A place for unknown alignments

[AtlasSniperman]

We all know alignment is something that creates a fervent discussion on the internet. But despite that some people just aren't sure what alignment their character is and default to calling it Chaotic Neutral.

So here's an idea; post the personality of a character here so people can give suggestions as to the alignment. Numbering your personality would make it easier for people to comment with the alignment of more than one at once.

This is not meant to be a guarentee, just suggestions for people who'd like to know roughly what alignment they should call themselves.

[CovertCobalt]

Well, since nobody else has replied just yet, I figure I'll give this a shot!

I'll use one of the PC's from a 4e Campaign I ran, borrowing heavily from Chris Perkins' "Iomandra" setting, which featured vast seas with intermittent islands dotting it. (Think wind Waker meets One Piece meets D&D)

1. Tavar, Daeva Invoker

Tavar was, ostensibly, dedicated to the principles of Avandra, goddess of Freedom, Commerce, and Sailing. He was often brusque and somewhat rude, especially when things weren't going his way.

He went out of his way to be involved in various kinds of crime, from piracy to extortion to drug-dealing. He even helped a mad wizard acquire Wererats (Sentient humanoids!) for his experiments, delivering them bound-and-gagged to the wizard's tower. He participated in torture to obtain information from helpless foes, then agreed to murdering them to cover the party's tracks.

Despite all this, he was dedicated to freeing slaves from various factions, and orchestrated an uprising to eliminate a corrupt and tyrannical Lord of a city's district. Moreover, he put himself in harm's way on multiple occasions to protect his friends/associates, even if he complained and claimed that they "owed him" for it.

I know Tavar is somewhere in the "Chaotic" spectrum, but I honestly have no idea whether he could be classified as Good, Neutral, or Evil. Thoughts?

[NRSASD]

With regards to #1, I'd say Tavar was most assuredly Chaotic Evil. Knowingly delivering sentients to be experimented on, torturing and then murdering hostages, and actively seeking out criminal activities are not good or neutral actions.

However, the big question boils down to motive. Why is he so criminally inclined? Why does he want to free the slaves? If he's breaking the law because he feels laws exist to be broken, that implies he's more interested in chaos than evil. If he's doing these actions because it's more convenient or in his self-interest, that's evil. If he's freeing slaves because he feels it's immoral to own slaves (admittedly, an apparently contradicting opinion if he happily sells sentients for experimentation, but hey it's possible), that smacks of arguably Good intentions. Does it make Tavar Good? Of course not, but it's the difference between a Chaotic evil character or a chaotic Evil one. There are grades and shades of alignment.

Defending his friends likewise needs to be scrutinized. Was he defending them because they make useful cannon fodder, or because he legitimately cared about them as friends? Would he sell them out if the opportunity presented itself? Would he willingly place himself in danger that he could easily walk away from for their sake alone?

How do you (the player) view Tavar's motives?

[Douche]

I roleplay an idiot half-orc who just follows anyone who is supposed to be in a leadership role, and is incapable of thinking for himself. Basically, he will obey anyone who has authority. He joined the thieves guild and idolizes their leader because she runs the docks. He simultaneously works with the elite police force (like, the ones above the tawdry town guard) and helps defend the city, because they are authorities. We are also in a seafaring campaign, and one of the PCs who is captain is sorta evil - he executes prisoners, tortures them, enjoys to "shoot first, ask questions later", etc - and I'm pretty much his enforcer. For instance, when he told me to whip someone to unconsciousness, I did it. But then I gave him water later to make sure he didn't die from dehydration.

At the same time, if left to his own devices, he will resort to the most idiotic solution possible. When we went to capture someone from their manor and they ended up running, leaving me behind, I resorted to trashing the place because that's all he could think of doing at the time.

So what do you call someone who literally does anything that someone tells him - good or evil, lawful or chaotic - as long as it comes from a position of authority... But left alone will probably go with the chaotic solution.

[OldTrees1]

Let's stress test this:

3. I met a couple of humans. They told me "Everything ought to be in even piles. The actions that lead to the largest fraction of piles being even is the right actions. Such is the sum total of morality". Assuming this is an honest, precise, and complete description of their moral code, how would you classify this alignment in the 9?

[NRSASD]

@Douche: I'd say Lawful neutral, since it would appear that orders from a legitimate authority trump his idiotic tendencies. However, he's not Lawful evil, since he doesn't appear to be exploiting these orders for personal gain or making others suffer any more than he was ordered to cause. However he's not lawful good cause he appears to have no compunctions about carrying out evil orders.

3. Lawful neutral, since the only thing we're given is an order and that they appreciate organizing things. Could be True neutral, since they literally just want balance in all things.

[CovertCobalt]

With regards to #1, I'd say Tavar was most assuredly Chaotic Evil. Knowingly delivering sentients to be experimented on, torturing and then murdering hostages, and actively seeking out criminal activities are not good or neutral actions.

However, the big question boils down to motive. Why is he so criminally inclined? Why does he want to free the slaves? If he's breaking the law because he feels laws exist to be broken, that implies he's more interested in chaos than evil. If he's doing these actions because it's more convenient or in his self-interest, that's evil. If he's freeing slaves because he feels it's immoral to own slaves (admittedly, an apparently contradicting opinion if he happily sells sentients for experimentation, but hey it's possible), that smacks of arguably Good intentions. Does it make Tavar Good? Of course not, but it's the difference between a Chaotic evil character or a chaotic Evil one. There are grades and shades of alignment.

Defending his friends likewise needs to be scrutinized. Was he defending them because they make useful cannon fodder, or because he legitimately cared about them as friends? Would he sell them out if the opportunity presented itself? Would he willingly place himself in danger that he could easily walk away from for their sake alone?

