View Full Version : What alignment is this?
NecroDancer
2017-05-24, 02:48 PM
And yes i know the alignment system has many flaws and there might not be an absolute answer
Basically my character wants to become an immortal god and will kill anyone who gets into his way. He has no qualms about getting power and doesn't care about where his power comes from. However he also knows that if he acts evil he will be seen as a threat and will be killed, he also knows the value of freinds who aren't just minions. He will honor any agreements until he gets a better option or the agreement is more trouble than it's worth (he will break these agreements without informing the people he made the agreements with). He also doesn't like to hurt people because it's generally a bad thing to do morally.
Basically he will do anything to get power but won't do unnecessary evil actions if there is a good way to do it.
For example if there is an enemy in an orphanage he is willing to burn the orphanage down but he'd rather defeat the enemy without harming the orphans or the orphanage because he'd be regarded as a hero by the grateful villagers and he wants the orphans to not be harmed on a personal level.
Sigreid
2017-05-24, 02:50 PM
Neutral Evil in my opinion.
Demonslayer666
2017-05-24, 03:02 PM
Either you don't want to hurt anyone, or you are willing to kill to get power.
Corran
2017-05-24, 03:03 PM
Neutral evil. Does what he can get away with, in order to achieve a very specific goal.
Sigreid
2017-05-24, 03:07 PM
Either you don't want to hurt anyone, or you are willing to kill to get power.
You can not want to hurt anyone as a general rule but be flexible on that point pretty easily. What I think I read is the character recognizes that casual destruction and death can make things more complicated and unnecessarily difficult.
Unoriginal
2017-05-24, 03:21 PM
If the character is told to kill a complete average joe in exchange of a powerful artifact, with guarantee that he'll get the artifact, would he do it?
Won't do unnecessary evil actions is part of the PHB lawful evil example character (Alex or something, I forget his name), but from the other parts of the description I could see LE leaning neutral or NE leaning lawful. So NE or LE would work.
NecroDancer
2017-05-24, 03:38 PM
If the character is told to kill a complete average joe in exchange of a powerful artifact, with guarantee that he'll get the artifact, would he do it?
He'd make sure the artifact was actually real, worth the lose of joe's life, and make sure he'd be able to get it. Then he would try to get a background check on the average joe to make sure there won't be any major repercussions from joe's death.
If the artifact was real, powerful, and he is able to use it then he would kill joe. He would then later try to find someone to bring joe back to life once the artifact was securely within his possession (if he isn't allowed to bring joe back then he would kill the joe to get the artifact).
He'd make sure the artifact was actually real, worth the lose of joe's life, and make sure he'd be able to get it. Then he would try to get a background check on the average joe to make sure there won't be any major repercussions from joe's death.
If the artifact was real, powerful, and he is able to use it then he would kill joe. He would then later try to find someone to bring joe back to life once the artifact was securely within his possession (if he isn't allowed to bring joe back then he would kill the joe to get the artifact).
Ok, at first I thought Lawful or Neutral evil, but I'm getting a very LE vibe from that statement. Could be wrong, could still be NE, but I'm pretty confident.
Corran
2017-05-24, 03:44 PM
He'd make sure the artifact was actually real, worth the lose of joe's life, and make sure he'd be able to get it. Then he would try to get a background check on the average joe to make sure there won't be any major repercussions from joe's death.
If the artifact was real, powerful, and he is able to use it then he would kill joe. He would then later try to find someone to bring joe back to life once the artifact was securely within his possession (if he isn't allowed to bring joe back then he would kill the joe to get the artifact).
Changing my answer to neutral... (repeat after me: ''the greater good'')
This is too much fuss for an evil character to bother. (I mean yeah, the evil character could still work with the greater good in mind, but they would be too thick-skinned, or cynical, or whatever is the best word to describe it (found it: lack of empathy/ remorse/ guilt), to then go through all the trouble of bringing the average Joe back or caring for him (average Joe would be a completelly justified collateral loss in his mind).
BB944
2017-05-24, 03:44 PM
Ok, at first I thought Lawful or Neutral evil, but I'm getting a very LE vibe from that statement. Could be wrong, could still be NE, but I'm pretty confident.
second.
