PDA

View Full Version : A question of alignment (!=4E)



Grey Paladin
2008-08-09, 03:05 PM
At the moment I'm playing a character I'm having a hard time to pin down on the (1-3E) alignment grid, any help would be appreciated.

The character believes that society is composed of a small number of Monsters, they who mold the minds and wills of others to fit their needs (Adventurers, Tyrants, bullies, gods etc) and of a majority of individuals too (mentally) weak to refuse service, they who are drawn to servitude like moths are to a flame.

The character has been a vile 'monster' for most of his life until an event has caused him to see the light, then he attempted to act the Paladin, but after a year or so he has noticed a disturbing behavior: as a 'Paladin' he was nothing but a 'good' Monster using the weak as pawns in his battle against others of his kin.

He has then concluded that the only way for the majority to be truly free of the tyranny of his brethren is their (and eventually his) utter destruction.

TL;DR Leaders are evil, people are good.

He travels from town to town like a prowling beast, each time removing all monsters he can find from the realm of the living, from mindraping lich god-kings to the snotty teenager who spreads rumors to bring upon the social destruction of others- any form of 'monstrous' leadership is usually destroyed.

At the same time, he rarely accepts rewards and mostly spreads his vast wealth (amassed by toppling governments) among the 'pawns', he has no respect for the life of monsters but would sacrifice his own in a moment's notice for that of any innocent, when facing guards or other servants he usually employs non-lethal tactics.

Unlike what his actions may suggest, he is a very orderly person and believes society needs a 'government' to function - he just believes such a 'government' does not requires Leaders.

The obvious answer would be True Neutral, but he seems to be too much of an extremist for such a mellow alignment, and 2E Druid Neutral is not used.

Now he is the target of a Smite, and despite never writing down his alignment the DM said it has became crucial to decide upon it once and for all- according to him the damage bonus is the difference between the (permanent) death of my character and 1 digit HP.

I shall keep the type of the smite secret as to not effect the answers.

For those of you who are still reading, thanks in advance.

monty
2008-08-09, 03:08 PM
I'd say somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil.

fractic
2008-08-09, 03:19 PM
I'd say he's definatly evil. He's out for indiscriminate distruction of leaders no matter how benevolent or malevolent they are. And he is only doing it to further his personal idea of an ideal society (how does he picture his leaderless governement?). On the law chaos scale it's hard to say. Probably between lawful and and neutral.

xelliea
2008-08-09, 03:29 PM
lawful evil i would say

kamikasei
2008-08-09, 03:33 PM
Yeah, I have to agree with lawful evil. Essentially he's trying to forcibly eliminate all embodiments of a power structure he dislikes, to set up one he's more ideologically comfortable with. If he was just tearing down what exists without putting anything in its place, that'd be chaotic.

However I might call him chaotic anyway if he's not making any attempt to create the system he sees as desirable. If he's just trusting that, with the "monsters" removed, the sheeple will naturally create a sheeple-only system, that's a sort of utopian anarchism that screams chaotic to me.

Premier
2008-08-09, 03:41 PM
Coming from a 1E point of view and looking at the 1E descriptions, I'd say probably Chaotic Neutral, even though the Good-Evil axis is shaking a lot.

He's definitely not Lawful. "Lawful" being interpreted as "believes in the idea of government in general", "true to his own set of ethics" or "has a methodical mind" is a stupid 3E / late 2E invention. A general belief that a government is necessary is not enough to be Lawful. Robin Hood is Chaotic Good (IIRC, actually declared so in some edition), even though he's a staunch supporter of the feudal system, he just doesn't like the present leaders. Also, all Lawful alignment descriptions explictily mention the phrase "law and order". Unlawful removal (assassination) of rulers is, by definition, NOT "lawful".

Putting all that wealth to good use is Good, but killing snotty teenagers and the like is pretty damn Evil. As for killing kings and the like, it would depend on whether they're fair and just rulers or tyrants. Without knowing the character's exploits in great detail, I can't say which outweights the other, hence I tentatively suggest Neutral, which is also often used for just plain medically insane characters, which he well might qualify as.

Grey Paladin
2008-08-09, 03:42 PM
Premier: You've basically followed my thought process (nearly, I believe Law&Chaos are more complicated) to the line, but I am still greatly uncertain of the result.



However I might call him chaotic anyway if he's not making any attempt to create the system he sees as desirable. If he's just trusting that, with the "monsters" removed, the sheeple will naturally create a sheeple-only system, that's a sort of utopian anarchism that screams chaotic to me.


With that being true, would you put him at Chaotic Evil?

kamikasei
2008-08-09, 03:45 PM
With that being true, would you put him at Chaotic Evil?

Yes. The evil part seems clear to me, if he's basically killing anyone he perceives as a leader, authority figure, or dominant personality, just for being such.

fractic
2008-08-09, 03:46 PM
I tentatively suggest Neutral, which is also often used for just plain medically insane characters

I object to this. Just because you're insane that doesn't make you any less evil for "freeing" humans by killing them.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 03:51 PM
I don't really see how anyone can get "Lawful" out of that character; the whole purpose is to remove the leaders that are interfering with the free choices of the people. And does it in a very chaotic manner. Definitely Chaotic.

I'm going to be controversial here and suggest "Chaotic Good". Reason: all of the actions are taken for good motives. The character doesn't agree with most people on how minor or serious a particular sin is, but the character is NOT slaughtering snotty teenagers indiscriminantly -- only "the snotty teenager who spreads rumors to bring upon the social destruction of others". So only those who harm others. Yes, the reaction is overkill for the crimes, but not to the character. So, strongly chaotic, good leaning neutral, with chaotic overwhelming everything else really.

fractic
2008-08-09, 03:54 PM
I don't really see how anyone can get "Lawful" out of that character; the whole purpose is to remove the leaders that are interfering with the free choices of the people. And does it in a very chaotic manner. Definitely Chaotic.


We got to lawfull because the character acts in an orderly fashion, has a clear moral code (no matter how twisted it may be) and seeks order just in a different way than it is. But it's not nearly as clear cut as the evil-good factor.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:00 PM
Yes. The evil part seems clear to me, if he's basically killing anyone he perceives as a leader, authority figure, or dominant personality, just for being such.

This is getting into what ends up being the heart of the issue whenever I, at least, get into talking about alignment (I think it ends up that way in all cases, but that's just my opinion [grin]): do we judge alignment on the intentionalist scale or the consequentialist scale?

Your comments -- and those of the others -- are basically saying "He's killing people outside of the accepted conditions, so he's evil". My comments are based on "But he's killing the leaders because he thinks that leaders are harming people and are thus evil. How is that not fighting evil?"

So I'm judging alignment based on his intentions: what is he TRYING to do in killing those people. You, here, seem to be basing it on the results: what is actually the result of those actions. But I think that alignment -- and morals in general, actually -- should be and can only be based on intentions, since no character can know all the consequences before acting.

To me, he's the logical conclusion of a strongly Chaotic Good person, who thinks that laws, order and leadership impede the free exercise of personal choice in life, think that therefore those who attempt to impose law on people are evil, and sets out to stop them.

fractic
2008-08-09, 04:04 PM
Your comments -- and those of the others -- are basically saying "He's killing people outside of the accepted conditions, so he's evil". My comments are based on "But he's killing the leaders because he thinks that leaders are harming people and are thus evil. How is that not fighting evil?"


Meet Baddy McEvilguy who thinks babies and puppies are the most evil of all things and therefor spends his life hunting these vile creatures down :smallwink:.

Good and evil is fairly black and white in DnD. And objective too given spells such as detect evil.

The_Werebear
2008-08-09, 04:05 PM
I put him at Chaotic Evil. He seems like an anarchist at heart, smashing down any authority and trusting that everyone will work together after he has ruined the "monsters." That's his overall goal. His means are very evil. Big CHAOTIC, little evil.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:06 PM
Meet Baddy McEvilguy who thinks babies and puppies are the most evil of all things and therefor spends his life hunting these vile creatures down :smallwink:.

And why would that be necessarily an evil character, if that was all they did that was evil, and everything else they did was good?


Good and evil is fairly black and white in DnD. And objective too given spells such as detect evil.

None of this in any way addresses my comments about why it depends on how you look at it. I have seen nothing in the various discussions of alignment that says that intention doesn't count, only consequences.

kamikasei
2008-08-09, 04:07 PM
There is a tension between intentions and actions and how they contribute to alignment. But I don't think you can really work off intentions alone in the way you describe. By your logic, if a character sincerely believes for some reason that wearing a hat in public is ultimately harmful to those around you, he'd not only not be evil for killing anyone who wears a hat, he'd actually be good for actively working to prevent the harm he thinks is being done.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's nuts.

Part of the resolution may be that, since good and evil are apparently objectively measurable in D&D, perhaps we can say that harm is, too? Certain sorts of harm can be said to be clear and real, while others may be more abstract; and if you commit clear harm such as murdering a person to prevent or mitigate lesser or more abstract harm like "suppressing the will of others", you're doing evil.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:12 PM
I put him at Chaotic Evil. He seems like an anarchist at heart, smashing down any authority and trusting that everyone will work together after he has ruined the "monsters." That's his overall goal. His means are very evil. Big CHAOTIC, little evil.

Well, saying that he uses "evil means" is actually a good argument for his being evil. The main problem I have with that is that his "evil means" are the exact same means that most adventurers use to foil evil plots, which is kind of a slippery slope. Yeah, you can say that he's killing "innocents", but to him they aren't innocent.

Alignment, to me, gets really hard when the character is utterly delusional, but again I judge on intentions and can't justify evil on that grounds.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:16 PM
There is a tension between intentions and actions and how they contribute to alignment. But I don't think you can really work off intentions alone in the way you describe. By your logic, if a character sincerely believes for some reason that wearing a hat in public is ultimately harmful to those around you, he'd not only not be evil for killing anyone who wears a hat, he'd actually be good for actively working to prevent the harm he thinks is being done.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's nuts.

Actually, what I'd say is not that that interpretation is nuts, but that the CHARACTER is nuts [grin]. Which, of course, would be absolutely true and correct.

What do you feel would be the consequences of allowing such an obviously insane character to be considered good?

fractic
2008-08-09, 04:16 PM
There is a difference between having good intentions and accidentally releasing an evil god, and having good intentions and killing people for wearing hats. You'll have to admit that.

I won't say that intention doesn't matter at all. But you can't judge solely or even mostly on intention.

Grey Paladin
2008-08-09, 04:24 PM
A common misconception I seem to have accidently created is that the character attempts to destroy any and all forms of government - such is not true, he believes in the Rule of Law where law treats all equally and justly- he simply sees no creature to be fit to rule over the will of others, nor the combined will of most others - but the combined will of all represented in a neutral law (and ideally, with different lands holding to different ideals so the Law does not turns upon its purpose).

the naive idealistic psychopath he is, he also believes that with the removal of monsters and their corrupting aura such a situation will naturally occur.

Kamikasei: If we assume the existence of Ethical Calculus this discussion will quickly turn into one on the numeral values of actions, and rather then discussing a single person we'd be discussing morality in its full glory - I doubt any two posters will agree on the value of murder or rape.

fractic
2008-08-09, 04:25 PM
A common misconception I seem to have accidently created is that the character attempts to destroy any and all forms of government - such is not true, he believes in the Rule of Law where law treats all equally and justly- he simply sees no creature to be fit to rule over the will of others, nor the combined will of most others - but the combined will of all represented in a neutral law, with different lands holding to different ideals.


I'm confused, in the average campaign setting what other sorts of governement are there?

[edit]: Heck what kinds of governement in the real world would conform to his ideal?

Grey Paladin
2008-08-09, 04:28 PM
A king is a king by law, but it is by his law.

Fractic: Theoretical (never seems to work in practice) communism :smallbiggrin:

fractic
2008-08-09, 04:35 PM
Fractic: Theoretical (never seems to work in practice) communism :smallbiggrin:

I agree that communism as intended is indeed the perfect form of government but there is a reason it doesn't work as intended.

The main two reasons why I think your character is evil are:

He is indiscriminate, people can live good lives under a king
He follows his personal ideals. Other people might disagree with this. Even the people he tried to help.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:36 PM
There is a difference between having good intentions and accidentally releasing an evil god, and having good intentions and killing people for wearing hats. You'll have to admit that.

Well, yes, in how everyone else reacts to that character, specifically that they would try to kill or lock them up to stop that behaviour, but I'm not convinced that that would affect alignment.


I won't say that intention doesn't matter at all. But you can't judge solely or even mostly on intention.

[shrug]. I'm not convinced of that, and I fail to see how else one could do it. How are insane people to be treated in this world?

fractic
2008-08-09, 04:37 PM
How are insane people to be treated in this world?

When they commit acts commonly believed to be evil (like murder), they are punished. But because we recognise their insanity the method of punishment differs.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:38 PM
I agree that communism as intended is indeed the perfect form of government but there is a reason it doesn't work as intended.

The main two reasons why I think your character is evil are:
He is indiscriminate, people can live good lives under a king

Not to him, but this is debatable ...


He follows his personal ideals. Other people might disagree with this. Even the people he tried to help.


But this is not: this is basically the definition of a Chaotic character, and so to say this as a main reason for him to be evil is to say that Chaotic characters are generally evil.

Daimbert
2008-08-09, 04:39 PM
When they commit acts commonly believed to be evil (like murder), they are punished. But because we recognise their insanity the method of punishment differs.

So we don't treat them like evil people, then?

vicente408
2008-08-09, 04:41 PM
I vote for Lawful Neutral.

From the description given by the OP:

"he rarely accepts rewards and mostly spreads his vast wealth (amassed by toppling governments) among the 'pawns', he has no respect for the life of monsters but would sacrifice his own in a moment's notice for that of any innocent, when facing guards or other servants he usually employs non-lethal tactics."

"Unlike what his actions may suggest, he is a very orderly person and believes society needs a 'government' to function - he just believes such a 'government' does not requires Leaders."

Reasoning for Lawful:

As the second quote shows, while he does actively try to disrupt the status quo with regards to "corrupt" leadership, he does believe in an orderly, lawful society. This tells me that he is a Lawful person at heart.

Reasoning for Neutral:

The description also says that he himself has been a "monster", but became regretful and decided to become a noble Paladin. However, he came to see that path as being no better than his old life. Equally disillusioned with both "evil" and "good", he tries to live according to his own morality, as opposed to that of others. Additionally, while his methods for removing "monsters" may be considered evil, his attitude and methods with regard to "innocents" is very altruistic and "good". Overall, I'd say his methods are neutral.

ericgrau
2008-08-09, 04:46 PM
+1 lawful neutral

Neutral doesn't need to be mild and halfway in between, it can be a mix of two extremes or an extreme desire to balance both. He hates both paladins and monsters.

Lawful because he has a highly orderly and structured approach to all this and wants his version of a proper society. In fact the rules specifically say that lawful characters want to follow legitimate authority and will fight against the illegitimate kind. Self-discipline is likewise described as lawful.

Specifically, lawful neutral is "The Judge". He's that type if I ever saw one.

fractic
2008-08-09, 04:47 PM
But this is not: this is basically the definition of a Chaotic character, and so to say this as a main reason for him to be evil is to say that Chaotic characters are generally evil.

Perhaps I should have said:

He follows personal goals and tries to force them upon other people.



Well, yes, in how everyone else reacts to that character, specifically that they would try to kill or lock them up to stop that behaviour, but I'm not convinced that that would affect alignment.


I thought about this and this is what I came up with.

Good is an abstract idea (in DnD this is undeniably so). Let's drop the name good and call the idea Juju. What makes an act juju is adhearance to this idea.

How people react is based is based on their personal view on what is benifical to them. Some people believe that juju acts help them and some don't. The response of the people is however totally immaterial to wether an act is juju or not.

Now the word "good" has associations with it, such as benifical to most people, but it's still just a word like "juju". And this is why we call good, "good" and not "juju", it's because it's more or less common consensus in our current standing in philosophy.

nagora
2008-08-09, 06:27 PM
CE(N); the alignment that matches up with Pandemonium in 1e.

Nothing lawful about the character at all as far as I can see: he rejects his own leaders and laws and rejects totally the idea of leaders - that's a pure-bred anarchist. His means make him evil.


Good is an abstract idea (in DnD this is undeniably so).
Actually, in AD&D, Good is an objective fact which manifests itself in the world.

fractic
2008-08-09, 06:30 PM
Actually, in AD&D, Good is an objective fact which manifests itself in the world.

It really makes no difference to my argument. Also why can't abstract ideas be objective facts?

nagora
2008-08-09, 06:33 PM
It really makes no difference to my argument. Also why can't abstract ideas be objective facts?
Sure, but if it manifests in the world it's no longer abstract, is it? I wasn't disagreeing with your "rose by any other name" argument.

fractic
2008-08-09, 06:36 PM
Sure, but if it manifests in the world it's no longer abstract, is it? I wasn't disagreeing with your "rose by any other name" argument.

The number 1 is an abstract idea. It also is very objective and manifests in the world. But I don't really want to go off-topic and dive into the philosophy of mathematics.

vicente408
2008-08-09, 06:37 PM
He rejects the idea of leaders, but he has great respect for the idea of law. That's what makes him lawful; he doesn't like the current form of law, but he still believes strongly in the goodness and power of Law as a whole.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2008-08-09, 06:42 PM
+2 lawful neutral

Neutral doesn't need to be mild and halfway in between, it can be a mix of two extremes or an extreme desire to balance both. He hates both paladins and monsters.


^This.

In the Lords of Creation game, there is this one god called Elimanoshan. (sp?)
He is True Neutral, in that he wavers towards all extremes.

Noble Savant
2008-08-09, 06:45 PM
Perhaps I should have said:

He follows personal goals and tries to force them upon other people.


So? Why is it that following a personal goal is evil? If my personal goal is to kill any and all sadistic torturers, and I try and force people to go along with it, am I evil?

The problem with the way many people view the alignment system today is that they attempt to force their morals onto the system.

For example: A character who executed those who were cruel and malicious towards animals on a general basis. Some would argue that he is an evil person, and should be stopped from committing murder. The same people would argue that a character who executes those who are cruel to humans on a general basis is good, and that his actions are justified. Why? Because they are imposing their own morals on the system. They decided how evil one thing is, as compared to the other. They decided that combating the lesser evil in that fashion is still evil.

A different person may well say that both characters are good, another might say that they are both evil.

Each alignment system, in order for it to work, needs to decide on some common rules for defining good and evil, (Law and Chaos could use some clarification as well). Most systems don't.

There are a number ways to do this.

Evil and Good could be a set of traits, where we choose which traits are Good and which are not. Someone who is selfish or self-serving would be Evil, even if he never brutally murdered someone. Someone who is honest and generous would be Good, even if he was battle-mad conqueror.

This would present the same problems as basing alignment on actions, because inevitably, people would try to choose their own traits, (or traits they saw as positive), and mark them as Good.

In fact, most every system will likely run into this problem.

Of course, one can imagine a system that doesn't face this. Assume that some Over Being has taken some traits and actions and labeled them "Good" , assume he does the same thing with other traits and actions and labels them "Evil".

This system is also based on the moral viewpoint of a specific entity, but it has one key difference. It is internally consistent. Assuming every eventuality was covered, every character could easily be dubbed either Good or Evil.

Law and Chaos should also be defined in this way, but in conversations of this sort, the views on both tend to be much more uniform, both because neither is "better" then the other, and because both have been far more rigidly defined over the years.

This conversation is essentially every person debating over whose ethics are the "best". Each person will, after looking at their own moral views, will come to one conclusion or another.

I recommend that you ask your DM to take the place of this "Over-Being". He will tell you what is evil and what is good, at least, in the universe where the game is taking place. This is really what matters. DND cannot function without a clear alignment separation, and spells have a clear affect on different alignments. The DND universe, (and its magic) has its own internal logic, its own basic laws. “This is good and that is bad.” Magic functions according to these principals. It is up to the DM himself to judge what these principals are, to give the system consistency.

If you want my opinion, influenced by my own morals, I believe that the character is Chaotic Neutral.

He is Chaotic by virtue of the fact that he fights the crushing of free will. Essentially, those he considers monsters are those who robe others of their will and force them to conform to their own.

He is Neutral because of two components. As you stated he considers himself to be a monster, or "Evil". On the other hand, he fights against this evil, and will supposedly slay himself in the very end of it all. This dynamic is what I think should make him Neutral, though Chaotic Evil is perfectly fine as well, given that he feels like that about himself.

fractic
2008-08-09, 06:50 PM
So? Why is it that following a personal goal is evil? If my personal goal is to kill any and all sadistic torturers, and I try and force people to go along with it, am I evil?

A good point. But in your example it's not just your personal goal it's also the goal of the idea good. But then again I suppose it could be argued that the goal of the character described by the OP could be considered the goal of the idea law.

Still his goal does seem to conflict with good a bit and the fact that he is indiscriminate about it is also important.

vicente408
2008-08-09, 06:55 PM
He does things that correlate with Objective Evil (killing those whom most would percieve as innocent, or at least punishment disproportionate to their crimes). He does things that correlate with Objective Good (helping the helpless, sacrificing himself for the good of others). Adherence to neither of those two ideals exclusively, and following each of them in fairly equal measures, makes him Neutral with respect to Good/Evil.

He is very deliberate in his actions. He believes strongly in a code of Law. He holds himself to a personal code, but also wants a Lawful society. He kills people because he feels they are violating the spirit of the Law. I don't see how he is percieved as Chaotic.

fractic
2008-08-09, 07:00 PM
In light of all the arguments and grey paladins later expansion of his explanation, I'm going to change my point of view to Lawful Neutral aswell.

Ionizer
2008-08-09, 07:36 PM
Another vote for Lawful Neutral. Reasons have already been said.

Quick addendum, though. Does he enjoy killing those he believes are "monsters?" If he takes pleasure from it, I'd say he's Lawful Evil. If he just does it because he believes it is what must be done, I'd say he's Lawful Neutral.

Lyndworm
2008-08-09, 07:48 PM
The character believes that society is composed of a small number of Monsters, they who mold the minds and wills of others to fit their needs (Adventurers, Tyrants, bullies, gods etc) and of a majority of individuals too (mentally) weak to refuse service, they who are drawn to servitude like moths are to a flame.

This segment alone doesn't give much to go on, but it does impy a Chaotic bent. Let us continue...



The character has been a vile 'monster' for most of his life until an event has caused him to see the light, then he attempted to act the Paladin, but after a year or so he has noticed a disturbing behavior: as a 'Paladin' he was nothing but a 'good' Monster using the weak as pawns in his battle against others of his kin.

The same as above, but it does further the concept of the character containing both Good and Evil aspects within himself, and recognizing the difference.



He has then concluded that the only way for the majority to be truly free of the tyranny of his brethren is their (and eventually his) utter destruction.

This sounds almost entirely Chaotic with a slight hint of Evil.



He travels from town to town like a prowling beast, each time removing all monsters he can find from the realm of the living, from mindraping lich god-kings to the snotty teenager who spreads rumors to bring upon the social destruction of others- any form of 'monstrous' leadership is usually destroyed.

Here's an important hint. The term "monstrous leadership" is used, which would imply that the character recognizes other forms of leadership. This will be important later.



At the same time, he rarely accepts rewards and mostly spreads his vast wealth (amassed by toppling governments) among the 'pawns', he has no respect for the life of monsters but would sacrifice his own in a moment's notice for that of any innocent, when facing guards or other servants he usually employs non-lethal tactics.

This sentence implies a Good character: charity, a relentless desire to eradicate 'Evil,' self-sacrifice, and a respect for the lives of innocents.



Unlike what his actions may suggest, he is a very orderly person and believes society needs a 'government' to function - he just believes such a 'government' does not requires Leaders.

It is important to note that being highly orderly does not automatically make one Lawful, nor does it prevent them from being Chaotic. Additionaly, being Chaotic doesn't neccisarily mean that one disdains all governments, and being Lawful obviously doesn't mean that you support all governments. The only real clue here is the capitolization of the word 'Leaders.' This leads me to believe that the leaders to which this term refers are using 'monstrous' methods. So obviously some leaders in government would be okay, so long as they didn't lead through fear or force. I'm getting a Lawful vibe from this.



he believes in the Rule of Law where law treats all equally and justly- he simply sees no creature to be fit to rule over the will of others, nor the combined will of most others - but the combined will of all represented in a neutral law (and ideally, with different lands holding to different ideals so the Law does not turns upon its purpose).

This supports my previous assumption, the character supports law and leaders when the law is fair and the leaders just. He thinks that law is a good thing, a neccisary thing, but that it should never inhibit the will of a sapient creature.



the naive idealistic psychopath he is, he also believes that with the removal of monsters and their corrupting aura such a situation will naturally occur.

To me, this speaks only of naivete and offers no clue as to alignment. However, I've reached my verdict.


Lawful Neutral

Zack

Starbuck_II
2008-08-09, 07:53 PM
Another vote for Lawful Neutral. Reasons have already been said.

Quick addendum, though. Does he enjoy killing those he believes are "monsters?" If he takes pleasure from it, I'd say he's Lawful Evil. If he just does it because he believes it is what must be done, I'd say he's Lawful Neutral.

Hmm, good question.

I vote for both Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil: He leans toward LE but is somewhat LN.

fractic
2008-08-09, 07:57 PM
A question to grey paladin: How does the character go about removing the leaders from their position? Suppose he encounters an adventurer commanding serveral hirelings. Would he kill without asking questions, try to convince the adventurer to stop or something else?

Neon Knight
2008-08-09, 08:46 PM
Does he object to only formal authority? Or does informal authority also bother him?

Does he see any difference between a old man, who, although holding no formal authority or power, is so well respected that no one in his village makes a major decision without seeking his aide and a formal "village elder/leader/mayor?"

chiasaur11
2008-08-09, 10:03 PM
Put me with the Chaotic Evil.
The man doesn't set up or follow any system of law, and makes Judge Dredd look like the model of judicial mercy. I mean, he punishes everything from "Evil Lich King" to "Decent enough town councilman" to "snooty teen" with death.

And the insanity arguments don't wash. The Joker is almost universally regarded as CE and he's as crazy as they come.

vicente408
2008-08-09, 10:15 PM
Put me with the Chaotic Evil.
The man doesn't set up or follow any system of law, and makes Judge Dredd look like the model of judicial mercy. I mean, he punishes everything from "Evil Lich King" to "Decent enough town councilman" to "snooty teen" with death.

And the insanity arguments don't wash. The Joker is almost universally regarded as CE and he's as crazy as they come.

From the OP: "Unlike what his actions may suggest, he is a very orderly person and believes society needs a 'government' to function - he just believes such a 'government' does not requires Leaders."

He does follow a system of law. He tries to remove leaders that do not conform to his personal idea of law and leadership.

His killing is not indiscriminate either; he will only kill people in positions of power, and even then only if he feels they are abusing that position (however he determines that).

You also can't ignore his willingness to sacrifice himself for the common people. That's something important enough to factor into the Good/Evil axis of alignment.

chiasaur11
2008-08-09, 10:52 PM
From the OP: "Unlike what his actions may suggest, he is a very orderly person and believes society needs a 'government' to function - he just believes such a 'government' does not requires Leaders."

He does follow a system of law. He tries to remove leaders that do not conform to his personal idea of law and leadership.

His killing is not indiscriminate either; he will only kill people in positions of power, and even then only if he feels they are abusing that position (however he determines that).

You also can't ignore his willingness to sacrifice himself for the common people. That's something important enough to factor into the Good/Evil axis of alignment.


Here's the thing. Good deeds don't cancel out evil. Well, in DnD you can do so, sorta, with true Res and timestop, but I digress. hHs basically wrong viewpoint includes killing himself in the end anyway, so he doesn't get off the hook merely for giving up something worthless to him. Besides, in the end, given human nature, he'd kill everyone eventually, so there's nobody to sacrifice himself for. Few people in life do evil for evil's sake, anyway, so "for the greater good" don't wash.

If it did, Tim McVeigh'd be a good guy because he felt he was doing the right thing in murdering a building full of innocent people.

Dr Bwaa
2008-08-09, 11:01 PM
I haven't read anything past the OP, but if you do a search on these forums there's a thread called something like "What is V's Alignment?" referring to V, not Vaarsuvius, and it was the first thing I thought of when I read this. It was a very long debate and I don't recall how it ended, but it might save you all a bit of trouble :)

My personal opinion (for the OP's character and for V, incidentally, as I find their situations similar in a lot of ways) is NG. Read my posts in that other thread for the explanation behind it, I never want to type it out ever again :smallsmile:

vicente408
2008-08-09, 11:07 PM
Here's the thing. Good deeds don't cancel out evil. Well, in DnD you can do so, sorta, with true Res and timestop, but I digress. hHs basically wrong viewpoint includes killing himself in the end anyway, so he doesn't get off the hook merely for giving up something worthless to him. Besides, in the end, given human nature, he'd kill everyone eventually, so there's nobody to sacrifice himself for. Few people in life do evil for evil's sake, anyway, so "for the greater good" don't wash.

Do evil deeds cancel out good, though?

When does he "give up something worthless to him"? It seems from the OP's description that he cares greatly for the common people, and that is what motivates him to remove "monsters" in the first place. Speculation on how "he'd end up killing everyone anyway" is relevent, but doesn't have anything to do with what his alignment is now. If he followed the slippery slope and started killing more and more people with less and less justification, then he would definitely grow more Evil over time. But until he does, he's still overall neutral though. He has good aspects of his character, and he has evil aspects of character, both in pretty extreme amounts. Murder and willingness to die for innocents are both pretty extreme on the Good/Evil meter. If one of those aspects of his character overwrites the other, it establishes a double standard where one side of the conflict has stronger influence than the other.

chiasaur11
2008-08-10, 12:18 AM
Do evil deeds cancel out good, though?

When does he "give up something worthless to him"? It seems from the OP's description that he cares greatly for the common people, and that is what motivates him to remove "monsters" in the first place. Speculation on how "he'd end up killing everyone anyway" is relevent, but doesn't have anything to do with what his alignment is now. If he followed the slippery slope and started killing more and more people with less and less justification, then he would definitely grow more Evil over time. But until he does, he's still overall neutral though. He has good aspects of his character, and he has evil aspects of character, both in pretty extreme amounts. Murder and willingness to die for innocents are both pretty extreme on the Good/Evil meter. If one of those aspects of his character overwrites the other, it establishes a double standard where one side of the conflict has stronger influence than the other.


It said he'd kill himself once all other "monsters" are dead, so the guy has a bit of a death wish already. Moving the date up doesn't change any basic principles.

And the evil overwriting thing: How much would you have to donate to orphanages a year to not be evil if you kill a person a day for no reason?
It seems to me that, until you stop doing them, there are deeds that mark you as evil no matter what else you do.

vicente408
2008-08-10, 12:26 AM
It said he'd kill himself once all other "monsters" are dead, so the guy has a bit of a death wish already. Moving the date up doesn't change any basic principles.

And the evil overwriting thing: How much would you have to donate to orphanages a year to not be evil if you kill a person a day for no reason?
It seems to me that, until you stop doing them, there are deeds that mark you as evil no matter what else you do.

What about the converse? Are there deeds that can mark you as Good no matter what else you do?

But more focused on this particular case, I'd say the character in question is Lawful Neutral, but there is still a strong case for him to be Lawful Evil. Up to the DM in the end, I guess.

chiasaur11
2008-08-10, 12:35 AM
What about the converse? Are there deeds that can mark you as Good no matter what else you do?



Not that I'm aware of. It's a tricky area, mind you, but the presence of one prevents the other. Otherwise there'd be the "what if a person does both (good thing X) and (Evil thing Y) at once?" Not that doing some evil makes someone evil forever, it's just they gotta stop doing it before they can stop being evil. Like how if you mess up in a math problem, doing all the right stuff elsewhere in it doesn't prevent it from having the wrong answer.

vicente408
2008-08-10, 12:50 AM
Not that I'm aware of. It's a tricky area, mind you, but the presence of one prevents the other. Otherwise there'd be the "what if a person does both (good thing X) and (Evil thing Y) at once?" Not that doing some evil makes someone evil forever, it's just they gotta stop doing it before they can stop being evil. Like how if you mess up in a math problem, doing all the right stuff elsewhere in it doesn't prevent it from having the wrong answer.

Hehe, interesting example. On AP tests, one is actually given points based on completing individual steps of a problem, so you can actually get every step of the problem right except the last one, and still get all but one point for the problem. Net positive. :smallsmile: But I know that isn't what you meant, and I understand the analogy.

chiasaur11
2008-08-10, 01:00 AM
Hehe, interesting example. On AP tests, one is actually given points based on completing individual steps of a problem, so you can actually get every step of the problem right except the last one, and still get all but one point for the problem. Net positive. :smallsmile: But I know that isn't what you meant, and I understand the analogy.

Thanks. Ripped it off of a C.S. Lewis description of sin.

nagora
2008-08-10, 05:35 AM
He rejects the idea of leaders, but he has great respect for the idea of law. That's what makes him lawful; he doesn't like the current form of law, but he still believes strongly in the goodness and power of Law as a whole.

I don't think he sounds like he has any respect for the law; he's just using it as an excuse to force his will on others. "Stolen a bag of sweets? Great! That means I get to kill you!" Waving about some deluded and impossible form of ideal government as a sop to any Lawful types watching does not change the fact that he is acting Chaotically as well as evilly.

If he commited a crime (and by "if" I mean "when"), do you think this guy would drop on his own sword? I somehow doubt it.

CE(N)

nagora
2008-08-10, 05:40 AM
Hehe, interesting example. On AP tests, one is actually given points based on completing individual steps of a problem, so you can actually get every step of the problem right except the last one, and still get all but one point for the problem. Net positive. :smallsmile: But I know that isn't what you meant, and I understand the analogy.
Such tests are useless as they reward failure almost as well as success. In the real world, making something work is far more important than making something that doesn't work but "is elegant" or whatever.

In alignment terms, being evil and chaotic is far more important than what you were supposedly "trying" to be. Dead orphans are dead orphans regardless of what bright new utopia you planned to build on the ruins of the orphanage.

Sebastian
2008-08-10, 06:05 AM
Your comments -- and those of the others -- are basically saying "He's killing people outside of the accepted conditions, so he's evil". My comments are based on "But he's killing the leaders because he thinks that leaders are harming people and are thus evil. How is that not fighting evil?"


in the part where it says "he thinks". In D&D alignement is not an opinion, is a fact of life, "good" is part of the physic of the world like gravity or fire.

Or, at least so it was in previous edition, for 4e my answer is simpler, in 4e alignement have no function at all, mechanically speaking there is no difference at all (AFAIR) from being lawful good and being chaotic evil, so my suggestion is just drop alignement from the game and simply play your character as you have described it, and everything will be easier.

vicente408
2008-08-10, 06:34 AM
I don't think he sounds like he has any respect for the law; he's just using it as an excuse to force his will on others. "Stolen a bag of sweets? Great! That means I get to kill you!" Waving about some deluded and impossible form of ideal government as a sop to any Lawful types watching does not change the fact that he is acting Chaotically as well as evilly.

If he commited a crime (and by "if" I mean "when"), do you think this guy would drop on his own sword? I somehow doubt it.

CE(N)


Such tests are useless as they reward failure almost as well as success. In the real world, making something work is far more important than making something that doesn't work but "is elegant" or whatever.

In alignment terms, being evil and chaotic is far more important than what you were supposedly "trying" to be. Dead orphans are dead orphans regardless of what bright new utopia you planned to build on the ruins of the orphanage.

You make the assumption that he is using law as an excuse for his actions, but without knowing more about the character you can't make that assumption.

On the test thing, those tests are far from useless. The test I was referring to was an AP Calculus exam. The point of the test it to see how well you understand and can apply the concepts needed to solve the problem. Credit is given for being able to recognize the correct method and for each correctly performed step. Knowing how to do the problem is more important than being able to BS a correct answer, which is impossible in that setting. Besides, that scoring method is only used for the open-response portion of the test. The rest is multiple-choice, where you actually lose points for guessing an incorrect answer. They definitely don't reward failure, they punish guessing and make sure you understand the material.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-10, 08:34 AM
Part of the problem inherent in alignment discussions is that our world exists in a massively different frame of reference than the DnD world. If for no other reason than this:

We live in the information age. We have experienced many intellectual and scientific rennaissances. And we (as a result) often view morality as being slighty more ambiguous than do the members of the DnD world (who can point to a God and say, "Look, there he is.").

In your character's world, there is an absolute morality (as determined by your DM and the players). And his view of a leaderless society of equals is (in relative terms) centuries, if not milennia, away from being conceived as a possibility for the way things can be.

Because it's too long!

Things are inherently good or evil in action. PCs are allowed their indiscriminate killings because their victims ARE evil (no trial needed). A mad wizard or raving homocidal lunatic IS evil, because insanity does not play into motivation for determining alignment. Demons and Slaad are insane, but that is played out in their alignment.

Lawful and Chaotic are a little harder to cope with. So, I normally settle for Lawful characters being ones who will try to settle their disputes as lawfully and orderly as possible, before resorting to systemwide disruption. Even in an evil society, outright murder of the leaders could result in the commoner population suffering starvation, banditry, or worse. Likewise, a lawful character will uphold his contracts, debts, and duties (those involving others, not just his "personal" ones). The former is stronger than the latter, so I would say your character is Chaotic for two reasons:

1. He does not try to encourage the people to make the change themselves (in an orderly fashion), instead, he just cuts off the head and hopes the body survives.

2. Your character's view of the world (which exists in aligned absolutes) doesn't really exist. Equality can be a good thing, but that would probably be best dispensed by a benevolent clergy or feudal lord (yeah, feudal, because he would need quite a treasury to hire all the PCs needed to save his villagers from monsters, ensuring they are all not eaten in equality).
Alignment in a world of absolutes would judge people by actions, not intent (a paladin who kills an innocent unaware must still atone). So your actions seems Chaotic to me. On the other scale, you seem to have actions both good and evil, so I might just settle my really long post by saying Neutral.

So I'm calling it Chaotic Neutral, but mostly because I've gone on too long to start saying things about good vs. evil! :smalltongue:

silvadel
2008-08-10, 08:53 AM
Insanity may have a goal but it doesnt have an alignment. This is one of the things we battle in the court system all the time -- the truly insane aren't guilty.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-08-10, 11:55 AM
Something similar once happened to me in a game. I was playing a Badass character in a Starwars game. My objective was to save the universe from a super evil nutcase who was basically unraveling physics. Becouse he was more powerful than my character I did lots of "sidequest" missions and would "train" and get money by engaging in space piracy. I thought by targeting "evil" ships (Imperial Star Destroyers) I could get good amounts of money without bothering my morals... (which it didn't). I killed bad guys, got money to make my character more powerful (equipment) and got some training against swarms of stormtroopers in the meanwhile.

When discussion of my characters alignment came up (not that this mattered in that game but we discussed it in AD&D terms) I was fully voting for LG. The GM said Lawful Neutral... with this reasoning. "You killed thousands of people just to finance your personal weapons collection, you enjoyed killing them too." Basically this made me realise that as a player, coming from the characters perspective, just about any act can be justifiable, but it doesn't matter what intentions/thoughts/reasoning goes into your actions. It's how the universe sees your actions that determines alignment. Intentions don't matter much... it's a summation of your actions.

I'd say if the majority of "leaders" he killed were evil... he can justify a neutral or maybe even a good alignment. If he callously kills any leader at all (not just the ones who are "monstrous") then clearly he's evil.

How would he respond to meeting the following leaders...

1)A kindly benevolent Monarch, who has absolute power, but uses it solely to protect and nurture his people. (King Fahn of Lodoss?)

2)A Dictator who rules by force, but holds all as equals under him, grants them respect but expects absolute obediance. (General Mandalore?)

3)A Villiage elder, the kindly old grampa kind who rules totally by people's respect for his advise. (he's using his knoledge to manipulate people to his own ends?? If that kid willingly gives him a candy (thus depriving himself) does that qualify him as a monster?)

4)The elder statesman of a democracy who rules by guile and manupulation of the people, but does it well enough that everyone benefits. (Modern good politician?)

If he's go after all of these he's clearly evil, if 2 he might still be neutral, if none than possibly good.

Oh Yeah and insanity and level of intelligence (thus reasoning ability) have nothing to do with alignment in my opinion. So crazy or not doesn't matter.

Just my 2 cents on alignment

nagora
2008-08-10, 11:58 AM
You make the assumption that he is using law as an excuse for his actions, but without knowing more about the character you can't make that assumption.
Fair point. However, the character is still acting chaotically and evilly.


Knowing how to do the problem is more important than being able to BS a correct answer, which is impossible in that setting.
If BSing is impossible then there is all the more reason to punish getting the answer wrong as there is no risk of rewarding a BSer.

In engineering, wrong results with good methods can mean dead people.

Yahzi
2008-08-10, 12:02 PM
believes society needs a 'government' to function - he just believes such a 'government' does not requires Leaders.
With power comes responsibility- and with responsibility, therefore, must come power. In a society in which no one has power, no one has responsibility. In a society in which no one has responsibility, nothing gets done.

Your character, being as he is committed to total anarchy, is clearly Chaotic Evil.

Caledonian
2008-08-10, 12:03 PM
Again: see my signature, please.

Having ends that are good does not make one Good; having ends that are evil does not make one Evil. Same for law and Law, or chaos and Chaos.

Additionally, it's a matter of not only goals but means.

Does this person work systematically? Does he work methodically? Does he seek universal principles and solutions?

fractic
2008-08-10, 12:03 PM
With power comes responsibility- and with responsibility, therefore, must come power. In a society in which no one has power, no one has responsibility. In a society in which no one has responsibility, nothing gets done.

Your character, being as he is committed to total anarchy, is clearly Chaotic Evil.

As has been said before even though his ideal might be inobtainable that doesn't make it chaotic. He strifes for an orderdly lawfull society, just in a different form. That's clearly lawfull.

nagora
2008-08-10, 12:18 PM
As has been said before even though his ideal might be inobtainable that doesn't make it chaotic. He strifes for an orderdly lawfull society, just in a different form. That's clearly lawfull.

It matters not a jot what he says (or thinks) he strives for. He has set himself up as the sole arbiter of what is needed and has even split from his group to do so. That is chaotic.

If he was recruiting a band of like-minded thugs to go about this insane crusade then he might be Lawful Evil instead of Chaotic Evil.

Many fascist dictators have been Chaotics - they are dictators specifically because they can't stand to work with a group or abide any "law" that also applies to them. Of course, once in charge, they are happy to apply laws and rules to everybody else, but that doesn't make them lawful.

Lawful people are prepared to sacrifice personal goals for the advancement of the group goals. This guy won't even be in a group, let alone sacrifice his own ideals for the good of that group.

Chaotic Evils with a vision will not tolerate the compromises needed to work with others or accept arguments that their plan is misguided, but will happily force their "utopia" on everyone and anyone while slaughtering those who oppose them, or simply don't fit in with their plans.

CE(N).

BTW, the (N) is only a slight tendency derived from the fact that he only murders criminals and is clearly insane.

fractic
2008-08-10, 12:19 PM
So palladins who accidentally unleash an evil god will fall?

nagora
2008-08-10, 12:22 PM
So palladins who accidentally unleash an evil god will fall?
What's the connection? FWIW: such a paladin would have to atone, yes. But I wouldn't go so far as make them completly fall if the accident was beyond any reasonable prediction by the paladin.

fractic
2008-08-10, 12:23 PM
The connection is that you claim that the character would be creating anarchy which is chaotic. The character is actually trying to create an orderly world and is taking steps to do this. Just because it's doomed to fail doesn't make it chaotic.

nagora
2008-08-10, 12:31 PM
The connection is that you claim that the character would be creating anarchy which is chaotic. The character is actually trying to create an orderly world and is taking steps to do this. Just because it's doomed to fail doesn't make it chaotic.
No, I'm saying that he is knowingly acting chaotically. His end point does not change his actions here and now. Plus, he's not doing it accidentally either - he has consciously set himself up as the sole judge of what is desirable and is prepared to ignore local laws and customs to do it. AND he's prepared to kill for it.

The paladin's actions (ie, his volition) were not evil if it was an accident. However, if evil comes of the action then I would hold a paladin accountable to a lesser degree.

Just being stupid does not mean you get off the hook for your actions, just as ignorance of the law is not a defense, and for the same reasons.

CE(N).

fractic
2008-08-10, 12:34 PM
But like the paladin who would try to subdue the god again, this character would see the anarchy and think it's bad and try to introduce a lawfull society. It's the exact same situation.

nagora
2008-08-10, 12:39 PM
But like the paladin who would try to subdue the god again, this character would see the anarchy and think it's bad and try to introduce a lawfull society. It's the exact same situation.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda? If the paladin tries to subdue the god again then he will redeem himself. He doesn't get redeemed for his actions before he's done them.

If you're saying the example character will one day realise his mistake then all you're saying is that one day he'll change his alignment.

Tomorrow may never come; if he dies TODAY, he's going to the Abyss or Pandemonium in my book.

fractic
2008-08-10, 12:45 PM
In both the example of the paladin and this character. They aren't actually the ones directly responsible. The responsible is the one who tricked the paladin into releasing the god. Likewise the anarchy isn't created by the one who overthrew the government but rather by the people trying to take advantage of the situation.

nagora
2008-08-10, 12:51 PM
In both the example of the paladin and this character. They aren't actually the ones directly responsible. The responsible is the one who tricked the paladin into releasing the god. Likewise the anarchy isn't created by the one who overthrew the government but rather by the people trying to take advantage of the situation.

Er...this guy is specifically trying to make an anarchy ("no leaders"). He wants people to take advantage of the situation to build an anarchic society.

The ideal anarchy is ordered and peaceful; each member of society finds their own place and their skills and desires contribute freely to the whole. If someone changes their interests then they are free to find a new place without having to revolt or petition anyone. Harmony grows from mutual respect rather than from the point of a sword. It's a lovely thought, isn't it? Oh, well...

The reality is, of course, rather different. But that doesn't matter. The character is attempting to make the ideal anarchy, which is a chaotic ideal. His means make him evil.

fractic
2008-08-10, 12:53 PM
Er...this guy is specifically trying to make an anarchy ("no leaders"). He wants people to take advantage of the situation to build an anarchic society.


No he specifically isn't. He is trying to create a leaderless governement not an anarchy. It's not that hard to imagine a society where the 3 powers (law making, enforcing, judging) are handled by 3 powerfull spells.

nagora
2008-08-10, 12:59 PM
No he specifically isn't. He is trying to create a leaderless governement not an anarchy. It's not that hard to imagine a society where the 3 powers (law making, enforcing, judging) are handled by 3 powerfull spells.

I'm sorry, you are confused. Anarchy is leaderless society. That's what the word means.

fractic
2008-08-10, 01:00 PM
English isn't my first language. Even so it doesn't make it chaotic by definition.

nagora
2008-08-10, 01:09 PM
English isn't my first language. Even so it doesn't make it chaotic by definition.
Well, then you're asking me to take on faith that in the future he will stop acting chaotically for chaotic ideals and be lawful. You can't run an alignment system on that any more than you can run a legal system on the basis that witnessess always tell the truth.

fractic
2008-08-10, 01:20 PM
Well, then you're asking me to take on faith that in the future he will stop acting chaotically for chaotic ideals and be lawful. You can't run an alignment system on that any more than you can run a legal system on the basis that witnessess always tell the truth.

My point is that he isn't acting chaotically now. His actions attempt to create a orderly lawfull anarchy. Just because he fails, he isn't any less lawfull.

Timeras
2008-08-10, 01:59 PM
It matters not a jot what he says (or thinks) he strives for.
Actually, this is all that matters. Alignment is a matter of thoughts and intentions.
Example: A character sees a man trying to kill a little girl. He attacks the man and risks his own life to save the girl. He takes an even greater risk, because he takes a penalty to attack rolls to deal only subdual damage so this guy can have a fair trial.

The fact that the girl was actually a kind of shapeshifter that now escaped to kill innocents doesnīt suddenly make the character evil.

Itīs the same with the character this thread is about. The OP said that he kills what he perceives as monsters, just as all the good aligned PCs do every day. Only his perception is... flawed.
Also, he is not doing this for himself. He sees himself as a Monster to be killed for the good of the world as well. But because he canīt kill the other monsters once he is dead, he has to die last.

So, he is obviously good (but insane).

He wants to create an orderly society, so he isnīt chaotic.
But he doesnīt care about the laws as they are now, so he is not lawfull, either

His alignment is Neutral Good.

Grey Paladin
2008-08-10, 02:19 PM
How would he respond to meeting the following leaders...

1)A kindly benevolent Monarch, who has absolute power, but uses it solely to protect and nurture his people. (King Fahn of Lodoss?)

2)A Dictator who rules by force, but holds all as equals under him, grants them respect but expects absolute obediance. (General Mandalore?)

3)A Villiage elder, the kindly old grampa kind who rules totally by people's respect for his advise. (he's using his knoledge to manipulate people to his own ends?? If that kid willingly gives him a candy (thus depriving himself) does that qualify him as a monster?)

4)The elder statesman of a democracy who rules by guile and manupulation of the people, but does it well enough that everyone benefits. (Modern good politician?)


1) Offer him the choice between exile to Ravenloft or death.
2) Death.
3) Brooding tolerance.
4) Death.

Fractic: To your page two question- He'd stalk him for a few days until he can be sure of his nature - then its death or the same choice #1 got.

Nagora: If the actual result of his actions matters to this discussion, how would the setting being Planescape (where if enough people believe in something strongly enough, it becomes reality) effect it?

vicente408
2008-08-10, 03:09 PM
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder.

Anarchy has more than one meaning. While the most commonly used definition is that of chaos or political disorder, he is specifically trying to create an anarchy of the third type. Anarchy is a leaderless society, but it is not inherently chaotic. Whether it eventually creates a chaotic system is irrelevent, the intent is to create a more idealistic (from his perspective) lawful society.

Saving the life of a child is a good act. If that child grows up to become a brutal tyrant, does that make the act of saving his life retroactively evil?

JaxGaret
2008-08-10, 09:53 PM
The character is a roving murderous psychopath, whatever his ideals.

He's Chaotic Evil.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-10, 10:00 PM
So, he is obviously good (but insane).

As someone who, in the modern world, believes that there are no good and evil people, just good and evil actions, I can see where you are coming from. What I mean is that, in my view, the people normally called "evil," either have justifiably good reasons for their actions, or they are insane.

But the DnD world isn't made up of sane and insane people. Insanity isn't a thing (unless you are playing with Far Realms, and even then it is linked to a dark evil). The DnD world hasn't seen centuries of moral, economic, and political philosophers. And if it had, then it hasn't seen the printing press and similar inventions which could be used to distribute such moralistic ideas. And I don't mean "it hasn't" as in, "it soon will." I mean it never will, because if Descartes came along and said, "I think, therefore I am," then Pelor would come down and say, "No. I made you, therefore you are. Bow down."

Likewise, if a character said, "I'm innocent because I am insane," then Pelor would come down and say, "No. You became a mad necromancer and raised an army of undead in order to destroy all pointy hats. My adventurers will now kill you." Interestingly, would those saying this gentleman is LG say that the character will end up with Pelor in the afterlife? Because the divine forces of the gods, not the person's personal morality, decides where he goes.

I'm not saying his character isn't insane. I'm saying that no one in the DnD world would identify him as such: not a court, and not the holy powers that be. So, in my view, Chaotic and non-good he remains!

-I love these discussions!

JaxGaret
2008-08-10, 10:04 PM
Alignment is a matter of thoughts and intentions.

No, actions determine alignment.

chiasaur11
2008-08-10, 10:10 PM
No, actions determine alignment.

Darn skippy. Sure motives can be a mitigating factor, but actions are what counts.

nagora
2008-08-11, 03:42 AM
Actually, this is all that matters. Alignment is a matter of thoughts and intentions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Stormageddon
2008-08-11, 04:09 AM
I would have to go with CG for aliment. He's working towards a "good" purpose in a disorderly manner. He's the rebel.

Stormageddon
2008-08-11, 04:38 AM
Actually reading more of this thread. Giving your charters attitude on taking of lives I would put him at LN rather than CG. He's not TN because those charters are mostly purely self interested charters. Even though he kills he seems to do it out of a sense of what he sees as good and he seems to lean towards order rather than chaos. I would say he's the judge, jury and executioner.

Grey Paladin
2008-08-11, 04:54 AM
Philosopher stuff
Notice the setting's Planescape, where philosophy is the main driving force of the universe and faith the shaper of reality. Worlds have been morphed and men have been debated out of existence soley by the power of words so this area of study is pretty darn developed.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-11, 05:46 AM
Notice the setting's Planescape, where philosophy is the main driving force of the universe and faith the shaper of reality. Worlds have been morphed and men have been debated out of existence soley by the power of words so this area of study is pretty darn developed.

Ah...yes. Well then, I stand corrected. I didn't see the setting (and admittedly haven't played it), so I was going off base DnD stuff.

Then I must say that I am confused as to how Smites (or alignments for that matter) of any kind exist, if everything is quite so relative. I would just say that the Smite would work if the person smiting viewed it as proper in that case, and the smitee's alignment wouldn't matter a single snuff. Likewise, the character would be whatever alignment he darn well pleases, so long as he can justify it.

Of course if it is not so relative, and "faith" is similar to the gods' will, then my case stands as is.

Or, if they have the modern day set of philosophy that I was talking about, then the character would commonly be viewed as both Chaotic and Evil. Most people see nothing wrong with deposing tyrannical leaders. But deposing all leaders? Very few moralists (or regular joes) will agree with that. (I don't have a preference either way, so I'm not making judgments here.)

Edit: Sidenote - I hope your character survives, and were I your DM, I'd let you call your own alignment. I would hope it was written down on your sheet somewhere or something, so I could know that it was prepared for my smite. But either way, I'd prefer to just get the game rolling with a judgment in favor of the player. If I were really irked, I'd just smite you with the opposite thing later. :smalltongue:

Ashen Lilies
2008-08-11, 07:17 AM
+1 Lawful Neutral with Evil Tendencies.

Judging by your posts, it seems to me that this man doesn't kill tyrants, he kills people who choose to rule. If a King takes hold of the country and gives orders to the people, no matter how kind and fair he is, he's a monster. If the leader is only leader because the people consider him so, (the elderly grampa kind) then he isn't a monster.

Timeras
2008-08-11, 10:35 AM
No, actions determine alignment.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So, in your opinion the character in my example is evil because his intentions donīt matter and his action allowed a monster to escape?

hamishspence
2008-08-11, 02:08 PM
Intent and action both matter, it isn't one or the other. See BoVD for details: accident, negligence, murder, same act, differnt levels of knowledge or intentions.

Daimbert
2008-08-11, 05:45 PM
in the part where it says "he thinks". In D&D alignement is not an opinion, is a fact of life, "good" is part of the physic of the world like gravity or fire.

But this completely ignores my pointing out "intentionalism", and I have seen nothing in D&D to suggest that the intentions of the individual don't matter. In fact, most people will seem to agree that someone who is tricked into doing something evil -- like killing an innocent person -- hasn't done anything evil in D&D at all.

As an aside -- not aimed at you, BTW -- on the other comments about what Good and Evil mean, I've always liked this one (it's kind of stolen from Star Wars ideas and other philosophies, but seems to fit D&D):

Good - selfless.
Evil - selfish or self-interested.
Neutral - neither selfless nor selfish.

Yes, by this, most characters would be at least Neutral leaning, but it gives a nice and reasonable measure -- with no chance of redefinition -- to evaluate it, such as the question:

"Would you give you life to save the lives of many others?"

Good: "Yes".
Evil: "No".
Neutral: "Depends."

In this context, using this definition, the OP's character would be Good.

Daimbert
2008-08-11, 05:51 PM
Actually, this is all that matters. Alignment is a matter of thoughts and intentions.
Example: A character sees a man trying to kill a little girl. He attacks the man and risks his own life to save the girl. He takes an even greater risk, because he takes a penalty to attack rolls to deal only subdual damage so this guy can have a fair trial.

The fact that the girl was actually a kind of shapeshifter that now escaped to kill innocents doesnīt suddenly make the character evil.

Itīs the same with the character this thread is about. The OP said that he kills what he perceives as monsters, just as all the good aligned PCs do every day. Only his perception is... flawed.
Also, he is not doing this for himself. He sees himself as a Monster to be killed for the good of the world as well. But because he canīt kill the other monsters once he is dead, he has to die last.

So, he is obviously good (but insane).

I have to agree with this, since that was my stance [grin]


He wants to create an orderly society, so he isnīt chaotic.
But he doesnīt care about the laws as they are now, so he is not lawfull, either

His alignment is Neutral Good.

I don't agree with the "Neutral", though, because it seems to me that he only wants the laws and order in society to the extent that it allows people to exercise their own personal choices and follow their own consciences. Anything else would be imposition and would be wrong to him. That sounds, to me, precisely what a Chaotic character would want from a government.

ericgrau
2008-08-11, 07:16 PM
Timeras conveniently gave an example of helping an evil person when the character here may be hurting good ones. There's quite a difference between direct, active evil where you "intend to do good by it" and accidental aid to evil.

The act of killing is quite intentional, even with a justification. Before I assumed he was both helping those with a low-status and hurting both good & evil creatures with a high-status. Thus he is neutral for extreme acts of both good and evil. OTOH if he's just a mass-murderer with a justification and doesn't help anyone at the same time he is still a mass-murderer and he is evil.

Or maybe if I believe the people I'm killing en masse aren't human, and I think our country would be better without them, then really I'm good... Seriously, if you go by "I think I'm doing good" then there is not an evil person on the planet, not a single person who believes he is commiting evil acts. You hear about them in stories, but I'm sure you cannot name a single real person on the planet earth who says with serious intent, "Hey, I'm evil, ain't it cool?"

Doesn't matter if you think stealing from orphans is a good thing to do, it is evil to want to do so. Doesn't matter if you think giving to orphans is an evil thing to do, it is good to want to do so. Doesn't matter if you meant to give to orphans but someone else funneled out all the money, it is good to want to do so. Doesn't matter if you meant to steal from orphans but lost half your money to them instead, it is evil to want to do so.