Another "which Alignment is that guy" Thread....

[GrayDeath]

...but bare with me for a moment.

2 Days ago one of our earliest GM`s said he`d be coming back to the area, and he wanted to get our first characters we played with him as GM back up and al together into one big pile of Nostalgia....except that he´s going to use Pathfinder ... andoriginally only one of our lot played his first char in any edition of D&D with that particular GM.

So now we need to convert their basics to pathfinder, which includes alignment, something my particular guy (and world) was not partaking in.

So now my question: how do I best convert this guys absolute core basics into Pathfinder?

Basics: we will start at Level 5ish, up to 2 levels higher if its REALLY necessary for the concept, though no party member will be of lower level.
We get the attributes we need, but not above an absolute maximum of pointbuy 42 (because, ya know, 42^^).
Starting Wealth is half normal, but Items really necessary for the Concept are free (up to 2 per Character).

mechanics: He was a gifted magic User, few actual Abilities but almost at will, almost all centered around transformation, Curses and 2 Blasting Spells (single and area, both with a warping Effect and no elemental Damage).
For that I assume Sorcerer will work best, eventually PRC ing out or not.
He also has a lesser Artifact that allows him to travel inside Shadow a few times/Day (including hiding there), which is very useful for applying his ... abilities.

Style/Personality: he was particular to cursing people he thought were "too lucky" or who were "too good" at one single thing in a way that turned that luck around/removed that strength and waits what happens (examples include cursing a renowned archer with Parkinson, massively scarring a woman famed for her beauty, making a wizard-teacher vomit everytime he casts a spell, removing the hands of a thief and replacing them with crab pincers you get the picture)
Both because he liked to watch them struggle and because he wanted them to overcome their onesidedness.
2 out of 16 he cursed managed to overcome it completely, those he actually (without revealing himself) helped massively afterwards.

All his Curses are automatically lifted when they manage to fulfill what he sees as "overcoming their limitations" btw. There a way to implement this RAW?

while he holds to the principle that adversity makes You stronger, his main motivation is a mixture of enjoying making and watching other people suffer (as long as its not death or physical pain mind!) and using his power.


I am already quite firmy of the opinion regarding his alignment, but since it`ll take almost 3 months until we actually start playing, I am very curious about the playgrounds opinion.

Also if necessary I`ll summen "youKnoWho" myself, first I`d like my fellow amatuers regarding Evil to state their opinions. ;)

[Extra Anchovies]

The easydamus alignment page (http://easydamus.com/alignment.html) is a wonderful resource. I recommend bookmarking it and giving it a full read-through at some point.

Right. So, this character arbitrarily selects people and gives them "ironic" curses because he likes to watch them suffer. Knowingly and willingly harming others for no reason other than personal enjoyment, that's chaotic evil. Maybe neutral evil because of the tendency to only curse people he sees as being one-trick ponies.

Mechanically, I agree that sorcerer would work best, because the sor/wiz list is by far the strongest when it comes to shapeshifting and it has a fair bit of curses/debuffs and blasting spells as well.

[GrayDeath]

Yet he abstains from causing physical pain where its not the poit of the curse, and is quite averse to killing as long as it is not strictly necessary.
And actively helps/rewards those that pass the test. And also does it because he thinks it makes thems tronger.

Dont make it as easy as "he is pursuing his fun and consequences be damned", cause thats not all he is.

If it was I`d agree quite a lot with your assessment. And probably would not have posted the question ^^

[CasualViking]

Randomly enforcing his "help" on people mostly for the lulz? Classic Chaotic Neutral.

[Inevitability]

Let me quote the CE handbook here:


http://www.amoeba.com/admin/uploads/blog/Charles/killing-joke-joker-takes-pictures.jpg

Cruel Teacher: Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote that all crime is on some level a form of protest, and Cruel Teachers exemplify this concept. They are often about giving the world pause as to what its morals are and why it works the way it does by means of doing terrible things that are on some level justifiable or rational. A Cruel Teacher is often grandiose in scope and well aware of the fact that what they are doing is evil and breaks the rules, and that is precisely why they do it. Many of them may not wholly support the skullduggery they are performing, but they go through with it so that their actions may influence events for the better. This is the type of character that would murder a village full of people to get a country's population angry at their king for not stepping in, or who would rise to the top of a government and exploit its powers to make sure that something is done about it. They manufacture brutal spectacles specifically with the intent of getting people to question their beliefs about the world, most notably law and good, and when they are successful all of society ripples at the consequences of their actions. This archetype is particularly prominent amongst casting characters, whose trained mental faculties imply an awareness of the world’s problems as well as a motivation to turn it upside-down. This is certainly an archetype that requires a lot of development in order for it to be utilized effectively, but when it pays off… well, there’s a reason that many of cinema’s most iconic characters fall into this archetype.

[GrayDeath]

No Comment.