L/E
Unoriginal
2017-05-24, 04:00 PM
Note that he'd kill the guy even if he knows he can't bring him back to life afterward.
So, evil leaning toward neutral.
Question is: why does he want power that much? What will he do if he gets what he wants?
NecroDancer
2017-05-24, 04:03 PM
The reason he is after power is just so he can more or less live forever. His big fear is that in the end it doesn't matter what he ever did so he hopes to be remembered forever either by living forever or becoming famous enough that he won't be forgotten.
fbelanger
2017-05-24, 04:14 PM
And yes i know the alignment system has many flaws and there might not be an absolute answer
Basically my character wants to become an immortal god and will kill anyone who gets into his way. He has no qualms about getting power and doesn't care about where his power comes from. However he also knows that if he acts evil he will be seen as a threat and will be killed, he also knows the value of freinds who aren't just minions. He will honor any agreements until he gets a better option or the agreement is more trouble than it's worth (he will break these agreements without informing the people he made the agreements with). He also doesn't like to hurt people because it's generally a bad thing to do morally.
Basically he will do anything to get power but won't do unnecessary evil actions if there is a good way to do it.
For example if there is an enemy in an orphanage he is willing to burn the orphanage down but he'd rather defeat the enemy without harming the orphans or the orphanage because he'd be regarded as a hero by the grateful villagers and he wants the orphans to not be harmed on a personal level.
Simply a chaotic evil character.
Maybe dress in a nice suit, maybe he think before acting,
But the example you give let no doubt.
Cybren
2017-05-24, 04:20 PM
Changing my answer to neutral... (repeat after me: ''the greater good'')
This is too much fuss for an evil character to bother. (I mean yeah, the evil character could still work with the greater good in mind, but they would be too thick-skinned, or cynical, or whatever is the best word to describe it (found it: lack of empathy/ remorse/ guilt), to then go through all the trouble of bringing the average Joe back or caring for him (average Joe would be a completelly justified collateral loss in his mind).
pretty sure using bureaucracy and 'fuss' to obfuscate the immorality of their actions is textbook LE
NecroDancer
2017-05-24, 04:42 PM
For example in the campaign we are in there is an evil devil cultist who is more annoying than dangerous (but still pretty dangerous). The devil cultist summons Devils and we accidentally let her take over a town (that's a long story).
The devil cultist has children she abuses (we rescued them). Currently my character wants to burn her mansion down to prevent further use of the summoning circle inside it, another character thinks that's evil as the children would have no home to live in. My character thinks we can buy them a new house when it's all over but it wouldn't be the fancy mansion they use to have, the other character still thinks that we shouldn't burn the children's mansion and replace it with a ****tier house.
My character thinks it's ok to burn the mansion down to stop the cultist, sure the children would be homeless but we can still get them a new (but less fancy) house and the devil cultist wouldn't be able to summon Devils to control the town.
He doesn't want the children be homeless but he is willing to forcibly downsize them to stop an enemy.
Unoriginal
2017-05-24, 04:47 PM
For example in the campaign we are in there is an evil devil cultist who is more annoying than dangerous (but still pretty dangerous). The devil cultist summons Devils and we accidentally let her take over a town (that's a long story).
The devil cultist has children she abuses (we rescued them). Currently my character wants to burn her mansion down to prevent further use of the summoning circle inside it, another character thinks that's evil as the children would have no home to live in. My character thinks we can buy them a new house when it's all over but it wouldn't be the fancy mansion they use to have, the other character still thinks that we shouldn't burn the children's mansion and replace it with a ****tier house.
My character thinks it's ok to burn the mansion down to stop the cultist, sure the children would be homeless but we can still get them a new (but less fancy) house and the devil cultist wouldn't be able to summon Devils to control the town.
He doesn't want the children be homeless but he is willing to forcibly downsize them to stop an enemy.
This has nothing to do with evil or any alignment.
If the characters don't want the kids to be homeless, they can give her a house, or just find a way to prevent the devil summoning for good. Ask good Clerics to consecrate the place or something.
