I have a serious alignment quandary.

[Jinn Master]

According to the background of my Elven Wizard, who is quite brilliant -an intelligence of 20 at level one- he values his family, friends, and homeland above anything else. He is just now leaving his homeland, which, in my DM's backstory, is a really, really busted up ruin of a city in the middle of a swamp- I don't have all the details yet, but apparently the elves screwed up something and are now trying to scrape by until they can rebuild their civilization.

We are playing in a Good campaign- the dm will not allow anything evil. Neutral and Chaotic are ok, just no evil.

My question is can my elf be basically racist and good at the same time? Willing to manipulate and potentially destroy anyone who threatens his homeland, regardless of whether they might be good themselves, and still be seen as good? Can he see other races as inferior while still recognizing his own elder's stupidity, and still be seen as good?

His number one motivation is to rebuild the Elven Empire, and ensure that they don't screw it up again. I want him to be pretty free to act on what he feels needs to be done as long as it benefits his country. There wouldn't be wanton slaughter or anything, but perhaps he mind dominates someone with a shipment of valuable materials, so that they take it to his elven home city instead. Things of that nature.

Can he do that and not be evil?

This is for pathfinder in a homebrew setting, if that makes any sort of difference.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...2&postcount=13

[Kris Strife]

All elves are racist, don't worry about it.

More seriously, he needs to remember to plan ahead. Elves have ridiculously long life spans, and he has a high Int. He can probably see when its better to give up a short-term advantage or let an opportunity pass, in favor of a better one further down the line.

Remember, nice does not equal good. Have him be willing to help strangers without any concrete benefit to him, though it might be grudgingly, and have him work to help them solve their own problems rather than having him fix them.

And make sure to talk with your DM, make sure your character concept fits in with what he's wanting to do, and be willing to make changes if needed.

[Jinn Master]

But not really malevolently so, and my character would cross that line whenever opportunity struck.

[Prodan]

Short answer: yes

Long answer: affirmative

[Baalthazaq]

I'd actually say no to your question "Can you be good and racist", but I don't think you quite have racism there.

Does he "like his people" or "hate other people".

If I had to pick between saving my child, or saving someone else's child, there is an easy decision there.
I don't hate other people's children or anything, I'm not evil.

If you'd end the world for one countryman's life though, you clearly don't respect their life to a degree that you should probably be considered evil.

So far though, this character seems like he could easily be good to Neutral.

[Zovc]

I imagine Lawful Neutral could suit the description you provided, "Whatever advances the Elven cause."

In other words, his 'personal code' ('lawful qualifier') is Elven interests.

[Jinn Master]

Let's say that someone built a farm on ground that used to be in an elven city. He'd ask them to leave, and if they didn't he'd make sure they were all gone- forcefully or otherwise- then burn it down. Then he'd hand them a sum of gold and tell them to get away. He wouldn't kill them, though.

Or perhaps, he learns of something that would really help his people, but couldn't afford it. He'd steal it and send it to where, he feels, it could be better used.

He doesn't hate other races, he just feels their needs are secondary to his own. After all, they all reproduce much faster than elves, and elves need all the help they can get at the moment in order to survive.

[Skeppio]

According to the background of my Elven Wizard, who is quite brilliant -an intelligence of 20 at level one- he values his family, friends, and homeland above anything else. He is just now leaving his homeland, which, in my DM's backstory, is a really, really busted up ruin of a city in the middle of a swamp- I don't have all the details yet, but apparently the elves screwed up something and are now trying to scrape by until they can rebuild their civilization.

We are playing in a Good campaign- the dm will not allow anything evil. Neutral and Chaotic are ok, just no evil.

My question is can my elf be basically racist and good at the same time? Willing to manipulate and potentially destroy anyone who threatens his homeland, regardless of whether they might be good themselves, and still be seen as good? Can he see other races as inferior while still recognizing his own elder's stupidity, and still be seen as good?

His number one motivation is to rebuild the Elven Empire, and ensure that they don't screw it up again. I want him to be pretty free to act on what he feels needs to be done as long as it benefits his country. There wouldn't be wanton slaughter or anything, but perhaps he mind dominates someone with a shipment of valuable materials, so that they take it to his elven home city instead. Things of that nature.

Can he do that and still be good?

I would never consider that a good-aligned character. Racism, hypocrisy and a willingness to mind rape and steal much-needed materials is more than a few points on the evil scale IMO.

Bloody arrogant elves...

Of course, I'm not your DM so it's up to them to decide.

[Jinn Master]

The only reason he'd do all that is because the entire elven race is in survival mode at the moment. Similar to a child stealing bread to eat, but on a far more massive scale.

And he would try other avenues first- purchasing goodwill with his own actions and demanding repayment through favors is more along the lines of the norm.

[2xMachina]

Good might be a little tough with those parameters.

Neutral should be easy though. Just make sure your motivation is FOR the GOOD of your people.

Oh, and racism? Rangers takes the cake. They hate your race so much they get bonus damage on you.

[Eronai_Jantig]

You've taken the general idea of racist elves, and extrapolated some seriously polarizing material, there is certainly a chance for modification to where you simply are a very snide person when dealing with non-elves but in the end help them because you transcend your background and are better than that in your heart. But your descriptions are at best neutral with evil leanings, and at worst quite plainly evil. I'd say lawful accurately describes most of it's qualities, although perhaps Neutral/Neutral Evil is more appropriate.

Edit: Just saw your last post, that description was pretty much your standard adventurer, although they usually contain the caveat that they will accept your quest if it's for good, and you legitimately don't have anything that can be given as a reward (Thank god for loot pools and DMs with WBL charts :P)

[lsfreak]

That strikes me as solidly Chaotic Neutral. You have your personal beliefs that you will do anything to uphold without concern for what society says is right/acceptable (chaotic). These things might harm innocent people and you are aware of this (not good), but you try and go about it the best way possible, only inflicting greater harms after such things as negotiation or bribing have failed (not evil).
EDIT: And for non-selfish reasons. I'd say Chaotic Neutral with Good leanings.

[Jinn Master]

So, if he were Lawful Neutral with his "law" being "Anything for the rebirth of the Elven Empire, my friends, my family, and my people", I could justify the following actions-

Working for repayment (adventuring)
Plundering/looting (taking the contents of an empty house)
Practicing a trade
Vengeance (harm Family, friend, or elf without a very, very good reason, you die)
Extortion ( Do this for the elves or I will report your evil deeds to X person)
Theft (redirecting a shipment to an elven city)
Murder (you trespass, you die)
Mind Control (You won't help- now you will)



The list is mostly in order- from most likely to least likely course of action.

[mucat]

Why are you so concerned whether he's good-aligned or not? If he's a character you would enjoy playing, if the other players look forward to playing alongside him, and the DM feels he's a good fit for the campaign, his alignment doesn't matter at all. Play the character, let your DM label him with whatever alignment he likes, and have fun.

(Personally, I would want to know a lot more about him before assigning an alignment, but from what little we know about him so far, I lean toward true neutral.)

[Jinn Master]

I care because the DM wants this to be a good campaign. Too many evil acts will have "Dire Consequences".

So I need an alignment that will help my case, and allow me to justify acts that might be questionable.
He is a very nice person- just concerned more for his people than anyone or anything else. His own existence is not a priority, so he is pretty selfless. Which is definitely not an evil quality.

[Eronai_Jantig]

Just being selfless alone doesn't make you good, ignoring the needs of what could now be 90% of the population of the world could well be considered evil. I don't think you'll find an alignment to "help your case", but you may find one compatible with the game world. Perhaps you should speak to the DM about the sort of character you want to play, and how his utter devastation of your chosen race has made it much more difficult to play under the "No "Evil" character's mandate".

I find it hard to place your character directly at evil, but at the same time he seams to zealous to be neutral as well.

[mucat]

I care because the DM wants this to be a good campaign. Too many evil acts will have "Dire Consequences".

So I need an alignment that will help my case, and allow me to justify acts that might be questionable.
He is a very nice person- just concerned more for his people than anyone or anything else. His own existence is not a priority, so he is pretty selfless. Which is definitely not an evil quality.

Then you're getting things backwards. Presumably there's a reason the DM wants a good campaign; alignments is just a shorthand to lead you toward the types of characters he wants in his campaign.

Since you've got a specific character concept in mind now, you can skip that shorthand and cut right to the important question: describe your character to him in detail, and ask "Do you want this guy in your campaign?" He might propose some changes to his personality, you counterpropose some alternate changes, and with luck, you converge on a character you both really like.

[Hague]

Outright prohibiting an alignment seems dumb to me. Evil characters are fine to me so long as they aren't Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid.

[Shpadoinkle]

All elves are racist, don't worry about it.

Really all that needs to be said.

[Jinn Master]

He prohibited evil because there is someone in the group who, if given any leeway, would be really, really stupid about it.

We are going back and forth through email, but I won't really have anything concrete until I meet with him in person again.

[Math_Mage]

Then you're getting things backwards. Presumably there's a reason the DM wants a good campaign; alignments is just a shorthand to lead you toward the types of characters he wants in his campaign.

Since you've got a specific character concept in mind now, you can skip that shorthand and cut right to the important question: describe your character to him in detail, and ask "Do you want this guy in your campaign?" He might propose some changes to his personality, you counterpropose some alternate changes, and with luck, you converge on a character you both really like.

This is 100% true, and absolutely what you should do.

As for the alignment, your character could be anywhere from LN to CN to NE depending on how the concept plays out in relation to the campaign world. Normally I'd say even Good is on the table. Set some boundaries on how far you'll take your rationalization, and that'll determine your alignment with respect to Good and Evil. In this specific case, I'd say your boundaries extend past Good if you'd steal rather than trade, or kill for trespassing. Then determine why your character has those boundaries, and that helps establish his position on Law vs. Chaos.

For example, a CN character might lie, steal, cheat, and even kill under extraordinary circumstances in order to achieve the goal of elven empire reestablished. He had a good life when the elves were strong, and he wants that life back. But he'll try his hardest to avoid sliding down the slippery slope of "I will ____ for the sake of my country", because he can't return to his good old life if he's forever haunted by what he had to do for it.

A LN character might have the same goal, and the same level of resistance to blind patriotism (for lack of a better term), but the motivation might be different. Say, he thinks it's his duty, and the duty of every elf, to reclaim the glory days of their society. But a society of lawless murderers is worthless no matter its wealth, so this character won't readily betray the values of the old society. (Of course, that just means the character's alignment on the Good-Evil axis tends towards whatever alignment you'd assign to the old society--a racist and isolationist, but restrained and peaceful society probably fits the LN bill here).

By contrast, a LE character would probably try to dominate the surrounding area in order to funnel its resources towards the elven restoration--the supply stealing you had in mind, on a larger scale. A CE character might tear apart the civilization in the area in order to feast on the ruins and send back a glut of supplies--so, a bandit on a larger scale. A LG character might aim to become legitimately wealthy and renowned in a foreign civilization in order to fund elven rebuilding--sacrificing his racist principles for the greater good of elvenkind. For comparison.

[Serpentine]

I think Neutral would be the easiest route to take. Hell, if you do that, then you have room for character development as he learns that other races have value too.
If you particularly want him to be Good, then just consider that a flaw of his. It is possible to be Good but imperfect. Just make sure that it's made up for elsewhere.

Oh, and racism? Rangers takes the cake. They hate your race so much they get bonus damage on you.

Eh, most of the time I don't think of it that way (although my first-ever character did). One of my current characters has Favoured Enemy (animal), because it's a hunter. It's practiced and learned all about animals to make it better at hunting them. It doesn't hate them, though - in fact, it has some fascination and affection for them.
It makes as much sense to me for a character to select a Favoured Enemy they have a particular liking for, as they go out of their way to understand them, which happens to also make them better at killing them.

[Harperfan7]

He sounds pretty lawful neutral to me, maybe even lawful evil.

No "good" person puts a country above being good (and remain good). If he's willing to do anything to preserve it, then he sometimes takes evil actions for a good and/or lawful end, then I'd say he's just neutral (that is, something neutral, probably lawful).

[Math_Mage]

It makes as much sense to me for a character to select a Favoured Enemy they have a particular liking for, as they go out of their way to understand them, which happens to also make them better at killing them.

Agreed. My CN Druid, who gains FEs through variants, has FE: Human at first level because he's peculiarly interested in the Nature of humanity, as it were.

[Jinn Master]

Neutral by definition can commit some evil acts, correct?

[Raistlin1040]

Well it can be both. One of my friends is playing a Ranger in my campaign, and he has three favored enemies. The first is Evil Outsiders. In his backstory, his best friend was an Half-Celestial, and he died saving her son from a Devil. He hated them and studied how to kill them for the purposes of hunting them. Since, he's realized that he needs their help sometimes, and so is a bit more case-by-case. Magical Beasts is the second, and that's because they fascinate him. Dragons is the last one, and in his words "You never know when you're going to fight a dragon. I'd rather be good at killing something that could kill me, rather than something that can't."

And in response to the OP, if you're designing characters from the beginning, but don't have a backstory/personality, Alignment is a good starting place. "Alright, I'm a nameless Elf Wizard. Elves are usually Chaotic Good, but I don't think I fit in very well, because I'm so disciplined and studious. I think I'm probably more pragmatic as well, less idealistic, so let's say Lawful Neutral." And then work from there. You have a character idea already, complete with backstory. Write down whatever you want. If your DM takes issue, he'll tell you. Or, alternatively, give him your personality and have him give you an alignment.

[Grumman]

Or perhaps, he learns of something that would really help his people, but couldn't afford it. He'd steal it and send it to where, he feels, it could be better used.

Then he is evil.

A good character can be racist only in the sense that they give their own race first priority when it comes to helping out. In other words, he can be neutral towards everyone else but he cannot be evil towards everyone else.

Neutral by definition can commit some evil acts, correct?

No. Unless they're trivial acts, evilness is a one-way street.

[Jinn Master]

Then there really would be no neutral alignment on the good-evil axis.

[Raistlin1040]

One instance of theft doesn't make him evil. Even killing someone in cold blood doesn't automatically shift your alignment, you just need to be reasonable about it. If you describe yourself as someone working for Good, don't kill three people because it's easier than talking to them. If you do, don't be indignant when your DM tells you that you've fallen to Evil. Intent has a lot to do with alignment, so if you're really trying to be a Good person, and IC, this manifests as helping those in need, feeding the poor, standing up for the weak, that's Good. Even if you fall off the wagon a few times, and are Evil and cruel, you're still going to be a Neutral character, maybe even with Good leanings.

Say you're in a tavern. A poor Elf is trying to get something to eat, but he doesn't have money. A local band of humans is trying to rough him up. He's outnumbered and weak, and hungry. If you stand up for the Elf, and beat up the humans, that's fine. If you steal from them to feed the Elf, you're still probably okay. If you pay for his meal yourself, you're fine. If you kill all the humans, instead of just knocking them out, and then march the Elf up to the bar, and demand that the bartender feed him without payment, or you'll burn the tavern down, you've gone too far.

[Grumman]

Then there really would be no neutral alignment on the good-evil axis.

Why not? Not all acts are good or evil. Someone who does not make any significant sacrifices to help others and does not cause any significant harm to innocent people through malice or callous disregard would be neutral.