Alignment question: Difference between Neutral and Evil?

[suplee215]

Simple question in the title. I am a DM and I recently informed a True Neutral character player he was close to becoming evil. The character is extremely selfish and his argument is that neutral characters are selfish. The biggest reason I am doing this is that his character was against the party staying to help out the war because he didn't see that much in it for him (especially as his character has a side quest in another part of the world). The war is between an expanding empire trying to expand in search of more slaves to replace a workforce that disappeared. The character said basically "keeping slaves isn't always wrong" when the rest of the party wanted to help fight them and someone tried to motivated him by pointing out slaves were wrong. He also said he will feel more incline if the slaves were tieflings (what he is). While this is not the only decision he made that made me go "you're sliding towards evil" it is the biggest one. Also I do allow evil members in the party so it won't cause me to take his character.

[SuperbDolphin]

I don't know too much but what I do know is that a true neutral person is indifferent one way or the other and simply does what they naturally need to do. An evil person desires, and even enjoys the downfall of others, sometimes even at their own expense.

[Unoriginal]

Simple question in the title. I am a DM and I recently informed a True Neutral character player he was close to becoming evil. The character is extremely selfish and his argument is that neutral characters are selfish. The biggest reason I am doing this is that his character was against the party staying to help out the war because he didn't see that much in it for him (especially as his character has a side quest in another part of the world). The war is between an expanding empire trying to expand in search of more slaves to replace a workforce that disappeared. The character said basically "keeping slaves isn't always wrong" when the rest of the party wanted to help fight them and someone tried to motivated him by pointing out slaves were wrong. He also said he will feel more incline if the slaves were tieflings (what he is). While this is not the only decision he made that made me go "you're sliding towards evil" it is the biggest one. Also I do allow evil members in the party so it won't cause me to take his character.

Neutral:


Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.


Evil:


Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

Additionally:


Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.

That's what the alignments are in 5e.

Being selfish isn't evil by itself (nor is being selfless good by itself), regularly doing what you can to benefit yourself at the expense of others means your behavior probably fits one of the evil alignments' description.


I think which category "forcing people to perform labor for your benefit through intimidation and torture, while denying them any agency and possibility for decent living conditions" belongs to is pretty clear.

[langal]

I don't know too much but what I do know is that a true neutral person is indifferent one way or the other and simply does what they naturally need to do. An evil person desires, and even enjoys the downfall of others, sometimes even at their own expense.

I think a complete lack of morality is not neutral. That is evil.

For example, an amoral and greedy person going around robbing and killing for cash is evil - regardless of whether or not he or she actually enjoys seeing people suffer.

[Unoriginal]

I think a complete lack of morality is not neutral. That is evil.

For example, an amoral and greedy person going around robbing and killing for cash is evil - regardless of whether or not he or she actually enjoys seeing people suffer.

Indeed. See the descriptions of neutral evil and of chaotic evil.

[jh12]

I think which category "forcing people to perform labor for your benefit through intimidation and torture, while denying them any agency and possibility for decent living conditions" belongs to is pretty clear.

That was a bad argument from the tiefling. But the tiefling in question isn't taking slaves himself, or helping the expanding empire in its quest to capture slaves. He's just saying he doesn't see a need to risk his life preventing people who aren't of his own kind from being enslaved. That's certainly not noble, but I can't see it as evil either.

[Unoriginal]

That was a bad argument from the tiefling. But the tiefling in question isn't taking slaves himself, or helping the expanding empire in its quest to capture slaves. He's just saying he doesn't see a need to risk his life preventing people who aren't of his own kind from being enslaved. That's certainly not noble, but I can't see it as evil either.

Sure. This guy isn't actually "take[ing] what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order", or "do[ing] whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms", or "act[ing] with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust" in a manner that'd make it his typical behavior, from what OP described.


"Do you want to risk your life to free slaves y/n" is an exceptional event at a certain point in time. Not anything that could be used to judge an alignment. If he regularly helped stop escaping slaves to return them to their slavers, that'd be a whole different thing.

[BurgerBeast]

I’m sorry to take this in a different direction, so ignore this if it doesn’t apply:

It seems to me that this player is behaving totally within the boundaries of neutrality, however, you’ve still got a problem on your hands - I just think you’ve misidentified it.

The problem that you have is that you have a player whose character’s goals are out-of-alignment (see what I did, there?) with the goals of the other characters and the direction of the campaign.

There are essentially two ways to handle this: (1) write the character out of the campaign (he leaves to pursue his goal but the present story is about the war) and let him create a different character, or (2) split the party and DM his storyline solo (or perhaps with the other players playing different characters that accompany him) until the party and he reunite.

For simplicity it’s easiest to write him out. For the sake of fairness, though, it’s nice to discuss these things ahead of time in a session zero.

I understand your frustration, but I think that until you clearly identify the problem, you’re going to have more frustration. Trying to change a player’s approach to the game robs the player of most of the reasons that they play a role-playing game: to make relevant choices as a character in a fictional world.

[Unoriginal]

I’m sorry to take this in a different direction, so ignore this if it doesn’t apply:

It seems to me that this player is behaving totally within the boundaries of neutrality, however, you’ve still got a problem on your hands - I just think you’ve misidentified it.

The problem that you have is that you have a player whose character’s goals are out-of-alignment (see what I did, there?) with the goals of the other characters and the direction of the campaign.

There are essentially two ways to handle this: (1) write the character out of the campaign (he leaves to pursue his goal but the present story is about the war) and let him create a different character, or (2) split the party and DM his storyline solo (or perhaps with the other players playing different characters that accompany him) until the party and he reunite.

For simplicity it’s easiest to write him out. For the sake of fairness, though, it’s nice to discuss these things ahead of time in a session zero.

I understand your frustration, but I think that until you clearly identify the problem, you’re going to have more frustration. Trying to change a player’s approach to the game robs the player of most of the reasons that they play a role-playing game: to make relevant choices as a character in a fictional world.

Yeah, alignments aren't worth any more than a character's Trait or Bond.

The issue here is a PC who doesn't want to adventure with the other PCs.

What was the campaign's premise, and how did he get a sidequest to the other side of the world?

[suplee215]

I’m sorry to take this in a different direction, so ignore this if it doesn’t apply:

It seems to me that this player is behaving totally within the boundaries of neutrality, however, you’ve still got a problem on your hands - I just think you’ve misidentified it.

The problem that you have is that you have a player whose character’s goals are out-of-alignment (see what I did, there?) with the goals of the other characters and the direction of the campaign.

There are essentially two ways to handle this: (1) write the character out of the campaign (he leaves to pursue his goal but the present story is about the war) and let him create a different character, or (2) split the party and DM his storyline solo (or perhaps with the other players playing different characters that accompany him) until the party and he reunite.

For simplicity it’s easiest to write him out. For the sake of fairness, though, it’s nice to discuss these things ahead of time in a session zero.

I understand your frustration, but I think that until you clearly identify the problem, you’re going to have more frustration. Trying to change a player’s approach to the game robs the player of most of the reasons that they play a role-playing game: to make relevant choices as a character in a fictional world.

While I do think this is good advice it doesn't exactly apply. The player will never want to split the party and is too attached to his character to make a new one (almost always is). Might become a problem in the future, especially as the player has a tendency to see himself as the main character and attempts to get everyone to focus on his storyline (such as giving a 10 minute argument for why they should stay out of the war to go after the book sidequest I gave him and the group as an option as the party was just lost their main purpose and was deciding what they wanted to do next) but he accepted he was out voted after that. If it becomes an issue where he feels like he can't keep his character there he'll have to make a new one. Also important to this is they currently landed on the continent where the war is. They delivered some weapons before being given a ship they owned and no longer being hired by the captain they were working for. Some in the party were motivated to stay for the war for moral reasons, others for possible rewards, while another just didn't want to get on another boat and sail for a few months while there was an adventure to be have here. might be over explaining here.

[Malifice]

An Evil person tortures, murders, engages in genocide, practices necromancy, Demon worship, soul destruction and rape because they like it.

A Neutral person tortures, murders, engages in genocide, practices necromancy, Demon worship, soul destruction and rape because of their own reasons.

A Good person tortures, murders, engages in genocide, practices necromancy, Demon worship, soul destruction and rape for 'the greater good'.

Or so this forum has taught me.

[TyGuy]

Does your existence make the world ____ than if you didn't exist?

If better, then good.
If worse, then evil.
If neither better nor worse as a total sum of actions/inactions, then neutral.

[langal]

People get confused between "evil" and "Evil".

An amoral, greedy, selfish, drug dealer is "evil". He or she does not take actual pleasure in watching other ls suffer. In fact, it may make them upset. Just not upset enough to stop their own evil actions. He or she may respect certain "religious" moralities like not animating the dead or disdain the worship of devils.

There is also capital "E" type of evil where you are a sadistic type of creature who may even dabble in the worship of Evil deities - like a Mola Ram or Sith Lord.

Both would fall under the evil alignments in my book. The former "evil" is more complex and nuanced though. One can be evil and still follow certain codes. Certainly, a Neutral very well should. Being evil or neutral does not mean you also have to amoral and a sociopath.

Some "neutrals" could be hard to categorize. For example, someone animating the dead to protect a village from zealouts.

[Tanarii]

Did you establish with the players before they began the campaign that you had a house rule in place where you could force them to change alignment?

[Malifice]

I don't know too much but what I do know is that a true neutral person is indifferent one way or the other and simply does what they naturally need to do.

