A tree without alignment

[A Tad Insane]

In a session me and my friends are doing, we're setting it in the world of guild wars 2. I made a sylvari, and had him only dream of battle, death, and the off kilter honor it breeds, sort of a weird cross between a space marine, a generic paladin, Rorschach and some one going through post traumatic stress. Things were fine, until I tried giving him an alignment. He could be lawful good, as he will sacrifice himself to save the innocent, but he literally only knows war and battle, giving him a cruelty that is in neutral and evil characters. Plus he has absolutely no sense of mercy, whether for his enemies, allies or himself, which I don't see going well with characters that are good.

So, a little help?

[GnomeGninjas]

I think he's Lawful(obeys personal moral code, in this case protecting the innocent) Evil(cruel, loves killing things).

[Acanous]

Neutral works, too. Most people are neutral. If you aren't crusading for Law, Good, Chaos or Evil, you're probably neutral on that axis.

[Fable Wright]

Lawful Neutral. If his code mandates sacrificing himself to save innocents, he'll do it. If it mandates mercilessly slaughtering enemies? Fine. It's all about morals, and he'll follow his dogmatically.

[Lupos]

I think he's Lawful(obeys personal moral code, in this case protecting the innocent) Evil(cruel, loves killing things).

I would agree with this, he sounds like the LE Noble Demon personality archetype.

[ReaderAt2046]

I'd put him in Bestial True Neutral*, since he appearantly lacks the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

*D&D Alignment rules specify that animals, inanimate objects, and anything else non-sentient are considered True Netral, since they cannot make any decisions along the Law/Chaos or Good/Evil axes.

[Scow2]

Protecting the innocent sounds more "good" than "lawful" to me. I'd say Lawful Neutral. Or just Neutral Neutral, if his code puts him at odds against other laws.

[bbgenderless100]

In a session me and my friends are doing, we're setting it in the world of guild wars 2. I made a sylvari, and had him only dream of battle, death, and the off kelter honor it breeds, sort of a weird cross between a space marine, a generic paladin, roashac (or how ever you spell that watch man's name) and some one going through post tramatic stress. Things were fine, until I tried giving him an alignment. He could be lawful good, as he will sacrifice himself to save the innoccent, but he literally only knows war and battle, giving him a cruelty that is in neutral and evil characters. Plus he has absolutly no sense of mercy, whether for his enemies, allies or himself, which I don't see going well with characters that are good.

So, a little help?

I'd say True Neutral with either Lawful Neutral tendencies or Lawful Neutral with Good tendecies.

I made my first thread, so to quote you:So, a little help?

[A Tad Insane]

So three votes LN, two LE, and three TN

Well, still split
This is totally not a shameless self-bump

[Slipperychicken]

roashac (or how ever you spell that watch man's name)

It's spelled "Rorschach", named after the ink-blot test, which was named after its inventor, Hermann Rorschach. I've heard it pronounced "Roar-Shack" and "Roar-shock". Apparently the correct version is somewhere in-between (turn your mic down).

I ask: Does he enjoy killing these people? Would he stop doing it if it was no longer needed? What would he feel when told this slaughter needed to stop?

[A Tad Insane]

I ask: Does he enjoy killing these people? Would he stop doing it if it was no longer needed? What would he feel when told this slaughter needed to stop?

It depends. He will only go on an unprovoked slaughter if it's something any lawful good character would join him during the start. He thoroughly enjoys 'purging the wicked', and, as I said before, has no sense of mercy, so it's nigh impossible for him to stop. He also has trouble accepting people trying to get redemption, and can't accept it when he gets into murder mode. Although it does take a fair amount for him to truly want to kill you, as he views things solely in terms of war. So killing, especially in self defence and/or against some one who can defend them self = relatively okay. But he has no tolerance for those that kill those that can't fight back.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I see it as Lawful Good territory myself. Good doesn't necessarily mean ideals like Mercy and Temperance. Least not in DnD. There's been far too many Zealot examples of supposedly Lawful Good characters in Adventure Modules, Novels, etc, for me to ever think that just not being merciful or knowing when to stop really puts you off Lawful Good.

Might make you in danger of changing alignments, in that grey area between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. But still clearly towards the Lawful Good side. In the end a good metric to use, and the one I usually enforce in my game is:

What were your intentions?

That's where it really matters. Some acts of course are so indescribably evil (depending on your source) that no amount of Intentions is going to matter. But those tend to be exceptions rather than the rules.

What you want to watch out for is WHY. Always why. When I've told people their alignment is danger of drifting over the course of a campaign, I usually have a list of why reasons. When you get towards the point where your character is conducting battles in Balthazar's name not to spread righteousness and strength, but merely "because it's what I do", you're drifting towards Neutrality. A few acts here and there? They're not going to matter. But when you make a PATTERN of doing these things, yeah.

There's probably an exception for kicking Char or Asuras in the nuts. Those buggers are clearly evil.

[Slipperychicken]

It depends. He will only go on an unprovoked slaughter if it's something any lawful good character would join him during the start.

Peer pressure moving him to attack, and having both a strong moral code seem like indications of Lawfulness.

If his superior officer orders him to kill a noncombatant, what will he do, knowing that he may be sentenced harshly (or perhaps even executed) for refusal? How will he feel about the result?

[Anderlith]

Lawful Evil can be self sacrificing. Only Disney makes them tyrants only

[A Tad Insane]

Peer pressure moving him to attack, and having both a strong moral code seem like indications of Lawfulness.

If his superior officer orders him to kill a noncombatant, what will he do, knowing that he may be sentenced harshly (or perhaps even executed) for refusal? How will he feel about the result?

Not peer pressure, it's would just be a situation where him and the <insert generic lawful good character> would draw their weapons together and run the evil doers through at the same time. He also believes that only those who live by the sword (or lethal equivalent) should die by it, and as such, will only kill those who deal in death, whether they be directly a raider who killed a child, a corrupt politician who armed the raider and said "go raid that village", or a rebel fighter who's trying to feed that child by raiding military bases. He would only enjoy the first two, the third would be just some one who wanted to live by the sword, and must accept the consequences. He would not personally execute some one who committed a crime were no one died, but would not be opposed to the death sentence, so long as it was a reasonable punishment, e.g. a Norn 'forcefully touching' twenty childern.

[Scow2]

Sounding like Lawful Neutral at worst. Maybe even Lawful Good.

He's a relentless enemy of evil.

[Slipperychicken]

In terms of Lawful-Chaotic, he's certainly Lawful. His commitment to both his country and his moral code indicate this strongly. He is not easily changed, and he doesn't compromise his morals lightly.

In terms of Good-Evil? Everyone thinks he's doing the right thing, so I'm not going to consider that. His sparing of innocents is a strike in favor of Goodness, while refusing to take prisoners at all (even when it's reasonable or smart to do) is a strike in favor of Evil. It could go either way.

You didn't say how our character react to that scenario. Would he follow the order and kill the noncombatant? Or would he defy the order and risk punishment (or even death)? Would he try to stop the officer? (And if so, how would he go about it?) Would he feel conflicted about his decision, or certain he did the right thing?