What alignment is this character?

[SangoProduction]

Raised as a kobold slave to a great red dragon, Zix slaved away tirelessly (or at least, whenever the dragon looked Zix's way). His entire way of life revolved around the tiny pieces of discarded treasure until a group of adventurers came in and killed the great dragon....and took the loot.
"If Zix learned how to do what they do, Zix could also kill a great dragon and become bestest kobold ever!" Zix thought.
He followed behind them. Listened to their conversations. Learned of capitalism. And of doing great deeds...and being paid for them! The humans just give away their money in exchange for doing "helpful" things. The adventurers even once helped a worthless human child find its parents, and it turned out to be a noble's daughter.

Enough of hiding in their shadows! Zix has learnt enough! Zix will be next great adventurer...as soon as Zix finds a party.

Basically, everything the character Zix does is with the end goal of making gold in mind. Even his rather common "altruistic" behaviors, as he expects to get something of value in the future, from favors to actual valuables.
He would never betray his party for gold. This is because a long term party makes a stupid amount of gold, and can kill dragons and take their gold, and then spend that gold to get even more gold.
(Unless they would have no chance of survival with or without him. In which case, it's just be cashing out *and* not getting killed. Two remarkably nice things. You can't make money if you're dead.)

Would he put his life on the line to save someone? Depends. The average weighted rewards vs the chance of dying.
Will he steal? Not many kobolds in town. If he's caught, he'd the the prime suspect. And then he couldn't do quests. But outside of civilization (like traveling traders)? Possibly. But by not respecting the property of another might mean that they could turn to crime, which could have a knock down effect which increases the chance of his own property not being respected either, which might be more costly. But possibly.
He'd defend the cities he works in...because he works with them. And people getting killed means less people doing commerce, which means less gold that could fall in to his hands.
He would not use false flag attacks to create a need for his services. The short term gain of a job like that doesn't compare the the potential losses if found out.
In the case of famine, he would try and help in whatever way he could, including cutting his own rations. This would ingratiate him with the populace, and give him a stronger seat of power to work from.

He probably would not fight against unjust laws that don't affect him. Unless a large enough group of other people who could reasonably enough force the laws to change decide to.
If he took a job that suddenly became a lot more dangerous than anticipated...he'd still do it. It'd be a great opportunity to renegotiate the compensation. And if they refuse to renegotiate, then he will stop working with them.
He'd prefer not to kill, if possible. Though he doesn't have many qualms over it if they insist on being a danger to him and his party. The fewer hands there are in a commercial unit, the less gold can be produced. Which means less can come under his control.

[RNightstalker]

First read I'd put it at N.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Agree with true neutral. He does not do overtly evil things but only does good things for money. He follows laws as long as they don't cause him trouble.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I'd agree with Neutral as far as the Good/Evil axis goes. For the ethical aspect (Chaos versus Law) I think any of the three could work depending on what you emphasize. Is he a firm believer in the system of capitalism and economics, and regulation to ensure fairness? Could be Lawful. Or does he not care about anything except as it helps him personally, only keeping contracts and following laws because a reputation for not doing so would hurt his long-term prospects (and happily dumping laws/contracts for a profit if he's sure doing so can't come back to bite him)? Could be Chaotic. Somewhere in between? Neutral.

[ezekielraiden]

Honestly, it feels like you make these threads super frequently, even though you don't--feelings are weird that way. However, this is easily the third or fourth thread you've made asking about the alignment of a morally ambiguous character. Something to reflect on.

As with basically every character you've asked about, Zix has the "does altruistic behaviors pretty much exclusively on the expectation of personal reward." That is pretty much definitional "not Good." It doesn't mean Evil and usually means Neutral. Someone who more or less exclusively justifies altruism through selfish motivation, and who explicitly will drop any pretense of altruism when under "enough" pressure, pretty much cannot be a Good person. Yes, there will be rare exceptions, but by and large you can loosely categorize Good, Evil, and Neutral as:
Good: Pretty much always does the altruistic, humble things whenever the opportunity arises, unless an incredibly strong compelling interest dictates otherwise (e.g. not stopping to save a child's pet cat while a murderer is racing to kill again). Generally cannot be tempted with material goods or power.
Neutral: Needs "encouragement" most/all of the time before they're willing to risk anything for other people. Only doing good things for reward, but not really interested in evil things (torture, terrorism, murder, etc.) either, with variable levels of willingness to do dirty business if pay is good enough. More or less, neither willing to act with altruism nor with cold, unfeeling brutality unless encouraged to.
Evil: Naturally chooses to act in ways that harm others, even of there isn't necessarily reward for it. Almost always expects to get more than they receive for every seemingly "altruistic" exchange, and often must get such payment either immediately, or by deception of the victim. Many "fresh" evil types compartmentalize, trying to justify evil behavior in just select areas while maintaining the good elsewhere, but corruption is a creeping thing.

Your characters, at least when you ask about them, are rarely if ever Good. They don't act with kindness because they feel they need to. They act with kindness because it will earn them physical rewards sooner or later. Delayed gratification does not altruism make, just ask Ayn Rand.

As for Zix's law/chaos axis, insufficient data for meaningful answer. He could be huge on contracts (very lawful--having the deal spelled out means less chance of surprise and a clear definition of future reward), or he could be huge on the independence of market agents (very chaotic--"I'm not enslaved by ANYONE or ANYTHING and I never ever will be again!!!"). Or anywhere in between. He takes care of his own...but everyone does that, that's literally "not-Good" 101. The big J himself said: “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.” (Luke 6:32-34, NIV) Good people are kind and generous to everyone, including their enemies (though being kind and generous does not preclude conflict or even violence! It just means you genuinely care about others' wellbeing and act as such.)

Or to put all this more simply:
Good follows the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." People categorically are not tools, because any logic that denies the Will of others (and thus equivalently their moral status and/or personhood) denies the possibility of one's *own* Will, and is thus self-contradictory. Neutral doesn't buy that, but doesn't take the opposite either, that people should be viewed as tools. Evil *does* think that, at least some of the time, people *should* be viewed as tools.

[mucat]

I agree with ezekielraiden. From everything you've told us, Zix sounds Neutral, both on the good/evil and on the law/chaos axes. But he's not strongly COMMITTED to neutrality, so it wouldn't take much for him to tip the balance toward good, evil, law, or chaos. The right nudge from the wrong source at the right time...and he could find that what he REALLY likes is helping people. Or causing trouble. Or getting what he wants, regardless of who it hurts. Or putting things in order, because seriously, what is WRONG with these crazy disorganized lunatics?

So for now, Zix remains, in the immortal phrase [redacted] used to describe [redacted -- this is a non-polical board] -- "a victim of his last conversation." So you've got all kinds of room to eventually portray him as lurching with genuine enthusiasm toward whichever alignment would make the best story. ;-)

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Neutral: Needs "encouragement" most/all of the time before they're willing to risk anything for other people. Only doing good things for reward, but not really interested in evil things (torture, terrorism, murder, etc.) either, with variable levels of willingness to do dirty business if pay is good enough. More or less, neither willing to act with altruism nor with cold, unfeeling brutality unless encouraged to.

I think it's worth noting that while "encouragement" is a common reason for Neutral characters to take risks, personal "investment" in the situation is probably about as common. A Neutral person may risk their lives to help their family, their friends, or even something as abstract as their country, but not a random stranger (at least not without "encouragement" like a favorable risk/reward ratio).

Incidentally, this can also apply to Evil characters, but it tends to be a redeeming or at least sympathetic trait, bringing them closer to Neutral rather than cementing them as Evil. The same is true of Good characters; if you're only helping because you've got a personal stake in the matter, it's a little bit less Good and a little bit more Neutral, and could even be a flaw ("I know it's wrong, but he's my brother; I can't leave him hanging out to dry").

[bannondorf]

likely Neutral...maybe Chaotic Neutral, even his alliances are for his own benefit and he has no major qualms about breaking laws one way or the other, he only obeys them to secure his own desires later. He sounds like a pre-rebel Han Solo, who was solidly CN.