Help with alignment!

[Dankus Memakus]

Okay so ive built a fighter for a very serious roleplaying campaign, but i cant decide on his alignment. I want something loyal and benevolent to his friends but ruthless to his enemies, no mercy and such, something with a bit of honor (ill be honest, i usually play chaotic characters so i know nothing of the more honorable options or how to roleplay them) just please help me fit to my description.

[Corran]

Lawful evil?
Or lawful neutral (if you cannot envision an evil person having friends).

[JAL_1138]

Okay so ive built a fighter for a very serious roleplaying campaign, but i cant decide on his alignment. I want something loyal and benevolent to his friends but ruthless to his enemies something with a bit of honor (ill be honest, i usually play chaotic characters so i know nothing of the more honorable options or how to roleplay them) just please help me fit to my description.

Depending on the DM's opinions of the alignments, and on your definition of "honorable," any Lawful could fit (even LE), and any Neutral north of Neutral Evil. Nothing says Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral can't be honorable either, depending on what you mean by "honorable" (e.g., do you mean follows a code of honor, or do you mean domething more like "doesn't go back on their word, cheat, or steal?" Or something else?).

[Thrudd]

"honor" isn't exclusive to any alignment, unless you're talking about adhering to a strict code of some kind. Honor is defined by every culture differently, so what does "honorable" mean in this world you're playing in? If you're someone who follows the rules of a code or an organization outside yourself, like an established knightly code or a religious code, then you're probably lawful neutral or lawful good, depending on how ruthless you are allowed to be to enemies and whether you'd help people that aren't your friends and that you weren't ordered to help by your superiors.

You could be a chaotic person who has a sense of fairness when they fight and doesn't like to take undue advantage of an opponent's weaknesses. That's often something considered "honorable", but it doesn't require that you strictly follow any real code or religion. If you don't take orders from anyone or anything, only do what you think is best and follow your own heart, you might be chaotic, even if you're an honorable fighter.

If you are really loyal and selfless with your friends, then you are neutral or good, not evil.
If you are merciless when dealing with enemies and don't really care what happens to people who are neither friends nor enemies, you are likely neutral rather than good.

[MadBear]

If you are really loyal and selfless with your friends, then you are neutral or good, not evil.

That's not necessarily true. I can envision a BBEG who is absolutely in love with and loyal to his life to a fault, while still being absolutely merciless to everyone else.

I can see the OP's character really being any alignment depending on what he means by honorable. Really, what he's described are interesting character traits, and very little to do with alignment (outside of merciless to enemies probably meaning he's not a classic "good" guy).

[Dankus Memakus]

By honorable i mean, wont betray allies, no backstabbing, little to no thieving. Very loving to those he is close to, able to gain their respect and loyalty but brutal to those who cross him and to those who attempt to mislead or insult him. However he wont just cut down an unarmed enemy. Honorable like a knight in the medevil age.

[Dankus Memakus]

Lawful evil?
Or lawful neutral (if you cannot envision an evil person having friends).

I can see and evil person having friends, but lawful evil is all about power right? I wanna be based on loyalty.

[Dankus Memakus]

I really want him to have a sense of humanity like a good aligned character around friends but with a brutal streak. Like killing a defeated enemy instead of showing mercy.

[CharacterIV]

The Law/Chaos axis isn't necessarily about personal organization or mindset, or honor. It's about authority.

A Lawful character believes in centralized authority, a Chaotic character believes in individualized authority. A Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral character can be VERY honorable because he won't do certain things that deprive others of their individual authority or treat them unfairly.

Generally speaking, Honor is a Good trait, but it's entirely possible for a selfish, prideful and evil character to have what would be an honorable code of conduct, like not attacking an unarmed foe. It just serves themselves -- they demonstrate their superiority by only fighting foes who are at their full strength.

So honor can exist in any alignment. Determining which alignment he fits in is best done by determining WHY he is honorable. Is it a credo he's been raised to believe in from birth? He's probably Lawful. Is he honorable because he knows, deep within himself, it's just the RIGHT way to be and no one can tell him differently? He's probably Chaotic. You can do the same with the other definitive characteristic, as to why he's merciless to foes. Note: being 100% merciless to foes probably does exclude you from the Good alignments. A belief in redemption is a staple of most definitions of the Good axis.

[Laurefindel]

I'd say "play a character, not an alignment", but it seems that's what you're doing already.

Show your OP your posts to your DM; let him decide what alignment fits into that description. As far as you are concern, just play that description and don't let two letters on your character sheet change it.

[CharacterIV]

I really want him to have a sense of humanity like a good aligned character around friends but with a brutal streak. Like killing a defeated enemy instead of showing mercy.

