Would You Consider This Character Chaotic Neutral?

[Ceralune]

Hello, I've played a few Pathfinder/D&D games before, but most of my characters end up being rather boring, almost Mary Sue-like characters that only end up being fun when I'm strategizing in combat. While I did enjoy that, I'm looking for a little more RP value in the campaign I'm currently playing with some friends, and so I attempted to write a more complicated character. However, she has some different aspects that make me a little uncertain about her alignment. I eventually labeled her Chaotic Neutral, feeling that she matched that alignment the most, but she's lacking the whole "freedom is the most important thing" idea.

To delve into her backstory a bit, she's an aasimar who has felt great betrayal from her family. This makes her very distrustful of people, and causes her to be very self-interested. She's a strong believer of the "you can't rely on anyone but yourself" idea, and wants to better herself because of that. She has few moral qualms about the methods in which she overcomes challenges, and will even stoop to killing if the benefit to herself is great enough AND if she feels she can get away with it scot-free. That said, she grew up in a wealthy merchant family, and knows just what pretty words and a pretty face can do in terms of getting people to trust you. On top of that, she has celestial heritage, and finds that adds even more credibility to her in the eyes of others. She's outwardly very polite and pleasant, even if it's a bit of an act. She cares about her reputation, because it's hard to engage in dealings of any sort, nefarious or benevolent, if you have to look over your shoulder constantly. She understands that sometimes, it's necessary to work within the constrains of what others impose on you in order to get more freedom in the long run.

In short, she's the kind of person who would be at others' throats if there were no consequences - but since there are, she opts for a more diplomatic approach.

What alignment do you think she would be?

[Zanos]

If a character would murder solely for their own benefit, and the only thing stopping them is the social consequences, they're probably Evil. The other characteristics have aspects of both Lawful and Chaotic. Cares about reputation, willing to work within others constraints, and fearing social consequence are all Lawful. Valuing personal freedom is Chaotic. I'd say Neutral Evil.

[Ceralune]

If a character would murder solely for their own benefit, and the only thing stopping them is the social consequences, they're probably Evil. The other characteristics have aspects of both Lawful and Chaotic. Cares about reputation, willing to work within others constraints, and fearing social consequence are all Lawful. Valuing personal freedom is Chaotic. I'd say Neutral Evil.

Hmm, so you consider killing to be purely an evil aspect? If so, I could understand, but I feel like all characters kill at some point to benefit themselves. She's also probably never entertained the thought of just killing someone for money with no other purpose - largely in part because this would be social suicide, but still, the fact that she's never even considered it is there....

I feel like I should also point out that she's not a hateful person, just distrustful. She might even genuinely like someone, and help them if it doesn't hurt her in any way (especially if she feels she'll benefit from it later), but if forced to choose between herself and that other person, she would probably choose herself.

I'm sorry if these explanations are too vague; people typically have a lot of layers to them irl and I tried my best to make my character that way too.

[Ashtagon]

As described she is neutral tending towards neutral evil.

Yes all pcs kill. Good pcs kill to save innocents. Neutral pcs kill to save themselves. Evil pcs kill to benefit themselves.

[Zanos]

Hmm, so you consider killing to be purely an evil aspect? If so, I could understand, but I feel like all characters kill at some point to benefit themselves. She's also probably never entertained the thought of just killing someone for money with no other purpose - largely in part because this would be social suicide, but still, the fact that she's never even considered it is there....

I feel like I should also point out that she's not a hateful person, just distrustful. She might even genuinely like someone, and help them if it doesn't hurt her in any way (especially if she feels she'll benefit from it later), but if forced to choose between herself and that other person, she would probably choose herself.

I'm sorry if these explanations are too vague; people typically have a lot of layers to them irl and I tried my best to make my character that way too.
"Killing is evil" depends. A holy crusade in the name of Lathander in which you're purging the minions of Cyric? Good. In self defense? Neutral. To advance yourself, and for no other reason? Evil. If you kill someone because they're inconvenient to your ambitions, that is Evil. Murder is wrong, or at least that's what the people who aren't strong enough to take their fates into their own hands say.

Keep in mind that alignment is just a label. It doesn't compel your actions.

[Inevitability]

As described she is neutral tending towards neutral evil.

Yes all pcs kill. Good pcs kill to save innocents. Neutral pcs kill to save themselves. Evil pcs kill to benefit themselves.

Not exactly. Imagine the following exchange:

NPC: "Help us, oh travelers! Wicked goblins are assaulting our homes!"
PC: "You're asking me to do something highly dangerous without any reward. I'm sorry, but no."
NPC: "I'll grant you my father's flaming sword if you help us!"
PC: "So, about those goblins..."

This is literally the most common PC-NPC conversation imaginable. The PC is, in fact, killing for profit (if there were no profit, he wouldn't be killing). Does this necessarily make him evil?

[Ashtagon]

Not exactly. Imagine the following exchange:

NPC: "Help us, oh travelers! Wicked goblins are assaulting our homes!"
PC: "You're asking me to do something highly dangerous without any reward. I'm sorry, but no."
NPC: "I'll grant you my father's flaming sword if you help us!"
PC: "So, about those goblins..."

This is literally the most common PC-NPC conversation imaginable. The PC is, in fact, killing for profit (if there were no profit, he wouldn't be killing). Does this necessarily make him evil?

I was typing from my phone, so was aiming for brevity. But since you want a more verbose answer, OF COURSE everything is more nuanced. But on the grand scheme of moral axes, the killing of evil things because they are harming innocents is a bigger deal than the fact that the PCs are also getting paid to do it.

[Knitifine]

She's also probably never entertained the thought of just killing someone for money with no other purpose - largely in part because this would be social suicide, but still, the fact that she's never even considered it is there....
This kind of mentality; that killing is something to be avoided because of social difficulties, is patently sociopathic. Therefore I would say that she is chaotic evil or neutral evil depending on how wacky and unintelligent you demand chaotic characters be.

All that said, the best thing to do when picking your alignment is consult with your GM. Explain your character, offer an alignment suggestion and get feedback. Ultimately the standards of morality in any given world will be set by the individual GM.

[Gdesign95]

I would go true neutral as the character seems to not care for whether something is viewed as good or evil lawful or chaotic but rather whether it will help her in the long run. the reason I don't go neutral/lawful evil is because she doesn't view killing as a normal option if she did I would go to evil but only barely.

here is a RP tip she is on the edge of being evil, she may not realize it but she is viewing the world as something to be won regardless of the means. this makes for a character who will stop before making any decision and think "would my acting here help me in the future or would inaction be more beneficial" you are playing a long game sure you might indulge in immediate payoff but you would take a short term loss for a long term reward. I.E: you might tithe to a church so if you were to be wounded they would aid you, you might help fix a merchant's cart so in the future he gives you a small discount, or you may let someone die because you know their death will help you to garner favor. the action's alignment doesn't matter to you only what benefit it brings, being good tends to help more which is why your character isn't evil but occasionally evil benefits you more so you slip to the darkside.

this is coming from someone who has played a much more cynical LE version of this character who avoided the lime light pulling strings from behind the scenes. the reason I don't slap you with evil is the lack of malicious intent, if the character actually has malicious intent then LE is probably more accurate than N.

[Segev]

A good character will kill if he has to in order to protect himself or innocent others. He will not necessarily turn down rewards for this, and may be influenced to take on the higher-reward fight, all else being reasonably equal. (Two villages attacked by goblins, one is promising a flaming sword. He'd help both if he could, but if he has to make a choice, the one that makes him better able to kill more evil goblins faster is the one he might well take.)

A neutral character will kill to protect himself or others for whom he cares. He can often be motivated to care for others quickly by promise of reward.

An evil character will kill for his own benefit. He can be motivated to kill for others with promise of rewards.


The notable distinction is that good people will kill only if they have to, and they only "have to" if the targets of killing are going to hurt innocents. Neutral people will kill...but not casually, and not unless the targets of said killing have done something to justify it. They might be more willing to do so overall, however, than good people. Evil people won't care if the targets "deserve" it.

[Jay R]

Hmm, so you consider killing to be purely an evil aspect?

Zanos said "murder", not "kill". They aren't the same thing, and people have considered murder to be evil for thousands of years.

-----

Back to the main topic. This character can't really be Lawful or Good. But she could be played as True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil, based on specific choices in specific situations. And you know what choices she would make better than we can.

[Ceralune]

Ohh wow, getting a pretty wide assortment of alignments here. Hmm, alright.

I don't consider my character malicious, but I suppose one does not have to be malicious to be evil. I avoided a True Neutral alignment because people I (and the DM) have played with tend to play True Neutral as very boring characters... like, even more boring than the chaotic good Mary Sue characters I usually play. But I guess I do see how this character could be True Neutral, which I think I actually like, as that certainly shatters the "boring" stereotype my group usually associates with that.

I was actually considering Lawful Evil when I first thought up her character, but that was also with a few tweaks to her story that made her come off as more malicious and spiteful. One of the other people in this campaign opted to play a Lawful Good character, so I kinda threw that out the window and retweaked to make her not a -bad- person, just self-interested... which I interpreted as Chaotic Neutral. But self-interest is evil, if it comes to a certain point... is the sentiment I'm getting from you guys.

Murder and killing are not the same, but what exactly constitutes as murder? I guess I'll use a more concrete example where my character did actually kill someone and had a lot of time to think about it. For example:

Part of my character's backstory, and the thing that really set her on this distrustful, self-interested path, is that she was accidentally betrayed by her older sister. She was engaged to be married and her sister did love her a lot, but got very jealous that the youngest one in the family ended up the first one betrothed, and to her ideal guy at that. So the sister turns to shadier characters who promise to help make the man fall in love with her instead. These characters turn on the sister and instead leave the man comatose, and she becomes very guilt-ridden and confesses what she did to my character. Entering a state of shock, my character accidentally kills her sister. Upon realizing what she's done, she's truly ashamed, but doesn't dare confess to her crime out of fear. She's seen as a "perfect" person by everyone else, so no one suspects her (this causes her to appreciate things like a good reputation).

She's still pretty torn up about that whole situation, even though it happened over a decade ago. So I think she would be loathe to kill innocents if she could help it, or unless there's some benefit to her that she decides makes it worth it. But also, what exactly constitutes as innocent? As ashamed as she was, she does feel that her sister did a terrible thing to her. Yet at the time, she kept telling herself she "murdered her sister." She has some distance from it now, but it's one of those things that never completely leaves her. And so she's dealing with these conflicting emotions still on some level, while trying to look out for herself. Betrayal from her family is especially hard to get over, so she'll always be looking out for her best interests.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Did your character "accidentally" kill her sister or did she do it in the heat of passion? Those are very different things. You wrote "accidentally" but then you provided reasons and excuses for it that sound more like a crime of passion defense than an accidental death defense. If it was an accident, you were so shocked that you dropped your hair dryer and it bounced off the counter and landed in the bat electrocuting your sister--or something similarly involving a lack of volition. You'll need to decide what actually happened.

As far as whether that makes your character evil or not, I don't think anyone is likely to argue that an accidental death would do so. A murder in the heat of passion, on the other hand, might depending upon how your DM and players view alignment: is alignment a result of actions (like in a computer game where stealing few coins from the NPC townsfolk moves you five points towards evil), a summary of your inclinations (so you could, for example, have an evil alignment because you want to kill everyone despite being a quadrapelegic and not being able to even attempt it), or a muddled-mix-up of both (which I think is what the core rules present)? From a purely action based perspective, murdering someone gets you the "evil" points regardless of whether or not it is who you are. (Or perhaps, it would be explained in an existentialist manner: "did you do it? Then it's who you are.") From a purely inclination based perspective, it's entirely possible that a one-time action done in the heat of the moment does not reflect your inclinations and would have minimal effect on your alignment (though if you are really inclined to do such things whenever a traumatic revelation or betrayal occurs, then it really does reflect your inclinations after all). From a mix up between those two? Ask your DM if Neutral Evil is right for you.

Now as for "looking out for your best interests" my own take is that doing so is not necessarily going to determine your alignment. Are you looking out for your own best interests... regardless of who you have to hurt? So you'd torture a baby to death for a gold piece as long as it would never come back to bite you and your interests ended up ahead by that one gold piece? Evil. You're looking out for your own interests within reasonable limits? You aren't going to murder people or go around kidnapping them to sell to slavers but if you loaned them 50 gold pieces, you'll get your 50 gold pieces back along with the interest you're owed. If they have to live on beans and rice to pay you back, they'll just have to live on beans and rice. You could be neutral with that attitude. What if looking out for your own interests means that you are going to protect yourself and your own? If you're signing a contract, you're going to read over it three times, make sure it doesn't favor the other guy and insist that he post a bond so that, if he does breach the contract, there is something for you to recover. If there's a guy who is hungry, you're going to make sure your family is fed before you help him, and if he's hungry because he's lazy, you're fine with just letting hunger and laziness fight it out until one of them wins. If that's what looking out for your own interests means, it's possible your character could even be good--not guaranteed, but the attitude is compatible with good as well as neutral characters.