But would you mind providing the Issue of the Comic? Cant seem to remember (getting Old are we? ^^)

[Strigon]

The guy's whole shtick is screwing with people who've done nothing to harm him - or anyone else, for that matter.
Combine with the pretty much arbitrary way he chooses his victims leaves no doubt in my mind he's CE.

If your best argument against being Evil is saying that he isn't literally a serial killer, you're Evil.
Besides, even if he isn't directly killing people, taking away the only thing they've built their life around in such a sudden, cruel manner is bound to make more than one commit suicide.

Also, it's from The Killing Joke. Can't say exactly where, though.

[Inevitability]

No Comment.

But would you mind providing the Issue of the Comic? Cant seem to remember (getting Old are we? ^^)

It's called the Killing Joke: it was released as an one-shot graphic novel. You should be able to find it on the web, though.

[GrayDeath]

Thx.

As for.the alignment I am not arguing.

I am after all.collecring data. I just want.to.make.sure.youre not.oversimplifying it (see making them.stronger.if they.overcome it, leaving ways to.do.so that lift the.curse for.example, and not.killing etc).

Keep.postijg, I want more.opinions, thank.you!

[Geddy2112]

Chaotic evil, no question.

Deforming, disfiguring, cursing, and maligning people because they are too good or too fortunate, only to reveal their true strength as they overcome such adversity, is a lot of Lamashtu's (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Lamashtu)shtick. And she is chaotic evil.

if he did this to legitimate baddies, and used it to take away the wealth and power they got through exploiting innocent people or that is used for evil, then maybe CG, but as is, CE.

[Name1]

Chaotic evil, no question.

I don't know... I mean, the actions seem very constent with each other. It's not good, no question, but if the character makes attempts to help people reach a specific state and pulls others down to it, it could very well be that he's just Lawful Stupid in the same way Obligatum VII from Elder Evils was (everything has to be in a specific order and that order is non-negotiable).

If he just target's fortunate or talented people, he's clearly evil, sure, but even then I'm not sure if he's chaotic. Even in that case, it could be a Code along the lines of "no-one should have this sort of talent" or an inner sense of balance. Most people that are talented or fortunate... well, DON'T deserve it, that's just a fact and life being as unfair as it is. Him trying his best to restore balance and order to it could be a sign of being LE if that's the clear motivation.

[Inevitability]

I don't know... I mean, the actions seem very constent with each other. It's not good, no question, but if the character makes attempts to help people reach a specific state and pulls others down to it, it could very well be that he's just Lawful Stupid in the same way Obligatum VII from Elder Evils was (everything has to be in a specific order and that order is non-negotiable).

If he just target's fortunate or talented people, he's clearly evil, sure, but even then I'm not sure if he's chaotic. Even in that case, it could be a Code along the lines of "no-one should have this sort of talent" or an inner sense of balance. Most people that are talented or fortunate... well, DON'T deserve it, that's just a fact and life being as unfair as it is. Him trying his best to restore balance and order to it could be a sign of being LE if that's the clear motivation.

Not all codes are lawful. Not all orderly behavior is lawful. Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean 'randomly-acting individualist'.

[Name1]

Not all codes are lawful. Not all orderly behavior is lawful. Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean 'randomly-acting individualist'.

Well, I orientated myself on this handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448817-My-Country-Right-Or-Wrong-A-Lawful-Neutral-Alignment-Handbook), so I'm not 100% sure if I got the Lawful idea right. My reason for saying the character could be lawful are as follows:


1. Lawful Neutral is an amoral alignment at heart.
Well, yeah: Talented people exist in the Good just as much as they do in the Evil. The only thing that matters is if said people ARE talented. If they are, their alignment doesn't matter. We have such a case, so I'd say it fits.


2. Lawful Neutral is a judgmental alignment
The behavior is simple: His inner code dictates that people with talent have to suffer for it. It doesn't matter what they do with it, it just matters that they have it, full stop. His inner morality, not good or evil, tells him that having talent is worthy of punishment and he goes on to execute it.


3. Lawful Neutral depends on Authority.
The authority has to come from somewhere. My assumption is that it's his personal code: A creature with talent cannot be allowed to live free. It is an imbalance in the world that has to be mended at any cost. Said code can stem from personal experience or from any group he deems worthy to represent. If it's a group that has member who have been out of luck and are looked down upon, his behavior could very well end up the same way as OP described it. What's more, as soon as they have adapted to the laws and faced appropriate punishment for being talented, he helps them back to a normal way of living, since it's now them who are "out of luck", regardless of what they used their talents for.


4. Lawful Neutral might mean Balance.
I deviate from the handbook a bit when thinking about this, but here, the balance he strives to achieve is a balance of the lucky and the unlucky, the talented and the untalented. He disrupts the former and helps the latter, even if the former became the latter due to his interference.