Who will have the guard of the kids?
For example in the campaign we are in there is an evil devil cultist who is more annoying than dangerous (but still pretty dangerous). The devil cultist summons Devils and we accidentally let her take over a town (that's a long story).
The devil cultist has children she abuses (we rescued them). Currently my character wants to burn her mansion down to prevent further use of the summoning circle inside it, another character thinks that's evil as the children would have no home to live in. My character thinks we can buy them a new house when it's all over but it wouldn't be the fancy mansion they use to have, the other character still thinks that we shouldn't burn the children's mansion and replace it with a ****tier house.
My character thinks it's ok to burn the mansion down to stop the cultist, sure the children would be homeless but we can still get them a new (but less fancy) house and the devil cultist wouldn't be able to summon Devils to control the town.
He doesn't want the children be homeless but he is willing to forcibly downsize them to stop an enemy.
As one of the players in this campaign, I'm going to clarify a few things about the situation. This description is a bit one sided.
1. The "children" in question are actually legal adults and the house is their inheritance. Two of them actually still live at the house with their mother. If the house and all the belongings within it burn down, they're sort of screwed. We have no way to guarantee he will actually buy them the house. These "children" are good aligned, and we as a party know this because in CoS, paladin divine sense detects alignment.
2. The evil lady has a network of followers to fall back on and adequately supply her as to allow her to keep summoning devils. As you can guess, neither her nor the devils will likely be harmed by the fire, just annoyed by this setback and the loss of her house.
3. There are a bunch of innocent (also good aligned, this is CoS so divine sense detects alignment and these guys have been tested) maids working in the house, and any arson attack would mean not telling them to escape, as they would alert their lady. Therefore, a bunch of innocents would surely die, or at the very least lose their home and all their belongings, as they live in the manor.
I don't really take either side in this issue, in fact I cycle in and out of Team Burn the Manor monthly, but we gotta keep this fair and balanced.
NecroDancer
2017-05-24, 05:09 PM
As one of the players in this campaign, I'm going to clarify a few things about the situation. This description is a bit one sided.
1. The "children" in question are actually legal adults and the house is their inheritance. Two of them actually still live at the house with their mother. If the house and all the belongings within it burn down, they're sort of screwed. We have no way to guarantee he will actually buy them the house. These "children" are good aligned, and we as a party know this because in CoS, paladin divine sense detects alignment.
2. The evil lady has a network of followers to fall back on and adequately supply her as to allow her to keep summoning devils. As you can guess, neither her nor the devils will likely be harmed by the fire, just annoyed by this setback and the loss of her house.
3. There are a bunch of innocent (also good aligned, this is CoS so divine sense detects alignment and these guys have been tested) maids working in the house, and any arson attack would mean not telling them to escape, as they would alert their lady. Therefore, a bunch of innocents would surely die, or at the very least lose their home and all their belongings, as they live in the manor.
I don't really take either side in this issue, in fact I cycle in and out of Team Burn the Manor monthly, but we gotta keep this fair and balanced.
Well I'd get the innocents out of the house first and I don't have to buy them a new house since there are a bunch of abandon houses all around and we know a guy that can cast fabricate to fix the new house up.
Well I'd get the innocents out of the house first and I don't have to buy them a new house since there are a bunch of abandon houses all around and we know a guy that can cast fabricate to fix the new house up.
I've already illustrated how you can't really easily get the innocents out, how even if you do that doesn't solve the issue of like 5-12 maids (somewhere in that range) homeless, with their only worldly posessions, from the most valuable to the most treasured, destroyed by fire. You're stealing from the poor to give to no one, like a really ****ty reverse Robbin Hood.
Then there's the "guy with fabricate". The only guy with fabricate we know is an immortal lich who hasn't left his lair for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Fat chance of him leaving to help some random dudes who's house you burned down.
Bohandas
2017-05-24, 05:32 PM
probably lawful evil or lawful neutral. possibly true neutral or neutral evil
NecessaryWeevil
2017-05-24, 05:46 PM
So he'll do whatever he wants to achieve his personal, selfish goals and promises are discarded the second they're inconvenient? Chaotic evil, with enough brains to pretend otherwise.
mephnick
2017-05-24, 05:51 PM
Chaotic evil, just not stupid chaotic evil like you generally see. This is textbook chaotic evil for people who play chaotic evil correctly.
