What Would This Alignment Be?

[CosmicHobbit]

Alright, first time starting a thread, so I assume this goes here, as I'm specifically looking for something for 5e, but if it doesn't go here, mods, feel free to move it!

So I was laying in bed when I had an idea for an NPC. He/she would be a farmer, and a successful one at that. However, they're really into the whole "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" thing. For example, if you kill one of his/her mules, whether accidently or not, you will find one of your own mules, or the equivalent, dead. It may be a year later, or a day later. It doesn't matter. As long as you have commited a slight against them, they will pay you back in full. Nothing more, nothing less. So, what alignment is this?

I was thinking along the lines of Lawful Evil, as they're personal code is to never pay back more than what was given to them. However, they could possibly be Chaotic Neutral, as they're not doing it with malicious intent and they're working outside of the law, though that second one may be more of a True Neutral thing because they don't have any apathy for the law.

One last thing: I've seen lots of alignment threads that dissolve into arguments, and I don't want this to become one of them. So, can we not have arguments about this? Please? Thank you all in advance!

[A Fat Dragon]

More than not, I think this may be Lawful Neutral more than chaotic neutral. He lives by a strict set of rules (Based off of Hammarabi’s Code) And follows them accordingly.

If he was Chaotic Neutral, he’d more likely probably steal from his neighbor one day, then help them find the thief the next.

[Unoriginal]

How do they typically behave, aside from their strict "an eye for an eye" policy?

Alignment is your typical, day-to-day behavior. Something relatively exceptional like "someone has wronged them" would be of minimum importance, as long as they don't go overboard.

What do they do when THEY are the one who slight others?


And do they accept other forms of compensation?

That kind of strictly controlled payback would most likely be the Flaw "I WILL always get even with anyone who slight me", or maybe the Ideal "one's debt must always be payed", more than a question of alignment.


But honestly, don't fret it. Alignment hardly matter in 5e.

[CosmicHobbit]

How do they typically behave, aside from their strict "an eye for an eye" policy?

Alignment is your typical, day-to-day behavior. Something relatively exceptional like "someone has wronged them" would be of minimum importance, as long as they don't go overboard.

What do they do when THEY are the one who slight others?


And do they accept other forms of compensation?

That kind of strictly controlled payback would most likely be lawful neutral, but it takes more than one point to make an alignment.

In everyday life, they generally stay out of conflicts relating to good and evil while following the law. You know, apart from the thing this thread is about.
When THEY slight others, they are willing to accept his same treatment toward others, but if they go the smallest bit over what he deems to be equal, he will pay them back for that. Yes, this can lead to a stalemate where they both keep damaging the others property.
Lastly, no, they do not accept other forms of compensation.


But honestly, don't fret it. Alignment hardly matter in 5e.

I know. I just like to have it there, mostly because my players adhere HEAVILY to their alignments, and so might want to see NPC's alignments.

[Anonymouswizard]

But honestly, don't fret it. Alignment hardly matter in 5e.

Honestly, I feel like Alignment should be an optional rule. It can be useful, but it's a tad redundant with Personality Traits, Ideals, and Flaws, and has so few mechanical effects you wouldn't notice it missing.

In all honesty, I'd probably describe this character as neutral, maybe lawful neutral. It's a strong personal code, but he goes about it in a vaguely chaotic way.


I mean my current character is very lawful due to her respect for tradition, neural in that he'd rather embrace a culture who's traditions allow him to be openly trans than remain in a culture that forbids it, chaotic in that he'd alter traditions to make them accept more prior for who they are, lawful because he refuses to judge anybody outside of a country's official criminal justice system, and so on until lawful neutral becomes the closest to a reasonable description.

[Unoriginal]

In everyday life, they generally stay out of conflicts relating to good and evil while following the law. You know, apart from the thing this thread is about.
When THEY slight others, they are willing to accept his same treatment toward others, but if they go the smallest bit over what he deems to be equal, he will pay them back for that. Yes, this can lead to a stalemate where they both keep damaging the others property.
Lastly, no, they do not accept other forms of compensation.

Then this guy seems to be lawful neutral.