[Ceralune]

Haha, you're right, accidentally is not quite the correct word. I wouldn't say heat of passion either because she wasn't furious so much as just shocked. Kind of like one of those moments where your hand moves without you really realizing or thinking about it, except that's an understatement since this situation ended with her putting a stab wound in her sister. I agree with you that, purely from an action point, that gets her evil points. But then, in "present day" her actions alone would probably dictate her to be good - she's just agreed to help out a troubled city's citizens. It's her intentions that make that less clear - she's helping them because, in a way, one of the goals of these citizens is like her own - to win over the hearts of the people and present herself in a better light. So how much do actions count for, really? (I realize that's a question for my DM and not you, but I ask it rhetorically to present this point.)

The way I interpreted it is that those actions from her past did have a profound impact on her alignment. She was solidly Lawful Good before those shenanigans.

The looking out for her best interests gets a little nuanced too. To answer your questions: She has a soft spot for young kids and it would take an awful lot to get her to torture a baby to death. I don't think she'll ever get to that point. She would also have severe reservations about torture; she grew up in a pretty civilized environment and I think she'd find it distasteful. Maybe that would change if she found herself in a situation where she learned of torture being used effectively and producing the results that the perpetrator wanted. Even then, if she somehow convinced herself it was worth it and went through with it, I think it's one of those things where she would always wonder if it really was. She would definitely want her loan of 50 gold pieces back. A delay would make her very suspicious, but not outwardly hostile. She would read over the contract three times and try her best to get the bond. She really doesn't have any friends at this point since she's been traveling alone, so she doesn't have anyone else to look out for (and that's the way she likes it, since look what her attachment to people brought her in the past), but she would not feel obliged in the least to give anything to the hungry man.

Also I'm sorry if I'm making this more complicated than it has to be, but alignment and RP are things I haven't really paid much attention to in past campaigns. I really appreciate you guys willing to explain your thoughts to me.

[Elder_Basilisk]

My questions were more rhetorical than some kind of Ultima style alignment analysis--illustrating three different ways that "looks out for her own interests" could play out.

In general, she sounds to me like the "nice" version of neutral evil (finds torture distasteful, likes kids, but cross her and she'll stick a shiv in your eye before you can blink, disguise what happened and tell herself that it was "shock" or some such excuse) or the nasty version of true neutral. (She has a skeleton in her closet and is only doing her good things to get the reputation she wants--as soon as it's convenient/advantageous, she'll turn nasty--but at least for now, she's not malicious and there are lines she doesn't cross--or at least doesn't cross often or without a good reason). The character description and history could be played either way, but the ambiguity is almost certainly transitory. As she interacts with the world, she will soon cement her status one way or the other probably by sinking to clear and unambiguous neutral evil, but possibly by staying in the grey area or maybe even actually becoming what she only pretends to be and turning good.

[Ceralune]

I think she's closer to the nasty version of true neutral you described. I also feel like killing wouldn't be her go-to option for how she handles people who cross her, but under certain circumstances it might be considered. And I feel like it's rare that it would ever be advantageous for her to turn nasty (in other words, I really don't want to play Chaotic Stupid) so it probably won't come to that. There're definitely some different ways her alignment could go, but I like that. After all, real people don't usually fall neatly into any one category.

One other thing I was keeping in mind while deciding what kind of character to play is that the other PCs have never played a tabletop RPG before, so they're all somewhere along the Lawful Good/Chaotic Good spectrum. My character hasn't had to be in a group in a long time, so a lot of this is going to be getting accustomed to having other people around, having to put her life in their hands at times, etc. while maintaining the image she wants to project. So I'm excited for how the others are going to influence her or maybe even change her way of thinking.

[TheifofZ]

But then, in "present day" her actions alone would probably dictate her to be good - she's just agreed to help out a troubled city's citizens. It's her intentions that make that less clear - she's helping them because, in a way, one of the goals of these citizens is like her own - to win over the hearts of the people and present herself in a better light. So how much do actions count for, really? (I realize that's a question for my DM and not you, but I ask it rhetorically to present this point.)


