Help determine the Alignment of a Character "ported" to 3.5

[GrayDeath]

Hello y`all!


We finally managed to get one of our friends, who so far has declined to touch D&D of any kind even with a ten foot pole, to play with us.
His stipulation was that he could port over an existing character, which we already did mechanically (was relatively easy to build as Sorcerer, given his whole Shtick pwoerwise was innate Magic and he is supposed to be really charismatic^^).
This however leaves open the Alignment question.
As the way of his Character being transported here includes passing through the plane closest to his Aligment, and by doing so becoming part of D&D`s cosmic Alignment Scheme (TM), we need to determine it as closely as possible.
Since we all are a bit biased (we mostly played with the guy and his Character before) and he does not want to decide for himself (as it would not fit the fluff he says) I thought I`d put it to the community.


I`ll post what he said are the centerpoints of his Characters personality, and if questions ariese I`ll try to answer them with specific examples of how he acted in Game.

Core Values: (in that Order)
Remaining Families wellbeing
Personal Power
Keeping to his principles
Destroying those that threaten him or those dear to him
Not being told what to do by anybody
having a good Life (TM)


No Goes (Example was what would he not do to save his family, or in a less specific situation to prevent them from being in danger):
Destryoing the World
Harming Children
Die (would only do it if there was no other way/he had a backup plan)


Things he liked in Life (Following our observations) so far:
Having Money/Power
Destroying his enemeies in fancyful and enjoyable ways
Being "The Boss around"
Black Humor


Thanks in advance.

[Oracle71]

Sounds true Neutral to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personal power, keeping his principles, destroying his enemies, being in control... Sounds like Lawful Evil to me.

[Raxxius]

Sounds true Neutral to me.

Or chaotic Neutral.

[Telonius]

Regarding power and "not wanting to be told what to do." Does he dislike the existence of authority itself, or is it more that he's upset that he's not calling the shots? To go along with that, does his idea of "personal power" or "being the boss" include just being able to do whatever he wants in any given instance, or is it more like calling the shots in an organization that he controls? I think the answer to those will go a long way towards saying whether he's Lawful or Chaotic.

Good/Evil - right now there's nothing in the description that really says "Good" to me. So absent anything else, it would be Neutral or Evil. So, what does someone have to do to get put on his list of "enemies," and how extreme are his reprisals? Is it retaliation only, or does he go out of his way to make a bloody example of anyone who gets in his way?

[ComaVision]

I vote Chaotic Neutral, based on the character seeming to dislike authority and the emphasis on personal power/possessions. Nothing in the description makes me think evil or good.

[GrayDeath]

Regarding power and "not wanting to be told what to do." Does he dislike the existence of authority itself, or is it more that he's upset that he's not calling the shots? To go along with that, does his idea of "personal power" or "being the boss" include just being able to do whatever he wants in any given instance, or is it more like calling the shots in an organization that he controls? I think the answer to those will go a long way towards saying whether he's Lawful or Chaotic.

Good/Evil - right now there's nothing in the description that really says "Good" to me. So absent anything else, it would be Neutral or Evil. So, what does someone have to do to get put on his list of "enemies," and how extreme are his reprisals? Is it retaliation only, or does he go out of his way to make a bloody example of anyone who gets in his way?

In order:

He likes being in Power and calling the shots, he dislikes being told what to do, but not Hierarchy/Chain of Command in general (if he`s on top he quite likes them^^).
As for justm being able to do what he wants contrasting to commanding others: he likes both about the same amount.

As for getting on his **** list....that is harder to answer...

Examples:.

From actually threatening his family (and in 2 cases killing family members, he enjoyed dismantling that guys trade empire, then his family, then himself, trmendously) to simply (in one case inadvertedly) foiling one of his plans, he is not really consistant there.
If at all, mostly its threaten/disrupt what is really important to him at that moment as a common denominator, though the extent which is necessary to decide to off them is not constant.

He usually (unless see example 1) "only" retaliates, with maybe twice the power/emphasis necessary.

[Sian]

Lawful Neutral, leaning Evil, but with a couple of distinct personal 'rules' that should be followed which, in a vacuum, might be confused with Good. (loyalty towards / protecting family and friends, respect towards the sanctity of children, etc)

[denthor]

Some form of Evil

Maybe Neutral evil, he will kill if you get in his way.