5. Lawful Neutral often looks like good or evil from the outside.
In this part, we have the following quote:
[...]since it's only the DM or other players who can tell us whether the local crown is a tyranny or a peace-loving society. But in either scenario, the Lawful Neutral is behaving within the bounds of his alignment because he is upholding order, law, organisation, tradition - whichever standard he adheres to. Whether he brings down an evil tyrant who got a stroke of luck or a peace-loving king is utterly irrelevant to him: Both are talented/lucky, both deserve punishment for being like that.


6. Lawful Neutral is emotional!
Here we have this about a LN's code:
The key is to realise that the Lawful Neutral character's code is not dictated by morality - it's a code personal to him - but that does not make it any less a subject of passionate commitment for him. He does inflict suffering, maybe he even enjoys it, but he doesn't do so because he likes their suffering, but because it HAS to be this way, as everything else would contradict his code to what the basics of fairness are and his acts thus create fairness and balance where it was previously lacking.


Lawful alignments deal with rules. Lawful Evil's sense of rules is part of what makes it the most respectable, approachable Evil alignment. You need to define those rules. Perhaps your character has a pronounced sense of honor or fair play. Perhaps he never breaks a promise or contract. Perhaps he never harms the truly innocent, only those who, in his mind, deserve it. Whatever his principles, keep them in mind in all things. Your character's principles are a major part of what makes him truly compelling. And should your character ever truly violate those principles? Nothing should give the world worse nightmares than that thought.Emphasis on the important points. Link to the Handbook here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil).

All in all, I'm still not convinced in the character being chaotic.

[Seto]

The idea that people need to evolve and adapt by diversifying themselves in the face of adversity, or they're lost, does resonate strongly with Chaos. Plus, your character fits the folkloric archetype of the Trickster pretty well, which is often embodied by Fae. Thus, Chaotic makes little doubt in my mind.

As for the other axis, I would place your character just south of the Evil/Neutral line. In campaigns where Good and Evil depend on furthering an agenda, and Neutral encompasses a very wide spectrum of attitudes, he would probably be CN. As it stands, though, he's a minor kind of Evil, an individual kind of Evil, one that can be reasoned with, and who doesn't care much for "classic" Evil behavior. Narratively, I could see him being an anti-villain: a bad guy who has good sides and possibly opposes the BBEG.

So, my money's on strongly Chaotic-aligned and mildly Evil-aligned (since it sounds like you wanna play down the Evil stuff rather than play it up - a few tweaks would be enough to make him seriously Evil)

Edit: Also, mechanically, have you considered Warlock? They have few abilities but at-will, they have a distinctive blast that can be modified in a lot of ways (to be AoE for example), and they have a "curse" vibe to them. Do they exist in Pathfinder? (I have sudden doubts.) The other thing that comes to mind is the Witch, who Hexes people.
Sorcerer should be fine though.

[GrayDeath]

They ... kinda do, but as a bastardized version that does not even remotely feel like the old Warlock.
We have at times used the forum updated `Locks in our campaigns ... Problem I see is that we would aso have to homebrew bestow Curse Spells, Transformation Spells and probably more.

So for now Sorceer it is.



Also, if you have questions for your assessment (eg how would he react to Situation X) do not hesitate to ask.

I am collecting data, and I have lots of time to do so. ;)

[GrayDeath]

Hmmm? :nale:

[dascarletm]

I'd say it is between CN and CE. You could move on the L/C axis if your were to have a less whimsical (as in your actions go according to your whims) attitude towards this.

For G/E let me ask you: Do you take enjoyment in a sadistic, I like to see people suffer sort of way, or is it more light hearted? Do you think it's funny to see silly people stumble around when they've lost their crutch? (Much like I would imagine a fey would)

[GrayDeath]

Hmmmm, more but not solely on the latter.

If he finds someone he REALLY sees as deserving to be taken down a peg (and probably hopes they DONT pass the tribulations) then more of the first, but thats happened .... once so far if I remember correctly (loong ago).


Does that help?



@ the implied question: He does have his standards for targetting Victims. If they dont fit, he wont simply curse anybody crossing his way because he`s bored .... unless he doesnt find anyone for a looong time. ;)

[EldritchWeaver]

The cursing stuff reminds me of the Malefex (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501164-Dreamscarred-Press-Announces-The-Malefex). Maybe this is an option for you.

[Zanos]

While I agree with the CE crowd, I disagree strongly with those who say that he's either CN or only slightly Evil.

He's basically mentally and physically torturing people so that they overcome what his twisted perceptions view as a handicap, for seemingly no reason other than to take away skills that people are proud of and watch them suffer for it.

You'll probably get most of your mileage out of Bestow Curse and it's Greater variant. Some of the effects are probably too powerful, such as never casting spells, but the greater variant can always give people a -12 penalty to an important ability score.

[Efrate]

I'm thinking LE/LN. Depending on how much emotion he puts into this. If things must be this way, the balance must be maintained, that screams LN to me. Remember St. Cuthbert agreed that punishment MUST exist for law to be relevant. He helped spurr the creation of the nine hells just for this purpose. If its arbitrary, you have too much talent, you have it too easy, therefore, I must test you. If said person then passes and he leaves them alone, seems more neutral to me. He is is gleefully sadistic in doing it it seems more LE.

