A little Alignment Help for a Newb (D&D that is) RPG Player - please?

[GrayDeath]

Hello fellow Playgrounders!

I have been tasked to help the GM prepare one of 2 "never played anything even remotely D&D" Players in an upcoming game fluffwise (he will do the mechnical thingies....me thinks^^).

I have already provided the prospective Player with background Infos on the setting ( a slightly homebrewed Eberron variant, inc ase you want to know) and asked him to give me a written "general guideline on how his character acts in situations he thinks important".

Since I tend to misinterpret a lot of stuff people say about alignment and want to be sure to provide correct answers (this DM helped me when I was GMing so I intend to fully return the favour) here is what I`ve got:


Magros` (characters Name, he`s a human Sorcerer or similar, class has some flexibility yet) main goal is to accumulate knowledge and continue on his path to power (self perfection mostly) but stay under the radar of Eberrons Big Players until he is able to play in the big league himself.
However his friends and especially family (My note: the character is married and his parents are still alive, as is his beloved older brother) are very important to him, even moreso (in the short term at least) than his goals.

If offered help on his quest without giving reason to do so he will return the favour in kind but twice as large. And feel good doing so.

If offered Help in exchange for an effort of his (ergo a trade) he will trade fairly but not more beneficial to anybody than himself.

If someone blocks his path/interferes in his quest he will remove them in the quickest, least long term damaging way he can think of.

If someone offends him, or wounds him/steals his stuff etc he will make them suffer for it....at least 5 times the amount he himself has suffered. And have fun doing that to them.

If his family is ever threatened he will eliminate the offender, and his powerbase, and anybody else involved with extreme prejudice.
And enjoy it.


Thanks for your input!

[ATHATH]

I'd say that he'd be around TN, higher or lower on the alignment scale depending on what else he does.

Does he prefer to be in or out of structured/ordered environments/situations, or is he ambivalent?

[OldTrees1]

Alignment: Any

Nothing stated in the opening post would conclusively narrow down the options.

In the OP you described a character looking for self improvement and smart enough to make social interactions that incentivize positive returns (return positive and negative with greater magnitude to encourage positive and discourage negative).

That is quite common in every alignment.

[GrayDeath]

He values Structure but is not slave to it.
I`d say he values power higher than Law so far (we only talked a bit when I described the setting, the above is all I have "in hard writing" from him atm.

[flappeercraft]

Definitely True neutral

[OldTrees1]

He values Structure but is not slave to it.

This hints at the Lawful - Neutral border but could describe either (I would not use that line to describe a Chaotic character).

Put him down as LN for now and watch how he behaves. As the DM, you can adjust your estimate later.

[Telonius]

It sounds like he doesn't go out of his way to either respect or degrade life. Seems Neutral on the Good/Evil axis. Some potential for Evil leaning, depending on how extreme his reprisals are when injured.

For Law/Chaos, it sounds like the character doesn't necessarily care about hierarchy and societal rules. However, it does sound like he has a strong personal moral code that he upholds himself and is willing to force others to respect. I'd call it on the line between Neutral and Lawful, maybe just a touch more towards Lawful.

I'd peg this character as a weakly Lawful Neutral to start with, and see what he does with the character afterwards.

[GrayDeath]

See thats just it, I am merely helping the DM atm.

While my first gut instinct was Lawful neutral, with a very slight Evil bent given he enjoys "Punishing" those that wronged him, and a modicum of drift towards TN, I want more feedback to make sure my recommendation really fits the way he`s gonna play.

We want to avoid the usual choice of "punishing adherence to" or "total ignorance of " alignment that many freshly introduced Players suffer on their first few Games of D&D.

The player at hand, on a sidenote, is quite the fluff-focussed guy, but has neither the knowledge nor (until we start) the time and/or books to read up on everything (and probably wouldn`t if he had, he prefers to limit OOC knowledge, hence our above MO....).

[NOhara24]

This guy is TN, though the situations you gave aren't very conducive to allowing him to show his true colors.

He comes across a wallet - it is intact with ID and cash. How does he handle the situation? It's a simple scenario, but we can at least ascertain good, neutral or evil.

Good - He finds the original owner of the wallet using the ID inside. He returns it with all the contents intact.

Neutral - This could get a little more broad. Either he:

-Loots the wallet and tosses the rest of it aside
-Acknowledges the wallet and chooses not to do anything with it

Evil - He loots the wallet, tracks down the owner using the ID inside and robs his house or his person.

