wrong but because another party member started a quest to solve strange disappearances. he wanted to help a friend.
4: is loyal to his friends.
5: Genuinely tries to keep most of his promises. unless he makes them with people he thinks are planning to betray the party/him.
6: in #9 above. he waited till the contract ran out then promptly murdered the crimelord for the bounty on him, as well as for poor treatment during his employment.
7: generally tries to keep anyone he has bespelled for his personal gain/comfort alive and safe. doesn't extend to enemies bespelled during a combat encounter. (lady sugar mama he protects, random goblin that is his new "friend" is just a trap tripper.)

luckily the rest of the party is mostly N of some flavor. though the cleric is CG. Also most of the party doesn't know some of his worst crimes. out of 6 characters he is the only "evil" character. he is extremely self centered and values his comfort. usually above most other things. specialized in enchantments.

so what would you say his alignment was?

[Gastronomie]

3: seducing/bespelling multiple people for personal gain.
5: Stealing small items from shops/others when he thinks he can get away with it.
6: Setting up a "innocent" thief to take the fall for his (the character's) crimes.
7: making a binding contract with a begger for his (begger) soul then using the contract to pay off a balor he (character) had made a deal with.
8: using innocent bystanders as cover.
9: hiring out as a crimelords bodyguard.These are done for personal gain knowing it goes against social moral issues, so by this point he's not "good", nor is he "neutral". He's obviously "evil".

That said, he's not gonna be a bad addition to the team, and I doubt his personality will cause problems during gameplay.

His education of right and wrong was a little different as a child^ Obligatory "bad environment".

10: occasional necromancy because "suitable servants aren't about" so he had to make due with what he had. (carrying his pack, drawing water for a bath, ect.) he usually just sets them loose when he's done with them. I as a DM have failed to understand why necromancy is evil in the first place, so that's that. (This depends on the DM, but my view is that if there's a job no mortal wants to do, having dead bodies with no minds do it is way better than forcing sentient people to do it through slavery.)

1: gives a fair amount of earnings (some of them stolen) to orphanages because they need a nicer start than he had. though he has been known to use street urchins as spies. I actually use a similar character in a campaign right now. Even evil people can be kind to those he can feel compassion against. Works solid nice, and prevents the character from being just a big fat a**hole, the sort of "chaotic stupid" character created just to troll the table. He's still an a**hole, just like my own character, but at least this a**hole has some good things about him.

4: is loyal to his friends.This is the most important part. Even if he's evil, if he's not gonna betray his friends, the party will have no problem with him sticking around.

In fact he can be very beneficial to the party. The image I'm getting from your description is a cunning, highly intelligent, and badass scoundrel wizard who is no doubt evil, but does have human emotions, as well as his own set of morals that he follows quite strictly (not that other people can understand them). He's got both chaotic and lawful moments, so that sums up to be Neutral Evil. But for the reasons explained above, he will not harm the party - and in fact, when the party gets winded up in a dire situation where you shan't choose the methods for the goal, this guy will be the one who saves the day, using methods that a party of LG Paladins can never hope to use.

This guy is NE, but it's a good character. Go with it.

The fact you're worried whether he's evil or not is enough proof that you aren't a troll player, and that you are willing to be a beneficial asset to the team.

[DivisibleByZero]

Agree with your DM

[RickAllison]

Yup, Evil. But an Evil that is good with group dynamics!

[HunterMarked]

At last an evil dude who is not chaotic idiot/suicidal/mentally damaged. It's up to your dm to say tho.

[smcmike]

1: Being raised by his succubus prostitute grandmother. His education of right and wrong was a little different as a child.(he's a disappointment since he doesn't do evil for evil sake.)
No effect on alignment.



2: having a courtesan license in one of the main cities.
This sounds.... Lawful?



3: seducing/bespelling multiple people for personal gain.
Hard to say.



4: attending a cannibal cult dinner and sampling the Halfling and Elf, but not the human since "He's not a cannibal." (intelligent non-humonoids "Dragons, giant eagles, mantocores, ect) are regularly eaten by "good" races.)
Evil.



5: Stealing small items from shops/others when he thinks he can get away with it.
Chaotic and not Good.



6: Setting up a "innocent" thief to take the fall for his (the character's) crimes.
Evil, depending partially on how hard the fall is.



7: making a binding contract with a begger for his (begger) soul then using the contract to pay off a balor he (character) had made a deal with.
Very Evil.



8: using innocent bystanders as cover.
Not Good.



9: hiring out as a crimelords bodyguard.
Depends.



10: occasional necromancy because "suitable servants aren't about" so he had to make due with what he had. (carrying his pack, drawing water for a bath, ect.) he usually just sets them loose when he's done with them.
Not Good



1: gives a fair amount of earnings (some of them stolen) to orphanages because they need a nicer start than he had. though he has been known to use street urchins as spies.