Is his brutal streak self-gratifying or more dutiful? If it's self-gratifying, that he LIKES killing despite being friendly otherwise, that's Chaotic. If he sees it as his task to be merciless, that's Lawful.

[Dankus Memakus]

Is his brutal streak self-gratifying or more dutiful? If it's self-gratifying, that he LIKES killing despite being friendly otherwise, that's Chaotic. If he sees it as his task to be merciless, that's Lawful.

I wouldn't say he likes to kill or its dutiful id say he more doesn't want the loose ends. If hes betrayed by a peer, he wouldnt show mercy because the peer could betray him again.

[Dankus Memakus]

The Law/Chaos axis isn't necessarily about personal organization or mindset, or honor. It's about authority.

A Lawful character believes in centralized authority, a Chaotic character believes in individualized authority. A Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral character can be VERY honorable because he won't do certain things that deprive others of their individual authority or treat them unfairly.

Generally speaking, Honor is a Good trait, but it's entirely possible for a selfish, prideful and evil character to have what would be an honorable code of conduct, like not attacking an unarmed foe. It just serves themselves -- they demonstrate their superiority by only fighting foes who are at their full strength.

So honor can exist in any alignment. Determining which alignment he fits in is best done by determining WHY he is honorable. Is it a credo he's been raised to believe in from birth? He's probably Lawful. Is he honorable because he knows, deep within himself, it's just the RIGHT way to be and no one can tell him differently? He's probably Chaotic. You can do the same with the other definitive characteristic, as to why he's merciless to foes. Note: being 100% merciless to foes probably does exclude you from the Good alignments. A belief in redemption is a staple of most definitions of the Good axis.

Hes gonna believe more in a centralized authority, but he can stray from law. He'd have no qualms about running a thief through with his sword. Its a swifter and more effective way of carrying out the law in his eyes. However he'd never harm a friend. If a friend murdered or stole my character would let the law deal with them, not having the heart to do it himself.

[Unoriginal]

It seems to me that it would be a lawful neutral character.

They're not evil, as they're not actively malevolent or sadistic, they're just merciless with their enemies. On the other hand, they're pretty nice with a select number of people, and presumably aren't jerk to people outside of that circle unless those people wrong them first.

And they clearly care about maintaining society's order and laws, as well as maintaining standards. They can stray for it, but it's not their first option.

So, lawful neutral.

[Dankus Memakus]

Well people have said both lawful evil and lawful neutral and honestly lawful evil's code appeals more to me but could a lawful evil character really have "good" or benevolent parts deep down?

[Tanarii]

Have you read the Alignment typical behaviors? Have you browsed through the PHB Ideals associated with alignments and chosen one similarl to what you're envisioning? If no, start there.

In particular, most 'Honor' ideals are associated with Lawful alignments. Whereas as most 'People' Ideals, including dedication to friends, are associated with Neutral alignment.

[Dankus Memakus]

Have you read the Alignment typical behaviors? Have you browsed through the PHB Ideals associated with alignments and chosen one similarl to what you're envisioning? If no, start there.

In particular, most 'Honor' ideals are associated with Lawful alignments. Whereas as most 'People' Ideals, including dedication to friends, are associated with Neutral alignment.

Yes, i am a quite experienced player so i have reas through the alignments but ive just never really messes with the lawful bits due to my class choice, im not sure if lawful neutral will fit because once my characters loyalty is gained he would murder any man woman or child to help his friend. However if his friend didnt need help he would generally leave innocents alone

[Tanarii]

Sounds like Lawful Evil (takes what he wants within the bounds of his personal code) with:
Ideal - Loyalty, staying true to a close friend or cause is the most important thing. (Lawful)
Flaw - No action is too low for me when Loyalty is involved.

It's a bit one dimensional tying the Flaw to Loyalty like that, so it's probably worth having an very unrelated Personality and Bond. And with that Flaw, you could make it a Lawful Neutral character, but it'd be stretching things a bit much if you regularly are cutting down children. Although it'd make for an interesting character development arc to start off Lawful Neutral, and officially switch to Lawful Evil later as your character consistently finds himself taking more ruthless actions in the name of Loyalty. Nothing says players can't change Alignment later on if they feel it's appropriate to how they want to play the character from that point on.

[Thrudd]

Yes, i am a quite experienced player so i have reas through the alignments but ive just never really messes with the lawful bits due to my class choice, im not sure if lawful neutral will fit because once my characters loyalty is gained he would murder any man woman or child to help his friend. However if his friend didnt need help he would generally leave innocents alone

Someone capable of murdering any man woman or child is probably a dangerous friend to have. It doesn't feel like a believable person, to be truly kind and loyal and selfless to friends but willing to kill children sometimes. That's definitely an evil person, maybe a mentally/emotionally unstable person, which implies that he could possibly be tempted to harm those friends, as well - if he got the impression they weren't being completely up front with him, if they did something to set him off or acted in a way he perceived as disloyal. He has conditional friends that need to walk on egg shells around him to avoid incurring his wrath. He expects the same extreme loyalty from them in return for his own loyalty - not like a true friend who helps selflessly without demanding anything in return and is generally forgiving of minor faults and arguments. If he murders someone that was once his friend because he thinks they aren't loyal, he's not really a good friend. If he really cared about them, he might cut off contact or stop trusting them, but he isn't going to murder someone he actually cares about.