I know. I just like to have it there, mostly because my players adhere HEAVILY to their alignments, and so might want to see NPC's alignments.

...what.

Why would players see the NPCs' alignments? As in, how?



Honestly, I feel like Alignment should be an optional rule. It can be useful, but it's a tad redundant with Personality Traits, Ideals, and Flaws, and has so few mechanical effects you wouldn't notice it missing.

In all honesty, I'd probably describe this character as neutral, maybe lawful neutral. It's a strong personal code, but he goes about it in a vaguely chaotic way.


I mean my current character is very lawful due to her respect for tradition, neural in that he'd rather embrace a culture who's traditions allow him to be openly trans than remain in a culture that forbids it, chaotic in that he'd alter traditions to make them accept more prior for who they are, lawful because he refuses to judge anybody outside of a country's official criminal justice system, and so on until lawful neutral becomes the closest to a reasonable description.

Alignment is always "by default what you do the most". A neutral evil mob boss might give ten gold to an orphan for no reason other than compassion, once, and genuinely value the employees of his legitimate businesses, but it's not going to change that a most of the time he'll kill, threaten and weasel his way into power.

[PopeLinus1]

I would say Lawful Nuetral.

[CosmicHobbit]

...what.

Why would players see the NPCs' alignments? As in, how?

Don't ask me. They try strange things, so I prepare for every possibility.

[Unoriginal]

Don't ask me. They try strange things, so I prepare for every possibility.

Any example of how they tried to do that?

[Anonymouswizard]

Alignment is always "by default what you do the most". A neutral evil mob boss might give ten gold to an orphan for no reason other than compassion, once, and genuinely value the employees of his legitimate businesses, but it's not going to change that a most of the time he'll kill, threaten and weasel his way into power.

That was my point, most characters should have personality traits at odds with their alignment. Therefore it can be a useful tool to those who want it, but can also be discarded without consequence.

[Lombra]

Definately LE. Breaking the personal boundaries of others just because you feel like they deserve it, causing harm when getting harmed doubles the total harm done, and it's pretty evil to spread harm by your own whims.

[strangebloke]

Definately LE. Breaking the personal boundaries of others just because you feel like they deserve it, causing harm when getting harmed doubles the total harm done, and it's pretty evil to spread harm by your own whims.

I'd say true neutral or neutral evil, depending on how he treats those who haven't wronged him.

Personal codes have nothing to do with alignment.

[Lombra]

I'd say true neutral or neutral evil, depending on how he treats those who haven't wronged him.

Personal codes have nothing to do with alignment.

It's not a neutral act to spill my drink if I inadvertedly spill yours. If your personal code brings you to perpetrate evil acts, then you are most likely evil, if you choose to follow that code yourself.

Edit: Adhering to a code of conduit is by definition lawful, is it not?

[Spinach]

I see Lawful more as deference to general authority and tradition. If you use it and bend it to suit your nefarious end, you're LE.

Chaotic I consider as rebellious spirit or following their own code of ethics, and adhere to it as strongly as Lawful folks do to societally accepted norms.

I don't like taking the word 'chaotic' at face value because that's what most jerks do on the table to justify being a jerk.

You just don't fit in the society's mold but that doesn't mean you don't fit into any of them.

Therefore given a world where its laws have progressed further than Eye for an Eye, I might be willing to call him Chaotic Evil.

But it's heavily dependent on the setting so it's not a perfect explanation.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think the whole LN-N-LE-NW quadrant fits depending on other factors. The other alignments wouldn't go down this path (LG, NG), or would be more flexible about restitution (CG, CN), or would not be proportional (CE).


One last thing: I've seen lots of alignment threads that dissolve into arguments, and I don't want this to become one of them. So, can we not have arguments about this? Please? Thank you all in advance!

A trolley is hurtling down the tracks towards your helpless daughter. You can flick a switch to shift the trolley onto another track which has the Revenge Farmer's helpless daughter on it, and he's watching you with an expression that decodes roughly to "HELL NO". Do you flick the switch anyway?

[Aelyn]

If it's done out of a sense of justice rather than for personal reasons, and if in principle he accepts others holding him to the same standard without rancor, then this would be Lawful Neutral as far as I'm concerned.