He has dismantled a company and destroyed people's livelihoods. Over perceived slights. No real restraint.

I am the top nobody else. Narcissistic attitude

Mostly preoccupied with himself.

[umbergod]

Some form of Evil

Maybe Neutral evil, he will kill if you get in his way.

He has dismantled a company and destroyed people's livelihoods. Over perceived slights. No real restraint.

I am the top nobody else. Narcissistic attitude

Mostly preoccupied with himself.

I vote CE, you basically described Belkar

[Celestia]

Even an evil person can still have personal ethics and lines he won't cross, and in terms of values, protecting one's family and friends is only a hair away from selfishness. None of his descriptions paint him as good, and several lean towards evil.

The other scale is a little trickier. Even the most chaotic person around can still enjoy being the top dog and desire to keep the authority in place while being the one calling the shots. So, his reaction to the the law when not the one writing it is more indicative of his position. However, it doesn't seem like he actively opposes the law, more that he just doesn't want it to get in his way. I feel like if those in authority don't bother him, he'll be perfectly fine in letting them be. That seems to be a very neutral attitude to me.

So, ultimately, I'd paint him as neutral evil.

[Bakkan]

Handling these in sequence:



Core Values: (in that Order)
Remaining Families wellbeing

Unaligned, most people value their friends' and family's well-being.



Personal Power

Mildly non-Good aligned, a Good alignment requires a certain degree of selflessness.



Keeping to his principles

Strongly Law-aligned, assuming I am reading this correctly that he values the keeping of principles in general as well as his specific ones.



Destroying those that threaten him or those dear to him

Strongly Evil-aligned, especially since you mention he retaliates to an extreme degree given the stimulus.



Not being told what to do by anybody

Mildly non-Good aligned, see 2nd point.



having a good Life (TM)

Unaligned, most creatures want this for whatever their definition of "good life" is.



No Goes (Example was what would he not do to save his family, or in a less specific situation to prevent them from being in danger):
Destryoing the World

Unaligned, this just shows he is not a particular kind of crazy.



Harming Children

Mildly non-Evil aligned.



Die (would only do it if there was no other way/he had a backup plan)

Mildly non-Good aligned, see point 2.



Things he liked in Life (Following our observations) so far:
Having Money/Power

Unaligned, most people like this.



Destroying his enemeies in fancyful and enjoyable ways



From actually threatening his family (and in 2 cases killing family members, he enjoyed dismantling that guys trade empire, then his family, then himself, trmendously) to simply (in one case inadvertedly) foiling one of his plans, he is not really consistant there.
If at all, mostly its threaten/disrupt what is really important to him at that moment as a common denominator, though the extent which is necessary to decide to off them is not constant.

He usually (unless see example 1) "only" retaliates, with maybe twice the power/emphasis necessary.
Very strongly Evil-aligned, enjoying destruction and harm is evil almost by definition.



Being "The Boss around"



He likes being in Power and calling the shots, he dislikes being told what to do, but not Hierarchy/Chain of Command in general (if he`s on top he quite likes them^^).
As for justm being able to do what he wants contrasting to commanding others: he likes both about the same amount.

Mildly Law-aligned, since being the boss means there's some structure to be the boss of.



Black Humor

Unaligned.

Conclusion: Lawful Evil is the clear winner in my analysis. The only thing you've mentioned that sheds any doubt on that is his unwillingness to harm children. However, most non-outsider Evil creatures still have lines they won't cross for whatever reason, and Lawful Evil creatures are the most likely of those to have such scruples. I'd love to get Red Fel's opinion on this; if you haven't seen it already, Red Fel wrote an excellent handbook on the Lawful Evil alignment, including, importantly, suggestions on how to successfully integrate into a non-Evil group as a Lawful Evil character. If Red Fel doesn't show up here himself, I'll try to dig up a link to it.

[Celestia]

Mildly non-Good aligned, see point 2.
Wat? Not wanting to die is entirely unaligned. It is the single most unaligned position possible. Literally every living creature in existence has a survival instinct and even the most righteous and exalted of Good would prefer to stay alive if at all possible. You don't need a martyr complex to be good, and disdaining death does not make you non-good.