Unoriginal
2017-05-24, 06:21 PM
As one of the players in this campaign, I'm going to clarify a few things about the situation. This description is a bit one sided.
1. The "children" in question are actually legal adults and the house is their inheritance. Two of them actually still live at the house with their mother. If the house and all the belongings within it burn down, they're sort of screwed. We have no way to guarantee he will actually buy them the house. These "children" are good aligned, and we as a party know this because in CoS, paladin divine sense detects alignment.
2. The evil lady has a network of followers to fall back on and adequately supply her as to allow her to keep summoning devils. As you can guess, neither her nor the devils will likely be harmed by the fire, just annoyed by this setback and the loss of her house.
3. There are a bunch of innocent (also good aligned, this is CoS so divine sense detects alignment and these guys have been tested) maids working in the house, and any arson attack would mean not telling them to escape, as they would alert their lady. Therefore, a bunch of innocents would surely die, or at the very least lose their home and all their belongings, as they live in the manor.
I don't really take either side in this issue, in fact I cycle in and out of Team Burn the Manor monthly, but we gotta keep this fair and balanced.
Then burning the manor will do nothing. At worse, convince the owners to have a few good Clerics consecrate the place/stay there to keep the evil at bay.
Sigreid
2017-05-24, 06:52 PM
Still feeling NE since he's not overtly malicious, but is willing to burn down a house because it seems like an easier way of stopping the summonings than confronting the cult leader with the defense of "I'm sure it will all work out".
Corran
2017-05-24, 08:11 PM
pretty sure using bureaucracy and 'fuss' to obfuscate the immorality of their actions is textbook LE
Yeah, for some reason I just forgot his end goal was to become immortal. So more evil rather than neutral. Not sure about the lawful bit though, I kind of see neutral to be a better fit.
Dr.Samurai
2017-05-24, 08:25 PM
Definitely evil. How is the Law/Chaos part relevant to the game? I'd say Neutral, but my gut tells me Chaotic disguised as Neutral.
But still, what does it really matter? The character is clearly EVIL.
NecroDancer
2017-05-24, 08:58 PM
this is a fair assessment (it's surprising to see an alignment thread go this smoothly). So i guess my character is NE/LE? that's a bit shocking from an OoC view but somewhat understandable. Too be fair i'm probably going to be playing a NG character the next chance I get.
Drackolus
2017-05-24, 09:19 PM
Doesn't really sound impulsive enough to be chaotic nor orderly enough to be lawful. Just sounds like a non-stupid neutral evil.
zyggythorn
2017-05-25, 06:13 AM
As someone who actively encourages all alignments in the games I run, the character sounds like a textbook version of Smart!Evil.
The slight focus on honordebt makes me think L, but so many other actions described scream C to me, so I'm gonna say little c/ Big E
Lombra
2017-05-25, 06:25 AM
Sounds like Griffith from berserk, a dark grey spot between neutral and legal evil. Although I wouldn't bother that much about alignment in this edition, just follow your character gudelines since alignment isn't mechanically meaningful (and that's wonderful imo) in 5th edition.
Sounds like Griffith from berserk, a dark grey spot between neutral and legal evil. Although I wouldn't bother that much about alignment in this edition, just follow your character gudelines since alignment isn't mechanically meaningful (and that's wonderful imo) in 5th edition.
As a fellow player in this campaign, I just gotta say that alignment really matters in CoS. That's part of the reason why in CoS paladins with divine sense can use it to detect alignment like back in the day. This isn't really going to matter for ol' Necro though, he accepted a Dark Powers deal and now permemantly detects as CE.
Dr.Samurai
2017-05-25, 08:45 AM
Sounds like Griffith from berserk, a dark grey spot between neutral and legal evil.
The OP sounds like a psychopath. Griffith is anything but...