If he takes delight in claiming his 'payment', bends the value so the revenge is disproportionate, or feels slighted if someone tried the same on him - i.e, if he held himself to a different standard than others - this could be anything from LE to CN.

[strangebloke]

It's not a neutral act to spill my drink if I inadvertedly spill yours. If your personal code brings you to perpetrate evil acts, then you are most likely evil, if you choose to follow that code yourself.

Edit: Adhering to a code of conduit is by definition lawful, is it not?

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," yeah? Good/Evil speak to your motivations, and retribution is not inherently an evil motivation. For instance, I could see someone who does this whole 'eye-for-an-eye' thing out of an impersonal belief in retribution. I could even (this is a stretch) see a guy who believes that retribution is necessary for a functioning society and that his acts of retribution will lead to a moral improvement in the world.

That's why I asked: "What's his attitude about cheating/stealing from others?" If he would never ever consider such a thing, he's probably neutral. If he's ok with lying and cheating himself, he's probably evil.

As to the 'code of conduct' nonsense... Lawful only keys off of societies expectations for LG, but for the others a personal code can suffice. It's kind of strange. Personally, I've always said that 'personal code' should not be a Lawful thing at all, since it makes the alignment too broad.

Everyone has some kind of personal code, even if it isn't necessarily super defined. Might be as simple as "Don't betray your friends and always brush your teeth," but everyone who isn't a psychopath has rules for themselves.

For example take this farmer. He is clearly OK with breaking the laws and conventions of his society (chaotic) to follow through on his personal convictions.

[Lombra]

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," yeah? Good/Evil speak to your motivations, and retribution is not inherently an evil motivation. For instance, I could see someone who does this whole 'eye-for-an-eye' thing out of an impersonal belief in retribution. I could even (this is a stretch) see a guy who believes that retribution is necessary for a functioning society and that his acts of retribution will lead to a moral improvement in the world.

That's why I asked: "What's his attitude about cheating/stealing from others?" If he would never ever consider such a thing, he's probably neutral. If he's ok with lying and cheating himself, he's probably evil.

As to the 'code of conduct' nonsense... Lawful only keys off of societies expectations for LG, but for the others a personal code can suffice. It's kind of strange. Personally, I've always said that 'personal code' should not be a Lawful thing at all, since it makes the alignment too broad.

Everyone has some kind of personal code, even if it isn't necessarily super defined. Might be as simple as "Don't betray your friends and always brush your teeth," but everyone who isn't a psychopath has rules for themselves.

For example take this farmer. He is clearly OK with breaking the laws and conventions of his society (chaotic) to follow through on his personal convictions.

Yes the whole argument about subjectivity of alignment and how the fact that alignment shifts constantly and that we are much more complex then the permutations of 4 letters could ever be is a debate with no end and brings nothing helpful to someone looking for advice on a generally sterotyped alignment question, we all know that alignment is a rough assumption based on prejudices, but we all know how to talk about it within the boundaries of what's commonly believed, straying from the "I could actually believe that raping children is a mean to purify their souls and bring luck in their lives" nonsense.

I believe that your first sentence sums it up, really.

[Tanarii]

Alignment is meaningless out of context of the rest of personality. Especially Ideal or Flaw, which is what you've described. Most likely a combination of both.

I'd probably build this character with the following:
Alignment: Lawful Neutral. I act in accordance with my personal code.
Ideal: Responsibility. Each person is responsible to everyone else, to make sure they don't do them wrong. (Lawful)
Flaw: If you wrong me, I will make you pay in equal measure.


As to the 'code of conduct' nonsense... Lawful only keys off of societies expectations for LG, but for the others a personal code can suffice. It's kind of strange. Personally, I've always said that 'personal code' should not be a Lawful thing at all, since it makes the alignment too broad.

Everyone has some kind of personal code, even if it isn't necessarily super defined. Might be as simple as "Don't betray your friends and always brush your teeth," but everyone who isn't a psychopath has rules for themselves.It's not nonsense. Some people have a personal code spelled out in advance and live by it. Others just have lines they will instinctively not cross. Others have a stated personal code but are willing to bend on it.