Good.



2: condemns non-licensed non-guild courtesans
Lawful Judgey?



3: lead the guard to the next feast of the cannibals. done not because he felt it was wrong but because another party member started a quest to solve strange disappearances. he wanted to help a friend.
Nothing much.



4: is loyal to his friends.
5: Genuinely tries to keep most of his promises. unless he makes them with people he thinks are planning to betray the party/him.

Mildly lawful.



6: in #9 above. he waited till the contract ran out then promptly murdered the crimelord for the bounty on him, as well as for poor treatment during his employment.
A bit Evil.



7: generally tries to keep anyone he has bespelled for his personal gain/comfort alive and safe. doesn't extend to enemies bespelled during a combat encounter. (lady sugar mama he protects, random goblin that is his new "friend" is just a trap tripper.)

That's just polite.



Overall? Your DM has it right. NE. He cares about (some) laws, he tries to keep his word, he doesn't have a strong sense of right and wrong.

[KarlMarx]

Sound pretty neutral to me.

There's a balance between good and bad actions and impulses in his character.

Same with law/chaos.

If I were you/your dm, I'd definitely call this character TN, maybe leaning towards evil.

[Finlam]

It was the whole "make a pact with a demon and then using someone else's soul to fulfill the contract" thing that made me lean toward evil.

I started playing D&D with 3.5 where "good" and "evil" weren't just alignment choices, but were actual tangible things in the universe to the point where a character could literally channel evil to inflict harm on other creatures or channel good to heal them.

In such a universe where "good" and "evil" are real, tangible things and not limited to abstract concepts and philosophy being truly "evil" is pretty easy to benchmark. Demons and Devils are evil, Angels are good, and almost every creature you'll ever meet on the material plane is "neutral" with some leanings one or the other. In such a universe it takes a pretty terrible person to cross the boundary of being truly evil or an immensely great person to cross the boundary of being truly good.

Donating regularly and saying your prayers is not enough to make you "good" any more than making ends meet by mugging halflings in an alley makes you evil. You are still so far from the realm of demons and angels that you'd barely register on Paladin's radar, if at all.

However, once you make a binding pact with a demon, one of the incarnate manifestations of evil within the universe, especially if you know exactly what it is you are making a pact with, then you've crossed that threshold into truly "evil" territory. You've crossed it a second time when then go and fulfil your bargan with the demon by taking someone else's soul.

The guy who beats up halflings in an alley is a bad person, but not evil in a D&D sense. The guy who contracts with a manifestation of evil and then fulfills that contract by taking someone's only, irreplaceable, immortal soul is evil in every sense.

[Tanarii]

Alignment is (in the PHB) a player trait. Something players choose for the PC in order to assist them with Roleplaying. I'm curious why you or your DM felt the need to rule on it?

Is it because certain Alignments are not permitted in his campaign? (ie a rule along the lines of 'no Drow'.) Has he introduced mechanical (or in-world) ramifications for certain Alignments? Some other campaign specific reason?

[eastmabl]

Alignments are fluid, and therefore for suckers. You do you.

[Reaper34]

Alignment is (in the PHB) a player trait. Something players choose for the PC in order to assist them with Roleplaying. I'm curious why you or your DM felt the need to rule on it?

Is it because certain Alignments are not permitted in his campaign? (ie a rule along the lines of 'no Drow'.) Has he introduced mechanical (or in-world) ramifications for certain Alignments? Some other campaign specific reason?

No there are no restrictions on alignment in the game. the party does however have a few alignment specific items, and it occasionally becomes an issue in play. such as angels, demons, devils, ect checking. alignment isn't a huge part of the game but it sometimes affects game play and mechanics.

Gastronomie gave a pretty good description of the character. and this thread isn't so much to get help on a ruling as my own curiosity as to what others would rule on it. Ma'lin Desyre NE 7th lvl Enchanter, he's been one of my favorite characters to play in a while.

[Tanarii]

and this thread isn't so much to get help on a ruling as my own curiosity as to what others would rule on it.Understood. I was wondering why the DM needed to be involved at all, as opposed to you just determining your character Alignment for yourself.

[IShouldntBehere]

On the Chaotic side of Nuetral Evil with a capital "E".

[Reaper34]

Understood. I was wondering why the DM needed to be involved at all, as opposed to you just determining your character Alignment for yourself.