In general, intention weighs on morality as much as actual action, if not more so.
It's possible for evil to do good with the intent of personal gain. If a super-hero only defeats villains because he likes being in the spotlight, that makes him lesser in your eyes than a super hero doing the same thing just for the sake of others, right?
Good actions informed by evil intent tend to fall more toward neutral, in the end, in the same vein as evil actions informed by good intent.

That being said, actions are taken on a case by case basis, and what matters in the long run is not how your character acts when the mask is on, but how your character feels about each action, and what she will do when the cards are on the table.

Here's an easy measure of alignment for this character; if all the townsfolk find out she's only acting perfect so that everyone will adore her, and all begin to snub her in response, how will she react? If she apologizes, and seriously tries to make up for it no matter how long it takes without expecting them to adore her again, she's good. If she apologizes sincerely, but isn't willing to make the effort to earn back their approval without knowing she'll be the apple of the town's eye again, she's probably neutral. If she apologizes and doesn't mean it, or refuses to apologize and throws a tantrum about how they're suppose to love her, or curses them (possibly literally, possibly just swearing alot,) and leaves in a huff, she's probably evil.

Edit: And if she would start plotting revenge on the town while acting like she's trying to change her ways, then she's gone full villain, and should probably expect to be slain by a random adventuring party for experience and loot.

[XionUnborn01]

My first instincts say Neutral Evil or True Neutral. Her general demeanor seems to be primarily selfish which is generally an evil leaning attitude and the fact that she killed her sister for what boils down to revenge is also an evil leaning act.

She's got splashes of good in her demeanor but if I were the DM (our table usually plays alignment as a pretty big part of the game) I'd be likely to say she's True Neutral because I'd rather have a True Neutral in a party with new players than a Neutral Evil in that same party but I'd give a word of caution that you would be bordering towards evil.

[Ceralune]

In general, intention weighs on morality as much as actual action, if not more so.
It's possible for evil to do good with the intent of personal gain. If a super-hero only defeats villains because he likes being in the spotlight, that makes him lesser in your eyes than a super hero doing the same thing just for the sake of others, right?
Good actions informed by evil intent tend to fall more toward neutral, in the end, in the same vein as evil actions informed by good intent.

I feel you; intentions are definitely important. Then, what would you consider her act of killing her sister to be? I think it's pretty clear that such a thing, even under those circumstances, is not good. But would you consider it neutral or evil? She truly regretted the action immediately after realizing what she did, and had she been thinking straight I think she never would've done it. But she also made no act to admit to it. And after a decade, she still feels regretful, but there is also a little bitterness towards that sister, and other mixed feelings.


Here's an easy measure of alignment for this character; if all the townsfolk find out she's only acting perfect so that everyone will adore her, and all begin to snub her in response, how will she react? If she apologizes, and seriously tries to make up for it no matter how long it takes without expecting them to adore her again, she's good. If she apologizes sincerely, but isn't willing to make the effort to earn back their approval without knowing she'll be the apple of the town's eye again, she's probably neutral. If she apologizes and doesn't mean it, or refuses to apologize and throws a tantrum about how they're suppose to love her, or curses them (possibly literally, possibly just swearing alot,) and leaves in a huff, she's probably evil.

Edit: And if she would start plotting revenge on the town while acting like she's trying to change her ways, then she's gone full villain, and should probably expect to be slain by a random adventuring party for experience and loot.

Haha, I think she would see plotting revenge all by herself against the whole town to be pretty futile, so that's definitely out. I couldn't see her being sincerely sorry for acting in what she believes to be her best interests, but I think she would have a little empathy since she herself hates when people turn on her. So at the least, there would be understanding.


My first instincts say Neutral Evil or True Neutral. Her general demeanor seems to be primarily selfish which is generally an evil leaning attitude and the fact that she killed her sister for what boils down to revenge is also an evil leaning act.

She's got splashes of good in her demeanor but if I were the DM (our table usually plays alignment as a pretty big part of the game) I'd be likely to say she's True Neutral because I'd rather have a True Neutral in a party with new players than a Neutral Evil in that same party but I'd give a word of caution that you would be bordering towards evil.