Evil at its core is selfish, if he is doing this for HIS benefit, its evil. If its for the world or his view of balance, its neutral. Its sound very similar to something some kind of inevitable would do. You could err on the side of caution and be LE but I can see this being LN. Your comment about well if he's REALLY bored then... sounds much more evil to me. People can't have nice things unless they earn them and deserve them is also more of an evil outlook.

I'd say LE but making a switch to LN isn't that hard, just depends on how he approaches it.

[hamishspence]

If its arbitrary, you have too much talent, you have it too easy, therefore, I must test you. If said person then passes and he leaves them alone, seems more neutral to me. He is is gleefully sadistic in doing it it seems more LE.

Evil at its core is selfish, if he is doing this for HIS benefit, its evil. If its for the world or his view of balance, its neutral.

According to Asmodeus's propaganda, sure - which glosses over that Asmodeus was dropped from Celestia very hard.

Punishment for offenses is St Cuthbert's schtick- and he allows for a degree of mercy and context.

Being too "one sided" "too lucky" and so is not an offense from his point of view I'd say - so would not deserve punishment.

I think he'd frown severely on this kind of character.

Not all evil is sadistically or greedily motivated - sometimes it's motivated by a warped "teach person a lesson, to make them better" - yet the deeds are still evil, and the character's first resort when they find something they personally object to.

Selfishness is a major component of most evils - but not all - "warped altruism" can be evil too.

[Yahzi]

..
CE. I hold NE to be the worst alignment, as they are evil for the sake of entertainment.

Your character believes that strength is the only virtue. So, in my world, solidly CE.

[Inevitability]

CE. I hold NE to be the worst alignment, as they are evil for the sake of entertainment.

Your character believes that strength is the only virtue. So, in my world, solidly CE.

NE is:

1. Not necessarily evil for the sake of entertainment.
2. Not more likely to be evil for the sake of entertainment than some of the other evils.
3. Not the only alignment that's evil for the sake of entertainment.

Finally, what he'd be in 'your world' matters not at all.

[Spore]

Chaotic Evil. No question.

Depending on the context you could also go for Lawful Good weirdly enough. As he places his test (the curse) onto people in order to improve them.

[hamishspence]

his main motivation is a mixture of enjoying making and watching other people suffer (as long as its not death or physical pain mind!) and using his power.

So, basically, he's an emotional sadist rather than a physical sadist?

Sounds pretty evil to me - even if he thinks he's "improving" them, the universe may not care.

[TheifofZ]

I'm inclined to say Neutral Evil.
As he follows a strict personal code, it's L. But since there's some whimsy and caprice, it's shifted toward chaotic.
So it's NE.

As to class: Witch is a strong casting class with a literal cursing and eventually shapechanging mechanic (All in the Hexes), and they also have a varied selection of spells. (Again, with a heavy theme toward curses/debuffs)
Doesn't have a lot of PrC support though, which is a shame.

[dascarletm]

While I agree with the CE crowd, I disagree strongly with those who say that he's either CN or only slightly Evil.

Are the fey, which are typically CN, who mess with traveler's to show them the error of their flaws CE?

[Segev]

I'd put him on the "neutral-as-obnoxious-balance" kind of Neutral. Provided he doesn't literally ruin people's lives and is willing to help those who he is "teaching" to at least know the lesson they're to learn is out there to be learned, I can see justifying LN, TN, or CN. Especially if he also goes around trying to help those who need, instead, a leg up.

If he's only about hurting people for being "too good," though, that puts him in the Evil area, because, well, "hurting people" for arrogant justifications of self-appointed right-to-judge definitely falls southerly on the moral axis.

[Zanos]

I'm inclined to say Neutral Evil.
As he follows a strict personal code, it's L. But since there's some whimsy and caprice, it's shifted toward chaotic.

@ the implied question: He does have his standards for targetting Victims. If they dont fit, he wont simply curse anybody crossing his way because he`s bored .... unless he doesnt find anyone for a looong time. ;)
Code doesn't seem too strict to me. Or existent at all, really.


Are the fey, which are typically CN, who mess with traveler's to show them the error of their flaws CE?
I don't recall any Fey that curse people to lose their best traits so that they can lap up their suffering. And the alignments of Fey aren't particularly consistent. Of the core Fey, only the Satyr is CN.

[SethoMarkus]

My personal appraisal of the character is either TN moving towards NE or NE moving towards TN, depending on if the character is using the curses for his own amusement more or less frequently than when they started.

My reasoning for the L/C axis is that while they have a reasoning behind their actions, it is shallow. Only targeting those of exceptional skill indicates some order behind their actions, but these victims/targets are seemingly chosen at random otherwise. They don't value freedom or even "only the strong survive", so much as "only the adaptable survive". Definitely leaning towards Chaos, but I feel they are regimented enough to be Neutral for now.

For G/E axis, I definitely see them as having Evil tendencies and inclinations. However, I also see this coming from a demented logic that doesn't grasp the depth of their actions. Sure, that doesn't make an act not-Evil, but it certainly seems that they are willing to support those that pass the test or are deemed "worthy". Absolutely in Evil territory, but I feel they are either in the process of falling or on the path to redemption. Most likely the former, considering they sometimes afflict a victim with a curse simply because they are bored (and no "legitimate" target had come their way recently).

It is very possible they already have shifted to Evil, but I feel they started off, at least, as Neutral.

[dascarletm]

I don't recall any Fey that curse people to lose their best traits so that they can lap up their suffering. And the alignments of Fey aren't particularly consistent. Of the core Fey, only the Satyr is CN.

I mean fey in the general sense, or in the typical stories they were derived from. That is they usually play tricks on people getting them intentionally lost in the forest. If they take the tricks with a good humor with stride they reward them with their stuff back, plus more. If they don't, they leave them.

I'm not saying it is particularly good to do what this character does, but depending on why he enjoys it the actions could be neutral.

[GrayDeath]

Replying for clarifications purpose only, again I do not want to influence enybody, I am gladly collecting opinions and reasonings.



I'd put him on the "neutral-as-obnoxious-balance" kind of Neutral. Provided he doesn't literally ruin people's lives and is willing to help those who he is "teaching" to at least know the lesson they're to learn is out there to be learned, I can see justifying LN, TN, or CN. Especially if he also goes around trying to help those who need, instead, a leg up.

If he's only about hurting people for being "too good," though, that puts him in the Evil area, because, well, "hurting people" for arrogant justifications of self-appointed right-to-judge definitely falls southerly on the moral axis.



Code doesn't seem too strict to me. Or existent at all, really.



My personal appraisal of the character is either TN moving towards NE or NE moving towards TN, depending on if the character is using the curses for his own amusement more or less frequently than when they started.

My reasoning for the L/C axis is that while they have a reasoning behind their actions, it is shallow. Only targeting those of exceptional skill indicates some order behind their actions, but these victims/targets are seemingly chosen at random otherwise. They don't value freedom or even "only the strong survive", so much as "only the adaptable survive". Definitely leaning towards Chaos, but I feel they are regimented enough to be Neutral for now.

For G/E axis, I definitely see them as having Evil tendencies and inclinations. However, I also see this coming from a demented logic that doesn't grasp the depth of their actions. Sure, that doesn't make an act not-Evil, but it certainly seems that they are willing to support those that pass the test or are deemed "worthy". Absolutely in Evil territory, but I feel they are either in the process of falling or on the path to redemption. Most likely the former, considering they sometimes afflict a victim with a curse simply because they are bored (and no "legitimate" target had come their way recently).

It is very possible they already have shifted to Evil, but I feel they started off, at least, as Neutral.



He intends to prove that they were either udneserving of their luck (ergo removing their obvious advantages shows that they are indeed weak/evil/dumb/watever) or, if they pass, removes the curse and even helps them (without ever revealing himself, he does not need or want any particular recognition).

he never does it JUST for the lolz, but at times, if no really fitting victim is to be found, he may lower his standards from "only the really lucky/onesided" to "Lucky/Onesided". Or not.

As for helping the truly disadvantaged: it has happened, but I would not say that it is a true goal/something he does with drive.
If shown people however who, despite massive disadvantages, manage to prosper somehow, he often goes out of his way to reward them for it.

[Bryan]

This doesn't seem complicated to me. He is basically Jigsaw from the Saw movies except that he tortures people emotionally rather than physically.
Pure CE.

[GrayDeath]

Sooo....nobody going to agree or disagree?

Declaring someone winner of a thread (especially one that ssupposed to run for another montr at least) is so hard if noone agrees ^^

[stanprollyright]

If you're an arcane caster focusing on curses why aren't you making a Witch?

[Knitifine]

Chaotic evil, no question.Well since you're just collecting opinion, I guess I'll throw in a +1 here.

[Zanos]

If you're an arcane caster focusing on curses why aren't you making a Witch?
Probably because this isn't a Pathfinder thread.

And yeah, still voting for Chaotic Evil.

[stanprollyright]

LE. The world is not as just and fair as he'd like it, so he takes these things into his own hands. The lessons he teaches are more about controlling than helping. Evil because he takes disproportionate pleasure in Schadenfreude, and one of the listed victim traits was "too good."


Probably because this isn't a Pathfinder thread.

Yes it is. It's not a build thread, but he was asking about PF Warlocks earlier. *shrug*

[P.F.]

Certainly evil ... no mention either way of honor, lies, authority, tradition, or duty, so I'll go with neutral evil.

[Zanos]

Yes it is. It's not a build thread, but he was asking about PF Warlocks earlier. *shrug*
Ha, so it is. Been so long since I posted in this that I forgot. :smallredface:

[stanprollyright]

Ha, so it is. Been so long since I posted in this that I forgot. :smallredface:

It's OK I had to check when I read your post. I mix them up in threads all the time.