I orriginally chose CN for the character but, as with most newly created characters even the player doesn't know how they will play them at 1st lvl. as the character grew it waffled back and forth on the edge of CN/NE till a bit too much built up on the evil side and the dm changed it to NE. I just played the character the way i wanted to. didn't bother me either way, i kinda expected it.

found out when a crown of demintion door that worked best for good, somewhat for N, and not at all for evil just wouldn't work for him. almost got him caught by the noblewoman that was keeping him in the style he has become accustomed to. luckly a large sack and a laundry chute worked just as well of hiding/escorting the maid out of his rooms. it's not easy being a kept man. lol

[Tanarii]

Interesting. I wouldn't allow a DM to change my Alignment in 5e. There's no real provision for taking it out of the player's hands like that. It'd be one thing for the DM to point out to me that I wasn't really playing the Alignment on my character sheet, at which point I'd probably consider if I thought s/he was right, and then change it myself. But the DM changing it to something else would be pointless. It's an unenforceable change, since it's only there to give me direction on how to roleplay my character anyway.

[Finlam]

Interesting. I wouldn't allow a DM to change my Alignment in 5e.

That's interesting. As a DM, I've always completely disregarded what players mark down as their alignment and track their actual alignment based on their actions and intentions in character. I find that doing it any other way leads to "chaotic" characters who are really more of a **** than actually chaotic and "good" characters who could murder people in their sleep and then loot the body without batting an eye.

[Reaper34]

Interesting. I wouldn't allow a DM to change my Alignment in 5e. There's no real provision for taking it out of the player's hands like that. It'd be one thing for the DM to point out to me that I wasn't really playing the Alignment on my character sheet, at which point I'd probably consider if I thought s/he was right, and then change it myself. But the DM changing it to something else would be pointless. It's an unenforceable change, since it's only there to give me direction on how to roleplay my character anyway.

Me and this DM have played together for years. and i was warned that the character was "sliding" towards evil. i told him if it got too far to change it and i'd deal with it. i'd rather play my character how i want to play it and deal with the consequinces of those actions than worry about sticking to an alignment. to most of the people i play with as both a dm and a player the characters actions determine the alignment, not the alignment forces the character into a certain set of actions. it's the nice thing aboth playing with a long time group, most of the drama is left in game where it is fun. afterwards if there are problems they are handled in a friendly manner and no one gets their feelings hurt. though anytime we have a break and the dm asks to have a word with a player, for whatever reason, there's usually the middle school "ooooooo you're in trouuuble." It's tons of fun in and out of game. as it should be.

[Tanarii]

That's interesting. As a DM, I've always completely disregarded what players mark down as their alignment and track their actual alignment based on their actions and intentions in character.To what end? A character's Alignment isn't information a DM particularly needs to get involved in. Unless he's banning particular Alignments. I can see it being important to know how a PC will act to prepare certain storylines, but there's no particular reason to separately determine PC Alignment, if you feel they aren't representing it well.


Me and this DM have played together for years. and i was warned that the character was "sliding" towards evil.I guess I don't understand what the repercussions of "sliding towards evil" are in your campaign. I mean, I understand there being repercussions for the actual actions you've taken. But so what if your character is sliding towards evil? How does the label of 'evil' on your character sheet, which is for you roleplaying your character, impact the PC in the in-game reality?

[IShouldntBehere]

Interesting. I wouldn't allow a DM to change my Alignment in 5e. There's no real provision for taking it out of the player's hands like that. It'd be one thing for the DM to point out to me that I wasn't really playing the Alignment on my character sheet, at which point I'd probably consider if I thought s/he was right, and then change it myself. But the DM changing it to something else would be pointless. It's an unenforceable change, since it's only there to give me direction on how to roleplay my character anyway.

Interesting. So assume you and a fellow player both show up to a game with a Lawful Good character. You play yours according to whatever vision of Lawful Good you have. He plays his like Luca Blight (https://youtu.be/BhNCbGDE4GI?t=29)*. The DM says to him "You're not really being particularly lawful or good". To which he returns "Yes I am. In fact from my perspective, I'm being as Lawful and as Good as is possible". The DM says "Well your behavior is rather different than that of Tanarii and you're both Lawful Good". The player says "I see. That is rather inconsistent. We can't both be right." The party wizard after making the appropriate knowledge check suggest "Let us go to the fairy glade, Sprites live there and have great insight into matters of the soul".

You and the party head to the fairy glade, and find a sprite. Who agrees to assess both of you. The DM rules you can willingly fail your Charisma saving throws against the creatures Heart Sight ability. You both do so. The DM begins to narrate:

"Tanarii with my fairy sight, I do declare you are <alignment>"
"Other guy with my fairy sight, I do declare you are <alignment>"

What is your expectation of the proper way for the DM to fill in each of those <alignment> placeholders. If for the the second player the answer differs from the "Lawful Good" on his character sheet how do you reconcile two parts of the game giving returning different values for the when queried for the same game state information?