[Bakkan]

Wat? Not wanting to die is entirely unaligned. It is the single most unaligned position possible. Literally every living creature in existence has a survival instinct and even the most righteous and exalted of Good would prefer to stay alive if at all possible. You don't need a martyr complex to be good, and disdaining death does not make you non-good.

The point was this was under the heading No-Goes: not just things he would prefer not to do, but things he is completely opposed to, even to save his loved ones.

[Zanos]

Wat? Not wanting to die is entirely unaligned. It is the single most unaligned position possible. Literally every living creature in existence has a survival instinct and even the most righteous and exalted of Good would prefer to stay alive if at all possible. You don't need a martyr complex to be good, and disdaining death does not make you non-good.
Survival instinct isn't non-Good, but self-sacrifice, including that of your life, is definitely a Good principle. So someone not willing to put their life on the line if it came to it leans away from Good.

I'm going to say NE myself. Not wanting to be told what to do by anybody really just means he likes power. It doesn't sound like he loves or hates authority as a principle. It's all about him.

[Celestia]

The point was this was under the heading No-Goes: not just things he would prefer not to do, but things he is completely opposed to, even to save his loved ones.
Where was that ever stated? I think you're making a huge assumption here.


Survival instinct isn't non-Good, but self-sacrifice, including that of your life, is definitely a Good principle. So someone not willing to put their life on the line if it came to it leans away from Good.
I disagree entirely. A willingness to sacrifice oneself in the pursuit of a goal is a sign of extreme determination, not goodness. It says that the individual in question believes that there is something more important than their own life, but that something doesn't have to be good. A suicide bomber who blows up a civilian structure and kills innocents is far from good. There are plenty of non-good and even evil goals one could sacrifice oneself for.

[Zanos]

I disagree entirely. A willingness to sacrifice oneself in the pursuit of a goal is a sign of extreme determination, not goodness. It says that the individual in question believes that there is something more important than their own life, but that something doesn't have to be good. A suicide bomber who blows up a civilian structure and kills innocents is far from good. There are plenty of non-good and even evil goals one could sacrifice oneself for.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

I never said it was absolute, but personal sacrifice to help others is a Good tenant. You can be Good without willing to sacrifice your life, but it's definitely associated with Good.

[Quertus]

My vote is on Chaotic Evil.

The big thing that always struck me about 3e evil is that it enjoys hurting others. This man comes across an artist for causing pain, almost like Keyser Söze.

For law vs chaos, assuming any legal system like I'm familiar with, he clearly has no respect for any authority but his own. Even a chaotic demon loves to boss around it's lessers; lawful beings appreciate structure and laws even when they are inconvenient.

So, Chaotic Evil.

[Celestia]

I never said it was absolute, but personal sacrifice to help others is a Good tenant. You can be Good without willing to sacrifice your life, but it's definitely associated with Good.
The operative phrase being "to help others," of course.

[Bakkan]

Where was that ever stated? I think you're making a huge assumption here.

It was stated here (emphasis mine):




No Goes (Example was what would he not do to save his family, or in a less specific situation to prevent them from being in danger):
Destryoing the World
Harming Children
Die (would only do it if there was no other way/he had a backup plan)

[Celestia]

It was stated here (emphasis mine):
Ah, I missed that. Nevertheless, cowardice in the face of death does not imply any alignment.

[Telonius]

Okay, with those answers I'd call it Neutral Evil. He doesn't seem to go out of his way to either support or thwart Law; he follows it when it's convenient and doesn't when it's not. He's not all about hierarchy or personal freedom. He wants to get his way, and law or chaos is just a means to that end. He's got some characteristics of both Law (strong personal code, wants to be seen as authority) and Chaos (basically does whatever he wants), but they're not strong enough either way to indicate a separate alignment. For the Good/Evil axis, it's Evil. Disproportionate response is a dead giveaway.

[Goaty14]

He's just a normal bloke with some "tendencies".
True Neutral all the way, yeah?
If he stray is literally evil, change him to Neutral Evil. It is within the power of the DM to do so.

