What Flavor of Evil would this be?

[Raine_Sage]

So I have a kind of but not really alignment question. Someone wants to make an evil character who is in some way contractually obligated to be evil in either a specific way or at specific points in time. Maybe someone else has their family captured, or maybe they're a knight in an evil king's court and their sense of duty outweighs their qualms about their orders. Or maybe they've just been a villain's hound for so long that despite not being malicious by nature, violence and force are all they know.

Basically I know Actions outweigh Nature because being nice doesn't erase your atrocities. So the Evil part of this isn't what I'm wondering about. I am wondering if this is more Lawful Evil (comits evil acts because they have some sort of covenant they cannot or will not break) or Neutral Evil (despite objecting to these methods, the character lacks the spine to stand up for their convictions, or fear of punishment outweighs any remorse for what they do). I know Chaotic isn't a good fit, since they're getting no person pleasure from this. Or would it depend on the specific situation?

[TandemChelipeds]

So I have a kind of but not really alignment question. Someone wants to make an evil character who is in some way contractually obligated to be evil in either a specific way or at specific points in time. Maybe someone else has their family captured, or maybe they're a knight in an evil king's court and their sense of duty outweighs their qualms about their orders. Or maybe they've just been a villain's hound for so long that despite not being malicious by nature, violence and force are all they know.

Basically I know Actions outweigh Nature because being nice doesn't erase your atrocities. So the Evil part of this isn't what I'm wondering about. I am wondering if this is more Lawful Evil (comits evil acts because they have some sort of covenant they cannot or will not break) or Neutral Evil (despite objecting to these methods, the character lacks the spine to stand up for their convictions, or fear of punishment outweighs any remorse for what they do). I know Chaotic isn't a good fit, since they're getting no person pleasure from this. Or would it depend on the specific situation?

I don't think it's a question of which kind of Evil they are. I think it's a question of which kind of Lawful. Sounds like they're Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral, or possibly just Neutral, but definitely not Neutral Evil. They aren't actively seeking to harm others, and I think that's the key distinction when it comes to Neutral Evil. Of course, if they're just biding time until they grow strong enough, formulate a plan, or gain the resources they need to revolt against whoever holds their leash, that could put them in Chaotic territory. Still not necessarily Chaotic Evil, though.

[Guizonde]

So I have a kind of but not really alignment question. Someone wants to make an evil character who is in some way contractually obligated to be evil in either a specific way or at specific points in time. Maybe someone else has their family captured, or maybe they're a knight in an evil king's court and their sense of duty outweighs their qualms about their orders. Or maybe they've just been a villain's hound for so long that despite not being malicious by nature, violence and force are all they know.

Basically I know Actions outweigh Nature because being nice doesn't erase your atrocities. So the Evil part of this isn't what I'm wondering about. I am wondering if this is more Lawful Evil (comits evil acts because they have some sort of covenant they cannot or will not break) or Neutral Evil (despite objecting to these methods, the character lacks the spine to stand up for their convictions, or fear of punishment outweighs any remorse for what they do). I know Chaotic isn't a good fit, since they're getting no person pleasure from this. Or would it depend on the specific situation?

i'd go straight off with "it depends". my example is a maffioso: loyal evil, right? because he's bound by whatever rules the maffia imposes. the guy might have a soft-spot for puppies or help at a soup kitchen, but at the end of the day, his paycheck is guaranteed by his hits and extortions.

neutral evil would probably be a hitman of the "it's a dirty job but the pay's good/ i don't know how to do anything else" variety. in your examples, the knight is loyal evil. your hound is neutral evil, no questions there either. what i've always wanted to do was build a skald who was way too affable, but quite sadistic if riled. i'm talking black tentacle torture for hours on end if someone so much as dared scuff his shoes. other than his bad side, he's a great guy. i tried to reinterpret the chaotic evil alignment for that guy, basing him on the main villain in the ravenor trilogy zygmunt molotch (ok, and a bit from pontius glaw in eisenhorn). it got banned so quickly by my dm that i'm sticking with building neutral good undead now.

tl;dr: case by case basis, but remember that alignment is just a guideline and not a strict rule. i hope the best for you to resolve your dilemma, and hope i helped answer your query :)

[Raine_Sage]

I don't think it's a question of which kind of Evil they are. I think it's a question of which kind of Lawful. Sounds like they're Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral, or possibly just Neutral, but definitely not Neutral Evil. They aren't actively seeking to harm others, and I think that's the key distinction when it comes to Neutral Evil. Of course, if they're just biding time until they grow strong enough, formulate a plan, or gain the resources they need to revolt against whoever holds their leash, that could put them in Chaotic territory. Still not necessarily Chaotic Evil, though.

Well I feel like throwing off the yoke would be a case for an alignment shift definitely, since presumably they'd stop doing evil things. I was under the impression though that if you're semi-regularly committing atrocities (torture, murder, unjust imprisonment, sacrificing souls to a demi-fiend etc.) that you're definitely coded evil as far as the authorities and/or anything with a detect evil ability goes. Regardless of whether or not you actually want to commit them. Of course this probably is more dependent on the game being run and how much alignment plays into say, class ability or something similar.

[boomwolf]

What you covered here is the "what" of evil (what kind of harm is one causing, killing maiming and such) and the "how" of evil (who do you go about doing it, being nice and poilte vs gleefully evil)

What you neglected is the most important factor-the "why" of evil.
An unquestionably evil action on the "what" and "how" levels, can still be even a GOOD action, with the right "why".

Is it because of a strong sense of duty, and simply trusting the orders are given for a good reason? probably neutral.
If it "choosing lesser evil"? still probably neutral.
Doing it to help yourself (such as, because someone you hold dear is held hostage and you value him over whoever you hurt) is probably evil.
Doing it out of spite? definitely evil.
Bound by oath and are magically compelled? not even a factor alignment-wise, as its not his choice.

etc,etc...

The REASON is the most important factor in deciding how evil is an action, not how you do that action, nor even what kind of action that is.
Even genocide can be justified as non-evil, if its seriously a last resort at stopping something far worse.

[1eGuy]

So I have a kind of but not really alignment question. Someone wants to make an evil character who is in some way contractually obligated to be evil in either a specific way or at specific points in time. Maybe someone else has their family captured, or maybe they're a knight in an evil king's court and their sense of duty outweighs their qualms about their orders. Or maybe they've just been a villain's hound for so long that despite not being malicious by nature, violence and force are all they know.

I think those "maybes" make a lot of difference to the answer.

"Maybe someone else has their family captured" Neutral Evil, and only mildly at that; a simple atonement would "fix" it.

"maybe they're a knight in an evil king's court and their sense of duty outweighs their qualms about their orders" Lawful evil or maybe lawful neutral, depending on their wider actions.

"Or maybe they've just been a villain's hound for so long that despite not being malicious by nature, violence and force are all they know" Neutral evil. This would be a more serious commitment to Evil than your first example, so it would take more effort to change the characters' alignment - bad habits are hard to break.

[hamishspence]

I think Champions of Ruin does go into listing the many "whys" of evil deeds - from "sociopath" to "coerced into it" to "seduced into it" and various others.

"Why" may be less important than "Has the character made a pattern of it?"

Once Evil deeds have become "routine" so to speak - the DM is well within their rights to enforce alignment change (and, as the DMG points out, there's exceptions to Gradual Alignment Change - a sufficiently spectacular deed or change of outlook may result in instant change.)

[Yora]

Doing evil things for an evil lord, because it's the characters duty, would sound a lot like Lawful Evil.

Doing evil things because you're forced to could be pretty much anything.

[Ettina]

I'd argue that if they do evil under orders, but try to minimise the harm that results, they could count for Neutral or maybe even Good.

Also, if they have no understanding of the consequences of their actions, those consequences do not affect their alignment. (To give a ludicrous example, a guy who saves the life of a child is doing a Good act, even if unbeknownst to him the child was a budding serial killer who went on to kill many more people.)

[Slipperychicken]

So I have a kind of but not really alignment question. Someone wants to make an evil character who is in some way contractually obligated to be evil in either a specific way or at specific points in time. Maybe someone else has their family captured, or maybe they're a knight in an evil king's court and their sense of duty outweighs their qualms about their orders. Or maybe they've just been a villain's hound for so long that despite not being malicious by nature, violence and force are all they know.

If the repercussions from breaking the contract are severe enough (i.e. loved ones are hurt), and this person feels disgusted by the things he or she is made to do would not otherwise commit these actions, you could easily call that Neutral with a chance of steadily inching toward evil.

Hell, if this person is actively working against the contract, you could even spin that as Good.

[Jeff the Green]

As an analogy, Heroes of Horror says that doing evil for good reasons will put a character squarely in Neutral territory—Hence no Good Dread Necromancers; their class abilities are inherently Evil (using and creating undead) but they can themselves be Neutral if they use them for good.

So while the guy could be Neutral if there's sufficient harm threatened for breaking the contract, Good is unlikely. Though, of course once the contract is broken, overcome, etc. the guy could swiftly rebound into Good.

[Raine_Sage]

A lot of interesting replies, so hm, let's say the character in question wants to submit to justice (divine, mortal, or otherwise), but does not want to do this until he's accomplished something (maybe slaying the person holding their leash).

However in order to do this they have to keep following evil orders, so their desire to submit to justice is in some ways Selfish. They'd rather keep on doing evil for a chance at revenge, and then die so they don't have to live with the weight of their guilt. Rather than disobey their master and die or whatever else might happen before they can remove him from the world.

How do you think that would slant alignment?