Yeah, I have no intentions to rock the boat in terms of keeping the party together or trying to sway the other PCs towards malicious dealings. In fact, my character will probably be rooting for the others, since their success will make her success more likely. So for the most part, she gets along fine with the others. She's just making a particularly strong effort to keep them at arm's length and not tell them her secrets. True Neutral is thus probably more accurate.

[Segev]

If the others are new, I would strongly suggest playing a neutral-to-good PC, yourself, lest the alignment create a bee in the party's collective bonnet. Whether you pull an "evil betrayal" or they learn your true malignment and turn on you because they think the "G" on their stat page requires them to, it won't be good.

You don't have to have a "darkness" to your personality to be interesting and not mary-sue-ish. Don't make her willing to murder "if she can get away with it." Have the death of her sister be a genuine accident. Perhaps one she has convinced herself wasn't, and feels awful for, but do make it so. Play up her desire to atone for it rather than giving in to it. She doesn't have to be a loving-kindness-to-all-creatures character, but make her sympathetic to those in need. Even if she's not willing to help. And don't make her willing to hurt them just because she could get away with it and it would benefit her. You can make her ruthless in getting the best deal and taking people for all they're worth before she'll give them help, but don't make her willing to cause the harm, herself, just for profit.

[Ceralune]

If the others are new, I would strongly suggest playing a neutral-to-good PC, yourself, lest the alignment create a bee in the party's collective bonnet. Whether you pull an "evil betrayal" or they learn your true malignment and turn on you because they think the "G" on their stat page requires them to, it won't be good.

You don't have to have a "darkness" to your personality to be interesting and not mary-sue-ish. Don't make her willing to murder "if she can get away with it." Have the death of her sister be a genuine accident. Perhaps one she has convinced herself wasn't, and feels awful for, but do make it so. Play up her desire to atone for it rather than giving in to it. She doesn't have to be a loving-kindness-to-all-creatures character, but make her sympathetic to those in need. Even if she's not willing to help. And don't make her willing to hurt them just because she could get away with it and it would benefit her. You can make her ruthless in getting the best deal and taking people for all they're worth before she'll give them help, but don't make her willing to cause the harm, herself, just for profit.

After all of the comments I think she does fall more into a True Neutral alignment anyways. I feel I should point out that she's not out to really get anyone, and I feel like in time she'll be inclined not to hurt the other PCs anyways. She already is - granted, perhaps partly because it'd be pretty chaotic stupid to assault any of them and it probably always will be, but also because she doesn't find any issue with them. She even likes one of them (she's always pretty inclined to respect a person who can hold his/her own in combat).

I guess part of this is I picked a fairly power game-esque race for my class, and I like to justify that somehow. I also don't want her to become a typical do-gooder aasimar. Sometimes people are just more complicated than that.

[TheifofZ]

Inasmuch as you've indicated, I'm inclined to agree with everyone else.

The character sounds True Neutral with evil leanings at the moment, but with the possibility to drift into good.

As to killing her sister, what matters there is intent.
Did she intend to kill her sister in a moment of passion? I doubt it. From what you've said about the deed, it seems more like she was lashing out wildly in pain.
I'd say that the action was still evil, as she probably intended harm; but as I doubt she really wanted to kill I'd posit that it's probably in the shallower end of Evil.

[Zanos]

Not wanting to hurt anyone when you don't have any enemies or competitors isn't a great metric.

If your character had 100% confidence they could kill someone who's death would advance their personal ambitions and not get caught, would they? It sounds like the answer is yes, but you haven't had that opportunity.

This character may be TN at the moment, but they'll slip into Evil as soon as motive, means, and opportunity are presented. They may already be Evil, since you attacked your sister with intent to harm, and ya'know, murdered her.

Neutral ends when you are willing to inflict harm on others to further yourself.

[Ceralune]

Not wanting to hurt anyone when you don't have any enemies or competitors isn't a great metric.

If your character had 100% confidence they could kill someone who's death would advance their personal ambitions and not get caught, would they? It sounds like the answer is yes, but you haven't had that opportunity.

This character may be TN at the moment, but they'll slip into Evil as soon as motive, means, and opportunity are presented. They may already be Evil, since you attacked your sister with intent to harm, and ya'know, murdered her.

Neutral ends when you are willing to inflict harm on others to further yourself.

Inflict harm, or kill? I think I'd be fine with changing the killing footnote, and that may actually work out well within the context (after feeling the shock of killing someone, she could never want to venture close to that again or something like that) but it would be cool to play a more morally gray character. So where does something like stealing or the like come into play? Or injuring to prevent being pursued? Would that be a less severe leaning towards evil?