[GrayDeath]

If you're an arcane caster focusing on curses why aren't you making a Witch?

Because A: they get too many spells and dont fit the spellblasting feel and B: Because we almost certainly already have one in the party.
But yes, if it was ONLY the Curse part that would be THE obvious choice.


Well since you're just collecting opinion, I guess I'll throw in a +1 here.

Not true, I am collecting reasoned opinions.

Just dropping is more like a vote, which is not what I am after.

@ stanprollyupright: to good at something, not too Good.
He has no particular ideological bias to his "victims" being Good or Evil (or Neutral at that).

[stanprollyright]

Because A: they get too many spells and dont fit the spellblasting feel and B: Because we almost certainly already have one in the party.
But yes, if it was ONLY the Curse part that would be THE obvious choice.

Fait 'nuff.



@ stanprollyupright: to good at something, not too Good.
He has no particular ideological bias to his "victims" being Good or Evil (or Neutral at that).

Whoops! When you see the word "good" in an alignment thread...

Doesn't change my vote though. He's still the Lawful Evil clown of kharmic justice.

[GrayDeath]

Bumped.

Needs more Input, thank you! :mitd:

[Luccan]

I'd say he's probably CE, if only because his target is the "too good" and "too fortunate". I'd say it's a lot like the Joker's MO in Killing Joke, with the main caveat being he wants people to rise above the challenge, not realize they're just like him. He's still being an evil jerk though. Hexing the good, generous king for his prosperity, even if it's "for his own good" or "the good of the kingdom", is pretty evil. If this Sorc directed his spellcasting at those who needed to learn a moral lesson (and didn't just curse them, unless they needed to learn about hubris or something, I guess) and put effort into teaching them these lessons, I'd say he was a something-neutral, in a very fey like way. In old stories, mystic characters would play sometimes tricks to teach lessons, but they weren't really good guys, and half the time they usually did just as much for their own entertainment, if not out of outright malice. If it was very weak hexes done for a quick laugh at the town bully and just as soon dismissed, I could see CG, but that's as far as I'd go with it.

Basically, he seems evil, in a "holding up a mirror" kind of way. He may see what he's doing as good and he may not try to harm people "more than necessary", but he's still evil. He just views his actions as necessary (which a lot of evil types who think they're doing good do). Keep away from Paladins.

[GrayDeath]

Last Bump.

Around 20 Days left until I finalize him.

At the moment I am mostly satisfied with the Opinions and general Data collection, but I am always very grateful for more (detailed) Input!

[GrayDeath]

Nothing more to say?


OK then.

[Jon_Dahl]

I have an alignment question. It is related to one or two threads that I have created earlier this year....

You are a retired adventurer. You hear that a group of infamous adventurers have taken your group's name. Even though they haven't done anything criminal, it is strongly suspected that the leader of the group has his group members killed on purpose. This is because the members keep dying at an alarming rate and the leader is actually known as the Journeyman of Death because everyone dies around him. So the group always has new members but the same leader.

You are contacted by a sage who thinks that the leader might be allied with the forces of evil. He has no proof, though. You and your group decide to send a letter to the group asking them to at least change their name so that your group's good name wouldn't be tarnished. They don't change the name and they reply you nothing.

Much later on, the other group randomly kills an innkeeper, a young elf, who is survived by his widow and a little baby girl. They also kill one of their group members in the process. After that, they kidnap the town sheriff and publicly threaten the whole village. Most of the villagers flee the village because it's understood that they might be all slaughtered (This wasn't said with this exact words but dozens of people understood it like that). The group ransacks the sheriff's office. The bodies of the elf and the killed group member are ex tempore burned in the town square and the funeral pyre is made from a wall of the inn.

The sheriff is then taken to the capital. The group has a lawyer in the capital, a Sage of Law, who manages to help the group avoid punishment. They only receive a formal warning from the city guard.

At this point, you and your group decide to kill the group in a sudden ambush. The decision is based on the fact that they don't want to talk since they didn't reply your previous message, and since they make such rash and murderous decisions, you and your group can't afford give them a fighting chance. Official methods won't help, since they have the Sage of Law to back them up. You make a plan how to kill the other group without placing any innocents in harm's way. Then you just kill them in a well-executed ambush. You donate some of the loot to the elf's widow and help her to rebuild the partially destroyed inn.

What is your alignment?

[Stealth Marmot]

Goes around cursing people, taking away the thing they value most for giggles.

This is so incredibly Chaotic Evil I don't know if I have a more definitive example.

[Inevitability]

I have an alignment question. It is related to one or two threads that I have created earlier this year....

You are a retired adventurer. You hear that a group of infamous adventurers have taken your group's name. Even though they haven't done anything criminal, it is strongly suspected that the leader of the group has his group members killed on purpose. This is because the members keep dying at an alarming rate and the leader is actually known as the Journeyman of Death because everyone dies around him. So the group always has new members but the same leader.

You are contacted by a sage who thinks that the leader might be allied with the forces of evil. He has no proof, though. You and your group decide to send a letter to the group asking them to at least change their name so that your group's good name wouldn't be tarnished. They don't change the name and they reply you nothing.

Much later on, the other group randomly kills an innkeeper, a young elf, who is survived by his widow and a little baby girl. They also kill one of their group members in the process. After that, they kidnap the town sheriff and publicly threaten the whole village. Most of the villagers flee the village because it's understood that they might be all slaughtered (This wasn't said with this exact words but dozens of people understood it like that). The group ransacks the sheriff's office. The bodies of the elf and the killed group member are ex tempore burned in the town square and the funeral pyre is made from a wall of the inn.

The sheriff is then taken to the capital. The group has a lawyer in the capital, a Sage of Law, who manages to help the group avoid punishment. They only receive a formal warning from the city guard.

At this point, you and your group decide to kill the group in a sudden ambush. The decision is based on the fact that they don't want to talk since they didn't reply your previous message, and since they make such rash and murderous decisions, you and your group can't afford give them a fighting chance. Official methods won't help, since they have the Sage of Law to back them up. You make a plan how to kill the other group without placing any innocents in harm's way. Then you just kill them in a well-executed ambush. You donate some of the loot to the elf's widow and help her to rebuild the partially destroyed inn.

What is your alignment?

I suggest creating your own thread for this, rather than hijacking someone else's.

[Jon_Dahl]

I suggest creating your own thread for this, rather than hijacking someone else's.

Ok, I will. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to highjack anything.

[GrayDeath]

Ok, I will. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to highjack anything.


In that case, for future questions, please trouble yourself with actually reading the thread you post in. The title might suggest it to be a "everybody asks his questions" vaguely, but it is actually a very specidic question. :)

it might help avoid such hijacks.

@ Stealth mamot: Well, not the thing they value most, and not (only) for giggles.

he curses "one Trick Ponies". And also intends for them to actually overcome it.

If that doesnt change your interpretation, good. If it does, even better.

I want feedback (yours, not mine) just please try to read it all beforehand to avoid focussing on one aspect only.

Thank you :smallcool:

[Katrina]

IMHO, his willingness to inflict deformity, pain, horrors and torment on strangers who he feels "have it too good" screams Evil. A Good person helps his fellow man. A Neutral person looks after himself first, and helps his fellow man if he is able. An Evil person tears down his fellow man. The fact that his motivation is a twisted form of teaching a lesson does not help him. It still makes him evil. The reference to Batman's the Killing Joke is very apt. The characters are disturbingly similar in what they seem to want to accomplish.

I can see arguments for all over the Law vs Chaos spectrum depending on specifics of his behavior. His concept of attempting to help the individual rise above their flaw or limitation could be seen as very Chaotic. At the same time, an overt dedication to this philosophy could be seen as lawful. I would have to know his ideas about things other than this to be able to truly decide. Does he believe that the needs of the individual outweigh the collective? That would lean him toward chaos. If he believes the opposite and he is doing what he is doing to strength society as a whole, then he could actually be Lawful. There isn't really enough info to make a concrete call here, but I'm gonna say he leans toward Chaos in my idea of how he works.

"You know the difference between me and you? One bad day."

[BloodSnake'sCha]

How about Chaotic Good?

he is doing good stuff to people and do it in a very chaotic way and only do it to people that are strong enough to take it.

[Inevitability]

How about Chaotic Good?

he is doing good stuff to people and do it in a very chaotic way and only do it to people that are strong enough to take it.

Explain how involuntarily subjecting people to torturous curses the majority fails to gain anything from is 'good stuff'.

[Stealth Marmot]

How about Chaotic Good?

he is doing good stuff to people and do it in a very chaotic way and only do it to people that are strong enough to take it.

This is at best chaotic neutral, especially seeing as how arrogant you have to be to think that using torturous curses is supposed to make a person better instead of, you know, helpless and embittered.

That's not a good thing, it's the type of thing that a demonic trickster god would do.

[Segev]

To earn CN or even CG, the guy's victims would have to "earn" it somehow. "Having it too good" is not earning it. A lot of people who are viewed as successful are so because they have, in fact, engaged in prudent judgment and hard work, whether visible or not. As an example, there are people who are, if you dig into financial details, better off than my parents by a significant margin who feel like my parents "have it good" and seem affronted that my parents aren't more generous in ways those people approve of (often in terms of "well, if they were such good friends, they'd help me out with X").

The truth is that my parents are the working poor by every definition, but they buy prudently, restrict themselves mainly to necessities, save for lengthy periods for big purchases, and never, ever take vacations (we went on 2 family vacations in my entire lifetime, and the second was covered by Dream Factory). I grew up quite comfortable, and I didn't know that most other families take yearly vacations. I noticed other kids had more expensive, cutting-edge toys (particularly consoles), but I knew my parents wouldn't buy them for me and figured those other kids' families had more money (though I had no idea how much more until I applied for college and learned of my parents' finances).

I could easily see this proposed character viewing my parents' visible signs of success (a nice, well-maintained house, their kids dressed nicely - and even, in the case of the two who cared about it, highly fashionably...though not in the pay-for-the-brand-name brands - and multiple cars (my Dad's business uses them) and running their own business) and assume they needed a "crippling curse" applied to "test" their "worthiness" of that opulence. Such a thing would have destroyed my family, because they couldn't afford the lost time and productivity, and the care they give two of my siblings is essential to those siblings' ongoing well-being (and consumes enough time that they couldn't take a vacation even with twice the income).

In classic myths and fairy tales, the enchantress or sorcereress or wizened faerie mage who curses those who deserve it set up tests. They'd pose as helpless individuals in need of aid, or as minor inconveniences in the paths of the tested. If the tested reacted neutrally, too busy to help but not rude nor cruel and just moving around to get on with things, they weren't generally interesting enough for the story to mention, but if mentioned tended to be left alone. If the tested were cruel or belittling to the helpless, or monstrous to the inconvenient, they would be cursed in the manner this proposed character might. If the tested were generous, kind, and/or helpful, they often would receive a blessing of some sort.

That behavior is neutral to good, depending on how it's done and how much "punishment" vs. "way to learn a lesson" is invested in the cursing. And how present the blessing is, too.

But "punish for having it too good, unless they stumble upon the hard-to-discover clause to recover, and then they're probably better people for having suffered" doesn't seem to take into account how badly it can ruin lives, and it has far too easy a justification for cursing people just for the heck of it. Evil, certainly.

Chaotic... it depends how whimsical the whole thing is. How strict to "if this, then curse" vs. "I will make a judgment after I see how they behave/are."

[GrayDeath]

Nicely long reasoned response.

he would not curse your parents. You have to be very far above regarding the "Gifted" or "Too good" area to catch his eye, moderately wealthy seeming would not work, even if hes desperate for a target ;)

To elaborate a bit more (but not too much after all I dont ant to influence anybodies judgement) about his targetting:

If you`re a rich Kid, blessed with good looks, swimming in Money, and on top of that gifted with magical ability, you`re almost sure to be targeted.

If you are THE most talented XYZ in Town, its above 80%.

If you are a normal person with one impressive gift but otherwise not too obvious, you have a 50/50 chance or so.

Everything below that is as safe from him as you can be.

if you are REALLY "cursed" already, but keep on slugging/fighting/working, he will actually help you with a certain chance (say somewhere around 40-66%).



@ katrina: Answering that fully would influence you too much. Ask me specific questions with specific Situations and I will answer them though, and gladly.

[Nifft]

Causes undue suffering to innocent people: Evil.

The law or chaos angle could be argued based on his motives, but I'd say he's probably Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil.

Does he care more about collective society, or does he care more about how each individual evolves? IMHO that's this guy's Law / Chaos divide.

[Segev]

The fact that he targets people who haven't done anything to deserve it other than "be fortunate...except in that they caught his eye" is pretty evil.

Setting himself up as sole arbiter of whether you're worthy of your position or worthy of being knocked out of it or worthy of being helped up from it is pretty arrogant, and, given that he'll act on it to the detriment of people who, again, haven't done anything wrong as far as he can tell pushes it into evil.

The neutral or good variants would test the potential targets BEFORE cursing them. See how they handle situations where their worthiness can be measured. If you're rich, talented, magical, and handsome, but you would use your talents and wealth and influence to help others out of the goodness of your heart, you don't deserve to be cursed, and if this guy would do so without first testing for things like that, he's evil. He's spiting people because he doesn't like that they're well-off.

[Strigon]

The neutral or good variants would test the potential targets BEFORE cursing them. See how they handle situations where their worthiness can be measured. If you're rich, talented, magical, and handsome, but you would use your talents and wealth and influence to help others out of the goodness of your heart, you don't deserve to be cursed, and if this guy would do so without first testing for things like that, he's evil. He's spiting people because he doesn't like that they're well-off.

I'd argue that even if he did test them, it's still Evil.
After all, these aren't people who are hurting anyone, they're just people with one particular strength. Just because you're not using that strength to help people for nothing in return doesn't suddenly make you a valid target.

[Segev]

I'd argue that even if he did test them, it's still Evil.
After all, these aren't people who are hurting anyone, they're just people with one particular strength. Just because you're not using that strength to help people for nothing in return doesn't suddenly make you a valid target.

Sorry, I was relying on past context to be clear.

The test should involve seeing if they will help, do nothing, or hurt others.

Only those who hurt the disadvantaged would be viable targets for cursing. e.g. the one who not only fails to help the beggar woman find a meal, but kicks her and curses her for being in his way.

[Strigon]

Ah, that makes sense; it would seem we're on the same page.
(Not that surprising, really, considering that page is "hurting people who aren't doing anyone harm is Evil")