Help me qo quickly determine this characters alignment

[GrayDeath]

Hello, its me again!

We will have another "lets see if he likes RPG`s Player this weekend (Sunday to be precise), who aside from a few novels has no previous D&D Knowledge.

We already built his Character with him (Sorcerer, helped with Spell Selection) but he cant decide which Alignment to be. As its going to be only 2 to 3 sessions where he is sure to be in the group, "wait and see then enter alignment" also isnt an option.

So I`ll just ask the swarm of the Playground for a consensus.

Backstory: he comes from very rich roots, never lacked for anything material and HIGHLY values that to stay that way. He was taught however, that it is the duty of the "Better" People to "teach" their lessers how to become better as well, and fastidiously keeps to that teaching.
Now WHAT he teaches is a bit... more variable. Usually its a combination of clear materialism, relatively noble self interest and a clear duty to obey ones betters and fulfill ones tasks, but from time to time he puts in some more personal tendencies (like his interest for art making it as a "keep artists and art alive, its more important than a few peasents") or good Spirits ("Who cares about that village if it doesnt have a still?").
Overall though the core tenets dont change.


Actionwise he is very selfish unless he has promised otherwise, but usually does in no way enjoy others suffering (sadly he also rarely NOTICES unless prodded that his actions may make others suffer ^^).

Exception: if one manages to push enough of his buttons he will flay them alive and laugh while doing so, even if he has to rationalize it later on.
And he hates Dwarves with a Vengeance.

When asked what it would take for him to sacrifice himself to prevent it, he said "nothing short of the death of all I love, or the end of the world".


Myself I`m already pretty sure where I woud put him, but lets make it so: I will count all votes until saturday evening, and follow the majority. :)

Thanks in advance.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Most likely LN. Throughout his upbringing society's systems served him, and he wants to keep them in place. He's morally ambiguous, but organized.

[ngilop]

Nothing there strikes me as outright evil nor good.

With his emphasis on doing what the superiors say as opposed to individual interest, is more lawful than chaotic

Lawful neutral (http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html) to me, and pretty solidly.

[heavyfuel]

True Neutral.

Theres a book somewhere that talks about tendencies, like half alignments. I'd peg him as TN with LE tendencies

[weckar]

Lawful Neutral.
Keeps promises, feels the need to justify actions, values a rigid class structure.

[MisterKaws]

That's a textbook LN.

[hamishspence]

if one manages to push enough of his buttons he will flay them alive and laugh while doing so, even if he has to rationalize it later on.
And he hates Dwarves with a Vengeance.

If he routinely flays Dwarves alive for "pushing his buttons" he could quite easily be Evil.

[GrayDeath]

If he routinely flays Dwarves alive for "pushing his buttons" he could quite easily be Evil.

Well, lets put it this way: Ordinary people need to push 2 or more of his buttons HARD.

A Dwarf needs to push one of them "normally".

But he does not go out of his way to kill (or flay) dwarves. At most he does so to insutl them and if they want something he can deny them to do so.

[weckar]

He kills them... to insult them?

[GrayDeath]

He does not go out of his way to kill them.

He DOES go out of his way to insult them/Hinder them.

Clearer now? ^^

[zlefin]

sounds NE or maybe LE to me. Though nearish the border to neutral on the good/evil scale.

[Remuko]

Sounds CE or NE to me. Yeah he's got some Lawful tendencies too but I don't think they outweigh anything else. That extreme racism against dwarves and the capacity to flay ANYONE alive regardless of supposed justifications, screams Evil to me. No Good and almost no Neutral (on the good-evil axis) person would resort to something that cruel and gruesome even against awful people.

[Zanos]

LE I think. Values a society and thinks everyone should have their place, keeps his word, flays dwarves.

[Lapak]

He prioritizes his own comforts and prejudices, he values order and 'everyone in their place' from a position where he has always been near the top of the hierarchy, he's capable of horrible cruelty (and reveling in that cruelty) when people "push his buttons."

He's definitely, unquestionably Evil, probably Lawful Evil but a deeper dive into his philosophy could justify an NE.

[denthor]

With what you wrote.

LAWFUL (all caps for a reason)neutral

Since he is new keep an eye on actions.

Hated of dwarfs who cares. I like to run 1/2 orcs elves and dwarfs hate me on sight. They just do not attack on site if I am trouble they may laugh first wait then after I am no longer standing help. May even stop the bleeding. Place a random single dwarf in trouble somewhere see what his reaction is. Level dependent maybe crocodile dwarf is low level monk.

Based on what you wrote. LAWFUL nuetral.

Offer him a contract killing for a dwarf that gambling and defaults on paying. Contract to kill that would be lawful evil test.

[Elvensilver]

Definitly Lawful, some evil tendencies, the question is: does he act upon them? If not, LN, if he does LE, on the border to LN - but depending on actions on the table it can change in either direction, even to Good - if he learns to value more things, and to controll his rage.

[Conradine]

I'm not sure if he's Lawful or not.
But I'm 100% sure that if he really flayed alive even one sentient while laughing, then he's Evil and quite clearly so.

If it was an hyperbole and the worst he does is throwing insults, he's Neutral.

[StevenC21]

He's completely LN.

[Lapak]

Exception: if one manages to push enough of his buttons he will flay them alive and laugh while doing so, even if he has to rationalize it later on.
And he hates Dwarves with a Vengeance.
All of you voting Neutral really need to reread this. This is so very, very not neutral.

[StevenC21]

I would like to change my vote.

Lawful Evil.

[ericgrau]

I don't see much alignment based. So TN or LN. However if he would kill a person without a great reason other than the personal reasons listed then LE. Maybe NE. Keep in mind this isn't cartoon villain evil, and he could still function well in the group up until the point where his ideals conflict with the party's goals. Even then he might be smart enough to set aside his interests enough to get along with the group, or do some bad things in secret via notes passed to the DM. Doing terrible things without even giving the party and/or law authorities at least a poor excuse to prevent retaliation is bad form though. No one would actually do this. You at least hold up appearances to get past others if you want to survive long as LE.

[denthor]

All of you voting Neutral really need to reread this. This is so very, very not neutral.

What filter are you using?

If we are in the modern world then he is evil.

If we filter in a world where you are farmers and a man come in takes the taxes in the form of your bed. This man stands up for you. The collection agent say a you are a nobody not a noble. This noble had every right to kill for the insult.

Our morality has changed with the centuries life is less cheap. But we can quickly return to kill the other person over small breakdowns in social order. Which if you think about it we would then during a riot not call msny evil.

Which is why I say Nuetral and lawful. He dispersed justice because he could.

[The Kool]

I'm not sure if he's Lawful or not.
But I'm 100% sure that if he really flayed alive even one sentient while laughing, then he's Evil and quite clearly so.

If it was an hyperbole and the worst he does is throwing insults, he's Neutral.

Have to agree with this, it would take a bit more observation to tell for sure. Similarly, on the Lawful-Chaotic scale, I have to ask if he actually adheres to some structure of behavior or set of rules? Or does he merely pay lip-service to it and make excuses for doing what he wants? The former is Lawful, the latter is Chaotic, and I couldn't really tell which he is from your brief description. My initial thought was CE, but then I read closer and wondered if it was LN, but can't really tell without the above observations.

[Spore]

Lawful Evil if his work as an adventurer does not work for the greater good (stopping villains and slaying demons and such).

[Zanos]

If we filter in a world where you are farmers and a man come in takes the taxes in the form of your bed. This man stands up for you. The collection agent say a you are a nobody not a noble. This noble had every right to kill for the insult.
Killing someone over an insult is Evil in D&D 3.5.

[Khazreil]

I would go LE, but on a 3 axis system i would say NLE

[Lapak]

What filter are you using?
The D&D one.

He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
That's from the paragraph on Lawful Evil. I was about to bold the revelant portions, but oh wait, the entire thing exactly describes this guy.

Which is why I say Nuetral and lawful. He dispersed justice because he could.
Flaying people for annoying you is not justice, but we don't have to stop there. Not caring enough about other people to notice that you're causing them to suffer? Not caring about the lives and livelihoods about others, except in how it serves your personal desires and pleasures? Defaulting to 'very selfish' unless you're paid to be otherwise?

Dude is textbook evil in the everyday, banal, minor-aristocrat-the-players-are-happy-to-see-humiliated-at-the-end kind of way.

[GrayDeath]

Love the feedback so far!

The thread is open until around 8pm GMT today, then I will collect the consensus.

[Conradine]

Sadistik kill is Evil capital letters. The kind of Evil that done even once damn you to Baator ( unspeakable torture + murder for pleasure = damnation ).

A quick, violent manslaughter in a fit of rage followed by some remorse can still be ( dark grey ) Neutral.

[DeTess]

Depending on the buttons that needed to be pressed to turn him berserk, he's either LN tending to Evil, or LE. However, I'd tell this new player that he's LN, because if you tell him he's LE there's a chance he'll either consider it a criticism of sorts on his backstory, or a as permission to play up the characteristics of his character that would be more disruptive to the group.

[Covenant12]

Lawful neutral with both scattered odd and disturbing tendencies. He has a risk of falling to lawful evil in the near future, but doesn't sound like he's done so yet. Irrationally hating another race doesn't make you evil, just misguided. Mass murdering them because of that hatred makes you fall to lawful evil, but likely still arguing they are lawful neutral or even good. The belief in personal superiority and instructing lessors because he was told he should, without caring so much the nature of those lessons is strongly lawful neutral.

And I don't make light of his racial hatred or anger issues, both are awful. He could fall very fast to lawful evil, in multiple ways. ...wait. Has he actually done this? Do people occasionally mock him and he responds by torturing them to death? Or does it just seem like he might in the future?

Lawful people can be quite selfish, but they won't often take unjustly unless their rules/laws/code allows it. He is definitely quite lawful. Maybe not Durkon lawful, but at least Roy lawful. (with almost no good to go along with it) Selfishness and minimal concern for others is generally neutral on the good/evil axis.

[GrayDeath]

As its come up a few times now:

He has flayed 2 people alive for truly pushing his buttons. These events were about 2 years apart, and he tried (more or less successfully) to rationalize and justify his actions via both his status, their status, and the unlawfulness and Evilness of their actions (I myself would say one of them kind of deserved it as he was a CE Bandit Lord who habitatually slaughtered innocents, though that wasnt the reason our guy killed him for, the other just was REALLY good at pushing other peoples buttons...deathly so in fact ^^).

He has killed a few dwarves, but not in excessively ... excessive ways (as pusing his buttons that much qould require him to actually talk with them longer ^^), all these could be rationalized reatively well (ergo were very prejudiced but only mildly evil overall).

Overall see the Flaying/Prejudice mroe as "things that can happen, and have happened" than" things that happena lot/at the drop of a Hat".

[Covenant12]

He has flayed 2 people alive for truly pushing his buttons. These events were about 2 years apart, and he tried (more or less successfully) to rationalize and justify his actions via both his status, their status, and the unlawfulness and Evilness of their actions (I myself would say one of them kind of deserved it as he was a CE Bandit Lord who habitatually slaughtered innocents, though that wasnt the reason our guy killed him for, the other just was REALLY good at pushing other peoples buttons...deathly so in fact ^^).

He has killed a few dwarves, but not in excessively ... excessive ways (as pusing his buttons that much qould require him to actually talk with them longer ^^), all these could be rationalized reatively well (ergo were very prejudiced but only mildly evil overall).I misinterpreted then. Fairly solidly lawful evil. You fall fast and far towards evil with one extremely act. He could possibly come to an awakening and be redeemed. But he hasn't tried to start on that path yet, and doesn't look to be planning to.

Evil and good actions don't mathematically balance well.
"If you repair several neighbors' houses you're Stan the helpful carpenter. If you then kill and eat one neighbor's daughter you are Stan the cannibal. No amount of additional carpentry work will change that."
Well I guess it could be balanced. By say, sacrificing your life to save a group of orphans. Might reach neutral. Going down is easier and faster than up.

[ericgrau]

As its come up a few times now:

He has flayed 2 people alive for truly pushing his buttons. These events were about 2 years apart, and he tried (more or less successfully) to rationalize and justify his actions via both his status, their status, and the unlawfulness and Evilness of their actions (I myself would say one of them kind of deserved it as he was a CE Bandit Lord who habitatually slaughtered innocents, though that wasnt the reason our guy killed him for, the other just was REALLY good at pushing other peoples buttons...deathly so in fact ^^).

He has killed a few dwarves, but not in excessively ... excessive ways (as pusing his buttons that much qould require him to actually talk with them longer ^^), all these could be rationalized reatively well (ergo were very prejudiced but only mildly evil overall).

Overall see the Flaying/Prejudice mroe as "things that can happen, and have happened" than" things that happena lot/at the drop of a Hat".

So one of the two was innocent and merely annoying. Ok, so evil then. The other one is a tougher discussion, but the innocent one makes it an easy call. There's always a justification, but prejudice is still evil too. The only thing barely pushing for his not evilness is how frequently adventurers kill. But adventurers are at least supposed to have a good reason; killing an innocent should be a major accident if it ever happens. If he wasn't an adventurer he wouldn't just be mildly evil, he'd be a super evil serial killer. Sure he has motivations & personal justifications. So does almost everyone including almost all serial killers.

[upho]

As its come up a few times now:

He has flayed 2 people alive for truly pushing his buttons. These events were about 2 years apart, and he tried (more or less successfully) to rationalize and justify his actions via both his status, their status, and the unlawfulness and Evilness of their actions (I myself would say one of them kind of deserved it as he was a CE Bandit Lord who habitatually slaughtered innocents, though that wasnt the reason our guy killed him for, the other just was REALLY good at pushing other peoples buttons...deathly so in fact ^^).

He has killed a few dwarves, but not in excessively ... excessive ways (as pusing his buttons that much qould require him to actually talk with them longer ^^), all these could be rationalized reatively well (ergo were very prejudiced but only mildly evil overall).

Overall see the Flaying/Prejudice mroe as "things that can happen, and have happened" than" things that happena lot/at the drop of a Hat".Judging from your posts so far, this guy is most definitely EVIL™ according to D&D's moral absolutism, most likely LE or possibly NE. Which is the most fitting depends largely on how much effort he actually puts into being true to his word and adhering to a set of rules, whether they're social conventions and written laws in a society or a more specific set such as his "teachings".

For example, did he break any written laws torturing and/or killing his victims? If he did, was this fact in and of itself a minor, major or non-existent problem in his mind?

[KillianHawkeye]

I was on the fence but given the new details, that's textbook Lawful Evil. That's basically a villain's backstory.

[ngilop]

SO.. I took your post about his behaviors as exxagerations not actual fact.

If he is flaying people alive just for being annoying, well for any reason really. he is most certainly EVIL.

if he justifies it as a 'right' action that is what makes him lawful

so this guy is completely of the lawful evil variety.

[Conradine]

well for any reason really

Mh... yes... except mabye the most extreme reasons ( like the families of Neb's victims in Baldur's Gate ).

[Kish]

Neutral Evil. Selfish, sadistic, murderously racist...You don't have to be Xykon to be evil.

[denthor]

As its come up a few times now:

He has flayed 2 people alive for truly pushing his buttons. These events were about 2 years apart, and he tried (more or less successfully) to rationalize and justify his actions via both his status, their status, and the unlawfulness and Evilness of their actions (I myself would say one of them kind of deserved it as he was a CE Bandit Lord who habitatually slaughtered innocents, though that wasnt the reason our guy killed him for, the other just was REALLY good at pushing other peoples buttons...deathly so in fact ^^).

He has killed a few dwarves, but not in excessively ... excessive ways (as pusing his buttons that much qould require him to actually talk with them longer ^^), all these could be rationalized reatively well (ergo were very prejudiced but only mildly evil overall).

Overall see the Flaying/Prejudice mroe as "things that can happen, and have happened" than" things that happena lot/at the drop of a Hat".

I apologize to all of those who quoted I now agree with you

LAWFUL evil. With a path forward to redeem himself if he wants it. Doubt he will take it. Fun redemption arc.

[GrayDeath]

Well, Time is up and the COnsensus is Lawful Evil, with Tendencies towards both lawful Neutral and Neutral Evil. Which was here I would put him myself too (as its backstory I dont know the "Buttons" myself, depending on them more or less Evil....).

Check. I think the Player will be satisfied too, as his plan was an affable (to important" people and his allies) Noble with Problems was pretty much his plan all along.

Thanks for all your Input!