What's my alignment?

[NecessaryWeevil]

Hello playground,

I'm planning a new character: a slightly creepy and crazy old woman who's made a deal with a fiend (become a warlock) in order to have the power to protect her village from danger. She will not allow any harm to come to "her" people: there is no line she will not cross in pursuit of this goal, but will try persuasion, negotiation, deception, threats, bribes etc. before resorting to violence, including executing or torturing prisoners. She will protect the innocent and powerless without thought of her own safety provided that's compatible with the above goal. She's not impressed by authority figures but has no problem working with them either. She will not harm or steal from others simply for her own comfort or convenience.

Basically, if you're familiar with Discworld, think Granny Weatherwax but slightly darker and with more need to compromise in order to protect her people.

So. What alignment is she? Right now I'm thinking Lawful Neutral because she's self-disciplined, and not self-centred enough to be evil.

[Mortis_Elrod]

all of them


Alignment is crazy anyway, just play the Granny, maybe ride a broom or cauldron through the sky.

As long as you know who your character is morally, alignment doesn't matter. Just stay true to your character.

[Millstone85]

There are two times in the life of an alignment:
* When it helps you define your character.
* When the DM ignores it in favor of their judgment of how the holy artifact should react to your character.

It seems you already have your character defined, so it is a bit late to think about alignment.

Still...


She's not impressed by authority figures but has no problem working with them either.Sounds neutral on the Law-Chaos axis.


Basically, if you're familiar with Discworld, think Granny Weatherwax but slightly darker and with more need to compromise in order to protect her people.E.V.I.L. :smalltongue:

[Kane0]

Doesn't matter.

You have a character, you don't need an aligmnment.

[Varlon]

I was thinking Lawful Neutral before I read you write it.



Sounds neutral on the Law-Chaos axis.


Lawful can also mean you follow a code, even one as simple as "protect my people, no matter what."

[Tanarii]

Sounds like Neutral with an Ideal of People to me.

[hymer]

I'd say somewhere in the LE to NE range. I'm pretty sold on the evil, given the full capacity to commit atrocities, not only in the future, but already doing a deal with a fiend. If the character is the top of the hierarchy, like GW, I'd say she's lawful. Her whim is effectively law (though 'custom' is probably a more accurate word), making it part of the overall community's ways. If she's not at the top of the hierarchy, she can be pretty disruptive to it, and so likely to be more NE. But that depends on the laws and customs where she's from.

[Officer Joy]

Honestly, any time I see a topic with a question like this. The first thing I think is NE, before I even read the topic.

Peoples just want to make characters like that, but are uncomfortable with the label. So they ask the community for arguments for a different alignment. So the can play it with a good conscience.

I'm also uncomfortable playing a character with this label. So I don't.

[Vingelot]

So. What alignment is she? Right now I'm thinking Lawful Neutral because she's self-disciplined, and not self-centred enough to be evil.

First off, alignment is (in most cases) more of a guideline to decide how to roleplay your character, and you seem to have that covered pretty well. I might direct you to read your own signature in this regard.

Regarding alignment, however: On the LC-Axis, I'd say she's neutral. She does follow a code (pushing toward lawful), but since she's willing to do absolutely anything to reach that, I consider that as a step toward chaotic, i.e. neutral, all in all.

On the GE-Axis it's more difficult. Assuming "her people" are not evil, I was at first tempted to say she's good (but NOT nice), especially as she will "protect the innocent and powerless without thought of her own safety provided that's compatible with the above goal" and "will not harm or steal from others simply for her own comfort or convenience". Those are, in my book, trademark good characteristics (selflessnes and not putting one's own comfort or convenience above that of others). However, dealing with fiends, crossing any and all lines if necessary are a bit more that simply "not nice", I guess, so I'd say neutral here as well.

The result would be True Neutral (with a bond of people, as has been said). This rings true anyway: True Neutrals do whatever they want, be it evil or good, lawful or neutral. And in her case, what she wants is protecting her people. Se will do anything to do that.

[Unoriginal]

This character doesn't sound like Granny Weatherwax at all. If you include "would cross any line" in a description, it's certainly not Granny.

[2D8HP]

These days, when I'm making a 5e PC, I decide on "Bonds", "Flaws", "Ideals", etc. first, and then I choose an "alignment" that matched up with them, but back in the 1980's...(my traditional start to a post) I mostly lest "alignment" blank, or under "alignment" I'd in pencil write "Neutral".

If my DM ever said that my PC is not behaving "Neutral" I planned to hand my DM the character sheet and a pencil with an erasure.

Then I planned to take back the sheet without bothering to look at what the "alignment" now was, and continue to play my character.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0202.gif


It just so happened that no DM has ever checked or mentioned alignment much, beyond one DM who recently specified "no evil" PC's for a 5e Lost Mines of Phandelver, and then accepted players as far as I can tell based on back-story word count, including another player who's PC was a Cleric of a "God of Murder".

Since I actually read the back stories the other players submitted, it was obvious to me that despite "Chaotic Neutral" being on the character sheet (in quotation marks on the sheet!), that the PC was going to be played as evil.

The "campaign" ended [I]very shortly after it started when the DM quit, after the players actually played the characters suggested by their PC's back-stories.

Thr DM had selected the menagerie of PC's, and had he actually bothered to read the back-stories he demanded he should have guessed how the PC's would have acted. Since all the PC's selected had the longest back-stories it was obvious to me that he just looked for length, and maybe character illustrations.

That was my third attempt to play "Phandelver", which I've never gotten to finish.

:sigh:

Anyway, what's on the sheet doesn't matter much, how you play is the thing.

[Tanarii]

Honestly, any time I see a topic with a question like this. The first thing I think is NE, before I even read the topic.Agreed. And my instinct failed me on this one. I started with that, scanned the post too fast, and leapt to a incorrect conclusion in my mistaken relief that it wasn't just another 'justify my Evil character as not evil' thread.

And seeing this and a few others comments, I went back to read the description again. When I get to 'no line she will not cross' and 'executing and torturing prisoners' ... well that's gonna be evil if she behaves that way regularly.


This character doesn't sound like Granny Weatherwax at all. If you include "would cross any line" in a description, it's certainly not Granny.
Yeah, it's not even close to Granny. It's like Granny with all the stuff that makes her admirable instead of a monster stripped out.

[Millstone85]

Yeah, it's not even close to Granny. It's like Granny with all the stuff that makes her admirable instead of a monster stripped out.Granny, like Vimes, is a character who sees the villainous version of themself in the mirror every morning, waiting to become real. And while she takes pride in the certitude that she would make an awesome villain, she keeps watch over herself.

She also believes "there’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby".

So yeah, when I read...
Granny Weatherwax but slightly darker I picture a very wicked witch.

[Unoriginal]

Oh please, Granny Weatherwax has never come close to become evil. Sure, she could be a jerk, and was both prideful and judgmental, but she never had "evil" impulses or desires she needed to stop herself from following. She recognized the possibility she had to be a villain, but that's it.


Someone who is unfettered to the point there is no line they wouldn't cross, and who would not protect the innocent and the powerless if it conflicted with their goals, is nothing like Granny.

Someone who would make a pact with a Fiend or another entity for power is nothing like Granny.

[Tanarii]

but she never had "evil" impulses or desires she needed to stop herself from following. She recognized the possibility she had to be a villain, but that's it.
She had discipline and scruples. To counterbalance the potential corruption of her (rather awesome) power. She may not have had actively/significantly dark impulses or desires, but that doesn't mean without discipline and scruples she wouldn't have. And as you say, she recognizes it.

I do think she's different from Vimes, or at least how Vimes perceives himself. Vimes sees himself as actively having dark impulses and desires, and needing to keep a constant check on them. (A common way for very good people to view themselves, in my experience.) Granny just is who she is, but recognizes if you subtracted one part of her, the part that stops bad people from being bad, she would be a significantly different reason person. (Edit: and that the point. The OP isn't Granny. It's a different person, at best what granny might be without her discipline and scruples.)

