What alignment is this character?

[Zhentarim]

This character attempts to gain power and wealth through almost any, but not fully any, means possible so that one day nobody would dare oppose their will but the character also has an inherent dislike of conflict, is polite, and seeks power apolegetically, sometimes lacking the force of personality to even make their needs clear. Instead, they choose to work behind the scenes, plotting the best way to benefit themselves without becoming subject to somebody else’s wrath or hurting others more than absolutely necessary. They may even have an attack of conscience and help somebody if it requires little effort or resources. Yet, if asked directly, they will admit in a dull monotone they merely seek to enrich themselves and what happens to the world at large is not their concern. They found themselves in the employ of a well-paying but cruel boss, and they carry out their duties faithfully, harming those the boss says must be harmed, but always using indirect methods that do not require close contact with the targets. This character doesn’t take joy in killing or harming others, but does it because its their job and they keep their word when they give it, since they deem its a good idea to be dependable. They are fine with service, but are always looking to move up in the organization, and will report anything to the big boss that may cause a person to be eliminated that would allow this character to move up. This character does this passively, though, and will not sabotage others in the organization.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I see enough of both chaotic and lawful leanings that I can only say neutral on that axis.

He doesn't seem committed enough to the principles of objective, RAW good or depraved enough to really warrant evil.

True Neutral.

[Saintheart]

This character attempts to gain power and wealth through almost any, but not fully any, means possible so that one day nobody would dare oppose their will

An ethical thief, then, since there are certain things to which he will not stoop, i.e. he has a personal and seemingly amoral (versus immoral) code. Lawful Neutral. Wishing to gain power of itself is neither evil nor good.


but the character also has an inherent dislike of conflict,

Preference for order over chaos. Lawful Neutral; would lean on Good or Evil if we knew why he disliked conflict.


is polite, and seeks power apolegetically, sometimes lacking the force of personality to even make their needs clear.

Low CHA; irrelevant to alignment.


Instead, they choose to work behind the scenes, plotting the best way to benefit themselves without becoming subject to somebody else’s wrath or hurting others more than absolutely necessary.

Method of gaining power does not impact on alignment. Not wishing to be hurt or to hurt others would appear Neutral.


They may even have an attack of conscience and help somebody if it requires little effort or resources.

"Attack of conscience" is weasely because it tries to convince us that you can't be evil and have a conscience. The reverse is true: your actions can be evil and you can still feel bad about doing it, which -- if you assume alignment reflects actions rather than intentions -- would still mark you as evil. As it is, I'd mark this as Neutral because it doesn't tend strongly either toward evil or good as such.


Yet, if asked directly, they will admit in a dull monotone they merely seek to enrich themselves and what happens to the world at large is not their concern.

Neutral, arguably Neutral Evil because it suggests complete self-interest without a care for the rest of the world.


They found themselves in the employ of a well-paying but cruel boss, and they carry out their duties faithfully, harming those the boss says must be harmed, but always using indirect methods that do not require close contact with the targets. This character doesn’t take joy in killing or harming others, but does it because its their job and they keep their word when they give it, since they deem its a good idea to be dependable. They are fine with service, but are always looking to move up in the organization, and will report anything to the big boss that may cause a person to be eliminated that would allow this character to move up. This character does this passively, though, and will not sabotage others in the organization.

Clearly Lawful Neutral: respects the order inherent in the organisation, faithfully follows orders irrespective of the orders' morality and attempting to minimise the opportunity for him to be harmed.



On balance, LN. Merchants and bankers and so forth can easily sit in Lawful Neutral, and courage versus cowardice is alignment-irrelevant.

[Zhentarim]

This character dislikes conflict because they are bad at fighting back in a heated argument, both physically and verbally. They believe the most effective way to destroy an enemy is to watch them, take notes on any potential lawbreaking that person may be doing, and reporting these notes to the appropriate authority. In addition, through wealth, people can be bought—either the enemy in question or a skilled legal council who will attack them on this character’s behalf.

[Saintheart]

This character dislikes conflict because they are bad at fighting back in a heated argument, both physically and verbally. They believe the most effective way to destroy an enemy is to watch them, take notes on any potential lawbreaking that person may be doing, and reporting these notes to the appropriate authority. In addition, through wealth, people can be bought—either the enemy in question or a skilled legal council who will attack them on this character’s behalf.

Even more reason to consider them Lawful Neutral, then; the habitual resort to order and organisation, to Authority, as the big stick, is a distinct tell, in my mind. Someone who is bought has made a deal, they have agreed to an amoral compact. Again, a marker of Lawful and of Neutral.