*we will put aside the party conflict for a moment, somehow this group stays together. Use your imagination I guess, this is just a thought experiment.

[Tanarii]

If for the the second player the answer differs from the "Lawful Good" on his character sheet how do you reconcile two parts of the game giving returning different values for the when queried for the same game state information?How is this meta gaming game state information affecting the in-game world?

[IShouldntBehere]

How is this meta gaming game state information affecting the in-game world?

It affects what the Sprite knows when he uses his Heart Sight ability. In other words alignment is something real and detectable within the game world, otherwise the Sprites ability wouldn't be able to detect it. Our little fey friend is by definition getting accurate, objective information on if the actions & intentions of a character are good or evil, lawful or chaotic.

For example upon being asked "Is this a good person I can trust to do good things?" he must if he is being honest answer along with what Heart Sight tells him since that is magically providing him with true information as to the character of the person in question.

From the perspective of the sprite being asked "Is this person who failed against your Heart Sight ability good or evil?" is no different than someone asking you "Is the person sitting across from you wearing a shirt?"

[Tanarii]

It affects what the Sprite knows when he uses his Heart Sight ability. In other words alignment is something real and detectable within the game world, otherwise the Sprites ability wouldn't be able to detect it. Our little fey friend is by definition getting accurate, objective information on if the actions & intentions of a character are good or evil, lawful or chaotic.

For example upon being asked "Is this a good person I can trust to do good things?" he must if he is being honest answer along with what Heart Sight tells him since that is magically providing him with true information as to the character of the person in question.

From the perspective of the sprite being asked "Is this person who failed against your Heart Sight ability good or evil?" is no different than someone asking you "Is the person sitting across from you wearing a shirt?"
In that case, it's whatever is written down on the character sheet. Outside of a few very specific examples (Lycanthrope being one), there's no real provision in 5e for Alignment change, especially against player choice. edit: Nor for Alignment being determined by actions, even as overall behavior. The PHB is clear that Alignment is about a creature's attitudes, and the typical behavior isn't required by creatures of that Alignment.

[Temperjoke]

I agree with your DM's assessment. Your good actions tend to be less about doing good, and more about lawful, which balances out the various "chaotic" aligned actions you've taken. Meanwhile, you've demonstrated a decided bent towards self-interest, with a decided lack in general moral values (no regrets regarding actions and choices, for example) that puts you firmly in the evil camp. This doesn't make you a bad teammate though, given that you've been willing to place the good of the team over your own whims.

[Reaper34]

I guess I don't understand what the repercussions of "sliding towards evil" are in your campaign. I mean, I understand there being repercussions for the actual actions you've taken. But so what if your character is sliding towards evil? How does the label of 'evil' on your character sheet, which is for you roleplaying your character, impact the PC in the in-game reality?

Well sliding towards evil doesn't have much effect on the status quo. BEING either CN or NE can cause several changes.

1: alignment specific items may no longer work like the crown mentioned.
2: i suspect that the balor would have just eaten my character if he hadn't been evil already. most "alligned" outsiders would act appropreatly to their alignment to a character of a certain alignment.
3: While it doesn't effect my character much. if the NG Cleric pulled some of the stunts my character has pulled he would receive no spells from his deity.

just a few examples. it's worth noting this really is my 5th edition of d&d that i've played. me and most of my group are stuck in the 2/3.x ed mindset.

[IShouldntBehere]

In that case, it's whatever is written down on the character sheet. Outside of a few very specific examples (Lycanthrope being one), there's no real provision in 5e for Alignment change, especially against player choice. edit: Nor for Alignment being determined by actions, even as overall behavior. The PHB is clear that Alignment is about a creature's attitudes, and the typical behavior isn't required by creatures of that Alignment.


Regardless of what alignment is, the sprite accurately detects it. If alignment is about attitudes, than the sprite accurately detects attitudes. This means that if the Sprite Detects "Lawful Good" on a character that holds a certain set of attitudes they are accurately detecting the objective truth: That attitude == Lawful Good.

In this case the attitudes the sprite has now detected the following as objectively true within the game universe:

Lawful Good is holding the following beliefs & attitudes:

Believing other people are worthless worms
That the amount of meaning your life has is directly derived from how many people you can cause pain & suffering.
Torturing children is acceptable behavior.



Now the Sprite has also detected your character as Lawful Good. Which as was previously established you have written down according to your personal beliefs about what Lawful Good is. How do you reconcile the above being objectively true attitudes about what lawful good is, in the light of your personal views on what is Good & Evil with regards to those subjects now also being objectively true in-universe?

(unless of course those attitudes already align with your personal idea of good & evil).