A true Neutral person lacks the moral convictions to go out of their way to help anyone, but has enough empathy to avoid harming others as a general rule. They work a job, raise a family, save money for holidays. They dont give money to charity (unless it provides them with a tax advantage), but they also dont rip people off, or hurt people. They're just trying to get by in the world without being either a monster or an angel.

A neutral person might engage in the occasional act of kindness with no thought of reward, or might occasionaly harm other people.

Han Solo (pre joining the Rebellion) was Neutral. As was Stannis Baratheon (pre burning Shireen) and many depictions of Wolverene.


An evil person desires, and even enjoys the downfall of others, sometimes even at their own expense.

An evil person actively harms other people, or has no problem with harming other people if neededed or convenient and they can get away with it. Usually (although not always) with violence. Many (indeed most) of them genuinely rationalise their actions as good, or necessary for a 'greater good'. They avoid compassion, altruism and mercy, generally viewing those things as weaknesses.

Some evil people are particular in their choice of targets for harm. For example they might only kill infidels or apostates, or people that have crossed them or wronged them in some way, or members of a particular ethnic group, or nation or faith. They might have compunctions against killing children.

The Punisher, Cersei Lannister and Arya Stark (post Faceless men training), Raistlin Majere and Darth Vader are evil.

A Good person on the other hand, goes out of their way to help other people, is self sacrificing, compassionate, altruistic and merciful. They only harm other people when it's needed for self defence, or the defence of others; and even then they only go so far as necessary to stop the harm, and are proportionate in thier response.

Spiderman, Jon Snow and Davos Seaworth, Caramon Majere and Luke Skywalker are Good.

[OgataiKhan]

Not helping someone doesn't make you evil. Actively harming an innocent does.

In fact, not helping someone because you have no stake in their plight but not harming them either is perfectly in line with neutrality, a neutral character is under no moral obligation to help.

Actively engaging in slavery would certainly be evil, but the character didn't do that.

[suplee215]

Did you establish with the players before they began the campaign that you had a house rule in place where you could force them to change alignment?

Um no but this might be an issue with how I view alignments and roleplaying. One, i have seen dms before (one of whom played we both played with before) who will deem a character evil and do this. This is also not the first time I did to a character and he knew. But also the whole alignment system is a little weird to me. I just see them as basically a sum of actions and motivations and personality and so if a player does something that doesn't quite fit I'll let them know and the player can decide if they wish for their character to go down the path they are on or not. I also told the chaotic neutral party member his argument have him kinda going towards chaotic good but ultimate it's up to further actions

[suplee215]

Thank you all for the info. I guess I just have trouble seeing such casual talk of inaction to the point of saying "sometimes slavery/an evil act is ok" as not evil. The inaction itself is not that big a deal to me (other than it making the character a bit annoying and hard to get him to agree to do anything that risks his life without it being part of his personal quest or interest) but him basically playing devils advocate for slavery is.

[Malifice]

Thank you all for the info. I guess I just have trouble seeing such casual talk of inaction to the point of saying "sometimes slavery/an evil act is ok" as not evil. The inaction itself is not that big a deal to me (other than it making the character a bit annoying and hard to get him to agree to do anything that risks his life without it being part of his personal quest or interest) but him basically playing devils advocate for slavery is.

I can see how a morally Neutral person might be OK-ish with slavery, and I can definitely see them probably being unwilling to go out of his way to do anything to stop it (without there being something in it for them).

Han Solo (pre Rebellion joining) was no fan of the Empire, but he wasnt prepared to do anything to stop it (or risk his life) unless he was paid for it.

The Galactic empire practiced slavery. His best friend Chewbaaca was a slave. The Empire also did a whole lot worse as well.

If you asked Han (pre ANH) to go stop slavers, or to rescue a princess, or to help stop a superweapon (even one that had just destroyed an entire planet) his first response would be 'how much'. He was no fan of the Empire, but it wasnt his fight, and he saw no point in risking his neck for someone else (unless he was well paid for it).

That didnt make him evil. It just made him selfish and self centered. Morally he was Neutral (leaning towards Good; where he eventually landed)

Of course, his character arc was becoming a Good aligned hero by the end of ANH, and risking his life to enable Luke to stop the Empire (an arc he continued throughout the rest of the Saga).

It seems like you're more concerned your Neutral PC isnt acting selflessly or opposing slavery. If they were to do that (act selflessly and go out of their way to end slavery at personal cost) it would make them Good aligned.

If your Neutral PC actively starts advocating for slavery, he's certainly evil. But he's not evil simply because he doesnt want to put his life at risk trying to stop it.

He's just not Good.

[suplee215]

It seems like you're more concerned your Neutral PC isnt acting selflessly or opposing slavery. If they were to do that (act selflessly and go out of their way to end slavery at personal cost) it would make them Good aligned.

If your Neutral PC actively starts advocating for slavery, he's certainly evil. But he's not evil simply because he doesnt want to put his life at risk trying to stop it.

He's just not Good.

This is my issue. My issue isn't that he didn't want to do anything. I think I messed up by putting that part in here. My issue is I feel like he did justify slavery even if he didn't show an active desire to be part of it. While giving his "it doesn't affect us so let's stay away from it" speech he also said "slavery isn't always wrong" .while han solo wouldn't go out of his way to help, he also won't say "sometimes slavery is ok".

[darknite]

Good cares about preserving general well being. Neutral doesn't think contributing to the general well being is necessary. Evil wants to tear down or subvert the general well being as it suits them.

Most people know what evil is when they see it. Use Occam's Razor when engaging in these debates and set clear lines.

[Naanomi]

Yeah, alignments aren't worth any more than a character's Trait or Bond.
Except of course the mechanical aspects of alignment that neither traits nor bonds have

Slavery is tricky in DnD, since it has often been tied to being as much a Law/Chaos issue (especially in context of penal slavery, war slavery, and caste systems; not chattel slavery per-se) as a Good/Evil one. We have good djinn with slaves in 5e; and if we look back to earlier editions we have slavery in the Lawful-but-Good-leaning Arcadia and among the Good aligned members of the Egyptian pantheon; and even the (few) Good institutions in Athas were built on the back of a robust and plane-wide slave labor system

[Unoriginal]

This is my issue. My issue isn't that he didn't want to do anything. I think I messed up by putting that part in here. My issue is I feel like he did justify slavery even if he didn't show an active desire to be part of it. While giving his "it doesn't affect us so let's stay away from it" speech he also said "slavery isn't always wrong" .while han solo wouldn't go out of his way to help, he also won't say "sometimes slavery is ok".

Han Solo worked for the benefit of slavers for years. Even Luke didn't fight Jabba until he had to.

[Keravath]

From your description, I would say the character is behaving neutrally. They are avoiding taking sides. They aren't helping the big "evil" empire and they are not opposing it. They have their own goals and objectives and wish to deal with those situations that matter to them. Refusing to engage in opposing this empire doesn't constitute an evil decision.

There are probably two reasons for your warning
1) You think of slavery as inherently evil based on the viewpoint of our current society.
2) Your campaign probably is designed such that the party is expected to take a role opposing the "evil" empire and by threatening the character with an alignment shift towards evil you can get them to take the actions you want them to with the party.

Slavery has been present in many societies throughout history. China, Japan, Rome, Greece, Mongolian, African. Historically, slavery was far more then norm than the exception. Almost every human society has had a form of slavery or indentured servitude. (This includes several major religions). Does this make every human society before the 20th century inherently evil? It was very common for the victor in a conflict to enslave some of the conquered.

Finally, one character decision or even several will not make a character evil (or even necessarily be an indication of an evil character). Was the United States evil due to their isolationist policy at the beginning of world war 2? More or less ignoring the war in Europe until the events at Pearl Harbor? I realize that these are events on a far larger scale but one aspect of human nature is to not get involved. Does choosing to not get involved make the character or the decision they are making "evil"?

Anyway, in the example cited by the OP, I'd say that the character is behaving neutrally and show no real tendency towards evil. Self-centered, self-focused, self-interested perhaps. However, if these are evil traits then there are a lot of evil people in this world.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've said this before. I've published on it.

Good = pro-civilizations made up of good races or civilization in general
Evil = pro-civilizations made up of evil races or just anti-civilization
Neutral = opposed to the expansion of any civilization, pro-status quo of nature vs domestication of nature

Good, evil, and neutral are almost always a consequence of birth.

Your tiefling follows his own (so called) morality of selfish neutrality. He's not true neutral, he's CN.

[Sigreid]

Really, the default neutral position is "never mind all that, it's not my business".

[suplee215]

2) Your campaign probably is designed such that the party is expected to take a role opposing the "evil" empire and by threatening the character with an alignment shift towards evil you can get them to take the actions you want them to with the party.



Yea not this at all. The party was trying to decide between 3 or 4 plot lines I provided for them and i honesty expected them to go on a different one. It's mainly just my views on slavery although that's a whole different discussion I guess. His argument wasnt just "it is what it is and we can't change it" which I would see as a neutral take on the subject. I am basing the empire on a Roman one but also the world I created the conflict is more along the lines of law and chaos and this small empire is an abnormally in the world (the current society is made up of small island states and reveres independence as a major part). I dont know I also just have trouble visualizing what neutral is despite understanding examples.

[deljzc]

If the selfishness hurts other people, then it is evil.

If I am just selfish but in the end I'm just being an a-hole, then I can probably be neutral.

Being selfish but you stop yourself if either of the first two apply, then you are probably good.

[RedMage125]

It seems like a lot of good advice has been given so far. I just want to chime in on the slavery bit.

As Keravath and some others pointed out, slavery doesn't always mean "dehumanizing, torturous conditions that deprive an individual of all basic rights and considerations". Many societies had slavery that did not do this, and that sounds like what your PC meant. Even Neutral people can object to those kinds of things.

Bottom line is that your tiefling PC has not committed any evil acts, and done nothing to prescribe an alignment change. Everything he has done is firmly (and emphatically) Neutral, almost to the point of abrogating a sense of why he adventures at all. I've played many a PC who is Neutral on the Good/evil axis, and he seems firmly there, from what you've told us.

[Sigreid]

I'll point out that there is a more old school version of neutral that is ideologically invested in ensuring that neither good nor evil, law nor chaos become to strong. This version of neutral will definitely go out of their way to promote good or evil, or impede either based on there understanding of how the scales balance currently.

[GlenSmash!]

I'll point out that there is a more old school version of neutral that is ideologically invested in ensuring that neither good nor evil, law nor chaos become to strong. This version of neutral will definitely go out of their way to promote good or evil, or impede either based on there understanding of how the scales balance currently.

Get out of here with that Dragonlance nonsense :smallwink:

[Sigreid]

Get out of here with that Dragonlance nonsense :smallwink:

Way before dragon lance buddy. hahaha

[2D8HP]

Please!

We all know how to tell if Evil!:


Set up a classic trolley problem. If they ask how soon the next train will be along, they're probably evil.


If it bleeds, it's probably evil. If it doesn't bleed, you know it's EVIL.


if it looks like a gnome or talks like a gnome or smells like a gnome, its evil and should be killed


Don't forget goatees. Goatees are evil.


*stroking his goatee* And I'd do it again in a heart beat!


Just because they're enslaved by evil masterminds and forced to sit on their chins does not make goatees evil.


Damn straight!
/em strokes goatee while contemplating


Whelp, now I know what sorts of careers I should direct my daughter towards. Girl has a cackle like Baba Yaga on nitrous.


When you have to raze or enslave an entire underwater molluscan kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple) just to dye your napkin, of course the color is evil.


Prominent Underbites
Red Eyes
Horns
Suspicious lack of defenseless persons, like children & the elderly, in the community.
Spiky Armor on a nonDwarf


I like the traditional Marvel Comics approach. When he first sees you, if he tries to beat you up, he's another good guy. If he tries to shoot you, he's a bad guy.



Also those who stand against you or try to keep the ideals, traditions or culture of those who lost.


...Huh. I'm bad with sarcasm, are you purposefully trying to sound like a villian? Because we have:


Vocabulary = refinement = Evil
Dismissing all other sides as 'fools'
Uses the words 'fools'
Do you happen to have any disfiguring scars, by any chance? Maybe a long-haired cat? Long, flowing plantinum blonde hair? Maybe a trust fund or two?


Proves nothing!



Well, my mistake. Not sure what the gender-neutral version of 'mister' is, so it's just Fancy Pants. Because I am a upstanding, lawful member of society so I don't like to be overly formal....Hrm. Some editions give those summons more morally ambiguous alignments.

Another factor to throw onto the evil list: impeccable taste in clothing. The villian is always better dressed then the hero because apparently heroes are allergic to fashion?


If they are inspired by a. Romans b. Nazis c. Mongols or d. All of the above, they are evil


Better skulls and overly spiky armor then drab earth tones or a mere tank top. At leas there's effort herre! And red and black is always a classic color scheme.


If after you retrieve their lost jewelry/bones of their ancestor/fancy art/lost toy from a dangerous underground complex, and they give a simple thank you with a small smile, they are likely evil. This includes small children

Good people will either act like your help was insulting, or thank you gratuitously with a surplus of tears.

Also, if their office is nearly empty except for a large desk and a high backed chair, they are evil. Bookcases may imply evil if they are neat instead of messy, or if the room does not belong kindly grandfatherly individual and has a homey sense of understatement.

Trust me, you can tell the difference if you're a good guy, and if you can't you're evil


Sex! I can't believe we didn't mention sex!

If they continue to have coitus when a non-naked individual or messenger enters the room, they're definitely evil.


(... Or was that Chaotic?)


Chaotic nuetral, probably evil. If they were a doctor at some point, could be evil. If they ask the dm to trade all their gold to get dynamite, might be evil. If they say that their face is always concealed, might be evil. And in a few campaigns I’ve been in, I’ve had people carry around dead bodies and the eyes of those they’ve killed. DEFINETLY EVIL. Everyone I’ve played with has been upfront about their alignment, either by helping children get home or assassinating the bartender.


Unless they're really hot of course, in which case they may be totally reformed of any evil by you obviously!

[Naanomi]

I'll point out that there is a more old school version of neutral that is ideologically invested in ensuring that neither good nor evil, law nor chaos become to strong. This version of neutral will definitely go out of their way to promote good or evil, or impede either based on there understanding of how the scales balance currently.
Though in many ways those would be classified as Lawful Neutral in today’s Alignment system... the code they adhere to being cosmic neutrality/balance

[Tallytrev813]

Situation:
You're walking by and see a man beating up a smaller man.


Good - "Hey! Leave him alone!" Stops the assault

Neutral - "This doesn't have anything to do with me" Continues on

Evil - Steals the cash from the pocket of the smaller man after being beaten.

[GlenSmash!]

Way before dragon lance buddy. hahaha

Sure. I just felt like those novels popularized the idea better than anything I had seen. Before or since really.

The White, Red, and Black robed wizards really made it super simple to grok.

[Sigreid]

Sure. I just felt like those novels popularized the idea better than anything I had seen. Before or since really.

The White, Red, and Black robed wizards really made it super simple to grok.

The towers were what I dislike most about that setting.

[Dalebert]

Is the subject of degrees of good and evil not going to be broached? I feel like the degree of evil can be loosely measured by how much harm to others you're willing to tolerate in order to benefit yourself. Killing someone so you can Rob them is a lot evil. Taking the last slice of pizza when you've already had your share when you know someone else only had one piece is a tiny bit evil. Treating any of this as black and white with nice crisp lines is the mistake. It's why these discussions are forever ongoing.

[suplee215]

Thank you all. I think my biggest issue came from me forgetting my player has less information about this society than I do and does not know to what extent their crimes go and so justifying the empire was easier for him. That and the fact that he was the only one in the group arguing against staying (even after an official vote was already taken) so it was easy to view his views as in the wrong.

[Malifice]

This is my issue. My issue isn't that he didn't want to do anything. I think I messed up by putting that part in here. My issue is I feel like he did justify slavery even if he didn't show an active desire to be part of it. While giving his "it doesn't affect us so let's stay away from it" speech he also said "slavery isn't always wrong" .while han solo wouldn't go out of his way to help, he also won't say "sometimes slavery is ok".

It's OK for a Neutral person to be OK with slavery (which is evil).

Neutral people can sometimes lean towards Good or Evil.

For GoT examples, True Neutral Robert Baratheon supported the murder of a child (Danaerys) which was opposed by LG Eddard. True Neutral Varys has supported some downright machiavellian evil schemes and acts at times. I'm sure there are plenty of Neutral people in Mereen that dont oppose Slavery and even see some social good it can provide.

I can see a Neutral person being OK with certain evil things (Slavery, murder, torture, necromancy etc) in certain situations or with certain justifications or caveats attached.

If they're consistently advocating the above (or actively engaging in them), then they're evil.

[Dalebert]

True Neutral Varys has supported some downright machiavellian evil schemes and acts at times.

My impression of Varys is that he's good. If your goals are good, you are good or at least leaning that way. If you tolerate some evil for the greater good, that's just less principled and would be better reflected in being chaotic versus lawful. "The ends justifies the means" is the motto of an unprincipled chaotic person. A highly principled lawful paladin is an idealist and sticks to his principles even if you rationally demonstrate that more will be harmed in the long run. If you're balancing relatively small amounts of harm for the greater good, then maybe your NG (Varys).

[KorvinStarmast]

An Evil person tortures, murders, engages in genocide, practices necromancy, Demon worship, soul destruction and rape because they like it.
A Neutral person tortures, murders, engages in genocide, practices necromancy, Demon worship, soul destruction and rape because of their own reasons.
A Good person tortures, murders, engages in genocide, practices necromancy, Demon worship, soul destruction and rape for 'the greater good'.
Or so this forum has taught me. Right on time.

Does your existence make the world ____ than if you didn't exist?
If better, then good.
If worse, then evil.
If neither better nor worse as a total sum of actions/inactions, then neutral. Better yardstick. Easier to use.

My impression of Varys is that he's good. Varys has maintained since either season 1 or 2, in conversations with Littlefinger initially, and in conversations with Tyrion and Danaerys, that he serves the Realm. A point he has raised more than once is that he strives for that which will be best for the little people who have little to no power. It's a hard road to walk, but he has been pretty consistent in trying to navigate that path. I'll not go into more detail due to spoilers form the episode 4 of season 8.
In summary, "good" for Varys describes his goals pretty well, but "striving for the greater good" is his method, beyond the good of any one house.

The assassination of Danaerys, had it been successful, would have prevented, so far, three wars. But it would also have prevented the defeat of the Army of the White Walkers ... :smallcool:

[LibraryOgre]

Simple question in the title. I am a DM and I recently informed a True Neutral character player he was close to becoming evil. The character is extremely selfish and his argument is that neutral characters are selfish. The biggest reason I am doing this is that his character was against the party staying to help out the war because he didn't see that much in it for him (especially as his character has a side quest in another part of the world). The war is between an expanding empire trying to expand in search of more slaves to replace a workforce that disappeared. The character said basically "keeping slaves isn't always wrong" when the rest of the party wanted to help fight them and someone tried to motivated him by pointing out slaves were wrong. He also said he will feel more incline if the slaves were tieflings (what he is). While this is not the only decision he made that made me go "you're sliding towards evil" it is the biggest one. Also I do allow evil members in the party so it won't cause me to take his character.