[Unoriginal]

In the past, Scandinavian people had a legal system that allowed the wronged party to seek retribution on those who wronged them. It was seen as justice.

However, to avoid feuds of the "you killed my brother in revenge for him killing your brother,so I'm going to take my revenge on you" kind, which hinder the functioning of society, they had the concept of "weregild", aka paying the dead person's worth in money, concluding the conflict.


In that kind of society, OP's farmer would be seen as legaly in the right, but as unreasonably anti-social for not accepting a peaceful compensation.

[strangebloke]

I believe that your first sentence sums it up, really.
See, here's the thing about that quote. It's derived from an earlier Jewish saying "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" which was the law of the land in ancient Israel. Somebody kills your dad? Your family is not only allowed to send someone to kill him, your family is obligated to send someone. This principle extends to things like injured sheep, etc, with the offending party having a few options for righting the wrong. Those laws were written in a time with no centralized gov't, so the rationale was that if a murderer flees your hometown, you need to make sure that justice is done. That's why I would say that vengeance can be something even a good person would seek.


It's not nonsense. Some people have a personal code spelled out in advance and live by it. Others just have lines they will instinctively not cross. Others have a stated personal code but are willing to bend on it.
My personal code is "Personal freedom and pursuit of happiness are the rights of every individual, and I encourage it every chance I get." This means that I resist any attempt at governance and encourage others to do the same. I view the only basis for society as a bunch of individuals willingly cooperating. I follow this code because I strongly believe in it, even to my own detriment.

Am I lawful? Maybe, but not in any sense that matters.

To me, law is all about community. A mobster that plays 'fairly' by mobster standards (IE, not double-crossing people, keeping deals) is a lawful mobster. A farmer who poisons his neighbors' animals (something the mobster probably wouldn't think twice about) is chaotic.

A lawful character plays to the expectations of the community. A chaotic person rejects conformity. I know that this isn't the book definition, I just think it's more clear and descriptive.

[Tanarii]

My personal code is "Personal freedom and pursuit of happiness are the rights of every individual, and I encourage it every chance I get." This means that I resist any attempt at governance and encourage others to do the same. I view the only basis for society as a bunch of individuals willingly cooperating. I follow this code because I strongly believe in it, even to my own detriment.

Am I lawful? Maybe, but not in any sense that matters.That's not a personal code. That's an Ideal.

[strangebloke]

That's not a personal code. That's an Ideal.

I don't know how you could possibly describe a personal code except as "A rule for personal behavior based in an ideal."

The "I promote freedom every chance I get" is a rule my character imposes on himself that is rooted in the idea of "Personal freedom is the right of every person."

[Lombra]

See, here's the thing about that quote. It's derived from an earlier Jewish saying "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" which was the law of the land in ancient Israel. Somebody kills your dad? Your family is not only allowed to send someone to kill him, your family is obligated to send someone. This principle extends to things like injured sheep, etc, with the offending party having a few options for righting the wrong. Those laws were written in a time with no centralized gov't, so the rationale was that if a murderer flees your hometown, you need to make sure that justice is done. That's why I would say that vengeance can be something even a good person would seek.

You keep doing it, using corner cases to justify your point of alignment being pointless, weall know that to the greater extent, it's pointless. We can (because I believe we here are all functionally able to) relate alignment to the behaviours in the society we live in today, so that we all can have a roughly common ground to start with, if you deliberately choose to start from another context, then your observations on the subject are meaningless. Saying that something is not evil because other cultures deemed it right is not a useful argument for alignment discussions.

That is, since the OP doesn't add specific context to the matter. Until he does so, I believe we all should work on assumptions made on modern society, since we all live in it, and we are all familiar with it.

[TheYell]

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is a specific context and it ain't modern.

[Tiadoppler]

Does Rudolph the Revenge Rancher send his son to steal from the king in response to taxation?

If his son is arrested for theft, does he kidnap the police captain's daughter?



If so, I'd say true neutral, but not unaligned or apathetic. They're trying (in a very self-centered way) to bring balance to the world manually. "All that matters is what happens to me and what I do to other people." This sounds like a very blatant sociopath to me, and one who's unlikely to avoid arrest/imprisonment for any length of time, if he lives in a relatively lawful area.

He sounds unable to function in a society with externally enforced laws, and unable to adapt to the concept that he isn't necessarily the arbiter of justice. This sounds like a fun villain.

[strangebloke]

You keep doing it, using corner cases to justify your point of alignment being pointless, weall know that to the greater extent, it's pointless. We can (because I believe we here are all functionally able to) relate alignment to the behaviours in the society we live in today, so that we all can have a roughly common ground to start with, if you deliberately choose to start from another context, then your observations on the subject are meaningless. Saying that something is not evil because other cultures deemed it right is not a useful argument for alignment discussions.

That is, since the OP doesn't add specific context to the matter. Until he does so, I believe we all should work on assumptions made on modern society, since we all live in it, and we are all familiar with it.

I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying it's context dependent.

Alignment is a framework you can use to build a character. It's like, you have an idea, but not a complete character, so you pick an alignment and an ideal/bond/flaw and user those to fill in the gaps when you encounter something new.

You encounter a noble beating his horse, how does your character react. "Well, I love animals, but I'm also LG... Guess I'll try to talk to him"

These sorts of threads really miss the point. They give us a nuanced personality trait and try to backwards establish an alignment from that.

Alignment helps you develop an interesting character. A single trait of a complex character viewed in isolation doesn't say too much about alignment. (Unless you're like a baby eater or something)

[TheYell]

We can (because I believe we here are all functionally able to) relate alignment to the behaviours in the society we live in today, so that we all can have a roughly common ground to start with, if you deliberately choose to start from another context, then your observations on the subject are meaningless. Saying that something is not evil because other cultures deemed it right is not a useful argument for alignment discussions.

I disagree with this on several levels.

One of course is that we do NOT share a common modern view of justice; it is markedly different in the USA between Boston and rural Texas, and has been for over 100 years. And British restrictions on self-defense would render an adventuring party criminal for setting out their front door, armed.

Another thing is that part of the fun of DND is invention and imagination. If our famer were a modern European who bought into the land five years ago, yeah, he'd be a sociopath.

If he's a hereditary clan chief whose forefathers have been dispensing justice since before the King, then he's a role model. I think it good that the DM has the freedom to create that sort of set up.

The past informs our discussion of the hypothetical present. Our famer is more benevolent than some groups in history, because he doesn't bloodfeud over a mule; he is more intransigent than the medieval Franks, who specified compensation could be offered. Which of these is more important in labelling him Neutral or Good or Evil? It's for the table to decide, really.

[CosmicHobbit]

Sorry for not responding!


That is, since the OP doesn't add specific context to the matter. Until he does so, I believe we all should work on assumptions made on modern society, since we all live in it, and we are all familiar with it.

The country and village this NPC lives in are essentially your average medieval fantasy country, with the exception that rather than being feudalistic the country is more of a republic. Other than that, not many beliefs are different from that average medieval fantasy, none that impact this specific situation.


Does Rudolph the Revenge Rancher send his son to steal from the king in response to taxation?

If his son is arrested for theft, does he kidnap the police captain's daughter?



If so, I'd say true neutral, but not unaligned or apathetic. They're trying (in a very self-centered way) to bring balance to the world manually. "All that matters is what happens to me and what I do to other people." This sounds like a very blatant sociopath to me, and one who's unlikely to avoid arrest/imprisonment for any length of time, if he lives in a relatively lawful area.

He sounds unable to function in a society with externally enforced laws, and unable to adapt to the concept that he isn't necessarily the arbiter of justice. This sounds like a fun villain.

He doesn't retaliate against the police captain/lead guard or the king because that is simply the law of the land. It simply must be done, rather than it being a personal slight.

Also, he is a villain, but only a throw-away one. I just want him to be full of depth rather than a evlul one.

[Aelyn]

He doesn't retaliate against the police captain/lead guard or the king because that is simply the law of the land. It simply must be done, rather than it being a personal slight.

Also, he is a villain, but only a throw-away one. I just want him to be full of depth rather than a evlul one.

So he views what he does as a "law" that must be done? What if he expressed genuine regret if he is been "forced" to pay back the sins in a way which makes the world worse?

"Four years ago, in a tavern brawl, you killed my son. As such, your son must now die. It is a true loss - he is a bright lad, strong and noble of heart, and would have been a true champion for his king. Nonetheless, the price of your deed must be paid."

[Lombra]

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is a specific context and it ain't modern.

If it refers to what I wrote, I don't see how it relates to it.


I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying it's context dependent.

Alignment is a framework you can use to build a character. It's like, you have an idea, but not a complete character, so you pick an alignment and an ideal/bond/flaw and user those to fill in the gaps when you encounter something new.

You encounter a noble beating his horse, how does your character react. "Well, I love animals, but I'm also LG... Guess I'll try to talk to him"

These sorts of threads really miss the point. They give us a nuanced personality trait and try to backwards establish an alignment from that.

Alignment helps you develop an interesting character. A single trait of a complex character viewed in isolation doesn't say too much about alignment. (Unless you're like a baby eater or something)

I agree with you, but, since here the OP asked specifically about the alignment represented by that ideology, code, whatever, I feel like it should be labeled as evil, even with the above clarifications he pointed out. Unless the farmer has some common sense boundaries that is.


I disagree with this on several levels.

One of course is that we do NOT share a common modern view of justice; it is markedly different in the USA between Boston and rural Texas, and has been for over 100 years. And British restrictions on self-defense would render an adventuring party criminal for setting out their front door, armed.

Another thing is that part of the fun of DND is invention and imagination. If our famer were a modern European who bought into the land five years ago, yeah, he'd be a sociopath.

If he's a hereditary clan chief whose forefathers have been dispensing justice since before the King, then he's a role model. I think it good that the DM has the freedom to create that sort of set up.

The past informs our discussion of the hypothetical present. Our famer is more benevolent than some groups in history, because he doesn't bloodfeud over a mule; he is more intransigent than the medieval Franks, who specified compensation could be offered. Which of these is more important in labelling him Neutral or Good or Evil? It's for the table to decide, really.

We all share to some extent the same basic grasp of how society works, I think it's enough to lay a base for an alignment discussion, if we all treat alignment for what it is meant to be, a guideline to acting.

My point in the entire discussion is that eye for an eye, can't not be evil, in any way shape or form, because it only creates destruction, and nobody gains nothing from it. You may say "you earn some kind of reputation" yes, but at the expense of others.

To the OP: being evil doesn't mean that the character is useless. Many cgreat characters can be evil at the core, it all stands, as strangebloke said, in how you play it out, it can be evil and still be loved by the players.

[Joe dirt]

i would say lawful neutral

[Asmotherion]

But honestly, don't fret it. Alignment hardly matter in 5e.

This depends from DM to DM. I personally play D&D with a high priority to RP, and if someone says he is Lawful Good, but his first answear in a Dungeon is resolting to Violance, no matter what the party encounters (for example, a mob of people), a penalty of some sort will be at hand (usually in the form of a sanity check).

Now, for the OP: The amount of information you give sure puts us in the direction of a non-good person overall (non-forgiving). That said, this can be simplified as a flaw (see the Backround creation process, and put a [non-good] tag next to it). From that point on, customisation can be made to fit your views of the character. You are the DM. What do you feel he is. Before he was a Farmer, was he a War Veteran who fought in the War and made a small fortune, bought a large Farm and is still loyal to his Country's Rules (Lawful)? Is he a disillusioned youth, raised into poverty, who works at the local Farm to make some money till he can get out of the village, and is sick of seeing his boss and other rich people messing with him and other poor people, so in the night he dresses up as some sort of vigilantee to get revenge? (Chaotic) How far would he go in his revenge?

An other good way to scan the alignment is this:
What would he do if he unwantingly involved someone in one of his revenge plans? Would he take responsibility, hide it, or remain passive, and accept the responsibility only if someone asked for retribution? Perhaps put the blame on someone else?

If the former, would he accept any punishment in the concept of "an eye for an eye" or would he fight and defend himself from punishment?
If the latter, would he deceive himself in denying his fault, or would he just do so as a facade to escape?