[Luccan]

I'm leaning towards Lawful or Neutral Evil as well. He protects what is "his" (friends and family) and will destroy anyone who gets in his way (and enjoys doing it "fancifully"). That leans south of good and his enjoyment and the specific use of destruction implies, perhaps not a first course of action, but certainly one he is entirely comfortable leaping too. His obsession with power... It's rated above his own principles, which strikes me as Evil rather than simply non-Good. Considering his whole view towards being in command/take-it-or-leave-it view of hierarchy, I'm gonna come out on the side of NE. He has some neutral to good qualities, but nowhere near enough morality to justify a neutral alignment.

[icefractal]

TN, leaning LN.

He doesn't have anything strongly enough pulling him to Good or Evil; from my reading the only time his vengeance was extreme was when the target had killed one of his family members - a situation where many people would go outside their normal boundaries.

He does have a slight Lawful tendency, in terms of valuing adherence to principles and approving of hierarchies when he's the one in charge, but it's not strong enough that I'd say LN. He doesn't like hierarchies when he's not on top, for instance.

[Mordaedil]

I'm going to go with "True Neutral" as well, but not really based on any analysis of what you've outlined as the characters personalities, but because he's from an outside perspective being put into this world with alignments for the first time and his actions in game will speak to what alignments he'll adopt as he goes. He should be a blank slate until he starts to show certain behavioral patterns or allegiancies that others have spent their entire lives forming.

Basically let his actions determine what he is.

[GrayDeath]

It was stated here (emphasis mine):

Just to clarify: He would sacrifice himself for his Family, but only if it was the ONLY option to save them. Also stated in the same post. :smallcool:



I'm going to go with "True Neutral" as well, but not really based on any analysis of what you've outlined as the characters personalities, but because he's from an outside perspective being put into this world with alignments for the first time and his actions in game will speak to what alignments he'll adopt as he goes. He should be a blank slate until he starts to show certain behavioral patterns or allegiancies that others have spent their entire lives forming.

Basically let his actions determine what he is.

You DID read my OP yes?
That is not the point. He will be channelled through "his alignment plane, and since he is from outside but gets in in a very supernatural way, be influenced strongly by that.
Does that "fix" his alignment? No.
But it detemrines the one he starts in. And since the being that transports him knows ev erything (TM) about him, it should be fitting.

@ all: thank you for your feedback so far, I appreciate it Please dont stop, more opinions (and as important, explanations as to WHY) are very welcome!

[Red Fel]

I'd love to get Red Fel's opinion on this; if you haven't seen it already, Red Fel wrote an excellent handbook on the Lawful Evil alignment, including, importantly, suggestions on how to successfully integrate into a non-Evil group as a Lawful Evil character. If Red Fel doesn't show up here himself, I'll try to dig up a link to it.

I see what you did there. Let's get into it.


Hello y`all!


We finally managed to get one of our friends, who so far has declined to touch D&D of any kind even with a ten foot pole, to play with us.
His stipulation was that he could port over an existing character, which we already did mechanically (was relatively easy to build as Sorcerer, given his whole Shtick pwoerwise was innate Magic and he is supposed to be really charismatic^^).
This however leaves open the Alignment question.
As the way of his Character being transported here includes passing through the plane closest to his Aligment, and by doing so becoming part of D&D`s cosmic Alignment Scheme (TM), we need to determine it as closely as possible.
Since we all are a bit biased (we mostly played with the guy and his Character before) and he does not want to decide for himself (as it would not fit the fluff he says) I thought I`d put it to the community.

Interesting. Challenge accepted.


I`ll post what he said are the centerpoints of his Characters personality, and if questions ariese I`ll try to answer them with specific examples of how he acted in Game.

Core Values: (in that Order)
Remaining Families wellbeing

No charge. Taking care of your family can be altruistic (Good), rationally self-interested (Neutral), or exclusive of others (Evil).


Personal Power

No charge. Strengthening yourself can be to help others (Good), to survive (Neutral), or to hurt others (Evil).


Keeping to his principles

Lawful. Generally speaking, adherence to a code of principles is Lawful.


Destroying those that threaten him or those dear to him

Mildly non-Good. Destroying those who threaten you or yours can be an act of self-preservation (Neutral) or excess (Evil). On rare occasions, it can also be somewhat justifiable (Good), but what sets this apart is the difference between "protection" and "brutality." Use of the word "destroy" suggests a slightly non-Good bent.