I think the act of killing her sister was at least leaning slightly towards evil, but that was a decade ago and she's not the same person as she was then. There's also context that blurs the lines there - I mean, she was in a state of grief because she lost her fiancée. She thought that she was going to go off and live "happily ever after," and suddenly that's gone. Then she finds out that her sister had a role in it, intentional or not, and it's not like the sister's motives were good either. And that adds up for a pretty messed up state of mind. She regrets her sister's death, and she doesn't hate her sister. That one act of treachery doesn't just erase years of family and love. But they're very bittersweet memories now.

[Conradine]

Let's say a character thinks, on a purely rational level, that killing for advancing the self is ok as long there are no negative consequences for him. He believes in no values or morality and thinks that compassion is a weakness that exposes the compassionate to harm. He's an ethical egoist and moral nihilist in short.

This, in theory.

In pratice, he is presented several times with the occasion to kill for advancement - with very low chances of being caught and next to no danger - but he can't move himself to do it. He thinks about doing that, he blame himself for not catching opportunity, but he does nothing.

Evil or Neutral?

[Ceralune]

Mm, if you're asking me, I think that leans more towards Neutral since he didn't technically do any harm, and his intentions can't be purely "evil" if something inside him made him hold back.

[Segev]

Mm, if you're asking me, I think that leans more towards Neutral since he didn't technically do any harm, and his intentions can't be purely "evil" if something inside him made him hold back.

Agreed. Maybe even "good" with a philosophy that is "evil" that he's failing to uphold.

How many people hold Good philosophies and yet fall short in actual execution of them? Do we consider them Good? Typically, no. They're giving lip service, and may even fervently believe it's the "right" thing to do. But they're not living up to it.

It sounds like this hypothetical person has a similar relationship with an Evil philosophy. He fervently believes it's "right" - it's the correct way to behave. But he's not able to bring himself to live "up" (or down, as we might think of it) to it.

Like the man who genuinely believes that fidelity and generosity are the right way to live, but who keeps cheating on his wife and takes bribes to fuel his gambling habit while never "quite having enough to spare" for beggars might feel guilty about the various things he does, our hypothetical believer in this Evil philosophy might well feel guilt for his "weakness" in his inability to do what he "should." And thus, if we would count our weak and sinful adherent of Good philosophy as Neutral (or even Evil), then we must count our weak and soft adherent of Evil philosophy as Neutral (or even Good, depending on how far he carries his "weakness").

[Ashtagon]

The problem here is that good and evil are not simply equal but opposite. You cant be a littke but evil and remain giid. It doesnt natter how often you dinate to the orphanage. If you only eat an orphan on leap days youre still evil.

[Inevitability]

The problem here is that good and evil are not simply equal but opposite. You cant be a littke but evil and remain giid. It doesnt natter how often you dinate to the orphanage. If you only eat an orphan on leap days youre still evil.

Posting from your phone? :smalltongue:

[Ashtagon]

Posting from your phone? :smalltongue:

How did you guess?

[TheifofZ]

The problem here is that good and evil are not simply equal but opposite. You cant be a littke but evil and remain giid. It doesnt natter how often you dinate to the orphanage. If you only eat an orphan on leap days youre still evil.
And now I'm hungry. Thanks.

[Malroth]

I'm gonna agree with those that say she's on the shallow end of Neutral Evil, Not for the killing her sister in a moment of panic but for the after killing actions where she's telling herself that the sister deserved it and pretending nothing happened to keep up her public persona.

[Ceralune]

The phone text made me chuckle, thank you for that xD

I think maybe I haven't been fully clear on how she feels about killing her sister. She realizes she was more in the wrong than her sister was. To say that she thinks her sister "deserved" the end she got is an exaggeration. Of course she thinks her sister didn't deserve that, and she regrets what happened. That said, her sister doesn't exactly fall under the "completely innocent" label either. Her sister caused things to happen that completely changed my character's life. The man she loved became comatose and never woke up again. And my character knows that, and that can be a very hard thing to get over. So there are a lot of mixed feelings, which I think is realistic.

In any case, I'm happy with the responses I got to this, and I think I have a better idea of how to tweak and play this character now. Thank you guys for taking the time to help me sort it out. c: