Confusion over alignment

[bakester17]

So I was going to make a Neutral Evil character. A good friend of mine is going to be the GM for this, and said that a NE alignment wouldn't work as one of the rules is not "aiding the weak" so basically when we start out I couldn't help in early quests as we'd be doing low end jobs for "weaker" people.
I thought that since it's NE, I could say "it would benefit me to stay in the party as it could help me further my goals in the future." Now I'm confused about alignment overall. Is it black or white? Do I have to follow strict rules as a NE limiting the rest of my party that aren't evil? How is this supposed to work? I wanted to make my person the kind of character that would do anything for himself, regardless of morals. Now I find that I cannot do this character as some of the alignment rules directly go against what I desire in my character. What should I do?

[noob]

Well if you want to do something particular just do it and your alignment will change appropriately.
Alignment system is just for mechanics and guessing which plane you will go in when you die it is not supposed to be the personality of your character.

[Bad Wolf]

Neutral Evil is "I'm number 1 and I'll do whatever it takes to keep it that way." As long as it benefits you personally to do so, you should be fine.

However you might want to consider the DM's words. If he doesn't want any evil characters, you should probably go along with that.

[ATHATH]

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

And a non-outsider NE character can do pretty much whatever they want to do; they don't HAVE to kick puppies if they don't want to, and they can help orphans if it benefits them/they feel like it.

If your DM is still being insistent about his alignment views, just take/show him the Touch of Benevolence feat.

[Inevitability]

Where is your DM getting his ideas from?

[Psyren]

"Alignment is not a straitjacket" - PHB 103 / CRB 166. Your GM has some reading to do.

More specifically, will these quests involve a reward of some kind, loot, or even just the chance to use violence? That's more than enough justification for Evil.

Now, having said all of that, your GM may simply be uncomfortable with Evil PCs in general - that's a different matter, and a legitimate objection at many tables. But if that's the case, he/she should just say so, and not try to justify it with flimsy excuses like "evil characters can't do low-level quests."

[Flickerdart]

So I was going to make a Neutral Evil character. A good friend of mine is going to be the GM for this, and said that a NE alignment wouldn't work as one of the rules is not "aiding the weak" so basically when we start out I couldn't help in early quests as we'd be doing low end jobs for "weaker" people.
You'll be working for weak people, but you'll also be weak. So in comparison, they're not all that weak!

Having said that, this is absurd, and you're completely right. Neutral Evil follows no rules. A lawful character might have some code like "do not help those weaker than yourself" but even that is extreme. A neutral evil character won't help anyone if it doesn't benefit him, but that's very different. He has three motivations for doing something:


This action benefits him personally
This action allows him to avoid pain or harm
This action hurts someone he dislikes (which is most people and things)


Consider this scenario: A party of adventurers happens upon a merchant, whose wagon has overturned. He begs them to help him set the wagon back upright, and promises to reward them. A neutral evil character has a few choices that all gel with his alignment:

Help the merchant. The work is easy, and money is money.
Do not help the merchant. The reward is not worth the effort, and laughing at him could be fun.
Help the merchant, then kill him, and take his wagon.
Kill the merchant without helping him, and take all his money.
Say that you'll go get help, and invite the local bandit leader to help you kill the merchant and take his money.

Either way, the neutral evil character gets something out of it. The "does it benefit me personally?" criterion is met.

Now, let's look at a different scenario. Instead of a merchant, the wagon belongs to a petty magistrate. The magistrate commands the party, in the name of the king, to assist him at once, but offers no reward. If the magistrate has a squadron of knights beside him, or appears to be a powerful wizard, then the reason to help him is that he is strong and you are weak, and therefore you do what he says, or else. If the magistrate has no muscle behind his orders, then the neutral evil character will not help him (unless he wants the magistrate's help in convincing the king, later on).

If your DM wants you to do jobs for weak people who will not pay you then yes, a neutral evil character is not likely to look kindly upon that sort of work. But there are lots of reasons why he might:


The work involves killing something, the character likes killing stuff, and finding stuff that people will let him kill is hard.
The work has an accessible side hustle (looting treasure from the family tomb that needs to be cleared of wights).
The work will attract the attention of a powerful patron who will be able to offer paid work in the future (even evil people need internships).



You (and your DM) should never ask yourself why a character might not do something. Instead, figure out a reason that the character would want to do it. This is the best way to avoid My Guy Syndrome (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/37103/what-is-my-guy-syndrome-and-how-do-i-handle-it).

[Pleh]

All these responses are right, but there is something to be said about your DM having the right to set the tone for their own campaign.

[Segev]

First and foremost, ask yourself why you want to play an NE character. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, in a vacuum, but you want to be sure you know what your reasons are so that you can examine them in the non-vacuum of the setting, the game, and the party. Consider carefully whether the concept you have in mind fits with these things.

Secondly, if your DM has a rigid definition of NE that doesn't match your character concept, don't call him NE. Play your character however you see fit, and if the DM tells you, "You can't do that because you're Alignment X," tell him that you're happy to have him label your PC whatever alignment he likes, and that you're not concerned about your PC's alignment so much as what he'd do.

Then, go ahead and play your concept. Whether you think he's NE or not, whether your DM thinks he's NE or not, is irrelevant as long as you're playing what you want to play.

But do be very sure you're not playing a problematic concept. One that will disrupt the game is not something you should play. You can't enact villainous schemes if the game implodes due to your PC not working and playing well with the game and party!

[Red Fel]

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

Yo!


So I was going to make a Neutral Evil character. A good friend of mine is going to be the GM for this, and said that a NE alignment wouldn't work as one of the rules is not "aiding the weak" so basically when we start out I couldn't help in early quests as we'd be doing low end jobs for "weaker" people.
I thought that since it's NE, I could say "it would benefit me to stay in the party as it could help me further my goals in the future." Now I'm confused about alignment overall. Is it black or white? Do I have to follow strict rules as a NE limiting the rest of my party that aren't evil? How is this supposed to work? I wanted to make my person the kind of character that would do anything for himself, regardless of morals. Now I find that I cannot do this character as some of the alignment rules directly go against what I desire in my character. What should I do?

Here's the thing. Several things, actually.

First: Nobody tells you how to play your character except you. A DM can come in and modify your alignment when you consistently act inconsistent therewith, but he can't tell you how you must play your alignment.

Second: "No helping the weak," even if it were a rule, doesn't count when everyone is stronger than you are. Unless you're a level 15 NE character helping a bunch of level 2 PCs, it shouldn't count. Evil generally counts "the weak" as "everyone weaker than me" - when you're at the bottom, not many people fit in that category.

Third: As others have mentioned, self-interest is a thing that exists. You can help others where it provides you a direct benefit. You are not irrationally compelled to thwart all others irrespective of its utility; that's stupid. Don't play Stupid Evil, even if the DM demands it.

Fourth: Nobody tells you how to play your character except you. Again, as others have said, alignment isn't a straitjacket; it describes who you are based on your mindset and actions, rather than restricting what actions you are allowed to take.

All that said . . .


However you might want to consider the DM's words. If he doesn't want any evil characters, you should probably go along with that.

This. We can debate the merits of alignment up and down seven ways til Sunday. But if the DM or another player is negatively disposed towards your Evil character, it's unlikely to end well for you. It's worth pushing a little bit, offering some insight, but fighting an intransigent DM is a losing battle. Become an ice-themed Bard and let it go.

[Segev]

Become an ice-themed Bard and let it go.

Well played, sir. Well played.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's plenty of evil people who put a lot of effort in establishing and maintaining a good reputation.
The evil mastermind who maintains a public persona as a philanthropist is a classic trope after all.
And it can definitely pay off if someone tries to finger you for something shady without ironclad proof and everyone goes "That's ridiculous, everyone knows that he's a good guy!"
Even with proof a canny villain can still play it off as someone trying to frame him. He'd never do such a thing, after all he's a pillar of the community!
A good reputation lets you get away with a lot.


Secondly, if your DM has a rigid definition of NE that doesn't match your character concept, don't call him NE. Play your character however you see fit, and if the DM tells you, "You can't do that because you're Alignment X," tell him that you're happy to have him label your PC whatever alignment he likes, and that you're not concerned about your PC's alignment so much as what he'd do.

Then, go ahead and play your concept. Whether you think he's NE or not, whether your DM thinks he's NE or not, is irrelevant as long as you're playing what you want to play.


The problem with this approach is if you want to play a class that requires an evil alignment.
It also influences some spell effects and other things that can have quite an impact on your character (like Greater Luminous Armor only being castable on good targets).

[SirNibbles]

From the Player's Handbook, page 104:

"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing
for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

_

"“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others."

__

"You want help killing those people in that village and you're going to pay me? I have no issues with that."

Doing jobs for weaker people isn't inconsistent at all with the Neutral Evil alignment. In regards to your party, they might more often take an approach that doesn't just involve slaughtering the enemy whereas you might see it as acceptable to kill people, even if they're innocent, if that's what the job calls for.

[Gnaeus]

Another valid reason. These guys I kill things with really want to do this. I don't, but since my team all wants to go I'll just half ass it until I find something better to do.

[EldritchWeaver]

TIL: intransigent.


Become an ice-themed Bard and let it go.

But what does this reference?

[Venger]

TIL: intransigent.



But what does this reference?

he's referring to "frozen"

[Flickerdart]

Another valid reason. These guys I kill things with really want to do this. I don't, but since my team all wants to go I'll just half ass it until I find something better to do.

Indeed. "Hang with my bros" is a valid desire, and if said bros want to go on dumb missions for silly weaklings, the NE character might still come along if he has nothing better to do.

[denthor]

as a NE you could simply be self absorb. You can be charming and disarming while you waste this muggle rubble.

[dps]

Your DM has expressed a decidedly odd concept of what NE is. You need to discuss this with him before the campaign actually begins (indeed, before you actually create your character) and find out if that's truly how he views NE, or if he just doesn't want Evil PCs in his game. If it's the former, you might try to educated him about (gently, you don't want him ticked off at you if you still want to play in his game) and see if you can get him to be less rigid as to how he would anticipate you playing your character. If you can't convince him that he should allow you to play your NE character as you see fit, or if he simply doesn't want Evil characters, just create a NG or TN character instead.

[ngilop]

Yo!



Here's the thing. Several things, actually.

First: Nobody tells you how to play your character except you. A DM can come in and modify your alignment when you consistently act inconsistent therewith, but he can't tell you how you must play your alignment.

Second: "No helping the weak," even if it were a rule, doesn't count when everyone is stronger than you are. Unless you're a level 15 NE character helping a bunch of level 2 PCs, it shouldn't count. Evil generally counts "the weak" as "everyone weaker than me" - when you're at the bottom, not many people fit in that category.

Third: As others have mentioned, self-interest is a thing that exists. You can help others where it provides you a direct benefit. You are not irrationally compelled to thwart all others irrespective of its utility; that's stupid. Don't play Stupid Evil, even if the DM demands it.

Fourth: Nobody tells you how to play your character except you.[/I] Again, as others have said, alignment isn't a straitjacket; it [I]describes who you are based on your mindset and actions, rather than restricting what actions you are allowed to take.

All that said . . .



This. We can debate the merits of alignment up and down seven ways til Sunday. But if the DM or another player is negatively disposed towards your Evil character, it's unlikely to end well for you. It's worth pushing a little bit, offering some insight, but fighting an intransigent DM is a losing battle. Become an ice-themed Bard and let it go.

Bolded for emphasis.

I completely disagree with these statements offered as some sort of absolute.

the DM and the group as a whole has a right to set boundaries and hard limits.

If the group set out before saying this is going to be a campaign about the final struggle between good and evil and the players are on the side of good fighting a loosing battle but going in on one final act that may well turn the tide completly. You are a giant jerk if you make the NE guy who decides that selling out the party is the best thing for you.

if the DM says 'No elves' That means no elves.. not this kind of ignore what anybody else says and do what you want to do and go ahead and make an elven wizard cuz of rules 1 and 4.

RPGs are supposed to be about a group of at least acquaintances getting together and through some sort of diplomatic measures come to an agreement on what type of story is going to be mutually told. you should not just go ahead and do whatever you want because some guy told you that "nobody tells you how to play expect yourself"

I guess if you want to just go ahead and be that one guy, you can. Don't be confused when your number of rpg offerings start to get smaller.

[Red Fel]

Bolded for emphasis.

I completely disagree with these statements offered as some sort of absolute.

the DM and the group as a whole has a right to set boundaries and hard limits.

This is a fair point. And, to be clear, even if I speak in absolute terms, I rarely truly mean absolutes.

The concerns of others should certainly play into your character concept. And if you design a character concept that contrasts with the playstyle, setting, tone, or theme of the table, you are likely in the wrong.

However, once you've settled your character with the DM and table, and provided that you don't prioritize your fun at the expense of that of others, my statement is generally a valid one. If you're not disrupting the table, if you're not being "that guy," if you're contributing meaningfully and everyone is having fun, then nobody should be telling you how to play your character.

Hence my qualifier about the intransigent DM. (Great word, isn't it?) If he won't yield, don't push it - playing something expecting to teach that ignorant DM a lesson is pretty much a "that guy" move.

And that's where I disagree with ngilop - where he seems to assume, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that playing NE is automatically the same as playing "that guy." It can be, but that's true of many alignments or character concepts. "That guy" will almost always play "that guy;" playing the same thing that "that guy" plays doesn't mean you'll play it the way "that guy" would.

[Strigon]

Bolded for emphasis.

I completely disagree with these statements offered as some sort of absolute.

the DM and the group as a whole has a right to set boundaries and hard limits.

If the group set out before saying this is going to be a campaign about the final struggle between good and evil and the players are on the side of good fighting a loosing battle but going in on one final act that may well turn the tide completly. You are a giant jerk if you make the NE guy who decides that selling out the party is the best thing for you.

if the DM says 'No elves' That means no elves.. not this kind of ignore what anybody else says and do what you want to do and go ahead and make an elven wizard cuz of rules 1 and 4.

RPGs are supposed to be about a group of at least acquaintances getting together and through some sort of diplomatic measures come to an agreement on what type of story is going to be mutually told. you should not just go ahead and do whatever you want because some guy told you that "nobody tells you how to play expect yourself"

I guess if you want to just go ahead and be that one guy, you can. Don't be confused when your number of rpg offerings start to get smaller.

You seem to be confusing the GM telling you which characters you can play with how you play them.

The DM can absolutely say don't play this type of character, where this type of character is an elf or a thief or a jerk, but once you've made a character - so long as it doesn't turn into one of the banned types - how they're played is 100% your call.

[Ettina]

Neutral Evil is "selfish **** who will hurt others unprovoked if it benefits him in some way" (practical benefits, amusement, pleasing someone stronger than you, etc).

NE doesn't mean you never help others weaker than yourself. It means that you'd never help someone for their own sake, but only because you get some benefit from it. For example, you could totally be a NE mercenary working for a rich but weak person in exchange for cash. (But you'd be willing to turn on them if that was more in your best interests than continuing to work for them.)

Also, being evil doesn't mean you can't have loved ones. You could help your family member, best friend, significant other, etc for no other reason than caring about them and still be evil. If you'd die to save your girlfriend, but would slaughter an innocent stranger just to test out how well your new weapon works, that's an evil character. (This is why evil PCs don't have to be backstabbing, even when they would benefit from betraying their party.)

[dhasenan]

Instead of arguing with the DM about what exactly neutral evil is, you could talk to the DM about your character's motivations and decision-making process with examples from their backstory. Ideally you'd show how they can work as part of a team (which is a strong concern for any DM) as well as how evil they can be (so you can get mechanical tradeoffs for being evil).

[ngilop]

This is a fair point. And, to be clear, even if I speak in absolute terms, I rarely truly mean absolutes.

The concerns of others should certainly play into your character concept. And if you design a character concept that contrasts with the playstyle, setting, tone, or theme of the table, you are likely in the wrong.

However, once you've settled your character with the DM and table, and provided that you don't prioritize your fun at the expense of that of others, my statement is generally a valid one. If you're not disrupting the table, if you're not being "that guy," if you're contributing meaningfully and everyone is having fun, then nobody should be telling you how to play your character.

Hence my qualifier about the intransigent DM. (Great word, isn't it?) If he won't yield, don't push it - playing something expecting to teach that ignorant DM a lesson is pretty much a "that guy" move.

And that's where I disagree with ngilop - where he seems to assume, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that playing NE is automatically the same as playing "that guy." It can be, but that's true of many alignments or character concepts. "That guy" will almost always play "that guy;" playing the same thing that "that guy" plays doesn't mean you'll play it the way "that guy" would.

Corecting as requested

I just tossed up NE as an example of 'that guy' as that was the alignment the OP was talking about you could, as you yourself stated, slap any alignment in as a replacement and be 'that guy'

and I don't see how a DM and group of players (minus oneself) coming to a decision and wanting a certain playstyle and goal from any certain setting makes them 'intransigent' I like to prescribe to the KISS model and just saying extremely stubborn would have been nice enough for people so they would have not to crack open their Webster's.

I think our mutual disagreement comes from expectant ways that one should play an RPG. that is until yu clearified the part about

However, once you've settled your character with the DM and table, and provided that you don't prioritize your fun at the expense of that of others, my statement is generally a valid one. If you're not disrupting the table, if you're not being "that guy," if you're contributing meaningfully and everyone is having fun, then nobody should be telling you how to play your character.


then we are literally saying the same thing. Sorry if I jumped onto you a bit early. my apologies. Just take it as an example of when LE and CG can put aside their differences, after a few blows are exchanged of course.

[KillianHawkeye]

just saying extremely stubborn would have been nice enough for people so they would have not to crack open their Webster's.

Don't be an anti-intellectual. Learning is good, and vocabulary can be pretty useful for roleplayers.

[Pleh]

I like to prescribe to the KISS model and just saying extremely stubborn would have been nice enough for people so they would have not to crack open their Webster's.

Brevity is the soul of wit; the KISS model is often the best policy.

But this does not preclude the intrinsic value of continuing education. As we progress, what is considered "simple" expands so that the KISS model gradually covers a larger and larger territory.

By the way, cracking open physical Webster is a bit of a waste when you can google any common definition about twenty times faster than looking it up in a physical copy (especially when the word you read was already found online).

Did anyone else notice that one of the synonyms listed for "intransigent" is "diehard"?

Now I want to rename the feat.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

While I agree that the DMs conception of NE seems to be... lacking, you might find it easier to avoid the argument and simply say 'OK, I'll be true neutral instead'. Given your DM seems to have a rather restrictive idea of evil, you could probably play more or less the same character while avoiding fuss and potential argument.

[Inevitability]

While I agree that the DMs conception of NE seems to be... lacking, you might find it easier to avoid the argument and simply say 'OK, I'll be true neutral instead'. Given your DM seems to have a rather restrictive idea of evil, you could probably play more or less the same character while avoiding fuss and potential argument.

"You're true neutral, that means you don't care about anything. I don't think this alignment can work in my campaign."

[Flickerdart]

"You're true neutral, that means you don't care about anything. I don't think this alignment can work in my campaign."

Your character has an alignment - he is much too two-dimensional to participate in this campaign.

[Uncle Pine]

So I was going to make a Neutral Evil character. A good friend of mine is going to be the GM for this, and said that a NE alignment wouldn't work as one of the rules is not "aiding the weak" so basically when we start out I couldn't help in early quests as we'd be doing low end jobs for "weaker" people.
I thought that since it's NE, I could say "it would benefit me to stay in the party as it could help me further my goals in the future." Now I'm confused about alignment overall. Is it black or white? Do I have to follow strict rules as a NE limiting the rest of my party that aren't evil? How is this supposed to work? I wanted to make my person the kind of character that would do anything for himself, regardless of morals. Now I find that I cannot do this character as some of the alignment rules directly go against what I desire in my character. What should I do?

You go along and follow your gut instinct. Nothing prevents a NE character from helping a weaker person if it benefits. Heck, nothing prevents him from doing so even if it doesn't benefit him at all! Maybe he just felt chirpier that Tuesday. If NE had to act like jerks 24/24, what would happen to subtlety?

Your friend is wrongly interpreting how alignments work, but that's not really something to blame him for: alignments are a quite convoluted subject to begin with. Explain to him that according to the rules you're entitled to play a NE character that isn't entirely disruptive in all situations, then either work with him to develop a well-rounded character that doesn't simply conform to the flat label of "Evil" or show him you've already done that.

EDIT: If reasoning won't work, build a Neutral character and play it exactly as you would've played the NE one. Justify it by claiming that you're good on the inside, should anyone be bothered with the way you act.

[Blu]

So, usually i see alignment as the tendency of your characters instead of a black and white thing. Just because you are NE doens't mean you are pure evil incarnated, can't have friends or can't help others. Seeing things that way, just means if given two choices, your character will normally choose the evil one, but not always. Also, given a good motive, any act can be explained, you can try to talk to your DM about this.

[ShaneMRoth]

Your GM seems like one of those people who took to heart the "never say no" approach to being a GM. Bless his heart.

Here is your original post, boiled down to its essence:

... the GM... said that a NE alignment wouldn't work ...

What should I do?

What you should do is take the hint.

Your GM is trying to say "no evil PCs" without using the word "no".

The general aversion on the part of a GM to say "no" to players has merit. It is the right spirit for role-playing in general, and for fantasy role-playing in specific. But if it needs to be said, it's best just to say it plain.

At my table, I tended to enforce the rule that evil alignments were reserved for villains and monsters. And when I was starting a new campaign, with players I was just getting to know, I strictly enforced this rule. And I didn't mince words. "No evil PCs."