Not being told what to do by anybody

No charge. Refusal to obey can result from intense independence (Chaotic), apathy (Neutral), or a sense of superiority that you are meant to lead, not follow (Lawful). One could argue that it's very mildly non-Lawful leaning, but only very mildly.


having a good Life (TM)

No charge. Everyone wants a good life. Except masochists. And not normal ones - weird ones.


No Goes (Example was what would he not do to save his family, or in a less specific situation to prevent them from being in danger):
Destryoing the World

No charge. Nobody wants to destroy the world - that's where they keep their stuff. Well, except nihilists. And not normal ones - weird ones.


Harming Children

No charge, or very mildly non-Chaotic. Almost anybody can have some basic principles, although the more rigid one's adherence to them, the less probable Chaotic becomes.


Die (would only do it if there was no other way/he had a backup plan)

No charge, for what should be obvious reasons.


Things he liked in Life (Following our observations) so far:
Having Money/Power

No charge. With the exception of people with a painful, burning case of altruism, pretty much everyone likes the idea of having/acquiring power/money.


Destroying his enemeies in fancyful and enjoyable ways

Evil. Good will do what is necessary to stop their enemies, but won't go to excess. Neutral can't be bothered with the excess. Evil is all about the excess.


Being "The Boss around"

Uh... Not sure what this one even means, but I'll try. Lots of people like to be leader, that would be no charge. Lots of people have their own reasons for seeking local or regional leadership positions, so again no charge. Dominating other people, on the other hand, tends towards Evil - not just having power, but using it. It also tends mildly more Lawful than Chaotic, but only just; there are still plenty of CE bullies.


Black Humor

No charge. Funny is funny, and the gallows are hysterical.

So, let's see... Putting it all together... I'm inclined to agree with those who say LE. And not just because that's my default position. Seriously, as a rule, if you have to ask what a character's alignment is, just go with LE and you should be fine.

But it sounds like the thing that most consistently describes him is a Lawful tendency towards having principles and wanting to be the one in charge, and an Evil tendency towards making those who have wronged him suffer grievously.

[Zanos]

It depends on the principles, really. If your principles are "do what I want anyway", that's not Lawful.

[Xarteros]

Conclusion: Lawful Evil is the clear winner in my analysis. The only thing you've mentioned that sheds any doubt on that is his unwillingness to harm children. However, most non-outsider Evil creatures still have lines they won't cross for whatever reason, and Lawful Evil creatures are the most likely of those to have such scruples. I'd love to get Red Fel's opinion on this; if you haven't seen it already, Red Fel wrote an excellent handbook on the Lawful Evil alignment, including, importantly, suggestions on how to successfully integrate into a non-Evil group as a Lawful Evil character. If Red Fel doesn't show up here himself, I'll try to dig up a link to it.

Underline is mine. I like your Lawful Evil analysis. Breaking things down point by point seems like a good way to think of it

On the topic of children, in all the campaigns I've run, or played in, Lawful alignments could include having some form of personal code. A lawful evil mercenary/assassin, for example, might find it beneath themselves to attack someone unarmed. If they had to murder a farmer, their personal code would push them to give the farmer a weapon and declare their intent to fight before killing them. Still an evil action, since they were killing a farmer for fun or profit, but still abiding by their lawful personal code.

Similarly, in the case of the character in question, not harming children might be a generalised code of fairness, not of morals. A LG Paladin who sees it as a moral choice might still slay the currently-harmless offspring of dangerous monsters, knowing it saves lives in the long run. However, if they consider it an argument of fairness, rather than morals, it's not fair to fight a defenseless creature. It depends on what the person deems fair. Killing a child might be unfair, but leaving a child to die in the wilderness might be considered fair.

If you picture a LE tyrant king trying to extinguish the entire bloodline of his nemesis, he might choose to imprison any children and let them live until they reach an age he deems acceptable to kill. He might not be satisfied unless he actually trains them to fight (to make it more of a fair fight) or he might just be content knowing that they are no longer children. On the flipside, killing a child's parents and letting it survive might make them into an enemy later on. If you refuse to kill them when they come after you, solely because of your guilt in killing their parents, that decision is good, and is in conflict with your otherwise evil nature. If you happily kill them now that you consider it fair, it becomes a decision of fairness, rather than good/evil, and there isn't any issue at all.