If he's a truly good friend, that character trait is going to bleed over into his interactions with other people to some extent.

[hamishspence]

I don't find it that hard to imagine - a "Soldier for the Evil Empire" could easily be very loyal toward his fellow troopers, yet very willing to do horrible things for the sake of same troopers and Empire.

[Corran]

Someone capable of murdering any man woman or child is probably a dangerous friend to have. It doesn't feel like a believable person, to be truly kind and loyal and selfless to friends but willing to kill children sometimes.
.....
You know, this reminds me of the character of Jaime Lannister from game of thrones. He pushed Brann out of the window (to keep himself and his sister safe), he killed his own cousin (at least in the show) in order to try to escape (albeit a relative he didnt know all that well; still, a relative), and probably did quite a number of other morally ambiguous or straight evil acts. But then, he jumped into the arena with the bear to save Brienne (who at that point he was considering her as one of his few true friends). He also didnt kill Ned Stark in season 1 when one of his soldiers intervened (showing some form of honor/pride), and generally he is very fond of his family and friends, and he would go to great lengths to help them and keep them safe.

Perhaps an edge case, even for a fictional character, but it is one good example that I can think of that relates (the way I see it) to what the op wants to pull off with their character.

[Dankus Memakus]

You know, this reminds me of the character of Jaime Lannister from game of thrones. He pushed Brann out of the window (to keep himself and his sister safe), he killed his own cousin (at least in the show) in order to try to escape (albeit a relative he didnt know all that well; still, a relative), and probably did quite a number of other morally ambiguous or straight evil acts. But then, he jumped into the arena with the bear to save Brienne (who at that point he was considering her as one of his few true friends). He also didnt kill Ned Stark in season 1 when one of his soldiers intervened (showing some form of honor/pride), and generally he is very fond of his family and friends, and he would go to great lengths to help them and keep them safe.

Perhaps an edge case, even for a fictional character, but it is one good example that I can think of that relates (the way I see it) to what the op wants to pull off with their character.

Yes! I have seen game of thrones, this is very similar to what i want. What alignment would you think that fits as?

[Corran]

Yes! I have seen game of thrones, this is very similar to what i want. What alignment would you think that fits as?
Well, I am not sure. My first instict was either lawful evil or lawful neutral, but I think any non good alignment can work (I was tempted to include chaotic good, but yeah... probably not). I say, pick an alignment that kind of fits the alignment of your party, both in regard to the law and chaos axis, as well as to the neutral and evil axis. That way it will be easier to justify the close relationship you have with the other characters (unless you wanna play a somehow antithetical character to the others of the group, in which case discuss and come to an agreement with the other players and the DM, as to how the PC relationship will be defined, so that there wont be more friction than desired).

I mean, commaradary and friendship can be strong between your character and the other characters of the group, regardless of your and their alignments.

If it were me, I would pick one of the first mentions I made (le or ln), probably the one that fits better with the rest of the group, the world, and the style of campaign. Then again, I hardly ever put down an alignment on my character sheet.

Sorry if this wasnt much help.

[Unoriginal]

Well people have said both lawful evil and lawful neutral and honestly lawful evil's code appeals more to me but could a lawful evil character really have "good" or benevolent parts deep down?

Asmodeus sincerely loves his late wife, so yes, lawful evil characters can have that kind of benevolent relationship with others.

[Sceptic]

You can probably argue in favour of most alignments (some with more difficulty than others, admittedly), but I'd probably look at Neutral, just on the basis that you're sounding more pragmatic than idealistic. That said, it all depends on how rigid your attitudes and behaviours are going to be. If you're very set in your ways, you'd be a shoe in for Lawful Neutral or possibly Lawful Evil depending on how much of a selfish ******** your character will be.

[Ninja_Prawn]

but I'd probably look at Neutral

Love it. I'd be tempted to say True Neutral too, except for this repeated emphasis on 'no mercy':


no mercy and such

Like killing a defeated enemy instead of showing mercy

he wouldn't show mercy

Mercy is one of the defining traits of Good characters. The more you push this lack of mercy - including execution of prisoners, killing of children and murdering people for revenge or 'in case they betray you' - the more I think he has to be Evil. A Neutral character can do those things on occasion, by accident or when other options are somehow worse, but they'd feel bad about it and try to avoid it in future.

