Allignment of a professional killer

[Selion]

I'm trying to describe this character morale with phrases allocating an allignment for each of them.

- He's a professional, he likes a job well done, he tries to follow his contract strictly to keep his clients satisfied (Legal)
- He often resolves in trickery to close up with his target, he has not complaints lying (Chaotic)
- He has not interest in fair battles and he has not an honor code, he just would do anything to take down his target (Neutral)
- In his private life he is a hedonist (chaotic)
- He kills without remorse and he's not protective regarding human life (Evil)
- He doesn't actually enjoy the act of killing and he doesn't like to bring unnecessary pain and torture. (Neutral)
- By the way, if torture is required by contract, he just does the job (Evil)

This could easily range from LN to CE, what do you think it should be the right allignment to describe someone like him?

[H_H_F_F]

A hired blade that accepts contracts without discrimination is extremely evil, no one gives a **** whether he enjoys it or not.

I would also not call anyone who lives his life completely selfishly and acts against any sane society's conventions and laws "lawful".

I would think neutral evil, though I could also see CE. Anything else is absurd, in my opinion.

[Elbeyon]

What does he kill for money? Is it monsters? Because, I call those adventurers. If he is hired to hunt monsters, he is probably NG or N at worse. If he is hired to hunt people, he is probably NE.

[Kish]

Lawful Evil.

- He's a professional, he likes a job well done, he tries to follow his contract strictly to keep his clients satisfied (Lawful)
- He kills without remorse and he's not protective regarding human life (Evil)
- Willing to torture (Evil)

That's it, really. Hedonism is unaligned, lack of honor is an absence of good points; nothing else you listed pushes him in any direction, but he's really firmly lodged in Evil.

[Seto]

Result-oriented assassin ready to do anything, with no specific methods, no code except fulfilling his contracts and keeping his clients happy?
Put my vote down for Neutral Evil.

[Crake]

Lawful Evil.

- He's a professional, he likes a job well done, he tries to follow his contract strictly to keep his clients satisfied (Lawful)
- He kills without remorse and he's not protective regarding human life (Evil)
- Willing to torture (Evil)

That's it, really. Hedonism is unaligned, lack of honor is an absence of good points; nothing else you listed pushes him in any direction, but he's really firmly lodged in Evil.

Agreed. Hedonism is only chaotic if it affects the other aspects of your life. If his hedonism got in the way of his professionalism then it would be chaotic, otherwise, agreed, unaligned.

Lying and trickery themselves are also not chaotic, they are simply tools in a toolbox. It's how they're used, and to what end, that determines the alignment.

[Selion]

Agreed. Hedonism is only chaotic if it affects the other aspects of your life. If his hedonism got in the way of his professionalism then it would be chaotic, otherwise, agreed, unaligned.

Lying and trickery themselves are also not chaotic, they are simply tools in a toolbox. It's how they're used, and to what end, that determines the alignment.


I can agree with this, so all the relevant traits point toward evil, I could make him worship Norgorber, the paladin in the group will love it :P (gotta buy a wand of undetectable alignment )

[Particle_Man]

Does he only follow the contract in order to keep his clients satisfied, rather than from any love of rules as such? If so, neutral evil not lawful.

Is he a team player? A loner or rebel? Neither?

How does he see his future? Would he ever retire? Why?

[Biggus]

Sounds like a classic neutral evil to me. Compare to demons, devils and yugoloths; he's far more like the mercenary yugoloths than the other two. And someone who has no qualms torturing and killing people for money is definitely evil.

[Drelua]

Yeah, definitely very evil. Not enjoying killing might be neutral, but having no problem killing people is about as evil as it gets. As for Lawful/Chaotic, you could argue anything but probably neutral? I don't know, that axis means completely different things depending who you ask.


I can agree with this, so all the relevant traits point toward evil, I could make him worship Norgorber, the paladin in the group will love it :P (gotta buy a wand of undetectable alignment )

Wait, are you a GM or player? If this is an NPC, cool, but if you're playing this character in a good group I'd definitely recommend making sure everyone's okay with it. With this motivation, it would be hard to justify this character joining a group of adventurers, and it's a lot less likely to cause conflict with other players if they know what's going on.

[Selion]

Wait, are you a GM or player? If this is an NPC, cool, but if you're playing this character in a good group I'd definitely recommend making sure everyone's okay with it. With this motivation, it would be hard to justify this character joining a group of adventurers, and it's a lot less likely to cause conflict with other players if they know what's going on.

I think the paladin is the outlier this time, there are already a couple of evil characters in the group.

[Drelua]

I think the paladin is the outlier this time, there are already a couple of evil characters in the group.

Okay, as long as your group knows what you're doing. I did something similar once, my character was just someone that wanted revenge and decided to make friends that could help him get it. It helped that his class got the ability to mimic someone else's alignment at the same level he got enough hit dice to detect as evil. The good news is, Paladins need pretty much every stat but int, so lying to them should be fairly easy if they RP that.

[King of Nowhere]

- He's a professional, he likes a job well done, he tries to follow his contract strictly to keep his clients satisfied (Legal)


I wouldn't call this lawful, simply pragmatic. keeping your client satisfied is something you do to get a reward. liking a job well done, well, everyone would rather do a good job than a shabby one. and when you're into the killing business, it's just another measure of survival.

without a strong law/chaos tendency, i'd just slap him as NE

[DMVerdandi]

Neutral evil

The good evil axis are moral
the lawful chaotic axis is political


Killing people for hire is against the law, but not necessarily an act that would cause an upset to the natural order. Being a hedonist isn't chaotic either, it's not politically aligned, but rather an understanding of what "good" is.
Hedonism says that pleasure is good, but unless it's wanton masturbation, one would understand doing certain things ultimately lessens the amount of pleasure you receive. If the consequences cause you pain, then it's not good, see?



The actions are someone who for their own personal gain, is doing bad things.
Chaotic Evil despises control from structures and will interject their own way into already existing structures, regardless of who they hurt. Lawful evil uses the structures already in place to hurt people.

[H_H_F_F]

Wait, you're a player?

I'll reiterate the point other people have made: you NEED to make sure your group and dm are ok with what you're doing (Ooc). If they're unaware, this can be a real campaign killer.

[lylsyly]

Purely True Neutral. He does what he's paid to do without reqard to anything except his paycheck.

[H_H_F_F]

Purely True Neutral. He does what he's paid to do without reqard to anything except his paycheck.

TN is explicitly meant to represent most people. Not very self sacrificing, not very selfish, not very honest but not very deceptive, etc. Just... People.

Evil isn't "devoted to the gods/goal of evil". Evil is a lack of humanity, of compassion, of justice. Killing people for money is evil.

[Selion]

Wait, you're a player?

I'll reiterate the point other people have made: you NEED to make sure your group and dm are ok with what you're doing (Ooc). If they're unaware, this can be a real campaign killer.

They are perfectly aware, no under-covered plot bombs on my parts, my character will try to hide some behaviours to some party members, maybe, but i think we'll be too much occupied in monster slaying and world threatening perils to discuss about morale issues (this group has been a bit toward action until now), the paladin himself has already said that his character is a believer of dialogue and redemption, so unless i kill innocents right in front of him i think I should be fine.
The wand to hide my alignment is just for in game interactions, outside the game they'll know i'm evil.

[newguydude1]

evil if he kills good innocent people.
good if he only kills evil people/creatures according to bovd.

good people would rather die than kill an innocent good person.
neutral people would kill an innocent good person for survival.
evil people would kill an innocent good person for something more trivial. like money, or honor, or job.

[hamishspence]

evil if he kills good innocent people.
good if he only kills evil people/creatures according to bovd.
BoVD specifically states that "killing evil beings purely for profit" is nonevil but nongood - but it also states that this only applies to "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil".


So, a professional killer who only kills evil-aligned chromatic dragons, or fiends, purely for profit - can be Neutral - but never Good.

And one who kills evil beings for profit when they aren't beings of "consummate, irredeemable evil" - will be committing Murder, and will be Evil themselves.

[Conradine]

I would say Neutral Evil. Not monstrous or psychotic, but clearly Evil.

[Selion]

BoVD specifically states that "killing evil beings purely for profit" is nonevil but nongood - but it also states that this only applies to "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil".


So, a professional killer who only kills evil-aligned chromatic dragons, or fiends, purely for profit - can be Neutral - but never Good.

And one who kills evil beings for profit when they aren't beings of "consummate, irredeemable evil" - will be committing Murder, and will be Evil themselves.

While i may concur that the right alignment is evil, and already made up my mind with this idea, how is that different from a soldier?
A soldier who kills civilians is certainly evil, but a soldier who fights other soldiers for profit could as well be neutral, according to common sense.
The difference seems more on the lawful-chaotic side, a soldier kills in a context in which it's socially considered right killing.

[H_H_F_F]

While i may concur that the right alignment is evil, and already made up my mind with this idea, how is that different from a soldier?
A soldier who kills civilians is certainly evil, but a soldier who fights other soldiers for profit could as well be neutral, according to common sense.
The difference seems more on the lawful-chaotic side, a soldier kills in a context in which it's socially considered right killing.

I'd say "civilian" and "non civilian" casualties of course matter, but a soldier who kills solely for money isn't a soldier, but a sellsword. I could live with sellswords being faintly evil by definition. An assassin, however, is EVIL.

[Vaern]

I'd say lawful evil. He has no qualms with killing people so long as the money is right, which is clearly evil, and living a life that involves abiding by his contacts and not deviating from predetermined conditions thereof is lawful. Hedonism isn't necessarily chaotic, merely self indulgent, and resorting to trickery isn't necessarily chaotic, just generally considered to be dishonorable.

[Elbeyon]

I don't see how being professional and good at the job means he is lawful. He is just being practical (at least as practical as a serial killer can be)

[Selion]

I'd say "civilian" and "non civilian" casualties of course matter, but a soldier who kills solely for money isn't a soldier, but a sellsword. I could live with sellswords being faintly evil by definition. An assassin, however, is EVIL.

A marine who goes in a mission, kills following their orders, doesn't care about patriotism and doesn't enjoy the act of killing, caring only about their salary.
I would consider such a guy neutral, i'd even say there are a lot of soldiers like that and i wouldn't say they are inherently evil.

[Seto]

A marine who goes in a mission, kills following their orders, doesn't care about patriotism and doesn't enjoy the act of killing, caring only about their salary.
I would consider such a guy neutral, i'd even say there are a lot of soldiers like that and i wouldn't say they are inherently evil.

I don't believe most soldiers would do literally anything to follow orders, and OP's character is just fine with doing that. Staying away from real-world comparison, killing someone without remorse and because you were ordered to, not caring about the cause? Evil. Maybe not "inherently", irredeemably Evil, but the act is Evil, and reading to OP, it's an act that the character regularly commits, because it's his job. According to Hannah Arendt, it's even the archetype of evil: not demonic, but banal, a refusal to make a moral decision and think beyond what you're told.
What should make it amply clear is also the description : "by the way, if torture is required by contract, he just does the job". Torture under D&D rules is unambiguously and always Evil.

EDIT: Oh, you're OP, and you were talking about sellswords, not the assassin. My bad. Well, yes, a mercenary may very well be Neutral. It depends on what missions they're ready to accept and perform. There has to be some sort of limit, of code. I maintain that regardless of status as a sellsword or assassin, someone who will stop at nothing to follow orders has the potential to slip into Evil really really fast.

[Yahzi Coyote]

This is why I use a different framework for alignment.

Everybody knows what "fair" means, and everybody wants to be treated fairly. What changes is who else they think deserves to be treated fairly.

NE = nobody.
CE = people stronger than them.
LE = people who it is profitable to be fair with.
CG = friends, kin, and members of their group.
LG = everyone who agrees to be fair.
NG = everyone.

On this scale your guy is clearly LE: he treats his clients fairly, and everybody else is just an object. All the other stuff - whether he's hedonistic in his own time or tortures his victims for fun - is just a matter of personal preference. After all, some people run over the NPCs in Grand Theft Auto and some don't; that doesn't make them good or evil, because those aren't real persons. It's just a preference. (Torturing someone is not really morally that different that murdering them for profit - in both cases you're treating them like an object instead of a person.)

I find this system is more understandable by players and easier to adjudicate for the DM (me). On the other hand it does leave out several alignments (CN and LN), but I find that a feature, not a bug. I don't think human beings can be either of those as described (in my world CN is nature/animals and LN is magic/robots/technology).

[Drelua]

CG people care about less people than NG people? I don't want to get into an alignment debate, that's a well known bad time, but that makes it sound like NG is more good than other types of good, which is not what the rules say at all. I've used something similar, that if you're good you care about everyone, if you're evil you only care about yourself and people close to you, and if you're N on the G/E axis you might care less about people that aren't near you, or like you, not outright disrespecting life but willing to put your own life above a stranger's.

Good people care about other people's lives, even strangers, that's pretty much the bare minimum. CG just means you go with what feels right and don't follow a set of rules. CG or LG isn't less good than NG, they're two separate axes.

[Elbeyon]

Good people care about other people's lives, even strangers, that's pretty much the bare minimum. CG just means you go with what feels right and don't follow a set of rules. CG or LG isn't less good than NG, they're two separate axes.NG is the most good. LG and CG have to split their focus between law and good or chaos and good. A LG might follow the law even if it means a less good outcome for people. A chaotic good person might rebel against the law even if it means it is the most good for people. Sometimes a LG will pick law over good. Sometimes a CG person will pick chaos over Good. If a CG or LG person always did the most good thing, they would be NG.

[redking]

Neutral Evil for the classic hitman or lone assassin. Chaotic Evil if the assassin has psychopathic tendencies. Lawful Evil if the assassin works under the aegis of a guild, accepts missions, or works for a state agency.

[Drelua]

NG is the most good. LG and CG have to split their focus between law and good or chaos and good. A LG might follow the law even if it means a less good outcome for people. A chaotic good person might rebel against the law even if it means it is the most good for people. Sometimes a LG will pick law over good. Sometimes a CG person will pick chaos over Good. If a CG or LG person always did the most good thing, they would be NG.

That's not what any of the books I've looked at say. A lawful person doesn't necessarily care about the law, their code could be entirely unrelated to the law, and entirely focused on doing good, as with paladins. A CG character might also not care about the law, they might just not even think about whether something's legal, just do whatever feels right. I can't see how either of those approaches make someone less interested, less able, or less focused, in doing good.

Remember, lawful does not equal law-abiding. A Paladin shouldn't hesitate to break laws that enforce cruelty.

[Elbeyon]

That's not what any of the books I've looked at say. A lawful person doesn't necessarily care about the law, their code could be entirely unrelated to the law, and entirely focused on doing good, as with paladins. A CG character might also not care about the law, they might just not even think about whether something's legal, just do whatever feels right. I can't see how either of those approaches make someone less interested, less able, or less focused, in doing good.

Remember, lawful does not equal law-abiding. A Paladin shouldn't hesitate to break laws that enforce cruelty.The LG could choose to break LE laws. It can be an easy personal choice since Good is opposed to Evil. The issue is when things are more gray like LN laws. A LG supports the L in LN. Just like they support the G in NG. LG is also opposed to the C part of CG. A LG could find it easier to agree with a LN idea over a CG idea. Like how cleric alignments are within one step of their deities alignment. LG relates to LN and NG. NG relates to LG, CG, and TN. NG can support all Good while LG or CG would oppose the other types of Good based off C or L alignments.

[H_H_F_F]

I feel that you're being to technical, trying to treat the different alignments almost like chemical compounds of elements.

A CG character doesn't "support chaos and good". They can be a good person, aspiring only to do good in the world for everyone. They believe that the best way to be good is following your own moral impulses, which would always put you in the right direction. Systems are corrupt, and amoral by nature. They will always trend towards power and the status quo, not towards the good. Justice is found in the individual.

LG doesn't "support chaos and good." They can be a good person, aspiring only to do good in the world for everyone. They believe that the best way to be good is to create, assist and follow just systems, which on the long run will always create a better world. The individual is biased and limited. While a system can be wrong on occasion, it should be reformed, not abolished - and actively fighting the system every time it fails will cause it to become weaker, and will cause anarchy and disorder, a world worse for everybody. The best way to follow the moral good is to stand behind large, impersonal, unbiased systems guided by abstract rules.

A Neutral Good character isn't one that only cares about the good, unlike the others. It can be one that doesn't have a clear opinion regarding the question of the best way to pursue the good, or one who's philosophy falls somewhere in between the previous examples.

This is one sort of difference. You can also believe that alignments influence one's perceptions on a life well lived, and therefore on the nature of the good they want to achieve for others. Is it better to prosper than to be free? Is it better to die than to kill? Etc.

[Selion]

NG is the most good. LG and CG have to split their focus between law and good or chaos and good. A LG might follow the law even if it means a less good outcome for people. A chaotic good person might rebel against the law even if it means it is the most good for people. Sometimes a LG will pick law over good. Sometimes a CG person will pick chaos over Good. If a CG or LG person always did the most good thing, they would be NG.

I don't agree with that.
A CG is a person who thinks that law is sometimes a hindrance in achieving goodness (it's not like chaotic people have a compulsion in NOT following the law)
A LG is a person who thinks that a well established social system enforced by law is necessary to achieve goodness.
A NG character has not a bias in either directions
They're all good in the same way, they just have different ideas about social systems.

LN and CN exist in narrative and in real life IMHO

[hamishspence]

A CG is a person who thinks that law is sometimes a hindrance in achieving goodness (it's not like chaotic people have a compulsion in NOT following the law)To be fair, by saying "Neutral people feel neither a compulsion to obey, nor to rebel", and providing this as a contrast between Neutral, and Law and Chaos,

the PHB does imply that Chaotic people feel at least a mild compulsion to rebel, and Lawful people a mild compulsion to obey.

They don't have to follow it - but they do feel it.

[Him]

I'm trying to describe this character morale with phrases allocating an allignment for each of them.

- He's a professional, he likes a job well done, he tries to follow his contract strictly to keep his clients satisfied (Legal)
- He often resolves in trickery to close up with his target, he has not complaints lying (Chaotic)
- He has not interest in fair battles and he has not an honor code, he just would do anything to take down his target (Neutral)
- In his private life he is a hedonist (chaotic)
- He kills without remorse and he's not protective regarding human life (Evil)
- He doesn't actually enjoy the act of killing and he doesn't like to bring unnecessary pain and torture. (Neutral)
- By the way, if torture is required by contract, he just does the job (Evil)

This could easily range from LN to CE, what do you think it should be the right allignment to describe someone like him?

What are the conditions upon which he would take a contract?

There is your real answer.

[Drelua]

The LG could choose to break LE laws. It can be an easy personal choice since Good is opposed to Evil. The issue is when things are more gray like LN laws. A LG supports the L in LN. Just like they support the G in NG. LG is also opposed to the C part of CG. A LG could find it easier to agree with a LN idea over a CG idea. Like how cleric alignments are within one step of their deities alignment. LG relates to LN and NG. NG relates to LG, CG, and TN. NG can support all Good while LG or CG would oppose the other types of Good based off C or L alignments.

To me, the L/C axis isn't about what else you believe in addition to believing in G/E. It's about how you believe in being good. NG doesn't mean you have no opinion on L/C. People aren't that simple. They'll have a lot of different opinions, which average out somewhere near the middle. They could have strong feelings against laws that punish people for stealing food they need, and think laws around trespassing should be very strict, and have dozens more thoughts like that ranging all across the board but averaging out near the middle. Probably a decent amount of those views will be more moderate, but plenty won't be. No one's opinions will all fit in a neat box, without any outliers.

[mashlagoo1982]

What are the conditions upon which he would take a contract?

There is your real answer.

I have to second this sentiment.

There are many "what if..." scenarios that could make their alignment fall differently.

Find the limits (if any exist) and you will find the alignment.

[weckar]

If it weren't for the torture thing, I'd say LN. Because you're basically describing how most people in general experience Agent 47.

The torture eeks it towards Evil though. But a lack of caring for right or wrong, or any real allegiance, while killing both the Good and the Evil, would otherwise keep them Neutral. That's Adventurer neutral, not NPC neutral.