[RedWarlock]

Generally agree with Saintheart, with the exception of the line about "self-interest without a care for the rest of the world." I take that as still neutral; in my definition (which, of course, may differ) Evil requires active intent of malice.

Enriching oneself is basically neutral, it's how it affects others which can make it good or evil. Enriching oneself to deprive others (As in, "I must have this so no one else can.") is evil, while enriching oneself to enable them to better help others would be good.

[Zhentarim]

Generally agree with Saintheart, with the exception of the line about "self-interest without a care for the rest of the world." I take that as still neutral; in my definition (which, of course, may differ) Evil requires active intent of malice.

Enriching oneself is basically neutral, it's how it affects others which can make it good or evil. Enriching oneself to deprive others (As in, "I must have this so no one else can.") is evil, while enriching oneself to enable them to better help others would be good.

What about enriching oneself to better isolate one’s self and avoid others’ problems? The chance to finally have earned one’s exit ticket from the chaos and toil of the normal world and to spend a few years in bliss after years of toil and hardship? That seems neither particularly good nor evil to me.

[RedWarlock]

What about enriching oneself to better isolate one’s self and avoid others’ problems? The chance to finally have earned one’s exit ticket from the chaos and toil of the normal world and to spend a few years in bliss after years of toil and hardship? That seems neither particularly good nor evil to me.

Still fairly neutral. I stick with the LN assessment.

[Zhentarim]

Still fairly neutral. I stick with the LN assessment.

They care less about other people having nice things than they do making sure they can enjoy nice things far from others so they can give themselves permission to be freer than they were in their working years. They are enriching themselves for the sake of an enriched retirement.

[ezekielraiden]

This character attempts to gain power and wealth through almost any, but not fully any, means possible so that one day nobody would dare oppose their will but the character also has an inherent dislike of conflict, is polite, and seeks power apolegetically, sometimes lacking the force of personality to even make their needs clear. Instead, they choose to work behind the scenes, plotting the best way to benefit themselves without becoming subject to somebody else’s wrath or hurting others more than absolutely necessary. They may even have an attack of conscience and help somebody if it requires little effort or resources. Yet, if asked directly, they will admit in a dull monotone they merely seek to enrich themselves and what happens to the world at large is not their concern. They found themselves in the employ of a well-paying but cruel boss, and they carry out their duties faithfully, harming those the boss says must be harmed, but always using indirect methods that do not require close contact with the targets. This character doesn’t take joy in killing or harming others, but does it because its their job and they keep their word when they give it, since they deem its a good idea to be dependable. They are fine with service, but are always looking to move up in the organization, and will report anything to the big boss that may cause a person to be eliminated that would allow this character to move up. This character does this passively, though, and will not sabotage others in the organization.

Alright. I'm going to boil out what seem like irrelevant bits (e.g. lacking force of personality simply means low Cha, not an alignment thing). Paraphrases in [brackets]. So:

attempts to gain power/wealth through [most but not all] means possible so [eventually no one would dare oppose them]
inherent[ly] dislike[s] conflict, is polite
[generally avoidant]
work[s] behind the scenes, plotting the best way to [gain power without causing unnecessary harm or pissing people off].
may even [help others] if [time/resource/etc. cost is low]
if asked directly, they [say they just want to benefit themselves]
they [work for] a cruel boss, and [willingly] harm those the boss says to
doesn’t take joy in killing or harming others, but does it because its their job and they keep their word when they give it
[values dependability]
will report anything that might [eliminate rivals and thus result in promotion, but won't instigate]

Sounds like the darker shade of Lawful Neutral. They do incidental good, but only when a sudden pang of conscience flares up; otherwise, they openly profess and generally practice "don't get involved in others' lives" type stuff, avoidance etc. Dependable, "my word is my bond," willingly follows immoral/evil orders and only cares in so much as preferring to avoid being direct about the harm required. They derive no enjoyment from such harm, but they don't feel compelled not to cause harm or to mitigate the harm they're asked to do. The reporting stuff is perfectly in line with a Lawful attitude: they aren't trying to MAKE rivals fail, but any time their rivals DO fail, they want it to be well-known. A rival who is actually competent and avoids mistakes would not be threatened by this character.

So, yeah. LN with slight but meaningful shades of LE. Given their rather laissez-faire attitude regarding being ordered to cause harm to others, it wouldn't take a HUGE divergence for them to go straight up Evil, but it would still be a divergence from their current personality and traits. E.g., let's say that one of those aforementioned "competent, avoids-mistakes" type rivals showed up. Suddenly, there's a major impediment to this character gaining power, an impediment that simply watching and waiting won't eliminate. Do they value power enough to find...other...means of taking this rival out? Then they'll probably go full Evil. Do they try to team up with this person, since they seem highly effective and could prove an asset? Probably remain Neutral.

There are other paths to both Evil and Neutral for this character, so I'm not trying to imply that they're like, two steps from hell or something. But they're definitely closer to Evil than to Good. They aren't finding excuses not to do good things for people; instead, they need reasons to do good things for people. Meanwhile, they like to avoid unnecessary harm, but are totally okay with being ordered to harm people. That's definitely hewing away from Good.

[Uncle Pine]

Lawful Neutral (leaning slightly towards Lawful Evil, but still neutral).

[Zhentarim]

Alright. I'm going to boil out what seem like irrelevant bits (e.g. lacking force of personality simply means low Cha, not an alignment thing). Paraphrases in [brackets]. So:

attempts to gain power/wealth through [most but not all] means possible so [eventually no one would dare oppose them]
inherent[ly] dislike[s] conflict, is polite
[generally avoidant]
work[s] behind the scenes, plotting the best way to [gain power without causing unnecessary harm or pissing people off].
may even [help others] if [time/resource/etc. cost is low]
if asked directly, they [say they just want to benefit themselves]
they [work for] a cruel boss, and [willingly] harm those the boss says to
doesn’t take joy in killing or harming others, but does it because its their job and they keep their word when they give it
[values dependability]
will report anything that might [eliminate rivals and thus result in promotion, but won't instigate]

Sounds like the darker shade of Lawful Neutral. They do incidental good, but only when a sudden pang of conscience flares up; otherwise, they openly profess and generally practice "don't get involved in others' lives" type stuff, avoidance etc. Dependable, "my word is my bond," willingly follows immoral/evil orders and only cares in so much as preferring to avoid being direct about the harm required. They derive no enjoyment from such harm, but they don't feel compelled not to cause harm or to mitigate the harm they're asked to do. The reporting stuff is perfectly in line with a Lawful attitude: they aren't trying to MAKE rivals fail, but any time their rivals DO fail, they want it to be well-known. A rival who is actually competent and avoids mistakes would not be threatened by this character.

So, yeah. LN with slight but meaningful shades of LE. Given their rather laissez-faire attitude regarding being ordered to cause harm to others, it wouldn't take a HUGE divergence for them to go straight up Evil, but it would still be a divergence from their current personality and traits. E.g., let's say that one of those aforementioned "competent, avoids-mistakes" type rivals showed up. Suddenly, there's a major impediment to this character gaining power, an impediment that simply watching and waiting won't eliminate. Do they value power enough to find...other...means of taking this rival out? Then they'll probably go full Evil. Do they try to team up with this person, since they seem highly effective and could prove an asset? Probably remain Neutral.

There are other paths to both Evil and Neutral for this character, so I'm not trying to imply that they're like, two steps from hell or something. But they're definitely closer to Evil than to Good. They aren't finding excuses not to do good things for people; instead, they need reasons to do good things for people. Meanwhile, they like to avoid unnecessary harm, but are totally okay with being ordered to harm people. That's definitely hewing away from Good.

Obviously it is smarter to team up with the competent person. Sabotage is always risky business and you never know who may be watching you. A “competent, avoids-mistakes” rival is this character’s worst nightmare since they will be tempted to sabotage that person but will avoid doing so because they might get caught. Expect constant attempts to get that essentially “perfect” person to like the character and become an ally to the character, but also an attempt to find an alternate route to the top of the structure if this other person isn’t very sociable.

[zlefin]

I'd go with neutral evil at first glance.

[GrayDeath]

The clear lack of truly decisive preference to Law or Chaos makes me say: True Neutral, with very slight leanings both towards Lawful and Evil (so in a System where TN would be 50/50 on the axis, with Law and Good having Higher Values, I`d put them around 55/45ish).

Can also work equally well as a pure "I follow the rules because I want them to profit me and destroy my enemies" LN to LE guy though...

[Zhentarim]

The clear lack of truly decisive preference to Law or Chaos makes me say: True Neutral, with very slight leanings both towards Lawful and Evil (so in a System where TN would be 50/50 on the axis, with Law and Good having Higher Values, I`d put them around 55/45ish).

Can also work equally well as a pure "I follow the rules because I want them to profit me and destroy my enemies" LN to LE guy though...

This gives me an idea for another thread...

[Celestia]

Lawful Neutral (leaning slightly towards Lawful Evil, but still neutral).
^ Exactly this

[Zhentarim]

I’m glad I made this thread since I’d mislabled them chaotic evil.

[Mystral]

This character attempts to gain power and wealth through almost any, but not fully any, means possible so that one day nobody would dare oppose their will but the character also has an inherent dislike of conflict, is polite, and seeks power apolegetically, sometimes lacking the force of personality to even make their needs clear. Instead, they choose to work behind the scenes, plotting the best way to benefit themselves without becoming subject to somebody else’s wrath or hurting others more than absolutely necessary. They may even have an attack of conscience and help somebody if it requires little effort or resources. Yet, if asked directly, they will admit in a dull monotone they merely seek to enrich themselves and what happens to the world at large is not their concern. They found themselves in the employ of a well-paying but cruel boss, and they carry out their duties faithfully, harming those the boss says must be harmed, but always using indirect methods that do not require close contact with the targets. This character doesn’t take joy in killing or harming others, but does it because its their job and they keep their word when they give it, since they deem its a good idea to be dependable. They are fine with service, but are always looking to move up in the organization, and will report anything to the big boss that may cause a person to be eliminated that would allow this character to move up. This character does this passively, though, and will not sabotage others in the organization.

Neutral Evil

[Bartmanhomer]

Oh cool another alignment thread

[Zhentarim]

Oh cool another alignment thread

The alignment chart is an interest of mine and I test all my characters on the forums before I play them, especially since I play divine-casters a lot who have alignment restrictions. I was going for lawful evil, but didn’t want to give that away in the OP.

[zlefin]

The alignment chart is an interest of mine and I test all my characters on the forums before I play them, especially since I play divine-casters a lot who have alignment restrictions. I was going for lawful evil, but didn’t want to give that away in the OP.

would this person keep their word even if there was a VERY large payoff for not doing so? especially would this apply in an area wherein keeping ones word is not that expected (and hence violating ones word carries a lower cost)?

[Bartmanhomer]

The alignment chart is an interest of mine and I test all my characters on the forums before I play them, especially since I play divine-casters a lot who have alignment restrictions. I was going for lawful evil, but didn’t want to give that away in the OP.

I want to try.

Ok my character happen to be a man with no boundaries. He believes that rules are for losers and believes that anarchy is the way of life. He also enjoys slaughter and murder everyone no matter if that person is friend and foe.

What alignment is my character?

[Zhentarim]

would this person keep their word even if there was a VERY large payoff for not doing so? especially would this apply in an area wherein keeping ones word is not that expected (and hence violating ones word carries a lower cost)?

Concievably, this character would first look for a way to invalidate the agreement somehow so they could collect their reward without “ruffling anybody’s feathers”. If this wasn’t possible, the next strategy would be seeing if they could impeach the person they are breaking the agreement with, so at least that person is contained prior to collecting the payoff. If there is no way to impeach the other person or people in the agreement, they may very well break their word if the cost of doing so is low enough and the reward is amazing enough, but this would be an exception to their normal playstyle, not the general rule. Normally, any cost in “lost percieved dependability” is to be avoided, but this is a guideline rather than a hard and fast code the character lives by.

[Zhentarim]

I want to try.

Ok my character happen to be a man with no boundaries. He believes that rules are for losers and believes that anarchy is the way of life. He also enjoys slaughter and murder everyone no matter if that person is friend and foe.

What alignment is my character?

That is the stereotypical chaotic evil character, and not a very subtle or effective one.

[Bartmanhomer]

That is the stereotypical chaotic evil character, and not a very subtle or effective one.

You're right.

[Zhentarim]

You're right.

I feel like running a chaotic evil character in a way that is undeniably chaotic evil but that can still be an asset to a party is hard.

I’ve played LE, NE, and CN characters before and was told I was playing the alignment correctly, but when I try to play a chaotic evil character, I either get on everybody’s nerves or I’m told my character is actually chaotic neutral or neutral evil. Making the perfect playable chaotic evil character is a passion project of mine.

[Bartmanhomer]

I feel like running a chaotic evil character in a way that is undeniably chaotic evil but that can still be an asset to a party is hard.

I’ve played LE, NE, and CN characters before and was told I was playing the alignment correctly, but when I try to play a chaotic evil character, I either get on everybody’s nerves or I’m told my character is actually chaotic neutral or neutral evil. Making the perfect playable chaotic evil character is a passion project of mine.
Cool. Good luck with your character.

[Zhentarim]

Cool. Good luck with your character.

Thank you.

[Bartmanhomer]

Thank you.

Also this is my opinion. Feel free to disagree with me if you want. I feel like that alignment is very fun and serves a purpose in D&D 3.5 games.

[zlefin]

I feel like running a chaotic evil character in a way that is undeniably chaotic evil but that can still be an asset to a party is hard.

I’ve played LE, NE, and CN characters before and was told I was playing the alignment correctly, but when I try to play a chaotic evil character, I either get on everybody’s nerves or I’m told my character is actually chaotic neutral or neutral evil. Making the perfect playable chaotic evil character is a passion project of mine.

I might be able to help you with that; I've got a number of concepts I've kicked around in the past for various ways to play evil. but whether it works depends on how the DM feels it is, since they're the final arbiters of alignment. and I don't know how to judge whether you'd get on nerves; since that's very playgroup dependent.

oh, and on my prior question, based on your answer, it does feel more like NE than LE to me; he doesn't follow rules because he believes in them at all; he only follows them insofar as there is a tangible benefit to doing so.

[Zhentarim]

I might be able to help you with that; I've got a number of concepts I've kicked around in the past for various ways to play evil. but whether it works depends on how the DM feels it is, since they're the final arbiters of alignment. and I don't know how to judge whether you'd get on nerves; since that's very playgroup dependent.

oh, and on my prior question, based on your answer, it does feel more like NE than LE to me; he doesn't follow rules because he believes in them at all; he only follows them insofar as there is a tangible benefit to doing so.

Well, the 1-step rule applies, so NE will be “close enough”

[icefractal]

Somewhere from N to NE, depending on how bad the stuff they do for their "job" is. The fact that it wasn't their idea doesn't really change things, if they're doing it voluntarily for the money.

They sound Lawful-leaning but not quite Lawful (acting in a Lawful way because it benefits them, but they don't seem at all committed), but it's close.

Really, you could label them LN, LE, N, or NE and it would fit fine.

[Jopustopin]

Really, you could label them LN, LE, N, or NE and it would fit fine.

I agree with this. You'd almost have to see them in action at the table to decide.

Based on what you've said, I think your character is like a lawful evil - light. Which is fine, there are varying degree's of evil anyways. The biggest demarcation between lawful neutral and lawful evil (in my opinion) is that lawful evil's desire power and lawful neutrals are generally happy with the status quo. The biggest difference between neutral evil and lawful evil is the ability to do anything to achieve their ends; something your character is not willing to do.

This (http://wiki.avlis.org/Alignment) is the best explanation of alignments I've ever found.

[Zhentarim]

I agree with this. You'd almost have to see them in action at the table to decide.

Based on what you've said, I think your character is like a lawful evil - light. Which is fine, there are varying degree's of evil anyways. The biggest demarcation between lawful neutral and lawful evil (in my opinion) is that lawful evil's desire power and lawful neutrals are generally happy with the status quo. The biggest difference between neutral evil and lawful evil is the ability to do anything to achieve their ends; something your character is not willing to do.

This (http://wiki.avlis.org/Alignment) is the best explanation of alignments I've ever found.

I’ve actually been reading up on each of those planes. The descriptions are interesting.

[Zhentarim]

Somewhere from N to NE, depending on how bad the stuff they do for their "job" is. The fact that it wasn't their idea doesn't really change things, if they're doing it voluntarily for the money.

They sound Lawful-leaning but not quite Lawful (acting in a Lawful way because it benefits them, but they don't seem at all committed), but it's close.

Really, you could label them LN, LE, N, or NE and it would fit fine.

I guess I’ll need to try this character in action then. I’ve made them a noble with the noble scion feat, a vigilante base class, noble stipend, and will later become a noble scion prc which will be aligned to the evangelist prc (diety will probably be Mammon).

[Zhentarim]

I’ll also give them the no archetype and the social grace (Profession [Courtesan]), double time, and in vogue social talents. At the appropriate level (level 6), they get a level of noble scion, and after that they become an evangelist (Prestige class) of Mammon with the aligned class being noble scion. Game ends at 15th level.

I get to gestalt with another class, and I think I’ll go with Incanter with a specialization in the mind sphere and with the Law (Devil) and Nobility (Aristocracy).

[lolcat]

Not every character needs to be a pedal-to-the-metal archetype of their purest alignment. Keeping that in mind, the character seems to be a bit weak-willed but still more in the domain of Lawful (hierarchical obedience) and Evil (seeks riches and power at the expense of others).