All IMO and going off general impressions of what I remember about the books. :smallwink:

[Ninja_Prawn]

Honestly, any time I see a topic with a question like this. The first thing I think is NE, before I even read the topic.

That is so well observed. I think this is the third consecutive 'what's my alignment' thread I've read that was obviously NE. You deserve a cookie, officer!

[smcmike]

GW is Good with a capital G. She would never do anything Evil. The fact that she recognizes that she could be evil just indicates that she had a strong moral compass. Law v. Chaos is harder to say, and depends on your conception of that axis. Her internal compass is iron-clad.

Vimes is really pretty similar. He's always thinking about his dark side, but he also always works for the side of good.

[MxKit]

I'd say she's either Lawful Neutral or True Neutral. I definitely wouldn't call her Good, but I wouldn't go so far as to call her Evil, either. "Lawful Evil creatures take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order" feels far more self-centered than she sounds, and "Neutral Evil [creatures] do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms" certainly doesn't sound right. Her own personal codes and rules do make me think Lawful Neutral, but the fact that she doesn't seem to care about the law but will work with it, and has no lines she won't cross when it comes down to it, makes me think more True Neutral. Depending on how strong you actually think her personal codes are, I could see either alignment for her and wouldn't argue too much with either as a DM.

[JackPhoenix]

Don't forget Granny hates (well, hate may be strong word...) her sister because Granny was supposed to be the bad one and have all the fun, but her sister beat her to it. And if she can't be bad, there's only one option left, and she doesn't do things half-way.

[hamishspence]

For "altruistic yet evil" characters - Keith Baker had some interesting things to say:

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/


Eberron allows clerics to have an alignment that is different from that of their divine power source. But it is again important to realize that an evil cleric of a good faith can mean different things. One evil priest of the Silver Flame may be a hypocrite and liar who is secretly allied with the Lords of Dust or abusing the faith of his followers for personal gain. However, another may be deeply devoted to the faith and willing to lay down his life to protect the innocent from supernatural evil – but he is also willing to regularly engage in ruthless and cruel acts to achieve this. The classic inquisitor falls into this mold. He truly is trying to do what’s best, and in a world where demonic possession is real his harsh methods may be your only hope. But he will torture you for your own good, and feel no sympathy for your pain. This makes him “evil” – yet compared to the first priest, he is truly devout and serving the interests of the church.

[Unoriginal]

For "altruistic yet evil" characters - Keith Baker had some interesting things to say:

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/

This is pretty much missing the point, though. That inquisitor does not actually need to torture people, and is actively hurting his faith/helping the demons by doing so.

[hamishspence]

And the OP's character will torture prisoners, if they think it's in the best interests of their own people, and after other methods have been used.


there is no line she will not cross in pursuit of this goal, but will try persuasion, negotiation, deception, threats, bribes etc. before resorting to violence, including executing or torturing prisoners.

They're like a slightly less sadistic version of the "evil Brelish soldier"


Let’s take two soldiers. Both joined the Brelish army of their own free will. The “evil” soldier hates the Thranes, and given the chance he will carry out torture, rapine and looting. He wears a belt of Thranish ears. Yet he loves his country and will sacrifice his own life to defend it. He’s “evil” because he is willing to carry out those atrocities; but he’d never do such a thing to a Brelish citizen.

And as for what happens when Detect Evil is cast by a paladin or cleric on the OP's character:


He doesn’t know where you lie on the spectrum. He doesn’t know your motivations. He knows that you lack empathy for others and may be selfish or narcissistic; that you are capable of hurting others without remorse; but he doesn’t know if you have or ever will.

[Dr.Samurai]

OP went about as expected lol.

You're evil.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Thanks all for your responses!

To address two themes in the responses:

1) I agree that alignment is secondary to personality; I was just curious about others' opinions as to what alignment the personality described.

2) I don't think I'm looking for justification, per se: I'm not going to print out a comment thread and say to my DM, "look! All these Internet people agree with me!" I'm just curious about your opinions. If you think she's evil, so be it. I appreciate your opinions.