Now to determine Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic...

This same character comes across 10 different wallets over 10 months. Does he:

Lawful: Consistently treat each wallet the same (IE, each gets returned to their owner fully intact, or each wallet gets looted and tossed aside, or each victim is tracked down and robbed.)

Neutral: Each wallet is looted primarily, but otherwise all actions benefit the character and not the owner of the wallet.

Chaotic: Some wallets are returned fully intact, other times the owner of the wallet is tracked down and robbed/killed.

Hope this helps.

[ATHATH]

This guy is TN, though the situations you gave aren't very conducive to allowing him to show his true colors.

He comes across a wallet - it is intact with ID and cash. How does he handle the situation? It's a simple scenario, but we can at least ascertain good, neutral or evil.

Good - He finds the original owner of the wallet using the ID inside. He returns it with all the contents intact.

Neutral - This could get a little more broad. Either he:

-Loots the wallet and tosses the rest of it aside
-Acknowledges the wallet and chooses not to do anything with it

Evil - He loots the wallet, tracks down the owner using the ID inside and robs his house or his person.

Now to determine Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic...

This same character comes across 10 different wallets over 10 months. Does he:

Lawful: Consistently treat each wallet the same (IE, each gets returned to their owner fully intact, or each wallet gets looted and tossed aside, or each victim is tracked down and robbed.)

Neutral: Each wallet is looted primarily, but otherwise all actions benefit the character and not the owner of the wallet.

Chaotic: Some wallets are returned fully intact, other times the owner of the wallet is tracked down and robbed/killed.

Hope this helps.
I... what? Why the #$%^ would ANYONE (sane) track down an owner of a wallet to kill them and take their stuff? Even if you ARE a murderer/thief, you could just do it with any old house on the street. Why would you need a specific address?

No offence (I don't want to turn this into a flame war), but how did you get these misguided (IMHO) views on alignments?

[theasl]

I... what? Why the #$%^ would ANYONE (sane) track down an owner of a wallet to kill them and take their stuff? Even if you ARE a murderer/thief, you could just do it with any old house on the street. Why would you need a specific address?

No offence (I don't want to turn this into a flame war), but how did you get these misguided (IMHO) views on alignments?

Well, it's just an example. Perhaps a better example would be to use the stuff in the wallet to steal the person's identity; basically the same thing but without the physical proximity.

[Calthropstu]

Well, it's just an example. Perhaps a better example would be to use the stuff in the wallet to steal the person's identity; basically the same thing but without the physical proximity.

Another thing you can do is sell the credit card numbers and the identification on the web.

To be fair, I have come across multiple wallets in my day, and each time I made a reasonable effort to get it back to the owner. Turning 2 over to the police, 1 in to the store it was dropped, and another had a college ID and I emailed her. (She was cute too.)

[GrayDeath]

Well funny you should use this example, as it was another one he gave me yesterday. Talk about a concidence....

In that particular situation he would try to find the owner.

If he finds out said owner has some time in the past wronged him (or worse, his family) "a wee bit" (meaning nothing major happened, otherwise he would have known the name most likely), he`ll keep the wallet and call them even.

If he never had any contact with the owner and hesheit does not seem to be a mustache twirling evil moron he returns it.

Unless he himself or his family are starving at the mopment of finding it, then he would use it for himself/them, and later try to make it up to the owner.

And he would do the same with all wallets he found.

[NOhara24]

I... what? Why the #$%^ would ANYONE (sane) track down an owner of a wallet to kill them and take their stuff? Even if you ARE a murderer/thief, you could just do it with any old house on the street. Why would you need a specific address?

No offence (I don't want to turn this into a flame war), but how did you get these misguided (IMHO) views on alignments?

Nothing here is misguided, and your post is nonproductive and incendiary. It's a real world concern, if you've ever lost your wallet. If any thief finds a wallet that's LOADED with cash that has ID in it...he'd be smart to rob the same guy because he's likely to have more assets on him than robbing any old house at random.

[NOhara24]

Well funny you should use this example, as it was another one he gave me yesterday. Talk about a concidence....

In that particular situation he would try to find the owner.

If he finds out said owner has some time in the past wronged him (or worse, his family) "a wee bit" (meaning nothing major happened, otherwise he would have known the name most likely), he`ll keep the wallet and call them even.

If he never had any contact with the owner and hesheit does not seem to be a mustache twirling evil moron he returns it.