#GriffithDidNothingWrong
Malifice
2017-05-25, 08:55 AM
And yes i know the alignment system has many flaws and there might not be an absolute answer
Basically my character wants to become an immortal god and will kill anyone who gets into his way. He has no qualms about getting power and doesn't care about where his power comes from. However he also knows that if he acts evil he will be seen as a threat and will be killed, he also knows the value of freinds who aren't just minions. He will honor any agreements until he gets a better option or the agreement is more trouble than it's worth (he will break these agreements without informing the people he made the agreements with). He also doesn't like to hurt people because it's generally a bad thing to do morally.
Basically he will do anything to get power but won't do unnecessary evil actions if there is a good way to do it.
For example if there is an enemy in an orphanage he is willing to burn the orphanage down but he'd rather defeat the enemy without harming the orphans or the orphanage because he'd be regarded as a hero by the grateful villagers and he wants the orphans to not be harmed on a personal level.
On the Good/ Evil axis you are very very very Evil.
Anyone who is prepared to burn down an orphanage killing dozens of innocent children just to get to an enemy is 10/10 evil. You're prepared to do anything it takes for personal power. Murder, torture; anything.
You're evil with a capital 'E'. A despicable monster of the highest order.
As for the Law/ Chaos axis, you're sitting in the Neutral zone in the middle. You generally keep your word, but are prepared to break it when necessary. You are not strongly geared towards honor, family, tradition or a code of any kind, and you are not strongly individualistic or unpredictable in your actions, or opposed to tradition, planning or laws.
Neutral Evil.
Sigreid
2017-05-25, 09:21 AM
The OP sounds like a psychopath. Griffith is anything but...
#GriffithDidNothingWrong
I hope we move beyond labeling people as psychopaths and sociopaths based on fantasy game characters soon.
Lombra
2017-05-25, 09:33 AM
I hope we move beyond labeling people as psychopaths and sociopaths based on fantasy game characters soon.
He was clearly referring to the character, not the user.
PS: I feel sorry for Griffith and his whole squad anyways.
Sigreid
2017-05-25, 09:51 AM
He was clearly referring to the character, not the user.
PS: I feel sorry for Griffith and his whole squad anyways.
I would hope so, but it wasn't clear and I've seen other threads lately where one poster was insisting another was a sociopath.
Dr.Samurai
2017-05-25, 11:37 AM
I hope we move beyond labeling people as psychopaths and sociopaths based on fantasy game characters soon.
Come on, Sigreid... :smallsigh:
I feel sorry for Griffith and his whole squad anyways.
Let's take a moment of silence... :smallfrown:
Naanomi
2017-05-25, 12:55 PM
Sociopathy and (even more so) psychopathy don't always map to evil in the alignment sense of the word anyways. I've worked with several of both over the years.
Anyways, the character description 'feels' chaotic evil to me; but I wouldn't quibble over neutral evil either. (And yes, alignment does matter a bunch of places mechanically)
Gtdead
2017-05-25, 01:06 PM
I think there is a general apathy about your character from the mansion situation. That actually points me to a trigger happy TN.
I don't think that you have any lawful or chaotic leanings. A lawful would be more methodical, a chaotic wouldn't really give a ****. You stand right in the middle because you seem to give a **** but your methods are too unfocused and careless.
You sure are a bringer of misery but I'm hesitant to label you evil because dnd is about conflict and that tends to bring misery anyway.
I find both TN and NE acceptable.
The-0-Endless
2017-05-25, 11:11 PM
Just put tertiary parts into the system and add [4th parts] or more if necessary.
NG(l)- Batman brave and the bold.
NG- If it is right, do it and to **** with the consequences.
NG(c)- Batman the dark knight.
CG- Universal self-direction.
CN(g)- Chaotic with a conscience.
CN- Godless Anarchy.
CN(e)- The Joker.
CE- Hedonism.
NE(c)- "Whatever the **** I want!".
NE- "'Rocks fall everyone dies.' 'But you're not the DM!' 'So?'"
NE(l)-The law exists to be bent to my will.
LE- Lawyers.
LN(e)- Bond villains.
LN- Robots.
LN(g)- Robocop.
LG- Stereotype paladin.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.