Alignment is always a matter of perspective, really. A holy crusader and a zealous terrorist are realistically both Lawful Good, based on their own beliefs and religions. Both are doing what they believe is good, and what their religious doctrine commands, but both are murdering innocents and committing acts of terror. Both would probably view the other as Chaotic Evil, too.

[GrayDeath]

Please keep em coming.

I appreciate all your feedback. :)

[denthor]

Oh RED FEl

What a shock we disagree but only in a minor way.

I will say that I thought about lawful evil for this character but rejected it for one reason no where in the description does it say willing to serve. I will admit that if you put a little l(awful) I could let it side.

Lawful Evil wants to be in charge but is willing to serve and patiently waits for the opportunity to advance and ruthlessly crush those that are ahead of them. Am I correct?

Your valued opinion is waited on

[malloc]

Chaotic evil, perhaps? Doesn't want authority dictating his life. Maybe neutral evil.

[Pleh]

Sounds chaotic neutral to me. Send em through limbo.

Got another chance to review more of this thread than just the OP.

I totally agree with the arguments for LE, even if it's a Soft Ping on that scaling. He's the best kind of LE: The kind that can easily mistaken for just about any other alignment. You know, the kind that doesn't just cackle and twirl their handlebar mustache.

Not sure how your player will feel about their character being brought into the game through hell, though. The player may not agree that their character ought to register as evil enough to be imported through hell(s) and it might come across like some judgement upon their character (no pun intended, but it's not a bad one to take as pun).

You say they've never touched D&D before. Maybe it would be best to walk them through the argumentation presented in the thread to help them understand the reasoning before dropping that conclusion on them. Just so they understand, "It's not you, it's just how D&D alignment works."

[Red Fel]

Oh RED FEl

What a shock we disagree but only in a minor way.

I will say that I thought about lawful evil for this character but rejected it for one reason no where in the description does it say willing to serve. I will admit that if you put a little l(awful) I could let it side.

Lawful Evil wants to be in charge but is willing to serve and patiently waits for the opportunity to advance and ruthlessly crush those that are ahead of them. Am I correct?

Your valued opinion is waited on

Short answer? Not always.

Lawful Evil (1) doesn't necessarily want to be in charge, and (2) doesn't necessarily want to serve.

With respect to 1, I think I've made this one clear - not all LE wants to be the boss. Some LE is the "Bad Cop," represented by Scumbridge in my awesome handbook (check my sig, shameless plug). This is the kind of LE that takes advantage of a power structure by integrating itself into the lower ranks. Lower ranks mean less responsibility, while still enabling this character to take advantage of (and hide behind) something bigger than herself.

Number 2 is the opposite scenario. Some LE does want to be the boss. But while respect for hierarchy is a pretty basic staple of LE, it's no guaranty that a given LE will serve. Some LE is so overconfident, so full of itself, that it cannot serve another. The idea of being beneath someone is simply incomprehensible.

So, yeah. Disagree with you on this.

[GrayDeath]

Sounds chaotic neutral to me. Send em through limbo.

Got another chance to review more of this thread than just the OP.

I totally agree with the arguments for LE, even if it's a Soft Ping on that scaling. He's the best kind of LE: The kind that can easily mistaken for just about any other alignment. You know, the kind that doesn't just cackle and twirl their handlebar mustache.

Not sure how your player will feel about their character being brought into the game through hell, though. The player may not agree that their character ought to register as evil enough to be imported through hell(s) and it might come across like some judgement upon their character (no pun intended, but it's not a bad one to take as pun).

You say they've never touched D&D before. Maybe it would be best to walk them through the argumentation presented in the thread to help them understand the reasoning before dropping that conclusion on them. Just so they understand, "It's not you, it's just how D&D alignment works."

Thanks, we wanted to walk him through any way, and letting him see the Forum discussion might actually be good fun for all participants. :)

[GrayDeath]

Final Bump, we have until next week to get the collected opinions/reasonings to him.

So if anybody stillw ants to post their explained opinion, pelase do so! :smallcool: