What Alignment would this be?

[CrackedChair]

So I got around to making another sheet, but I came across a dilemma...

I wanted to create a bloodthirsty, yet childish fighter. She has a problem empathizing with her enemies, but is quick to protect those who she considers her friends. She was ousted from her noble house and wonders what has changed about her father who pushed her out.

Here's a character sheet for reference. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1FXcXv1VrOdeF9hSEZKVFVyQWM

I only have it listed as Neutral for now, due to the fact I cannot decide the alignment most appropriate for this...

[imanidiot]

So I got around to making another sheet, but I came across a dilemma...

I wanted to create a bloodthirsty, yet childish fighter. She has a problem empathizing with her enemies, but is quick to protect those who she considers her friends. She was ousted from her noble house and wonders what has changed about her father who pushed her out.

Here's a character sheet for reference. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1FXcXv1VrOdeF9hSEZKVFVyQWM

I only have it listed as Neutral for now, due to the fact I cannot decide the alignment most appropriate for this...

That's Chaotic Evil.

[Naanomi]

Bloodthirsty and childish makes me lean towards Chaotic, but you haven't given enough details for me to say much beyond that

[KorvinStarmast]

I wanted to create a bloodthirsty, yet childish fighter. She has a problem empathizing with her enemies, but is quick to protect those who she considers her friends. She was ousted from her noble house and wonders what has changed about her father who pushed her out. Autistic Evil?

[strangebloke]

Sounds like a neutral to evil on the Good/Evil axis.

My rule of thumb is:
Good: Will make sacrifices to help total strangers.
Neutral: Will make sacrifices to help acquaintances.
Evil: Will make sacrifices only for the benefit of a few close allies, if at all.

When I'm talking 'sacrifices' here, I'm talking about significant expenditures of time and/or resources with no other goal in mind than to help the person. When I talk about 'help' I'm not talking about some grand quest to save millions, I'm talking about incidental opportunities to help.

A good guy might help an old lady across the street if no one else will do it.
A neutral guy might help that old lady if he knows her.
An evil guy would probably not help her if was just someone he knew. He might help his mom cross the street.

Not enough information for Lawful/Chaotic.

[denthor]

Neutral to Neutral Evil maybe Chaotic Evil

Depending on actions taken.

If you lay traps and hunt down Paladins routinely that is a Neutral Evil act.

If you do not plan so much and just act with no regard to who you offend take because you are stronger and only relent because others are stronger than you are at the moment you are Chaotic Evil.

If you pick your enemies for profit only and never allow others to short you pay or they say I want the blue mage killed you ask for a written document. When the blue mage goes down in two pieces you walk off the field of battle you are Lawful Evil. Leaving everyone else to clean up the battle even if they are over matched. You were hired to kill the blue mage not keep the enemy knights from storming the castle pay up.

Your actions make the character

[Puh Laden]

Does her bloodlust lead to "arbitrary violence"? Then she's chaotic evil.

[Naanomi]

Does her bloodlust lead to "arbitrary violence"? Then she's chaotic evil.
Bloodlust covers a lot of descriptive territory. Ysgard, the plane of Good-inclined Chaotic Neutrality, is full of people who could likely be described as having 'bloodlust'

[smcmike]

Bloodlust covers a lot of descriptive territory. Ysgard, the plane of Good-inclined Chaotic Neutrality, is full of people who could likely be described as having 'bloodlust'

Right. And while "lack of empathy for her enemies" isn't the radical conception of Good which would have one love thy enemy, it also leaves quite a lot of room. Are her enemies vicious monsters who deserve little empathy? Does lack of empathy lead to evil actions?

[Tanarii]

Which of the Alignments (at bottom of post) feels the most appropriate to you, based on your descriptions? That's what Alignment the character is. Then pick your Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Then use those to inform your decisions for your character you make while playing, which is aka as Roleplaying.

In 5e, you can't easily start with "here's the stuff my character does, now what Alignment am I" because that's ass backwards. You can come close by seeing which Alignment typical, but not consistent nor required, behaviors kinda look similar, which is what I recommended. But those motivations might actually come from Personality, Ideal, Bond or Flaw instead. So it's technically not actually possible to work that direction, because your character's actions in game are informed by a combination of Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. In short, the 'flow' for Alignment is: Alignment + Personality --> making decisions for your character --> actions in game. Not the other way around.

(You can also eliminate Alignments if the descriptions make it clear the character would NEVER behave in the typical alignment behavior fashion.)

Alignment Behaviors:
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society.
Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs.
Chaotic Good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes.
Nuetral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time.
Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

[Demonslayer666]

Need more information on how you treat others. Bloodlust can mean anything from you get a thrill from battle to you go looking for trouble and use it as an excuse to kill.

It would help if you defined your enemies, and how you treat others in general.

[Unoriginal]

Is that the same character than the one you wanted to base on that serial killer noble girl who waited on her servants doing the tiniest mistake to make them suffer horribly?

[Puh Laden]

Bloodlust covers a lot of descriptive territory. Ysgard, the plane of Good-inclined Chaotic Neutrality, is full of people who could likely be described as having 'bloodlust'

That's why I asked if it led to "arbitrary" violence, because that's part of the definition of chaotic evil in the PHB. If the violence is reasonable, like a warrior who chooses to channel his bloodlust into killing monsters, and threats to civilization and innocent people, then that character wouldn't necessarily be chaotic evil. If the character acts violently according to fleeting whim due to her bloodlust, then that character is chaotic evil.

[CrackedChair]

Is that the same character than the one you wanted to base on that serial killer noble girl who waited on her servants doing the tiniest mistake to make them suffer horribly?

Well, yes, but she did have some sort of excuse... it wasn't a real good one, admittedly.

How I see it is that some children threaten to kill others for mistakes, except this character is around 20, armed, and deffinately has that mentality and capability. I thought that I could tone it down a bit to reserving her violent tendencies for real enemies, such as bandits and the like, and not all people who spill something on you or diss you in some way.

She's generally got a childish mentality more than actual bloodlust, but she still has some of that too.


Need more information on how you treat others. Bloodlust can mean anything from you get a thrill from battle to you go looking for trouble and use it as an excuse to kill.

It would help if you defined your enemies, and how you treat others in general.

Well, she does like killing. But that's really it. She does get upset real quickly like an 8 year old or something, but she knows actual enemies when she sees them, and deffinately will support her teammates.

[Naanomi]

So... Chaotic Evil maybe moving towards Chaotic Neutral as they mature developmentally and ethically?

[CrackedChair]

I thought I'd start with Chaotic Neutral... having something like Chaotic Evil on my sheet would be rather bad to start out with...

I might need to discuss this with a DM first just to see what he thinks. I trust my roleplaying skills, so this could get me a pass... maybe.

[Beelzebubba]

Well, she does like killing. But that's really it. She does get upset real quickly like an 8 year old or something, but she knows actual enemies when she sees them, and deffinately will support her teammates.

Chaotic Evil

[CrackedChair]

Chaotic Evil

Well, I am trying to avoid being Chaotic Evil, if possible...

I don't know how to, though...

[Hypersmith]

Well, I am trying to avoid being Chaotic Evil, if possible...

I don't know how to, though...

bah, if you've explained it to yourself and agree that it's chaotic evil, no shame writing that down. There's a stigma towards Evil, but as character growth is a thing.

[Millstone85]

She could be Good in the sense that, while short-tempered and attracted to violence, she already has a strong conscience stopping her from harming innocents, which could be rooted in reason and/or emotion.

That would be you deciding to give her an alignment at odds with her personality and flaws. It might make said alignment all the more important.

But it is going to be a challenge to roleplay. Maybe you can give it a try and be prepared for your DM to later judge her Neutral or Evil by her actions.

[Naanomi]

Well, I am trying to avoid being Chaotic Evil, if possible...

I don't know how to, though...
Start by not enjoying killing people, torture, etc? You have a character who has a childish mindset, a past history of sadism and murder could still be present but you are 'maturing' and working hard to restrain those impulses within yourself... so a past Chaotic Evil alignment, but currently Chaoic Neutral; with possibility of continuing to improve yourself or slipping back into old habits; a character with potential for ethical growth or degeneration?

[imanidiot]

Well, she does like killing. But that's really it.

That's really all you need. Chaotic Evil

[CrackedChair]

She could be Good in the sense that, while short-tempered and attracted to violence, she already has a strong conscience stopping her from harming innocents, which could be rooted in reason and/or emotion.

That would be you deciding to give her an alignment at odds with her personality and flaws. It might make said alignment all the more important.

But it is going to be a challenge to roleplay. Maybe you can give it a try and be prepared for your DM to later judge her Neutral or Evil by her actions.

That sounds good, I guess. Just cause you want to engage in something doesn't mean you are going to...

[Unoriginal]

Well, yes, but she did have some sort of excuse... it wasn't a real good one, admittedly.

What, the serial killer noble girl? She had no excuse. An explanation, at best.




How I see it is that some children threaten to kill others for mistakes, except this character is around 20, armed, and deffinately has that mentality and capability. I thought that I could tone it down a bit to reserving her violent tendencies for real enemies, such as bandits and the like, and not all people who spill something on you or diss you in some way.

She's generally got a childish mentality more than actual bloodlust, but she still has some of that too.


Well, she does like killing. But that's really it. She does get upset real quickly like an 8 year old or something, but she knows actual enemies when she sees them, and deffinately will support her teammates.

Yeah, chaotic evil.



I thought I'd start with Chaotic Neutral... having something like Chaotic Evil on my sheet would be rather bad to start out with...

Why would it be bad?




I might need to discuss this with a DM first just to see what he thinks. I trust my roleplaying skills, so this could get me a pass... maybe.

I don't see how roleplaying this character would "get you a pass".


Well, I am trying to avoid being Chaotic Evil, if possible...

I don't know how to, though...

Then don't play a character who has that mentality and tendencies?

[CrackedChair]

Believe me, I can work this out. It's all a matter of character development that is in order for a good story to unfold.

[Naanomi]

I'm confused as to why it needs to be 'worked out'? You can have a 'heroic' (or villainous) character of any alignment; being Chaotic Evil doesn't preclude you from adventuring, supporting the party, maintaining yourself so as not to ruin social encounters, etc

[CrackedChair]

Well, I am worried what other players will think. Most people tend to think a single alignment can make or break a party, which is a bit silly, since alignment determines how you think, not how you act.

[Naanomi]

Well, I am worried what other players will think. Most people tend to think a single alignment can make or break a party, which is a bit silly, since alignment determines how you think, not how you act.
Your alignment doesn't control how you think or act; but how you act does tend to determine your alignment (barring magical influence). Games get derailed by incompatible or intentionally disruptive party members of all alignments

[Skelechicken]

The future arc of your character will absolutely not change her starting alignment. If unobstructed an evil warlord could learn to repent and restore that which he destroyed on a conquest of his youth, he is still not good or doing good while he is engaging in that conquest.

It sounds like you want to play a redemption arc, or an arc where a character learns to empathize despite having a hard time earlier. That's a fine arc, but until the end the character is not good, and you simply can't have that arc if you are trying to start the character at the goalpost.

As written I think the character is evil. Write that down and talk it out with your GM. If they trust your roleplaying skills as well then you can run it. If not it's a good character to have on the back-burner for a future campaign.

What you DON'T want to do is make an evil character and then justify to yourself not writing that on your sheet and then joining a game with a "no evil characters" rule. Those rules are often there to establish tone. It isn't your GM wanting a game without evil written on the sheet, it is your GM wanting a game where characters behave in a certain way. If your "true neutral" character starts begging the party to go and slaughter the first camp of bandits they are informed of what you have written on the sheet won't change how that action is interpreted.

[JMAP94]

to me it seems like Chaotic Neutral. You don't have really a code of ethics, or "a way of doing things," rather acting on your own feelings on conscience. On the Neutral side, although you have a bloodlust, I don't think the way you described your character that if given the choice to control that impulse or not endanger their friends, it would be a hard choice to make, that there would a sort of internal debate (as you said your character is "struggling" to see it from her enemies point of view). With an evil character (always choosing bloodlust) or a good character (always choosing the betterment of her friends) there would be less internal struggle.

[Malifice]

Bloodthirsty and childish makes me lean towards Chaotic, but you haven't given enough details for me to say much beyond that

Bloodthirsty = evil.

The character is thirsty for blood. You know - enjoys and seeks out violence, killing and harming others.

Like; If I were to ask you the morality of a 'bloodthirsty emotionless hitman' you arent calling them morally anything else other than 'evil' are you?

[Malifice]

Bloodlust covers a lot of descriptive territory. Ysgard, the plane of Good-inclined Chaotic Neutrality, is full of people who could likely be described as having 'bloodlust'

They are ressurected again each morning for a feast. Zero permanent harm is done.

The 'bloodlust' is training for a war against the giants at the end of the world.

This guy is bloodthirsty and kills and harms people (whom he has no empathy for).

Thats very clearly, evil.

If you disagree, please never do jury duty.

[Tanarii]

Well, I am worried what other players will think. Most people tend to think a single alignment can make or break a party, which is a bit silly, since alignment determines how you think, not how you act.


Your alignment doesn't control how you think or act; but how you act does tend to determine your alignment (barring magical influence). Games get derailed by incompatible or intentionally disruptive party members of all alignments

Both of these are not correct in 5e. The player picks the Alignment and Personality Traits, writes it all down . Then the player uses it / keeps it in mind when making decisions for what the PC will do.

It doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do with how the PC thinks, the PC might think bloodthirsty thoughts but constantly override them. They might think they're the next Messiah and are Holy Good but the player has Nuetral Evil written down and uses that to making character decisions.

Nor is it determined by a PC's individual actions. It's not even necessarily determined by a PCs overall actions / behavior, although that will often result if you use Alignment as intended. Conversely, I f you consistently choose to have your PC behave contrary to the typical alignment behavior you're missing the point. Which is to give you one portion of a clear set of 'motivations' sentences to help make decisions for you character, aka roleplaying.


--------------------
Edit: it's worth noting that concerns about 'what other players think' should be immaterial. Unless the DM has a house rule restricting alignment (like AL does), there's no reason anyone at the table should care or even know what your Alignment is, under most normal circumstances. What they should be concerned about is the results of your decisions for your character, ie what your PC is doing. Alignment is (generally speaking) a tool for you, the player, to use. There are some few rules the DM might need to think about, but they're uncommon and generally don't come up in the course of play. What WILL come up is the consequences for any decisions you make for your characters. Actions will result in consequences. Possibly including the other PCs taking action against your PC, if you do things that warrant it.

[Beelzebubba]

Well, I am worried what other players will think. Most people tend to think a single alignment can make or break a party, which is a bit silly, since alignment determines how you think, not how you act.

There is no reason for them to necessarily know. Evil is only detectable on 'essence of evil' types like Demons. Characters don't rate. Only your actions will show them.

Then again, 'bloodthirsty', 'likes killing', 'has no empathy for enemies' will show them soon enough.

I mean, you seem to want to play an evil character with no self control that somehow isn't found out. How exactly will that work?

[Naanomi]

They are ressurected again each morning for a feast. Zero permanent harm is done.

The 'bloodlust' is training for a war against the giants at the end of the world.
I meant presumably they had that compatible mindset to begin with to be sent to Ysgard to begin with on their death... the place is filled with Chaotic Neutral (but Good leaning) berserkers and boisterous bruisers and the like from all over the Prime.

Also, not everyone in that place cares at all about any Giant War at the end of the world, that is just one (prominent) pantheon's concern

[hamishspence]

The distinction here would be between "enjoys fighting" and "enjoys killing"

A person who truly enjoys killing, would find Ysgard unsatisfactory, because no one dies "for real" there.


I f you consistently choose to have your PC behave contrary to the typical alignment behavior you're missing the point.

Which is what the issue is - if someone's main reason for killing is the pleasure they get out of it, is that "acting contrary to the typical CG and CN alignment behaviour"?

[Tanarii]

Which is what the issue is - if someone's main reason for killing is the pleasure they get out of it, is that "acting contrary to the typical CG and CN alignment behaviour"?

Up to you as the player, unless your DM has house rules for Alignment. Go read the alignment descriptions I posted and make your own decision. #AnswerNotAnAnswer :smallwink:

Edit: Note that if you choose to have your character typically / consistently act with arbitrary violence due to the bloodlust, then they are Chaotic Evil. By definition of the associated behavior. Anything else is just you attempting shenanigans for reasons.

[Naanomi]

The distinction here would be between "enjoys fighting" and "enjoys killing"
Likely the key distinction here... someone Ysgard-flavor 'CN/g' oriented may indeed kill many people; but that was a side effect of their love of righteous combat and not an end unto itself. Similarly we might see a 'LN/g' type who kills Evil people because they see it as the 'right' thing to do; but they wouldn't enjoy it on a visceral level

[CrackedChair]

I guess I could stick with Chaotic Neutral. While she does enjoy killing things, this is primarily due to her child-like nature rather than outright malicious thoughts.

[Tanarii]

Likely the key distinction here... someone Ysgard-flavor 'CN/g' oriented may indeed kill many people; but that was a side effect of their love of righteous combat and not an end unto itself. Similarly we might see a 'LN/g' type who kills Evil people because they see it as the 'right' thing to do; but they wouldn't enjoy it on a visceral level
Taking into account PC thinking opens the door to subjective Alignment. IMO it's at least somewhat implied that Alignment is objective. I've i.e. what is written down on the character sheet and the typical behavior used by the player to roleplay is what is the 'true' Alignment of the character, not (necessarily) what the PC thinks.

Edit: The actual distinction between CE and CN is associated typical, but not consistent, behavior the player uses to make decisions for the PC's actions. Not their thinking. It's 'Follows their whims' vs 'arbitrary violence'.

[KorvinStarmast]

I guess I could stick with Chaotic Neutral. While she does enjoy killing things, this is primarily due to her child-like nature rather than outright malicious thoughts.
Psychotic. That's not an alignment. That's someone with powerful sociopathic -> psychotic tendencies. From your description, gets a thrill as kid by pulling the wings off of bugs and cutting the tails off of lizards. Then torturing the cat, because it's amusing to this child.

Is that who you want to role play?

[Tanarii]

Psychotic. That's not an alignment. That's someone with power sociopathic -> psychotic personality profile.

Flaw: sociopathy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Flaw: sociopathy.
I'll raise the ante and call it "Flaw: murderhobo"
Calling a shovel a shovel might be useful here.

[Naanomi]

Taking into account PC thinking opens the door to subjective Alignment. IMO it's at least somewhat implied that Alignment is objective.
It has always been a tricky point to navigate. Certainly what you *do* is the main part of of alignment; but I think there is some subtlety to explore between 'I kill evil people who have escaped justice'; 'I kill anyone whenever I feel like it'; and 'I fight anyone when I feel like it, and sometimes they die'.

The real answer from a meta-perspective is that the specifics of 'real, objective alignment' exists but the details are largely beyond the comprehension of mortal minds, who just have to do their best with their own limited perspectives

[Tanarii]

I'll raise the ante and call it "Flaw: murderhobo"
Calling a shovel a shovel might be useful here.
Point. There's a pretty clear difference between a herohobo and a murderhobo. Honestly in most modern gaming that's the only 2 Alignment categories you need, as in the old-fashioned / implied 'team your character is allied with'. :smallbiggrin:


It has always been a tricky point to navigate. Certainly what you *do* is the main part of of alignment; but I think there is some subtlety to explore between 'I kill evil people who have escaped justice'; 'I kill anyone whenever I feel like it'; and 'I fight anyone when I feel like it, and sometimes they die'.

The real answer from a meta-perspective is that the specifics of 'real, objective alignment' exists but the details are largely beyond the comprehension of mortal minds, who just have to do their best with their own limited perspectivesAnd what I'm saying is that subtlety is expressed in the Player using different Alignment behavior sentences as part of the character 'motivations' when playing the character, resulting in differing behavior. Or similar, if two characters that think different ways use the same alignment behavior. In other words, the player doesn't (necessarily) need to know what the PC thinks, just how they tend to behave when confronted with certain situations.

How they think might result in radically different behavior, or radically different ways to thinking might result in the same behavior. And of course, the PC might be deluding themselves as to why they do something or the impact of their behavior. Or it's morality.

[Unoriginal]

The distinction here would be between "enjoys fighting" and "enjoys killing"

A person who truly enjoys killing, would find Ysgard unsatisfactory, because no one dies "for real" there.


That's why the Orcs typically don't go to Ysgard.



I guess I could stick with Chaotic Neutral. While she does enjoy killing things, this is primarily due to her child-like nature rather than outright malicious thoughts.

That's still evil as hell.





And what I'm saying is that subtlety is expressed in the Player using different Alignment behavior sentences as part of the character 'motivations' when playing the character, resulting in differing behavior. Or similar, if two characters that think different ways use the same alignment behavior. In other words, the player doesn't (necessarily) need to know what the PC thinks, just how they tend to behave when confronted with certain situations.

How they think might result in radically different behavior, or radically different ways to thinking might result in the same behavior. And of course, the PC might be deluding themselves as to why they do something or the impact of their behavior. Or it's morality.

If the player wrote "lawful good" on their sheet but keep killing people the group meet to steal their money, then it's clear that they're not playing a lawful good character and should change the alignment.

[Tanarii]

If the player wrote "lawful good" on their sheet but keep killing people the group meet to steal their money, then it's clear that they're not playing a lawful good character and should change the alignment.
Sounds like you agree with me completely then.

That's a joke, because it seems like your statement is a non-sequitur. Albeit one I completely agree with. If a player isn't using their written Alignment to make character decisions, they should probably change it to be the one closest to whatever they are using to make character decisions. Or just leave it blank.

[Beaureguard]

I guess I could stick with Chaotic Neutral. While she does enjoy killing things, this is primarily due to her child-like nature rather than outright malicious thoughts.

I think you're picking neutral because you don't want to class her as evil. First, I want to defend evil, then I want talk about what you need to do to make her neutral. Keep in mind that I very much believe that where a character falls on the spectrum is about motive, not outcome. This is a role playing game, and doing something with a bad consequence for good reasons doesn't equate an evil act to me.

Evil gets a bad rap. Evil characters don't need to murder everyone they see, steal everything, or refuse to hang out with paladins. They don't need to be mean, cruel, or rude. They CAN do all those things, but at base, all they have to do is put their own goals and desires above everything else. You can work with others to ultimately gain the rewards your seeking, even if it means doing things you'd rather not, or not doing things you'd rather do. Just like a good character can overlook the rogue stealing a little, and evil character take a side trip to help an old lady cross the street if that's what it takes to ultimately get what he wants.

If your character wants to get to the City, and passes a burning house, does she stop because it's the right thing to do (good), stop because the needs of the many are greater than her personal need (good), help because she she doesn't want people to think less of her (neutral), help because she some potential benefit for herself like money or recognition (evil), not help because she made a prior commitment and wants to uphold her obligation (Mostly toward lawful, but probably morally neutral?), not help because it inconveniences her (evil), not help because she likes to see children burn (extreme unnecessary evil)? Does it change if it's an orphanage? A farm? A temple? A shrine to a god opposed to yours? For a well thought out good or evil character, few of the factors would change their decision. They know WHY their characters make the moral decision they do and they're at the firmly good or evil ends of the spectrum. The neutral character may have less clear moral footing. They may stop at the orphanage because they like babies, but skip the temple because old monks aren't that cute. Their moral systems are less clearly defined, or thought out. Most people would probably be neutral just because they haven't put in the thought to put them on the good path and are too socially conscious to walk even a moderately socially acceptable evil path.

I get the impression that you want to chalk a lot of what your character is doing up to her "childlike" state. The first question then is can she distinguish between right a wrong. Even young children can understand empathy, sharing, and basic principles of good and bad. Can she get that? Does she understand death? If your answers are no, then you're playing a character that is literally crazy. If yes, start thinking about how she understands them. Are there lines that she is unwilling to cross? Would killing a man in his sleep that she didn't know be something she may do? Identify the values she has that are good, those that are evil, and those that are in between, and then you'll have your answer. If she's evil, that's fine. She can still be a hero and save the world. She's just doing it because she's not done having fun in it yet, not because she feels the moral obligation of the hegemon.

[smcmike]

I guess I could stick with Chaotic Neutral. While she does enjoy killing things, this is primarily due to her child-like nature rather than outright malicious thoughts.

At this point, you are just slandering children.

[Naanomi]

At this point, you are just slandering children.
I could see 'innocent evil' in a way... this seems like a character who (depending on development) might end up in Pandemonium after death rather than the Abyss or Carceri.

[Whit]

Chaotic neutral no doubt. Don't care about rules. Childish. But I'll help people I like and screw those I don't.

Bloodthirsty childish but will protect friends

[Puh Laden]

Chaotic neutral no doubt. Don't care about rules. Childish. But I'll help people I like and screw those I don't.

Bloodthirsty childish but will protect friends

Because a chaotic evil person wouldn't help the people they like. /s

But seriously, while there can be overlap over many of the alignments, chaotic neutral in 5e means you value your own personal freedom above all else, and chaotic evil are those who act with "arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." These are (paraphrases of) 5e's definitions. Contrast with 2e's definition of chaotic neutral, in which it was described as the alignment of "madmen."

There is a difference between following your "whims" and valuing personal freedom above all else, and allowing your desires to lead to arbitrary violence. Your typical chaotic evil person will also value their personal freedom, but they also act with arbitrary violence in accordance with their urges or desires.

[Unoriginal]

I don't even know why there's a debate when the character's description is near literally the textbook case of "act violently and arbitrarily due to bloodlust"

[smcmike]

I could see 'innocent evil' in a way... this seems like a character who (depending on development) might end up in Pandemonium after death rather than the Abyss or Carceri.

Yeah, I get what the OP is going for, I just wanted to point out that although most young children are quite violent, relative to adults, they aren't generally killers. There is a pretty sharp line between fighting and killing - a line that often gets ignored in D&D campaigns, actually. I like the idea of trying to incorporate violent "social" encounters, in which it would cross the line to use lethal force.

What the OP is going for is a form of naive amorality - the only reason to say she isn't evil is that her brain is broken, and she doesn't understand what evil is. This is a fun archetype - think T2 at the start of the movie, or any number of specially trained female assassins. If you have to give these characters an alignment, it's evil, but amorality is the point.

[GlenSmash!]

Chaotic neutral no doubt. Don't care about rules. Childish. But I'll help people I like and screw those I don't.

Bloodthirsty childish but will protect friends

Evil characters can have friends they care about and protect.

[Tanarii]

At this point, you are just slandering children.
I dunno man, the terrible twos ... /shudder

[Whit]

Because a chaotic evil person wouldn't help the people they like. /s

But seriously, while there can be overlap over many of the alignments, chaotic neutral in 5e means you value your own personal freedom above all else, and chaotic evil are those who act with "arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust." These are (paraphrases of) 5e's definitions. Contrast with 2e's definition of chaotic neutral, in which it was described as the alignment of "madmen."

There is a difference between following your "whims" and valuing personal freedom above all else, and allowing your desires to lead to arbitrary violence. Your typical chaotic evil person will also value their personal freedom, but they also act with arbitrary violence in accordance with their urges or desires.


Chaotic evil don't like people or have friends. They have allies bosses or feard workers and will betray them when it suits them. They will not risk their lives to save any if them at risk to themselves :)

[Puh Laden]

Chaotic evil don't like people or have friends. They have allies bosses or feard workers and will betray them when it suits them. They will not risk their lives to save any if them at risk to themselves :)

5e's defintion says nothing about chaotic evil people not having friends or not risking their lives. Orc Nurtured Ones of Yurtrus are chaotic evil, but they are described as charging first so as to sacrifice themselves to soften up the enemy.

[CrackedChair]

5e's defintion says nothing about chaotic evil people not having friends or not risking their lives. Orc Nurtured Ones of Yurtrus are chaotic evil, but they are described as charging first so as to sacrifice themselves to soften up the enemy.

Well, true, but Orogs don't seem to share that same impulse, stating that they hold no bonds, not even to family.

I guess it depends on character, really.

[KarlMarx]

I'm not sure if this character quite has the reflective bent enough to theorize much of a morality. Talk to your DM and see how dependent morality should be on conscious decisions--are they visceral aspects of a character's ingrained psychology, or ideals to live up to?

If the former, probably CE leaning to CN, reflecting innate aggressive tendencies and inability to empathize with opponents (the latter not necessarily Evil traits--is it Evil not to empathize with the Orcs who burned down your village and slaughtered your family?), though CN could probably be pulled off

If the latter, CN or N, reflecting little proclivity to discuss or meditate on alignment and thus few conscious moral decisions.

If something in between, choose.

[Malifice]

I guess I could stick with Chaotic Neutral. While she does enjoy killing things, this is primarily due to her child-like nature rather than outright malicious thoughts.

'Child like' serial killers are evil, just as much as are the ones that 'have malicious thoughts'.

Your character could have the purest intent in the world for their rapes, murders, and torturing. Its irrelevant. They're evil.

This is like the 4th thread from you wanting to play a child like, emotionless mass-killer. In every one the consensus has been 'evil'.

Just write 'E' on your character sheet and play the damn character.

[JMAP94]

Let me ask you guys this. Would you consider a mercenary who enjoys killing and will take glee in it when he must, but does not actively seek out people to kill because he understands the amount of damage he would cause, evil?

Is willingness to act on one's impulses a factor in alignment, or is it just the impulses themselves?

[hamishspence]

Let me ask you guys this. Would you consider a mercenary who enjoys killing and will take glee in it when he must, but does not actively seek out people to kill because he understands the amount of damage he would cause, evil?


A Psycho for Hire (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychoForHire) who is smart enough not to be a Serial Killer, and to make sure their killings are mostly legal? Sure, they generally would be Evil.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Let me ask you guys this. Would you consider a mercenary who enjoys killing and will take glee in it when he must, but does not actively seek out people to kill because he understands the amount of damage he would cause, evil?

Is willingness to act on one's impulses a factor in alignment, or is it just the impulses themselves?
Everyone has those thoughts and impulses. Anyone who says otherwise but claims to understand it is either burying those thoughts or doesn't actually understand it at all.

What matters isn't that you have the imagination to consider such actions, but your actual choice in the matter. A person that enjoys killing but doesn't allow their bloodlust to influence their actions is commendable, whereas someone who has that same bloodlust and acts on it impulsively is, for lack of a better term, evil. Then you've got varying degrees depending on how and why they act on it, such as finding a cause you feel is righteous but typically requires bloodshed. And then to whom, as in the previous example the targets of your violence likely don't see you in a very good light.

D&D has a very simplified and objective morality by nature. Still, I feel degrees and choice outweighs any instinct or desires. If you have killed someone or not is a very real, objective thing- the motivations behind that killing cannot change this.

[Finieous]

Let me ask you guys this. Would you consider a mercenary who enjoys killing and will take glee in it when he must, but does not actively seek out people to kill because he understands the amount of damage he would cause, evil?

Is willingness to act on one's impulses a factor in alignment, or is it just the impulses themselves?


Everyone has those thoughts and impulses. Anyone who says otherwise but claims to understand it is either burying those thoughts or doesn't actually understand it at all.


Wait...Everyone thinks they'd enjoy killing and would "take glee" in it?

::looks around nervously::

[Waterdeep Merch]

Wait...Everyone thinks they'd enjoy killing and would "take glee" in it?

::looks around nervously::
Absolutely. Even as children.

Not entirely, mind you. Your mind has many different facets to it, and tries out new viewpoints all the time in order to understand the world around you. When you see an evil person, you have a need to define that evil. So your mind constructs a version of them, as you understand them, inside of your mind. You do this for every single person, thing, idea, and general thought you have ever come across.

Since you are capable of imagining someone that kills and takes glee in it, there is a part of your brain that has constructed this exact notion. Without it, you'd be helpless against people that actually are like that, or at the very least tremendously ignorant. This behavior is normal and healthy.

It becomes unhealthy when you decide that you're going to let that mental construct out to play, either because you've rationally decided it's okay or because the construct gained so much strength it overwhelmed the rest of your personality and acted. In Freudian psychology, we call this the Id. It has many faces, facets, and varieties. Some desires are more powerful than others, and many others contradict different desires.

Your average civilized person, therefore, has a desire to murder people and would be happy to do so. But they have a much stronger desire to never do those things.

[Finieous]

Speaking only for myself, I can imagine being an otyugh, wallowing in filth and eating **** all day. My ability to imagine it does not in any way entail that part of me wants to be it. YMMV, Dr. Freud.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Speaking only for myself, I can imagine being an otyugh, wallowing in filth and eating **** all day. My ability to imagine it does not in any way entail that part of me wants to be it. YMMV, Dr. Freud.
I'm really more of a Jungian, though the Super Ego/Ego/Id triumvirate is a great aid for explaining the difference between fears, actions, and desires. Freud's work was revolutionary in the field of psychology, but the science has been held back forever by a slavish adherence to his principles and ideas. Anyway, the point is that while there will be a part of you that wants to do pretty much anything and everything you've ever imagined, it's often a drop in a sea. Like a stadium full of people where a single fan is cheering a different team. It has no real power, and it gets no say.

And since it's drowned out like that, it is often feared and hated by the rest of your conscious (and often unconscious) mind. This is the act of the Super Ego, the fearful parts of your being that doesn't want to see anything like that. And thanks to this filtration, the Ego does not coexist alongside unpalatable behaviors such as those. At least, all in the context of a sound mind.

The Id can overpower the Super Ego and act through the Ego, the Super Ego can agree with the Id and let it be the Ego, and under especially sinister circumstances we might actually be talking about a killer's personality taking the shape of the Super Ego. This is where the line gets crossed. It often happens when we give undue attention to a personality, which builds up its power in our minds. The three wise monkeys are actually good advice for avoiding such situations.

In summation: thinking evil thoughts is not the same as doing evil deeds. The former is normal, the latter is not.

[Naanomi]

As a cognitive neuroscience adherent, I would point out that neither imaging nor neuroanatomical review supports either Freudian nor Jungian models as being more than very simplistic models (and that their adherents continuing to insist on a.'black box' view of cognition especially limits their growth as modern fields of study); but that I agree that aggressive and maladaptive thoughts are common experiences amongst all people, and orbito-prefrontal impulse control (and more broadly the frontal-limbic-arousal loop as a whole) is a big factor on not acting on such impulses... which is why we expect to see increased maladaptive behavior in those with profoundly compromised executive functions (the incarceration rate for people with FAS, for example, is way above the non-impacted population).

Also this character (while perhaps set up for a redemption story arc) in undoubtably Evil as described

[Finieous]

As a cognitive neuroscience adherent, I would point out that neither imaging nor neuroanatomical review supports either Freudian nor Jungian models as being more than very simplistic models (and that their adherents continuing to insist on a.'black box' view of cognition especially limits their growth as modern fields of study); but that I agree that aggressive and maladaptive thoughts are common experiences amongst all people, and orbito-prefrontal impulse control (and more broadly the frontal-limbic-arousal loop as a whole) is a big factor on not acting on such impulses... which is why we expect to see increased maladaptive behavior in those with profoundly compromised executive functions (the incarceration rate for people with FAS, for example, is way above the non-impacted population).


To be clear, I've had plenty of aggressive and maladaptive thoughts. I've just never thought I'd enjoy or "take glee" from killing (nor have I ever fantasized about being an otyugh).

[Waterdeep Merch]

As a cognitive neuroscience adherent, I would point out that neither imaging nor neuroanatomical review supports either Freudian nor Jungian models as being more than very simplistic models (and that their adherents continuing to insist on a.'black box' view of cognition especially limits their growth as modern fields of study); but that I agree that aggressive and maladaptive thoughts are common experiences amongst all people, and orbito-prefrontal impulse control (and more broadly the frontal-limbic-arousal loop as a whole) is a big factor on not acting on such impulses... which is why we expect to see increased maladaptive behavior in those with profoundly compromised executive functions (the incarceration rate for people with FAS, for example, is way above the non-impacted population).

Also this character (while perhaps set up for a redemption story arc) in undoubtably Evil as described
I'm not as familiar with the neurosciences as psychological theory (and even there, I'm purely a well-read amateur), but it's really interesting how all that plays out, physically. I always considered it from a mental construct point of view, never a physiological response.

And yes, this is certainly a capital E-vil character.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is like the 4th thread from you wanting to play a child like, emotionless mass-killer. In every one the consensus has been 'evil'.

Just write 'E' on your character sheet and play the damn character. A shovel is indeed a shovel. :belkar:

[strangebloke]

Intentions do matter.

If it turns out that that guy who you thought was a dark priest of the elder eye was actually just a merchant wearing dark robes, and you only find this out after you kill him, you're not necessarily evil.

If you derive great, sadistic pleasure from killing people, and intentionally seek out socially acceptable ways to kill people, (duels, police work, mercenary contracts) I would argue that you are evil, even if you never perform a murder that would get you in trouble. Even if you're protective of your friends and allies, that doesn't change that fact that you just love killing. See Belkar Bitterleaf after his rebirth as a prime example.

In earlier editions, 1/3 of all humans are evil. You don't have to be a psycho to be evil.

Heck, I have had exactly two 'good' characters amongst all of the PCs that my group has made in the last two years.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Intentions do matter.

If it turns out that that guy who you thought was a dark priest of the elder eye was actually just a merchant wearing dark robes, and you only find this out after you kill him, you're not necessarily evil.

If you derive great, sadistic pleasure from killing people, and intentionally seek out socially acceptable ways to kill people, (duels, police work, mercenary contracts) I would argue that you are evil, even if you never perform a murder that would get you in trouble. Even if you're protective of your friends and allies, that doesn't change that fact that you just love killing. See Belkar Bitterleaf after his rebirth as a prime example.

In earlier editions, 1/3 of all humans are evil. You don't have to be a psycho to be evil.

Heck, I have had exactly two 'good' characters amongst all of the PCs that my group has made in the last two years.
Intention is important, sure, but intention is derived from action. My point is that simple desire is meaningless if your actions are in support of a different motive. Killing people as a mercenary because you like killing but don't want to get in trouble for it is evil. You're just (ab)using a socially acceptable technicality. Killing people because you believe it is what must be done to protect a town/kingdom/the world isn't necessarily, even if you enjoy killing as much or more than the mercenary example.

Though degrees, again, matter. Is all that killing actually necessary, or are you just slaking your bloodthirst and using your own moralizing as a convenient excuse? Characters like this are enormously compelling because of that dichotomy. Their alignment is... murky. At best.

[Spore]

Chaotic Neutral to Chaotic Evil. It depends on how truly bloodthirsty she is.

Would she kill a thief that stole her entire savings and is unable to give it back because she spent it to feed her starving children? If yes, then evil. If no, then neutral.

[Naanomi]

The balance between intention and action as far as Alignment is concerned has been always a bit murky; I would argue both matter.

However, someone with strong bloodlust and aggressive impulses who chooses to take them out on Orcs and other 'dangerous types', to turn their inner darkness toward the most noble ends it can, is an interesting character (who still maintains the Evil alignment); more interesting than someone dancing around the issue and writing Chaotic Neutral on their character sheet

(As a side note, one of my Masters degree is in cognitive neuroscience)

[strangebloke]

Intention is important, sure, but intention is derived from action. My point is that simple desire is meaningless if your actions are in support of a different motive. Killing people as a mercenary because you like killing but don't want to get in trouble for it is evil. You're just (ab)using a socially acceptable technicality. Killing people because you believe it is what must be done to protect a town/kingdom/the world isn't necessarily, even if you enjoy killing as much or more than the mercenary example.

Though degrees, again, matter. Is all that killing actually necessary, or are you just slaking your bloodthirst and using your own moralizing as a convenient excuse? Characters like this are enormously compelling because of that dichotomy. Their alignment is... murky. At best.

There's a really good show, I think it's called 'justified,'about a sadistic cop who thinks of himself as a hard nosed, by the book kind of guy.

[Akolyte01]

Sounds like a neutral to evil on the Good/Evil axis.

My rule of thumb is:
Good: Will make sacrifices to help total strangers.
Neutral: Will make sacrifices to help acquaintances.
Evil: Will make sacrifices only for the benefit of a few close allies, if at all.

When I'm talking 'sacrifices' here, I'm talking about significant expenditures of time and/or resources with no other goal in mind than to help the person. When I talk about 'help' I'm not talking about some grand quest to save millions, I'm talking about incidental opportunities to help.

A good guy might help an old lady across the street if no one else will do it.
A neutral guy might help that old lady if he knows her.
An evil guy would probably not help her if was just someone he knew. He might help his mom cross the street.

Not enough information for Lawful/Chaotic.

I like this direction, but I'd put it differently. I think what you are touching on is the difference in how the alignments treat people they don't have personal stake in.

Good: Goes out of their way to help those they do not have stake in.
Neutral: Does not go out of their way, but avoids harming those they do not have stake in.
Evil: Does not avoid harming those they do not have stake in.

[Tanarii]

The balance between intention and action as far as Alignment is concerned has been always a bit murky; I would argue both matter. Intentions only matter insofar as they result in the associated behavior being part of the player's motivations for the PC. In other words, WHY your character has a motivation that covers some typical, but not required, behavior doesn't have to be important. Just that they do. But in some cases, the language of the behavior itself implies or directly calls out intention.

In other words, a Chaotic Evil character acts with arbitrary violence. Why? Because of Greed, Hatred or Bloodlust. So it's both a WHAT and a WHY.
Whereas Chaotic Neutral creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. WHY is irrelevant. (Edit: Unless you want to consider the 'holding their personal freedom above all else a WHY instead of a WHAT. I can totally see that interpretation.)
Similarly Lawful evil creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Again, WHY is irrelevant.

caveats: assuming we're talking about 5e Alignment of course. as always making clear that this is just one motivation of many (the entire Personality). And only a typical, not a constantly required one-dimensional behavior.

[Basement Cat]

:thog: So, basically she's a noble human female Thog? :smallbiggrin:

Her loyalty to her "few friends" is a Lawful trait, so rather than Chaotic I'd see her as Neutral.

Her enjoying violence, even killing, goes well in hand with a fighter's mentality: There are plenty of autobiographies by modern soldiers who admit they enjoy their job--which includes killing.

While some here consider "bloodthirsty" as being an inherently Evil trait the fact is that modern military forces encourage blood lust in trainees i.e. "What makes the grass grow green? BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD!" It's done to overcome the Thou Shall Not Kill mindset instilled in civilians for the sake of maintaining a civilized society.

Chris Kyle of "American Sniper" fame said as much in his own autobiography. To him killing was largely a matter of 'putting down savages'. It's not a mindset that makes him very popular with non-military types but it's important to recognize that he was differentiating between what most folks would categorize as "bad guys" and people in general.

Anthony Swofford of Jarhead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Swofford) fame was a marine sniper who, like his fellow marines, ached to "get a kill" during the first Gulf War.

So, taken together you would have to condemn Navy SEALs and the entire U.S. Marine Corps as "Evil" if a love of violence and indoctrinated blood lust are considered inherently "Evil".

So if she enjoys killing but doesn't actively seek out opponents to kill she isn't what most people would consider Good but she isn't automatically Evil: Basically she enjoys what she's trained to do and doesn't apologize for it.

Childishness behavior combined with a below average intelligence can be used to explain her simplistic approach to violence and killing.

Depending on how you play her and establish her personality you could make her a True Neutral starting out.

[hamishspence]

The distinction is between enjoying the fighting primarily and enjoying the killing primarily.

A Blood Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight) is the former. The average serial killer, or "psycho for hire", or Ax Crazy character, is the latter.

[Tanarii]

The distinction is between enjoying the fighting primarily and enjoying the killing primarily.

There is no distinction. Enjoying doesn't matter. What matters is the resulting typical behavior. Does this character typically, but not consistently or constantly, behave in such a way that the description "act[s] with arbitrary violence, spurred by [her] greed, hatred, or bloodlust" apply? Is that something that you feel would be appropriate as one of her 5 personality motivations?

So far, it sounds to me like a resounding YES. This character both has bloodlust, and will often be arbitrarily violent as a result. So ... Chaotic Evil.

[smcmike]

The distinction is between enjoying the fighting primarily and enjoying the killing primarily.

A Blood Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight) is the former. The average serial killer, or "psycho for hire", or Ax Crazy character, is the latter.

Yeah. I can imagine enjoying fighting, or hunting. I do not enjoy killing things. Yes, fighting or hunting naturally leads to the killing, but they are still separate enjoyments. If you enjoy the killing itself, that's scary to me.

I heard an interesting story about thoughts of violence - maybe on the podcast Invisibilia - where a young family man became quite distressed by a constant and irrepressible stream of extremely violent thoughts - stabbing his wife, and so forth. The conclusion of the story was that his problem wasn't that he wanted to do those things, but that he was more horrified than the average person by them, and couldn't let go of the idea once it got into his head. Treatment included holding a knife to his wife's throat to convince himself that he could trust himself.

[Naanomi]

I think in some situations the enjoying definetly matters. A slave gladiator situation, two characters both ruthlessly kill their opponents. One does so reluctantly, trying to not think about the other people as fellow sentient beings and does what they need to do to survive... another relishes their chance to kill again in the ring. Behaviorally both kill in the ring, showing no mercy to their enemies. But the former is easily true neutral; while the latter is arguably chaotic Evil.

Generally the behavior itself is the better judge of alignment than intent or motivation, but in some circumstances they need to be considered as well.

[Tanarii]

I wanted to create a bloodthirsty, yet childish fighter. She has a problem empathizing with her enemies, but is quick to protect those who she considers her friends. She was ousted from her noble house and wonders what has changed about her father who pushed her out.
Going back to the OP, here's how I would write up the personality for this character in 5e terms.

Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE), I often act with arbitrary violence, spurred on by my bloodlust.
Personality: I'm quick to protect my friends, but have no regard at all for enemies.
Ideal: Indulgence. I do what I like, when I feel like it, unless someone with authority over me reins me in. (Chaotic)
Bond: I was ousted from my noble house. I will find out what has changed about my father, who pushed me out.
Flaw: I'm emotionally stunted. People often call me 'childish' as a result.

The ideal is the hardest one. But if she's 'childish' then most likely she generally cares mostly about her own needs and wants most of her time. Except when she's being suddenly and unexpectedly altruistic. It might even be cute when she does it out of nowhere.

Edit: most importantly, this ideal, personality, etc can all be retained and the characters alignment can be shifted to Chaotic neutral quite easily. All you have to do is stop using "act with arbitrary violence spurred on by my bloodlust" as a motivation and change to "follow my whims, holding my personal freedom above all else" instead. That'd be a subtle personality change while retaining the overall character. In other words, character development in the course of the campaign is possible.

[CrackedChair]

Going back to the OP, here's how I would write up the personality for this character in 5e terms.

Alignment: Chaotic evil (CE), I often act with arbitrary violence, spurred on by my bloodlust.
Personality: I'm quick to protect my friends, but have no regard at all for enemies.
Ideal: Indulgence. I do what I like, when I feel like it, unless someone with authority over me reins me in. (Chaotic)
Bond: I was ousted from my noble house. I will find out what has changed about my father, who pushed me out.
Flaw: I'm emotionally stunted. People often call me 'childish' as a result.

The ideal is the hardest one. But if she's 'childish' then most likely she generally cares mostly about her own needs and wants most of her time. Except when she's being suddenly and unexpectedly altruistic. It might even be cute when she does it out of nowhere.

Edit: most importantly, this ideal, personality, etc can all be retained and the characters alignment can be shifted to Chaotic neutral quite easily. All you have to do is stop using "act with arbitrary violence spurred on by my bloodlust" as a motivation and change to "follow my whims, holding my personal freedom above all else" instead. That'd be a subtle personality change while retaining the overall character. In other words, character development in the course of the campaign is possible.

Is it alright if she revere's a good god or goddess? I could make the excuse that she does so cause that is what her parents did. But then again, looking to one of them while being blissfully unaware of the blood they shed being bad is rather hard.

[Naanomi]

Is it alright if she revere's a good god or goddess? I could make the excuse that she does so cause that is what her parents did. But then again, looking to one of them while being blissfully unaware of the blood they shed being bad is rather hard.
Depends on the setting, but in most unless you are a Cleric your alignment compatibility with your patron God doesn't matter (until the afterlife anyways)... in some campaigns it doesn't even matter for Clerics

[CrackedChair]

Depends on the setting, but in most unless you are a Cleric your alignment compatibility with your patron God doesn't matter (until the afterlife anyways)... in some campaigns it doesn't even matter for Clerics

Ah, alright. Thanks.

I just feel like she is easily swayed by others, which could lead to a more neutral alignment rather than chaotic. Considering she could easily find someone in the party and follow their orders to maim or persuade with her charm...

[Unoriginal]

Is it alright if she revere's a good god or goddess? I could make the excuse that she does so cause that is what her parents did. But then again, looking to one of them while being blissfully unaware of the blood they shed being bad is rather hard.

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. She'd still be evil for doing the things an evil person do.

And any priest of a good deity would tell her what's what if she talks to them about what she does.



I just feel like she is easily swayed by others, which could lead to a more neutral alignment rather than chaotic.

Yes, restricting your personal freedom and following others' instructions is more neutral than chaotic.


or persuade with her charm...

How is she going to persuade anyone if shes easily swayed by others?

[CrackedChair]

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. She'd still be evil for doing the things an evil person do.

And any priest of a good deity would tell her what's what if she talks to them about what she does.

I know it's not an excuse, I thought that it could start out with her trying to change once she hears it from someone of her faith that is revered... or something.

[Unoriginal]

I know it's not an excuse, I thought that it could start out with her trying to change once she hears it from someone of her faith that is revered... or something.

Could work.

I've edited my other post, btw

EDIT:

Sorry to have been rude.

[CrackedChair]

Could work.

I've edited my other post, btw

EDIT:

Sorry to have been rude.

It's fine! I know you are just analyzing problems and pointing them out. I appreciate the criticism.