Unless he himself or his family are starving at the mopment of finding it, then he would use it for himself/them, and later try to make it up to the owner.

And he would do the same with all wallets he found.

Lawful Neutral.

[Calthropstu]

Lawful Neutral.

Mmmmm, I'd say more true neutral as he obviously has no compunctions about taking the law into his own hand.

[NOhara24]

Mmmmm, I'd say more true neutral as he obviously has no compunctions about taking the law into his own hand.

Lawful =! Law-abiding. Lawful means that there's some kind of self-imposed code or consistency involved. This guy, universally, tries to do the right thing unless you've screwed him in the past or he deems that his needs trump yours. Textbook Lawful Neutral.

[Eldaran]

Chaotic: Some wallets are returned fully intact, other times the owner of the wallet is tracked down and robbed/killed.


Chaotic does not mean randomly good or evil, this is a terrible example. Chaotic has no bearing on good or evil, that's why it's on a different axis, that it may affect how your good or evil tendencies manifest.

[Calthropstu]

Chaotic does not mean randomly good or evil, this is a terrible example. Chaotic has no bearing on good or evil, that's why it's on a different axis, that it may affect how your good or evil tendencies manifest.

Agreed. Chaotic would be more: I take it and give it to a homeless person. Or I take it and set it on fire.

[ATHATH]

Agreed. Chaotic would be more: I take it and give it to a homeless person. Or I take it and set it on fire.
... What? Chaotic just means that you value freedom or dislike being in overly-structured situations/societies. It does NOT mean that you do random stuff for $%^&s and giggles (unless you're an Outsider, and even then it's iffy). That's (warning, link to TV Tropes incoming) Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid).

[ATHATH]

It's a real world concern, if you've ever lost your wallet. If any thief finds a wallet that's LOADED with cash that has ID in it...he'd be smart to rob the same guy because he's likely to have more assets on him than robbing any old house at random.
But you already stole from that guy, so he has less cash in his house. Also, you could just rob a mansion or something that will have more cash in it than some random schmuck's house (even one who's "loaded") anyway.


Lawful =! Law-abiding. Lawful means that there's some kind of self-imposed code or consistency involved. This guy, universally, tries to do the right thing unless you've screwed him in the past or he deems that his needs trump yours. Textbook Lawful Neutral.
"Following the law when it's convenient" is Neutral, not Lawful.


Nothing here is misguided, and your post is nonproductive and incendiary.
Since we both smell a flamewar coming, can we just agree to summon some alignment paragons and let them sort it out? I don't know the rituals for most of them, but I do know one: Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

[Calthropstu]

... What? Chaotic just means that you value freedom or dislike being in overly-structured situations/societies. It does NOT mean that you do random stuff for $%^&s and giggles (unless you're an Outsider, and even then it's iffy). That's (warning, link to TV Tropes incoming) Chaotic Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid).

And what is more freedom than setting things on fire? It's fun, and the guy lost it already. It's not like I earned that money and I always wanted to watch money burn. (Chaotic neutral)

And besides, that guy totally can do without the money in his wallet. That homeless guy hasn't eaten in a week. (Chaotic good)

[OldTrees1]

Since we both smell a flamewar coming, can we just agree to summon some alignment paragons and let them sort it out? I don't know the rituals for most of them, but I do know one: Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.


Law and Chaos is a complicated alignment axis. More complicated than Good vs Evil is usually run, although not more complicated that Good vs Evil can be taken by those that really know their subject.
A demonstration of the complexity of G v E for use as a comparison would have to be done elsewhere since it is against giantitp rules.

The most important thing to know about the Law vs Chaos axis, is that it is at least 2 sometimes contradictory axes. The one shared thread is the value/adherence to structure vs the value of freedom from structure. However structure can and does mean many things.

Structure can be the constructs society has build around you. You grip onto the gears of society and either turn them in harmony, or tear them asunder to release the harmony they have been imprisoning.

Structure can be the constructs you have made for yourself. You can grip to the moral laws of your personal philosophy and trust them to generally hold true, or you can divest yourself of those rules and by investigating each case by itself trust yourself to make better choices.


The Human that stands up and says "It matters not if all the world should falter and yield, I will not move." displays this conflict. They are completely rejecting the value of society's structure but placing unyielding resolve to the structure they live by.

The Human that quietly goes and does what society gives them to do is the mirror image. They have unyielding obedience to the structure of society but they swiftly change to the new demands of their new positions because each case deserves individual attention. They are the flexibility society did not anticipate but unknowingly relies upon.

Now both of those characterizations are either LN/LG or at the LN/LG-TN/NG border. However someone else describing the same kind of conflict but with a different tone would have a different pair that are at the N-C border. (Say the Bandit with moral rules or the Artist that works to strengthen their society)



The opening Poster said

He values Structure but is not slave to it.
This cuts through the conflict with abstraction. The character values Structure(Axiomatic, Lawful, or Neutral) but is not a slave to it(Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic). Hence why I suspect the character being on the Lawful-Neutral border.

[ATHATH]

And what is more freedom than setting things on fire? It's fun, and the guy lost it already. It's not like I earned that money and I always wanted to watch money burn. (Chaotic neutral)

And besides, that guy totally can do without the money in his wallet. That homeless guy hasn't eaten in a week. (Chaotic good)
Did you remove the stuff inside of the wallet first? If so, that might be understandable, although the reason why you won't just sell it, use it to set up 1337 pranks, or give it to a friend eludes me.

[AnachroNinja]

Lawful does not have to have anything to do with following laws, morals, or society. If an individual has a strong personal code that they strictly follow, even when other considerations would indicate he should do otherwise, he is Lawful.

The character in question has one primary stricture, he protects and cars for his family at all costs. Everything else is subservient to this value.

His secondary values include self preservation, structured and defined retribution to those who wrong him or his family, and the acquisition of greater power to further his other goals.

This is a character who measures all of his actions against these specific metrics. That is very Lawful behavior. His willingness to violate his lesser codes is not symptomatic of chaotic or neutral behavior because he will *only* do it to follow his primary code.

[Red Fel]

Since we both smell a flamewar coming, can we just agree to summon some alignment paragons and let them sort it out? I don't know the rituals for most of them, but I do know one: Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel.

S'up?


Magros` (characters Name, he`s a human Sorcerer or similar, class has some flexibility yet) main goal is to accumulate knowledge and continue on his path to power (self perfection mostly) but stay under the radar of Eberrons Big Players until he is able to play in the big league himself.

No alignment charge. Being ambitious may be a Slytherin trait, but it's not particularly G/E/C/L.


However his friends and especially family (My note: the character is married and his parents are still alive, as is his beloved older brother) are very important to him, even moreso (in the short term at least) than his goals.

Same. Any alignment can have people who matter to them.


If offered help on his quest without giving reason to do so he will return the favour in kind but twice as large. And feel good doing so.

So he feels good repaying a debt. This doesn't really have a charge, depending on how you spin it. If he's Good, for instance, it's that he uses it as an excuse to be nice to others. If he's Chaotic or Evil, perhaps he doesn't like feeling indebted to someone. If he's Lawful, perhaps he feels obligations about it. Again, no charge.


If offered Help in exchange for an effort of his (ergo a trade) he will trade fairly but not more beneficial to anybody than himself.

In other words, he's willing to help, but wants to benefit for his efforts. No real charge. Good is supposed to be more selfless than other alignments, but there's no obligation to be completely selfless.


If someone blocks his path/interferes in his quest he will remove them in the quickest, least long term damaging way he can think of.

This leans away from Evil. Evil is an alignment of excesses; Evil has a tendency to retaliate more than is necessary. Removing a target in the "least long term damaging way" is likely either pragmatic (e.g. Neutral) or merciful (e.g. Good). That said, this alone is no guarantee of a non-E alignment; he could just be really, really pragmatic Evil, and vent his E in other ways.


If someone offends him, or wounds him/steals his stuff etc he will make them suffer for it....at least 5 times the amount he himself has suffered. And have fun doing that to them.

This, on the other hand, leans towards E. Good is less likely to retaliate more than is necessary - restitution is not an alignment-charged action, but vengeance tends more Evil. The fact that he enjoys it goes in that direction as well. That said, even a Neutral character can take personal insults, well, personally.

Taken with the previous example (and I think they kind of conflict in some ways), I'd call it a wash.


If his family is ever threatened he will eliminate the offender, and his powerbase, and anybody else involved with extreme prejudice.
And enjoy it.

Again, any alignment may feel protective of family or loved ones. Enjoying the "extreme prejudice" tends somewhat more strongly E, but could still be N.

Short version? I see virtually nothing along the L-C axis. Along the G-E axis, it's a bit of a wash, tending slightly towards E. That said, the fact that it washes doesn't make him Neutral - it simply means that I lack any definitive evidence in any direction. Although it's less likely that he's Good, it's still possible, as is Neutral; likewise, despite the lack of evidence on the L-C axis, he could be Chaotic, or Lawful, or anywhere between.

So I peg him at LE, because it's always Lawful Evil. If you have to ask, that's the answer.

[meat_shield]

Late but - "If someone offends him, or wounds him/steals his stuff etc he will make them suffer for it....at least 5 times the amount he himself has suffered. And have fun doing that to them"

The bit about "have fun doing it" - and the 5 times bit makes me think this PC is more evil then Neutral on the good/evil axis. I don't think most people would enjoy inflicting pain on anyone, though I suppose the concept of "joy" here could be construed a few different ways. Does revenge feel good? I'd say revenge is it's own "feeling" as it were - it might feel good, it might feel bad or maybe nothing at all (maybe it's done out of some expectation upon the person seeking revenge - killed my master, he was a bastard but honor demands I kill you). Thus why I see an evil character here - though a lot of the information given did not really relate to alignment (as previously stated). Anyone can have goals - it's just not good or evil people that have goals.

If offered help on his quest without giving reason to do so he will return the favour in kind but twice as large. And feel good doing so. -
This could easily be because the PC does not want to "owe" the party that helped in the future or be indebted to. Maybe have PC clarify.
In addition, loving ones family/friends really has no bearing on alignment, evil people are certainly not excluded from loving people, trusting them, and so forth.

and lastly - If his family is ever threatened he will eliminate the offender, and his powerbase, and anybody else involved with extreme prejudice.

Again evil. So some solider kills his kid, he blows up the entire barracks, kills his commanding officer (maybe the solider was rogue, maybe he just blew up a bunch of paladins and the guy that killed his kid was a shapechanger/ect/ect). Anytime I see "extreme prejudice" good chance it's evil.

I personally would put him at lawful evil - the "enjoy it parts" really smack as evil to me. Lawful because he will trade fairly, lawful because he has a code (5 times as much/ect) that the PC follows/ect.

[Mordaedil]

Agreed. Chaotic would be more: I take it and give it to a homeless person. Or I take it and set it on fire.

Are you perhaps Jean Paul Sartre (http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Jean_Paul_Sartre) excersizing your radical freedom?

Guys, what is up with these alignment interpretations? Aside from Red Fel, it's like you've never sat down and considered how you'd behave as a certain alignment, merely labeled activities unlike your own actions as "the other kind of alignment".

I mean, really, putting the wallet on fire? Where is the context or logic here? Being a chaotic good person doesn't mean you stop acting on coherent thoughts, it means you value not being tied down by moral constraints. Robin Hood is someone often described as chaotic good, he would steal from the rich and give to the poor, not kill the rich and put their fortunes on fire because RADICAL FREEDOM. Even chaotic evil would be very cautious about putting fire to someone elses wealth, considering if he could benefit from it himself first.

And then when it comes to setting fire to things, Lawful Evil has possibly just as much reason to do so as a Chaotic Evil. Because if LE did it, they did it for part of a bigger plot to undermine the currency.

[Fouredged Sword]

I'd peg him at TN for one reason. One of the defining traits of TN as opposed to other other alignments is that TN does whatever seems best in the moment. He has no specific inclination for excessive force, except when it seems like a the best to discourage further acts that threaten people he likes. He takes no joy in hurting others, except when he would hurt others anyway and then he may as well have fun.

A good character does not hurt people for fun. When given an option to be merciful without consequences attached they will be merciful. When a good person does hurt people he doesn't enjoy it.

An evil character hurts people for fun. When given an option to hurt someone or not without other consequences attached, they will choose to cause harm.

A neutral character does enjoy hurting people when it seems like they deserve it. He doesn't enjoy hurting people who don't deserve it. When given a choice between harm and mercy he will judge if he thinks the target "deserves" it before being merciful or vindictive.

Now, an evil character can be restrained by the opinion of others and be merciful, but they are LOOKING for an excuse to hurt others. They seek justification for doing the thing they want to do. A good character CAN harm others with reason, but won't enjoy it and given an excuse will at least think about being merciful. They don't WANT to do it, but will if they have to. A neutral character just doesn't care and will do whatever seems best in the moment, not looking for reason for mercy or harm, simply reacting to what they see in the moment.