My view is that you have two degrees of selfishness, that reflect a difference between neutral an evil.

Neutral is a defensive selfishness... the "I am not going to take actions which may harm me". "I'm not gonna fight in no war" is a Neutral position, morally. There may be Good reasons to go to war or end the slave trade, but a Neutral person doesn't care about those reasons, and so will avoid taking those actions which may put them into harm's way without some exterior motivator (i.e. "I can make a lot of money doing this" or "This is a condition of my parole".)

Evil is an offensive selfishness... "I will take actions which benefit me, regardless of the harm to you." Keeping slaves is an evil position, since you're actively harming other people in order to convenience yourself (the exceptions are very narrow; I'm not engaging in an argument about the morality of slavery).

While you've got a more complete view of what actions he's taken, I think, currently, he's not being terribly evil... if you're looking at the Great Wheel, he's probably south of the Spire, as it were, but he is definitely north of the Styx (i.e. he's on the evil side of neutral, but not actually evil)

[Unoriginal]

If your goals are good, you are good or at least leaning that way.

No, goals do not determine your alignment, not by themselves. Alignment is a description of your typical behavior.

A man who kidnap beggars and sacrifice them to Asmodeus with the goal to save a city from annihilation would still be one of the evil alignments.



"The ends justifies the means" is the motto of an unprincipled chaotic person.

Not particularly. It's a justification for ignoring ethical concerns because pragmatism. It doesn't make one's behavior inherently chaotic.

[Naanomi]

“The ends justify the means” sounds like the beginning of at least half of the fallen-Celestial stories in DnD history

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

“The ends justify the means” sounds like the beginning of at least half of the fallen-Celestial stories in DnD history

Pretty much. And the end of those stories is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

[Dalebert]

Alignment is about intentions. After that you're getting into questions of judgement. You can be a good person with poor judgement. You can be a good person who's an idiot. A tiny child that holds a puppy underwater for a minute or two because she thinks it's thirsty is not evil.

"I made a deal with Asmodeus to save the city. Thousands of lives were at stake!"

"You made a deal with an arch devil? You realize that deal is going to bite you and probably the city in the ass, don't you?"

...

"Uhm... I'll burn that bridge when I come to it."

[LibraryOgre]

But alignment is not simply about intentions... it's also about the actions you took towards those intentions.

Bad choices don't necessarily define your alignment... but the more bad actions you take in support of your bad choices, the further you get from being able to claim you were doing it for the greater good, and the less effective that is as an excuse. The old, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

So, the "Deal with Asmodeus to save the city" option:
At first, your intention is to save the city.
You start by commuting all executions for crimes to sacrifices. Hey, they were already convicted and sentenced to death.
Next, you take volunteers. People willing to die for the city.
Then you start assigning more criminals to death. They committed the crime, now they're paying the consequences, for the good of the city.
Then you're "putting people out of their misery", whether they want to be or not.
Then you're finding healthy people who can serve the city best by dying for it.

Somewhere after the volunteers, you stop getting to pretend that you're just living with a bad choice. At a certain point in there, your good intentions don't mean anything, since you're standing on a pile of bodies.

[Dalebert]

At a certain point in there, your good intentions don't mean anything, since you're standing on a pile of bodies.

Oh, conceded for sure. It's the classic corruption story. A story like that was probably beaten into a budding paladin's head to make him reject pragmatism and compromises completely in total service to his principles. That's the other end of the spectrum. I wouldn't say that makes the paladin more good though. I'd say his complete devotion to a set of principles about HOW he's willing to accomplish his goals for good represent how lawful he is.

I feel like you have to get your personal judgement of tactics out of the equation and get into the person's motives. How self-serving are they? Or are they willing to make tremendous personal sacrifices for what they BELIEVE will benefit others?

I haven't read all the posts. Has Thanos come up yet?

[Tanarii]

“The ends justify the means” sounds like the beginning of at least half of the fallen-Celestial stories in DnD history
It does. And that's not a view of Alignment that's supported any more. You can't "fall from grace" with 5e Alignment system, because that's not what it represents. Alignment represents typical & overall but not required behavior, either as as player motivation or as a DM yardstick, depending on your table preferences. Paladins can "fall from grace", but it's not tied to evil directly.

"Falling from Grace" is old edition thinking at this point, where one evil act damns you to being Evil alignment. Notably, one that several regular posters on 5e Alignment threads are stuck in.

In the case of the OP for this particular thread, it appears to be one evil argument causes you to "fall from grace".


(Edit: It's also worth noting that individual acts don't even appear to carry moral weight any more, with the given exception of creating undead. And even that one is also phrased in terms of overall behavior. Posters trying to attribute alignment to individual actions are similarly stuck in older edition thinking.)

[tchntm43]

This thread is actually a perfect place to ask my question rather than making a new thread.

The party is currently on a quest to locate an artifact. In the upcoming adventure, they're going to encounter a peculiar "npc". It appears to be a demilich (floating undead skull with sick powers) but it's a little different than that. Actually a god that died, except instead of ceasing to exist, its consciousness became trapped in a skull and it went insane. It is now seeking the same artifact the party is after, but for selfish reasons (to restore its former power), and it will insist on going with them. The skull is mischievous and will sometimes be a little bit of comic relief. It has a sort of curse that it brings with it, in that it draws undead to itself. It doesn't really care to help the party aside from how doing so will bring it closer to the artifact it wants. It has no interest in the lives of the party members, but will occasionally help if it feels like it, though this is rare and unreliable. However, it also draws no pleasure from killing, but doesn't mind if it is necessary.

I'm sure it's chaotic, I'm just not sure if it's neutral or evil. The fact that it cares purely about its own selfish goals says evil to me, but feeling ambivalent about causing death in others has me unsure. The archetypical chaotic evil monster revels in causing suffering and death.

[Malifice]

My impression of Varys is that he's good. If your goals are good, you are good or at least leaning that way.

Alignment has nothing to do with goals. Only actions.

If I'm murdering, raping, pillaging, engaging in genocide and so forth for 'the greater good' or to achieve some kind of utopia, I'm still evil. My goals or my intention are irrelevant.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and actions speak louder than words.


Alignment is about intentions.

No, it's about behavior (actions). Alignment (per the PHB) describes typical behavior of the creature. Intent has nothing to do with it.


If you tolerate some evil for the greater good, that's just less principled and would be better reflected in being chaotic versus lawful.

No; you're conflating the morality axis of alignment with the law/chaos axis.

If you engage in evil acts (harming others), you're evil.

If you respect family, honor and tradition, you're lawful. If you're capricious, independent and free spirited, you're chaotic.


"The ends justifies the means" is the motto of an unprincipled chaotic person.

No its not. In fact its literally one of the tenets of the Vengeance Paladin and they're expressly LN-E.

The Punisher is LE. As is (edgelord) Arya Stark. Both are viscous murders, and OK with torture and extreme acts of evil (murdering people, cooking them into a pie, feeding that pie to the father of your victims, trolling him about it, and then cutting his throat). However they both work towards (as they see it) noble ends, and seek to distinguish themselves from other villains by being selective on whom they murder, torture and harm. Both have strong (if warped) codes of honor, and respect family, honor and tradition.

They're still protagonists; they're just evil protagonists.

[Unoriginal]

Alignment is about intentions. After that you're getting into questions of judgement. You can be a good person with poor judgement. You can be a good person who's an idiot. A tiny child that holds a puppy underwater for a minute or two because she thinks it's thirsty is not evil.

"I made a deal with Asmodeus to save the city. Thousands of lives were at stake!"

"You made a deal with an arch devil? You realize that deal is going to bite you and probably the city in the ass, don't you?"

...

"Uhm... I'll burn that bridge when I come to it."

Intentions only go so far. Alignments in 5e are, agains, descriptions of your *behavior*as a whole.

The Paladin who's convinced that Dwarves are devils and so kills all Dwarves they meet, thinking they're helping saving the world, is certainly one of the evil alignments.

The Paladin who burns a building to destroy a necromancer and their armies, not knowing the necromancer had kidnapped people to experiment on and who cause said people's death? Not evil.

Same way that giving a King's ransom worth of gold to Mammon in order to save a city isn't the same as sacrificing 20 people to Levistus in order to save a city.

Not all bad people are self-aware, and those who are aware they're doing but still have good intentions are still bad people.

Zariel thought she was doing a good thing by leading hundreds of mortals to fight in the Blood War with the intent to stop it. Her perception was mistaken, however, as what she was doing was arrogantly presuming it was her right to risk other people's existence, and possibly the well-being of the upper planes, in an endeavor that any reasonable evaluation would have called doomed.

As the saying goes: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". And there's a difference between making a mistake and doing something all evidences show to not be good.

Being decieved into killing Count Downer because a manipulator made you believe Downer was trying to kill them is one thing. Taking over Downer's land and imposing a tyranical regime to rat out all of Downer's previous supporters? That's you going to the deep end, regardless of your good intentions.

[Damon_Tor]

Simple question in the title. I am a DM and I recently informed a True Neutral character player he was close to becoming evil... The biggest reason I am doing this is that his character was against the party staying to help out the war... The war is [against evil]. The character [took a neutral position] when the rest of the party wanted to help fight them and someone tried to motivated him by pointing out [that the evil is evil].

I think you don't understand what "neutral" means. Asking a neutral character to make an act of self-sacrifice (like, say, going to war and risking his life) isn't going to fly, even if it's a good war for good reasons against evil guys who are evil. Neutrals don't care about that. That's what makes them neutral.

If you want to motivate that character, PAY HIM.

[LibraryOgre]

This thread is actually a perfect place to ask my question rather than making a new thread.

The party is currently on a quest to locate an artifact. In the upcoming adventure, they're going to encounter a peculiar "npc". It appears to be a demilich (floating undead skull with sick powers) but it's a little different than that. Actually a god that died, except instead of ceasing to exist, its consciousness became trapped in a skull and it went insane. It is now seeking the same artifact the party is after, but for selfish reasons (to restore its former power), and it will insist on going with them. The skull is mischievous and will sometimes be a little bit of comic relief. It has a sort of curse that it brings with it, in that it draws undead to itself. It doesn't really care to help the party aside from how doing so will bring it closer to the artifact it wants. It has no interest in the lives of the party members, but will occasionally help if it feels like it, though this is rare and unreliable. However, it also draws no pleasure from killing, but doesn't mind if it is necessary.

I'm sure it's chaotic, I'm just not sure if it's neutral or evil. The fact that it cares purely about its own selfish goals says evil to me, but feeling ambivalent about causing death in others has me unsure. The archetypical chaotic evil monster revels in causing suffering and death.

It could go either way, but I'd lean towards evil. It's not just out for itself, but actively indifferent to the suffering its actions cause. It's not "I'm preventing myself from being harmed", it's "I don't care if you're hurt when I get what I want", which is evil.

[Malifice]

Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.

Varys is basically a Druid; only instead of 'nature' being his overriding concern, its the safety, prosperity and future of the realm as a whole.

To achieve that goal, questions of morality dont really come into it. He's not consistently depicted as engaging in evil acts (although he certainly will do so, if no other option presents itself, including employing assassins and cut throats) and he's not consistently depicted as engaging in altruistic behavior either (although he prefers the altruistic option over the evil one). He's not bound by concerns such as loyalty, honor or tradition, but he's not capricious, free spirited or unpredictable either.

Tyrion is also concerned with the good of the realm, but he's NG. He avoids evil acts, and consistently is altruistic, kind, and self sacrificing placing him in the G area of the moral spectrum. He respects honor, family and tradition, but is also free spirited, unconventional and an outsider to his family, likely placing him in the N spectrum of the L-C axis.

Another example of a True Neutral character from GoT is Robert Baratheon. He's not altruistic or self sacrificing, but he's also not viscous or cruel. He's not capricious or unpredictable, and nor does he uphold honor and tradition (routinely mocking Eddard for his honor). He acts in his own best interest (making him a pretty ineffectual ruler, that ran the realm into huge debt).

[Hail Tempus]

Alignment is about intentions. After that you're getting into questions of judgement. You can be a good person with poor judgement. You can be a good person who's an idiot. A tiny child that holds a puppy underwater for a minute or two because she thinks it's thirsty is not evil. It's interesting that you raise the point of a small child who doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. In game terms, a toddler might have an Intelligence of 4-5, which is where Hill Giants fall. We don't hold small children criminally liable for what would otherwise be crimes, since they haven't developed the level of intelligence necessary for us to attach legal consequences for crimes. In a modern legal system, Hill Giants might fall into the same category. Granted, a modern, industrialized nation has much more capability to deal with the depredations of Hill Giants than societies in Faerun.

[Unoriginal]

It's interesting that you raise the point of a small child who doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. In game terms, a toddler might have an Intelligence of 4-5, which is where Hill Giants fall. We don't hold small children criminally liable for what would otherwise be crimes, since they haven't developed the level of intelligence necessary for us to attach legal consequences for crimes. In a modern legal system, Hill Giants might fall into the same category. Granted, a modern, industrialized nation has much more capability to deal with the depredations of Hill Giants than societies in Faerun.

Saying "a toddler might have an Intelligence of 4-5" doesn't add up, as it's not what INT represents. Hill Giants are fully capable of managing their villages, build and use tools and weapons, train themselves in different forms of combat, and the like. Both the 6 INT Skeletons and the 7 INT Giant Ape are unable of that. In Dragon Heist, there is a NPC who's a 7 INT human, and despite being a moron he manages his day-to-day life in the city without much troubles and even made a small fortune using a secret he found out to blackmail a rich person.

Hill Giants are aware of the consequences for their acts, they just are slow in intellectual matters and quick in emotional ones.

[LibraryOgre]

FWIW, Hackmaster sets the "too dumb to have a real alignment" level as 5 or lower. If your Intelligence is less than 6/01, your alignment is TN, since you can't make complex moral choices.

[Hail Tempus]

Hill Giants are aware of the consequences for their acts, they just are slow in intellectual matters and quick in emotional ones. I'm not sure about that. In SKT, the party can run into a female Hill Giant who they can sort of ally with, using the right incentive and social skill checks. But, when they travel with her, she'll wake up and forget who the party is and why she's traveling with them, which re-starts the whole process of getting her to work with the party (and can lead to violence). I don't see a being like that really understanding cause-and-effect, other than on a very base level (if I bash this, I can eat it).

Though maybe we're anthropomorphizing D&D races too much. I know that one of the themes of the Order of the Stick is that goblins, orcs and other historically evil races aren't categorically different from humans. But, I never bought that argument. A Hill Giant isn't just a big, dumb human. Their brain is probably wired completely different from Bob the human fighter.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not sure about that. In SKT, the party can run into a female Hill Giant who they can sort of ally with, using the right incentive and social skill checks. But, when they travel with her, she'll wake up and forget who the party is and why she's traveling with them, which re-starts the whole process of getting her to work with the party (and can lead to violence). I don't see a being like that really understanding cause-and-effect, other than on a very base level (if I bash this, I can eat it).

Though maybe we're anthropomorphizing D&D races too much. I know that one of the themes of the Order of the Stick is that goblins, orcs and other historically evil races aren't categorically different from humans. But, I never bought that argument. A Hill Giant isn't just a big, dumb human. Their brain is probably wired completely different from Bob the human fighter.

Both the Volo's Guide to Monster and the adventure Against the Giants present Hill Giants as I said. Furthermore, not all the Hill Giants in SKT are portrayed the same as the one you're talking about, from what I remember. There is an example of two who will help the PCs and be grateful long-term if defeated and then sparred, they just forgot the directions for their village.

Giants ARE different from humans. They think differently than humanoids, notably perceiving things more slowly when it's not time for immediate action (like in combat), and their enormous strength, resistance and size means they have a different set of needs. That doesn't mean a Hill Giant doesn't understand that destroying someone's house to serve as their chair is a **** move. They just don't care.


FWIW, Hackmaster sets the "too dumb to have a real alignment" level as 5 or lower. If your Intelligence is less than 6/01, your alignment is TN, since you can't make complex moral choices.

And 5e has Unaligned for the creatures which don't have enough sapience to know what they're doing. But sapience does not depend on their INT score. There are non-sapient beings with higher INT than sapient ones.

[Malifice]

And 5e has Unaligned for the creatures which don't have enough sapience to know what they're doing. But sapience does not depend on their INT score. There are non-sapient beings with higher INT than sapient ones.

The disconnected sapience from numerical Int scores in 5E as far as I can tell.

Giant Apes (unaligned) have the same Int as Orcs (CE) at 7, and are actually smarter than Ogres (CE) with Ints of 5.

[Unoriginal]

The disconnected sapience from numerical Int scores in 5E as far as I can tell.

Giant Apes (unaligned) have the same Int as Orcs (CE) at 7, and are actually smarter than Ogres (CE) with Ints of 5.

Yes, that's what I was talking about.

[RedMage125]

"Falling from Grace" is old edition thinking at this point, where one evil act damns you to being Evil alignment. Notably, one that several regular posters on 5e Alignment threads are stuck in.
*snip*
(Edit: It's also worth noting that individual acts don't even appear to carry moral weight any more, with the given exception of creating undead. And even that one is also phrased in terms of overall behavior. Posters trying to attribute alignment to individual actions are similarly stuck in older edition thinking.)
I think it's worth noting, that in a lot of those older edition arguments you were discussing, a lot of those people were WRONG. One Evil act may cause a pre-4e paladin to fall from grace, but they don't necessarily change alignment to Evil. In 3.5e, for example, DMG page 135 explicitly says that one act does not change alignments, and that alignment change is gradual, anyway, so jumping from LG to LE is not RAW.

Also, on your last bit, that is an interesting point. And it's something that 4e did, as well. in 4e, there is actually not a single rule in any PHB or DMG that says anything about alignments changing, EVER.

No; you're conflating the morality axis of alignment with the law/chaos axis.


A good shorthand for some of us is to refer to the Good/Evil axis of alignment as the "moral axis" or "morality axis", and the Law/Chaos axis as the "ethical axis"

[hamishspence]

In 3.5e, for example, DMG page 135 explicitly says that one act does not change alignments, and that alignment change is gradual, anyway, so jumping from LG to LE is not RAW.


It also said "there are exceptions to this" for gradual alignment change. The example given was instant change from Evil to Good, through repentance.

[Naanomi]

5e still has instant alignment changes via Magic items

[Unoriginal]

5e still has instant alignment changes via Magic items

Which change what your typical behavior is like.

[Segev]

My two cents: the OP's player sounds exactly Neutral on the moral axis, to me. He has no strong convictions that compel him to help others, but he's not advocating hurting anybody. He's just asking why he should help. What's being asked of him isn't minor, either: risk his life and certainly sacrifice time he could be devoting to a quest he cares personally about. A good person may even question the utility of joining that cause: is his aid really that pivotal, and can he afford to risk his life and quest for this cause? Now, a good person would find choosing NOT to help to be a heart-wrenching decision, so the fewer reasons NOT to, the more likely he is to help. A neutral person is going to need more affirmative reasons TO help to persuade him.

An evil person is a lot like the neutral person in this regard, yes. He'll help if there's something in it for him. Something an evil person might do that a neutral one would not would be actively feign interest in helping to test to see the rewards, and, if they're not rewarding enough, consider taking what he knows to the enemy army and trading that insider info to them for greater rewards. This is more a Chaotic than Evil act on the surface, because it's about betrayal and lack of adherence to one's word, etc., but it's definitely evil, as well, because it's actively furthering the suffering of innocents and endangering people who've done nothing to deserve it for his own profit.

A neutral person may or may not consider switching sides if the rewards are better, but he wouldn't help the evil side without a LOT of reward, as a general rule, and certainly wouldn't do so with the express knowledge that his actions will directly enable harm to befall his good-aligned former allies.

But refusing to work to fight evil without personal reward? Neutral, not evil at all.

[Naanomi]

Which change what your typical behavior is like.
Right, along with the mechanical and (presumably) cosmological components that go along with the alignment change as well

[suplee215]

My two cents: the OP's player sounds exactly Neutral on the moral axis, to me. He has no strong convictions that compel him to help others, but he's not advocating hurting anybody. He's just asking why he should help. What's being asked of him isn't minor, either: risk his life and certainly sacrifice time he could be devoting to a quest he cares personally about. A good person may even question the utility of joining that cause: is his aid really that pivotal, and can he afford to risk his life and quest for this cause? Now, a good person would find choosing NOT to help to be a heart-wrenching decision, so the fewer reasons NOT to, the more likely he is to help. A neutral person is going to need more affirmative reasons TO help to persuade him.

An evil person is a lot like the neutral person in this regard, yes. He'll help if there's something in it for him. Something an evil person might do that a neutral one would not would be actively feign interest in helping to test to see the rewards, and, if they're not rewarding enough, consider taking what he knows to the enemy army and trading that insider info to them for greater rewards. This is more a Chaotic than Evil act on the surface, because it's about betrayal and lack of adherence to one's word, etc., but it's definitely evil, as well, because it's actively furthering the suffering of innocents and endangering people who've done nothing to deserve it for his own profit.

A neutral person may or may not consider switching sides if the rewards are better, but he wouldn't help the evil side without a LOT of reward, as a general rule, and certainly wouldn't do so with the express knowledge that his actions will directly enable harm to befall his good-aligned former allies.

But refusing to work to fight evil without personal reward? Neutral, not evil at all.
Yea, my problem was less inaction and more that the character defended (with words) the system of the empire but I think I made a few mistakes (the biggest is I forgot he didn't know everything I knew about it, another is that I was a bit miffed at him for prolonging the entire party's decision for a good 10 minutes to give a speech AFTER the party already voted and he was the only one who voted against it, and also I might have done a poor job at describing my world because the empire is the only place in the land that practices slavery).

[Willie the Duck]

Right on time.

It is almost fun to see in them the allusions to great dumpster fires of the past. Like, 'Oh, I remember that one. You were being trolled hard, and everyone else could see it.' 'Oh, soul destruction. I remember that one. They were making a misguided utilitarian argument that was genuinely wrong, which would have come out if we could have had a reasoned discussion.' 'That one they were arguing that the D&D alignment system was wonky because it suggested that good people would do so (can't remember if they were right or not), but mistaking their meaning was more convenient for your purposes.' And so on. You have to have a sense of humor or Sancho Panza-level patience. Regardless, I am writing down that Robert Baratheon is 'not viscous or cruel' for my next pun compilation. :smallbiggrin:


5e still has instant alignment changes via Magic items

Which change what your typical behavior is like.

Right, along with the mechanical and (presumably) cosmological components that go along with the alignment change as well

And leads to the paradox of having alignment being defined by consistent action and behavior, but your alignment can be changed before you have a chance to do any further actions (much less set a precedence of behavior). Kinda like the concept of 'instantaneous velocity.'


Yea, my problem was less inaction and more that the character defended (with words) the system of the empire but I think I made a few mistakes (the biggest is I forgot he didn't know everything I knew about it, another is that I was a bit miffed at him for prolonging the entire party's decision for a good 10 minutes to give a speech AFTER the party already voted and he was the only one who voted against it, and also I might have done a poor job at describing my world because the empire is the only place in the land that practices slavery).

Okay. So, clearly this player (much less their character) was not working with the same set of information that you had at your disposal, and came to a different understanding of the situation, yes? Do you think they would have come to a different conclusion with that different set of information? In that case, this seems more like a communication problem than an ethical one (much less an alignment one).

As to prolonging the party's decision after they party voted and he lost, this is a fundamental issue that every group has to figure out for themselves regarding why are these guys sticking together? Fortunately, adventuring parties usually are usually either profit motivated or have a broad-brush-painted 'and we're also hoping to do some good deeds' motivation (often both, with differing admixtures thereof). This allows people to often explain 'so why would Jim be involved in this plot' in situations where it doesn't make sense with, 'he wouldn't, but he's still here because Jack and Beth are his friends and it's important to them.' However, at some point, you always end up with a character with no clear motivation for sticking with a specific plot line. That sometimes stinks for the players, who really tend to want to see some continuity in which characters they are running. So you have to figure something out. In this case, the one character might not really have anywhere else to go, doesn't want to see his allies get killed, simply doesn't want to start over with a new (unknown) group, and thus will go along even if it doesn't match their goals. If that's not the case, some real inventiveness might be required.

Regardless, the player should have been informed something like, "look, everyone else voted for this, so it's what the party-in-focus is going to do. We'll try to get a plot line consistent with one of your characters' motives next time, but right now, you should be working on figuring out why your character would stick around despite no specific loyalty to this cause, or figuring out an alternate character to play in the meantime."

[Unoriginal]

And leads to the paradox of having alignment being defined by consistent action and behavior, but your alignment can be changed before you have a chance to do any further actions (much less set a precedence of behavior). Kinda like the concept of 'instantaneous velocity.'


It's less a paradox and more a simplification. It's a "your behavior will now fit X description until the magic is corrected, so we say it is X already".

Same way that Bonds, Traits, Ideals, etc can be changed by outside forces like Demon Princes influence of being possessed. Losing your Bond and getting another isn't you changing your mind about what's important, it's someone else jury-rigging your mind to make you consider a new thing important, even before you get to express it or realize you're feeling that way now.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not sure about that. In SKT, the party can run into a female Hill Giant who they can sort of ally with, using the right incentive and social skill checks. But, when they travel with her, she'll wake up and forget who the party is and why she's traveling with them, which re-starts the whole process of getting her to work with the party (and can lead to violence). I don't see a being like that really understanding cause-and-effect, other than on a very base level (if I bash this, I can eat it).

Though maybe we're anthropomorphizing D&D races too much. I know that one of the themes of the Order of the Stick is that goblins, orcs and other historically evil races aren't categorically different from humans. But, I never bought that argument. A Hill Giant isn't just a big, dumb human. Their brain is probably wired completely different from Bob the human fighter.

There's something to be said about an instinctive tendency for creatures like Hill Giants to be violent with their problems. It's easy to forget, but in 5E (and perhaps even earlier editions) there are some races cursed with certain alignment traits. They're not always guaranteed to act on those urges, but they are present and they do shape the behavior of a majority of that race.

Orcs, Kobolds and Drow are just a few examples. All are affected by actions of a God(s) that have had a tangible effect on their behavior. In fact, even Giants seem to have several factors of their history that have left a lasting impact on their behaviors. Even the most level headed Giant you know would likely fly into a frenzy at the sight of a Dragon. It's even implied that many (not all) giants worship a specific child of Annam. You would be shunned in all Giant cultures for choosing to worship a god not found in their pantheon.

Humans have no such predilections, they're capable of being a saint just as likely as they would be a scourge. Long story short, I agree with your sentiment that some creatures just think different things are acceptable. I just can't help but add more to it, it's a pretty interesting topic to talk about as long as all parties are still being civil about it.

[suplee215]

Okay. So, clearly this player (much less their character) was not working with the same set of information that you had at your disposal, and came to a different understanding of the situation, yes? Do you think they would have come to a different conclusion with that different set of information? In that case, this seems more like a communication problem than an ethical one (much less an alignment one).

As to prolonging the party's decision after they party voted and he lost, this is a fundamental issue that every group has to figure out for themselves regarding why are these guys sticking together? Fortunately, adventuring parties usually are usually either profit motivated or have a broad-brush-painted 'and we're also hoping to do some good deeds' motivation (often both, with differing admixtures thereof). This allows people to often explain 'so why would Jim be involved in this plot' in situations where it doesn't make sense with, 'he wouldn't, but he's still here because Jack and Beth are his friends and it's important to them.' However, at some point, you always end up with a character with no clear motivation for sticking with a specific plot line. That sometimes stinks for the players, who really tend to want to see some continuity in which characters they are running. So you have to figure something out. In this case, the one character might not really have anywhere else to go, doesn't want to see his allies get killed, simply doesn't want to start over with a new (unknown) group, and thus will go along even if it doesn't match their goals. If that's not the case, some real inventiveness might be required.

Regardless, the player should have been informed something like, "look, everyone else voted for this, so it's what the party-in-focus is going to do. We'll try to get a plot line consistent with one of your characters' motives next time, but right now, you should be working on figuring out why your character would stick around despite no specific loyalty to this cause, or figuring out an alternate character to play in the meantime."
Yea. Very much a world building error on my part for the first as I didn't make clear how unique this empire is in the world despite them only visiting city states before this with loose governments. And yea, although as far as I can tell his motive is "I want to play this character". The player has a tendency to see his character as the only one who matters and stuff too so I think I just allowed my personal dislike for the player affect how I viewed rhetoric I despised anyways. My fault on that although it also led to me decide to detail out my world more (I got a bit relax at it for reasons) and also make it clear exactly what the empire is. Also I do shuffle from one person's story to another and he even had a perfect opportunity to check out a side quest for him for the previous 3 or 4 sessions he just ignored until the party was no longer in the location of it. And sorry for going down a rabbit hole of "I probably shouldn't be playing with a guy I don't get along with." Due to this being at a store I don't have final say on bans. Again sorry for the tangent.

[Sigreid]

...my personal dislike for the player affect how I ...

This right here is the issue, and you need to figure out what you're going to do about it. Personal dislikes can run a pretty broad gamut from just personality differences to one or the other or both being a true ass-hat. Sadly, no one here can help you with that because we don't know either of you and therefore can't even see the real conflict.

[suplee215]

This right here is the issue, and you need to figure out what you're going to do about it. Personal dislikes can run a pretty broad gamut from just personality differences to one or the other or both being a true ass-hat. Sadly, no one here can help you with that because we don't know either of you and therefore can't even see the real conflict.

It's a situation without a solution at this very moment. As I said, it's a game at a store and so far he isn't ruining the fun or being rude enough to ban him. I've had several conversations with him about it over the years (haven't always DM him). One of those situations where you just have to interact with people you aren't friends with. It happens. Although this is really a major tangent on the subject. This question is because he argued when I told him he might be on a path to another alignment due to what was said. I'm not just looking for an excuse to make his character evil, I legitimately thought the words his characters said were in that direction.

[Tanarii]

The main thing here is a 5e alignment generally doesn't comprise of single verbal argument. Even a single act doesn't make up an alignment. It's overall behavior.

If he starts regularly supporting some forms of slavery, or constantly directly sabotaging the party to stop them from opposing it, or if it's part and parcel of other similar behavior lining up with the PHB one sentence definitions of one of the evil alignments, thats a different thing.

Of course, long before that point you should probably establish two table rules:
- No Evil Characters
- The DM is the Final Arbiter on What Constitutes an Evil Character

Neither of those are specifically in the rules, so its important to lay them out. (Edit: those are effectively my table rules, although I specifically call out the PHB alignment general behaviors.)

[Sigreid]

It's a situation without a solution at this very moment. As I said, it's a game at a store and so far he isn't ruining the fun or being rude enough to ban him. I've had several conversations with him about it over the years (haven't always DM him). One of those situations where you just have to interact with people you aren't friends with. It happens. Although this is really a major tangent on the subject. This question is because he argued when I told him he might be on a path to another alignment due to what was said. I'm not just looking for an excuse to make his character evil, I legitimately thought the words his characters said were in that direction.

I hope what people say doesn't move them into being evil considering some of the crap that's come out of my mouth on occasion.

[suplee215]

The main thing here is a 5e alignment generally doesn't comprise of single verbal argument. Even a single act doesn't make up an alignment. It's overall behavior.

If he starts regularly supporting some forms of slavery, or constantly directly sabotaging the party to stop them from opposing it, or if it's part and parcel of other similar behavior lining up with the PHB one sentence definitions of one of the evil alignments, thats a different thing.

Of course, long before that point you should probably establish two table rules:
- No Evil Characters
- The DM is the Final Arbiter on What Constitutes an Evil Character

Neither of those are specifically in the rules, so its important to lay them out. (Edit: those are effectively my table rules, although I specifically call out the PHB alignment general behaviors.)

Evil characters are allowed in this campaign. It was more just a book keeping thing of "your character might be going down this direction, be aware"

[suplee215]

I hope what people say doesn't move them into being evil considering some of the crap that's come out of my mouth on occasion.

While it doesn't automatically do so, your words do hold meanings. The power of speech and communication can be one of the most powerful and effective tools. "The pen is mightier than the sword" and all that cliche. Of course this is just a philosophical debate at this point but to pretend words hold no moral value is to ignore how much damage or how much good words have caused over the course of history.

[Tanarii]

Evil characters are allowed in this campaign. It was more just a book keeping thing of "your character might be going down this direction, be aware"
Now I'm super confused. If evil characters are allowed, why are you, as the DM, even getting involved? Especially when it's nowhere near blatantly or egregiously out of step with what the alignment description.

Sounds to me like you owe this player an apology.

[suplee215]

Now I'm super confused. If evil characters are allowed, why are you, as the DM, even getting involved? Especially when it's nowhere near blatantly or egregiously out of step with what the alignment description.

Sounds to me like you owe this player an apology.

To encourage roleplay aspects and possible character development in the campaign. I also told the chaotic neutral character he might be going towards chaotic good due to voicing the opposite argument. I already told him I researched the alignment more and was off on that but at the time I made this I did think he clearly stepped out of line. Also the character began as a wizard but multiclassed into warlock after finding a strange entity trapped in a book who offered him knowledge and he has been going down a few temptations in search of knowledge. While he hasn't gotten too deep down it, he has set some things in motions.

[Tanarii]

To encourage roleplay aspects and possible character development in the campaign. I also told the chaotic neutral character he might be going towards chaotic good due to voicing the opposite argument. I already told him I researched the alignment more and was off on that but at the time I made this I did think he clearly stepped out of line. It sounds a bit heavy handed to me, but I consider role playing aspects of alignment and personality traits to be purely a concern of the player, if they aren't causing table problems. e.g. my no evil characters table rule is an anti-players-who-cause-problems rule. So that's definitely affecting my point of view. I'd rather just set a broad rule that is explicit that it's there to keep problems down than get involved with telling players they're roleplaying their alignment wrong and need to change alignments. I realize that may seem a razors edge difference, but to me it's the difference between a DM's job and a Player's job.

But ultimately that's just one random guy on the Internet who isn't running your game. Thanks for not taking my apologize comment the wrong way, it was far too blunt and when I just re read it right now I'm kinda surprised you didn't just tell me to eff off. :smallamused:

[Asmotherion]

I think a complete lack of morality is not neutral. That is evil.

For example, an amoral and greedy person going around robbing and killing for cash is evil - regardless of whether or not he or she actually enjoys seeing people suffer.

A complete lack of morality is neutral; Acting as an @sshole because of it is evil.

[suplee215]

But ultimately that's just one random guy on the Internet who isn't running your game. Thanks for not taking my apologize comment the wrong way, it was far too blunt and when I just re read it right now I'm kinda surprised you didn't just tell me to eff off. :smallamused:

No prob. I realize different people play the game for different reasons. Personally I view dnd as a collaborate story telling process. Can always be hard to find people who like the same thing which is why I just gave some advice on where I saw his character going instead if an instant alignment change as I seen other people do .

[GreyBlack]

Ah, the eternal alignment question. "What's the difference between X and Y?"

The simple answer is that there isn't any. The more complicated answer is that, while this character isn't True Neutral, I believe he is closer to Unaligned.

Alignment is not a prescriptive measure of a character. Rather, it is an expression of the character's core beliefs and how they express them. Not all Lawful Good characters act the same; they all express this concept of Lawful Good differently.

Let's take two quintessential D&D characters who are, canonically to D&D, Lawful Good: Bahamut and Garl Glittergold. Both of these characters are Lawful Good on the Alignment chart, and it's written on both of their character sheets. However, where one character is this serious, sturm und drang character bent on destroying evil and such, the other is literally a benevolent trickster character. Both of these characters have very different portfolios, have very different views on the multiverse, and very different powers... but they're both Lawful Good. Why?

I argue that this is because Alignment indicates your character's core beliefs. They believe in the rule of Law, and they believe people should be Good. They might do evil things, and they might break the law, but that doesn't mean they don't want and strive for these things.

How does this relate to your character? Well... if your character is True Neutral, that means that either the character is apathetic towards the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis, or they believe that going too far in either direction is actively harmful to the multiverse. To me, it sounds like the character in question doesn't oppose slavery less because he wants to be able to lord over other sentient beings (a hallmark of Evil, capital E for D&D), but more because it doesn't affect him. This keeps with his alignment; he doesn't care. He is apathetic towards Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. It doesn't matter to him.

If your character were to say, "I don't oppose slavery because I think people should be allowed to be owned," that might veer towards evil for my tastes.

In all, I would have a frank discussion with the player and lay this out. Ask him what his character believes. If you say to the player, "The way you're describing your character sounds like he's Evil to me. Why isn't he Evil?" and then remind them that you don't penalize the character for being explicitly Evil, see how he reacts. In the end, it doesn't matter what's written on his character sheet as long as everyone is having fun.

[Unoriginal]

Unaligned is for non-sapient beings.

[GreyBlack]

Unaligned is for non-sapient beings.

If that's your biggest nitpick, then I'll consider my point made.

[RedMage125]

If that's your biggest nitpick, then I'll consider my point made.

Unaligned in 5e is strictly for beings not sentient enough to comprehend moral issues as a species. Animals are Unaligned. Animated Objects are Unaligned.