As for law/chaos, the only thing here that really gives us a clue is:


He's gonna believe more in a centralized authority, but he can stray from law.

The dictionary definition of Neutral.

So... Neutral Evil? It's interesting that this character is loyal to friends; NE usually implies you'd betray people for the right price.

Aside on Jaime Lannister: his character experiences a massive amount of growth throughout the story, including alignment changes, so you'd have to specify which Jaime you were modelling on. Also show!Jaime's personality is so mangled and inconsistent that basing a character on him is a fool's errand.

[Sirdar]

If no alignment fits - multiclass! I would say play True Neutral with a dip in Neutral Evil. As soon as you think the alignment label is impairing your play, throw it out the window or adjust is somehow.

Perhaps you want to be Neutral, but struggle with the side of yourself that has no mercy? Perhaps you don't know that you have an evil side in you before it is triggered and unleashed?

I find it very useful for my current character to have a dip in an evil alignment; A neutral Half-Drow who sometimes fail to hold back the bloodthirsty Drow in him.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If no alignment fits - multiclass!

Or use this (http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=ralign). Though maybe not in a "a very serious roleplaying campaign"...

[Malifice]

I really want him to have a sense of humanity like a good aligned character around friends but with a brutal streak. Like killing a defeated enemy instead of showing mercy.

Lawful evil.

Everything in your post screams LE.

Code of honor, loyal, doesn't lie or cheat but a ruthless, brutal and merciless killer. He probably thinks his love for friends and family sets him apart from other monsters.

[Sirdar]

Or use this (http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=ralign). Though maybe not in a "a very serious roleplaying campaign"...

Haha, nice! Now I have to decide if I shall play as an evil Neutral Wannabe or an evil Neutral Poseur. Thanks for ruining my character concept Ninja_Prawn! :smallwink:

[Corran]

Haha, nice! Now I have to decide if I shall play as an evil Neutral Wannabe or an evil Neutral Poseur. Thanks for ruining my character concept Ninja_Prawn! :smallwink:
Read the comments below too! Tons of fun! I would probably go with lazy-evil.

[Thrudd]

You know, this reminds me of the character of Jaime Lannister from game of thrones. He pushed Brann out of the window (to keep himself and his sister safe), he killed his own cousin (at least in the show) in order to try to escape (albeit a relative he didnt know all that well; still, a relative), and probably did quite a number of other morally ambiguous or straight evil acts. But then, he jumped into the arena with the bear to save Brienne (who at that point he was considering her as one of his few true friends). He also didnt kill Ned Stark in season 1 when one of his soldiers intervened (showing some form of honor/pride), and generally he is very fond of his family and friends, and he would go to great lengths to help them and keep them safe.

Perhaps an edge case, even for a fictional character, but it is one good example that I can think of that relates (the way I see it) to what the op wants to pull off with their character.

That's true. But I think Jaime is evolving. We are watching a character arc. At the starting point, he's evil, probably neutral evil. He loves his family and nothing else, and he's selfish and arrogant and short sighted. Then he meets Brienne, and she starts waking up his sense of honor and pride in being a knight, and she turns him around. Eventually, we find out he does experience guilt and shame, refuses to take part in his sister's plots, starts taking his position in the kingsguard seriously. He's shifted to at least true neutral, if not lawful neutral, and who knows maybe even neutral good (we'll see what he ends up doing later in the series).

Some people plan to play out a certain character arc for their D&D characters, as well, either having them start evil and redeem themselves or start good and fall to evil. But I feel like planning that sort of thing is premature and inorganic, for the most part - I'd rather give them a personality and some motives in the beginning, and then decide how they'll act according to what happens in the game.

For this guy, if he's going to be like Jaime Lannister at the beginning of GoT, then he's probably neutral evil. If he's going to be Jaime during Feast for Crows and Dance with Dragons, he's probably lawful neutral or true neutral - Jaime at this point, if he could do it over again, would not have shoved Bran out the window and would rather have copped to the incest and prevented the war.

[Dankus Memakus]

Alright thanks everyone for your help, im probably going to play a LE character (or possibly take earlier advice and "multiclass" in alignment) but i appreciate the feedback.

[DragonSorcererX]

You can never go wrong with True Neutral, because it goes the four ways... You can be fighting to save the world, but some time you may need to steal something and break someone's leg in order to do it, and both Lawful and Good are too restrictive...

[Dankus Memakus]

You can never go wrong with True Neutral, because it goes the four ways... You can be fighting to save the world, but some time you may need to steal something and break someone's leg in order to do it, and both Lawful and Good are too restrictive...
I might end up there depending on the outcome of the campaign.