Everything you described is Neutral. Your "nitpick" about "True Neutral" harkens back to pre-3e days when that alignment only reflected someone who intentionally avoided "extremes". Mordenkainen was that kind of True Neutral (still is).

I'm sorry, but someone who is capable of understanding morality and ethical dilemmas, but is apathetic TO them, is [True] Neutral by 5e guidelines. And this is a 5e forum. So...your point is made, but technically incorrect.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Unaligned in 5e is strictly for beings not sentient enough to comprehend moral issues as a species. Animals are Unaligned. Animated Objects are Unaligned.

Everything you described is Neutral. Your "nitpick" about "True Neutral" harkens back to pre-3e days when that alignment only reflected someone who intentionally avoided "extremes". Mordenkainen was that kind of True Neutral (still is).

I'm sorry, but someone who is capable of understanding morality and ethical dilemmas, but is apathetic TO them, is [True] Neutral by 5e guidelines. And this is a 5e forum. So...your point is made, but technically incorrect.

I agree with the sentiment, just want to point at that in 5e the only stats we have for Mordenkainen show him as CN.
Whether that alignment is a result of his temporary madness from his time spent as the Mad Mage in Barovia isn't clear, typically when an NPC can be "cured" of their alignment it says as much in the adventure, see Meloon Wardragon in Dragon Heist. Given that his madness is a recent development and his history of being very neutral, I would wager that it is though.

[GreyBlack]

Unaligned in 5e is strictly for beings not sentient enough to comprehend moral issues as a species. Animals are Unaligned. Animated Objects are Unaligned.

Everything you described is Neutral. Your "nitpick" about "True Neutral" harkens back to pre-3e days when that alignment only reflected someone who intentionally avoided "extremes". Mordenkainen was that kind of True Neutral (still is).

I'm sorry, but someone who is capable of understanding morality and ethical dilemmas, but is apathetic TO them, is [True] Neutral by 5e guidelines. And this is a 5e forum. So...your point is made, but technically incorrect.

Sure. That's fine. I used Unaligned as a designate opposed to militantly True Neutral. You're free to use whatever terms you want. It doesn't affect the character sheet.

On an equal and related note: I do think Unaligned should be an alignment you can choose, as otherwise True Neutral doesn't really describe an alignment. But, as previously noted, Unaligned is not technically legal so whatevs

[Naanomi]

On a cosmological level, I would suggest that unaligned beings don’t have afterlives (animated objects) or have preset afterlife destinations not determined by Alignment (animals, very simple elementals, very young children)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sure. That's fine. I used Unaligned as a designate opposed to militantly True Neutral. You're free to use whatever terms you want. It doesn't affect the character sheet.

On an equal and related note: I do think Unaligned should be an alignment you can choose, as otherwise True Neutral doesn't really describe an alignment. But, as previously noted, Unaligned is not technically legal so whatevs

To me, unaligned means you make no choices that affect your alignment one way or another. You can make choices that would normally fall under the description of good or evil but your understanding of those choices is either incredibly limited or nonexistent. True Neutral means you're entirely cognizant of why those choices are good or evil yet you choose to either abstain from both or influence both equally.

I believe there's a difference, and as Unoriginal continues to point out, it's whether or not you're considered sapient.

[Sigreid]

To me, unaligned means you make no choices that affect your alignment one way or another. You can make choices that would normally fall under the description of good or evil but your understanding of those choices is either incredibly limited or nonexistent. True Neutral means you're entirely cognizant of why those choices are good or evil yet you choose to either abstain from both or influence both equally.

I believe there's a difference, and as Unoriginal continues to point out, it's whether or not you're considered sapient.

Well, someone could be sapient and have mental defects that prevent them from understanding good and evil. It happens. But that's unaligned to me, you simply can't grasp that there even is a good and evil, a right and wrong.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, someone could be sapient and have mental defects that prevent them from understanding good and evil. It happens. But that's unaligned to me, you simply can't grasp that there even is a good and evil, a right and wrong.

That would be a very rare exception, if there were provable evidence of a complete lack of understanding then unaligned would perhaps be applicable. I still believe that with being considered sapient there is at least an instinctual understanding, and at the very least you would have the intelligence to be told what was good or evil and adjust your behavior with what you were most influenced by.

Most intelligent animals (I say most because there are creatures present in the 5E monster list like the Tressym that have developed an alignment) are still not intelligent enough to develop those moral understandings.

I'd be more inclined to label a creature like that Neutral (Good/Evil) because of tendencies they have that were instilled in them either through instincts or their peers. You're free to disagree however.

[RedMage125]

Sure. That's fine. I used Unaligned as a designate opposed to militantly True Neutral. You're free to use whatever terms you want. It doesn't affect the character sheet.

On an equal and related note: I do think Unaligned should be an alignment you can choose, as otherwise True Neutral doesn't really describe an alignment. But, as previously noted, Unaligned is not technically legal so whatevs

That's fine for a personal choice. And your home game. But when advising someone else, I would not advise telling them that their player's character "should be" Unaligned, as if that was a more "correct" answer.

I've seen another poster who distinguishes between "Neutral" (which matches what the 5e PHB says about the alignment) and "True Neutral" (which would be someone dedicated to neutrality as a specific goal, and/or views all of law, chaos, good, and evil as dangerous extremes). Which I think is an interesting distinction to make, but it's not in the RAW.

[RedMage125]

I agree with the sentiment, just want to point at that in 5e the only stats we have for Mordenkainen show him as CN.
Whether that alignment is a result of his temporary madness from his time spent as the Mad Mage in Barovia isn't clear, typically when an NPC can be "cured" of their alignment it says as much in the adventure, see Meloon Wardragon in Dragon Heist. Given that his madness is a recent development and his history of being very neutral, I would wager that it is though.

Sorry for not multi-quoting. Typing on my phone and it won't cooperate right now.

Yes, I would say that it was a result of his time in Barovia. Mordy's always been the type to cooperate with friends if Good became too overwhelming, while simultaneously imprisoning powerful beings of Evil to limit their influence. The Circle of Nine (which included such famous people as Bigby, Tenser, and Rary) were his agents to that effect.

[Tanarii]

I've seen another poster who distinguishes between "Neutral" (which matches what the 5e PHB says about the alignment) and "True Neutral" (which would be someone dedicated to neutrality as a specific goal, and/or views all of law, chaos, good, and evil as dangerous extremes). Which I think is an interesting distinction to make, but it's not in the RAW.
Someone dedicated to the Balance could easily be considered Lawful Neutral in 5e alignment behaviors. More so than Neutral, as they clearly don't "steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time."

[Unoriginal]

Doesn't help that the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes implies that Mordenkainen's beliefs concerning the Balance are pretty innacurate.

He also has a pretty codified and absolutist set of values. He openly declare "there is no such thing as a small betrayal" and the like.

[Naanomi]

Doesn't help that the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes implies that Mordenkainen's beliefs concerning the Balance are pretty innacurate
Although it maps pretty well to the classic (intentionally alien) viewpoint of the 2e/3e rimlani (True Neutral Exemplars; or at least the current ones)

[GreyBlack]

That's fine for a personal choice. And your home game. But when advising someone else, I would not advise telling them that their player's character "should be" Unaligned, as if that was a more "correct" answer.

I've seen another poster who distinguishes between "Neutral" (which matches what the 5e PHB says about the alignment) and "True Neutral" (which would be someone dedicated to neutrality as a specific goal, and/or views all of law, chaos, good, and evil as dangerous extremes). Which I think is an interesting distinction to make, but it's not in the RAW.

Given the number of alignment arguments online? I'd argue there's no such thing as a RAW argument for this stuff. However, if you want me to get really technical...


Ah, the eternal alignment question. "What's the difference between X and Y?"

The simple answer is that there isn't any. The more complicated answer is that this character is True Neutral.

Alignment is not a prescriptive measure of a character. Rather, it is an expression of the character's core beliefs and how they express them. Not all Lawful Good characters act the same; they all express this concept of Lawful Good differently.

Let's take two quintessential D&D characters who are, canonically to D&D, Lawful Good: Bahamut and Garl Glittergold. Both of these characters are Lawful Good on the Alignment chart, and it's written on both of their character sheets. However, where one character is this serious, sturm und drang character bent on destroying evil and such, the other is literally a benevolent trickster character. Both of these characters have very different portfolios, have very different views on the multiverse, and very different powers... but they're both Lawful Good. Why?

I argue that this is because Alignment indicates your character's core beliefs. They believe in the rule of Law, and they believe people should be Good. They might do evil things, and they might break the law, but that doesn't mean they don't want and strive for these things.

How does this relate to your character? Well... if your character is True Neutral, that means that either the character is apathetic towards the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis, or they believe that going too far in either direction is actively harmful to the multiverse. To me, it sounds like the character in question doesn't oppose slavery less because he wants to be able to lord over other sentient beings (a hallmark of Evil, capital E for D&D), but more because it doesn't affect him. This keeps with his alignment; he doesn't care. He is apathetic towards Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. It doesn't matter to him.

If your character were to say, "I don't oppose slavery because I think people should be allowed to be owned," that might veer towards evil for my tastes.

In all, I would have a frank discussion with the player and lay this out. Ask him what his character believes. If you say to the player, "The way you're describing your character sounds like he's Evil to me. Why isn't he Evil?" and then remind them that you don't penalize the character for being explicitly Evil, see how he reacts. In the end, it doesn't matter what's written on his character sheet as long as everyone is having fun.

Now that that particularly minimal quibble is out of the way, I invite your critique.