How do you (the player) view Tavar's motives?

First of all, thank you for the in-depth response! I really enjoyed reading it.

I was actually the GM for the PC in question, but I remember viewing him as being on the darker side of neutral, although your argument for Chaotic evil (As opposed to chaotic Evil) definitely has merit. I didn't mention some of the character's more clearly "good" acts since it was the most egregiously "evil" acts that I was focused on, but it may be that it doesn't matter how many orphans he rescued, given his predilection for torture and general mayhem.

To be perfectly honest, the player had a history of portraying Evil characters, so it could be that his attempt at some sort of chaotic neutrality/goodness was doomed from the start. It was certainly an interesting character arc to watch unfold, at any rate.

[AMFV]

Let's stress test this:

3. I met a couple of humans. They told me "Everything ought to be in even piles. The actions that lead to the largest fraction of piles being even is the right actions. Such is the sum total of morality". Assuming this is an honest, precise, and complete description of their moral code, how would you classify this alignment in the 9?

Not enough information to determine. We'd need to see how they respond when confronted with different scenarios. Are they murdering hundreds of innocents to ensure that body piles are the same size? Are they piling up large amounts of food to give to the homeless? I would assume that they would trend towards law, but even then the principles alone aren't the alignment, the actions are. Principles are what somebody says is important to them, alignment should be something deeper, and it should influence their actions.

[OldTrees1]

Not enough information to determine. We'd need to see how they respond when confronted with different scenarios. Are they murdering hundreds of innocents to ensure that body piles are the same size? Are they piling up large amounts of food to give to the homeless? I would assume that they would trend towards law, but even then the principles alone aren't the alignment, the actions are. Principles are what somebody says is important to them, alignment should be something deeper, and it should influence their actions.

If there is an odd number of objects, say bodies, such that it cannot be split into piles containing only even number of objects, they will add one such object. 13 people died on the battlefield? One more must die. Homeless man found a burger? Here is another burger.

Given a scenario with an uneven number of objects, say 13 colonies, they will either add/create or remove/destroy one object.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Autistic neutral.

On a slightly more serious note: I don't think that can really be caught in any alignment. The primary idea upon which they base their life, "everything should come in pairs", is not an idea which most people would consider having much to do with morals and ethics. Ethical behavior in any form is completely secondary to things having to be in pairs. You could say that's neutral, you could even make the case that it's evil, because most neutral people will at least still think about being good and will often be nice to others if it doesn't cost them anything. If you choose getting things to be in pairs over say peoples right to live, and keep running up to families of three to kill someone, that's pretty evil. But at the same time you could turn this idea into a kind person who gives a coin to every street artist with an uneven number of coins in their hat and who always snuggles every puppy twice. They're probably lawful either way, since they seems to really like the idea of rules, mostly a single strict rule about things having to be paired at all times.

But mostly it's just not an alignment.

[AMFV]

If there is an odd number of objects, say bodies, such that it cannot be split into piles containing only even number of objects, they will add one such object. 13 people died on the battlefield? One more must die. Homeless man found a burger? Here is another burger.

Given a scenario with an uneven number of objects, say 13 colonies, they will either add/create or remove/destroy one object.

Well then it really depends on what they are presented with. I would say neutral by nature, since they have no particular predisposition towards good or evil. Lawful, because they follow a deep codified set of rules that does not change regardless of circumstances. It really depends on how you define alignment in terms of possibility and inherent character vs. actions.

Autistic neutral.

On a slightly more serious note: I don't think that can really be caught in any alignment. The primary idea upon which they base their life, "everything should come in pairs", is not an idea which most people would consider having much to do with morals and ethics. Ethical behavior in any form is completely secondary to things having to be in pairs. You could say that's neutral, you could even make the case that it's evil, because most neutral people will at least still think about being good and will often be nice to others if it doesn't cost them anything. If you choose getting things to be in pairs over say peoples right to live, and keep running up to families of three to kill someone, that's pretty evil. But at the same time you could turn this idea into a kind person who gives a coin to every street artist with an uneven number of coins in their hat and who always snuggles every puppy twice. They're probably lawful either way, since they seems to really like the idea of rules, mostly a single strict rule about things having to be paired at all times.

But mostly it's just not an alignment.

Seconded.

[OldTrees1]

Autistic neutral.

But mostly it's just not an alignment.

Well then it really depends on what they are presented with. I would say neutral by nature, since they have no particular predisposition towards good or evil. Lawful, because they follow a deep codified set of rules that does not change regardless of circumstances. It really depends on how you define alignment in terms of possibility and inherent character vs. actions.

So the Blue-Orange AI gets an estimate of Undef(LN, or LE/LG depending on circumstances).




1. Tavar is classic mild evil with some good ideals. This is normally characterized as one of the realistic evil alignment positions. I agree with your estimate that Tavar is probably Chaotic on whichever axis your DM is using.
CCN


2. Idiot Half Orc is Chaotic on the (Order-disorder) axis and rather Neutral on the (Law - anarchy) axis (apply the axis your DM is using as L-C). I think I will follow Lvl 2 Expert's and AMFV's lead and classify lack of tendencies in the moral direction as Neutral.
CNN

[eru001]

Luke Thatcher

formerly a Fisherman Turned-Pirate/privateer, now an ex-pirate. this change was for economic not moral reasons. He has since begun working alongside law enforcement sometimes as a deputy sometimes as a bounty hunter. Is known to regularly offer assistance to others on both small and large issues without expectation of compensation, though at the same time has few qualms about committing a variety of petty crimes, particularly pick pocketing. Regularly kills enemies, most of whom exist either in a legal grey area, or are wanted dead or alive. Is involved as a mid ranking member in an organization which exists to fight the demons that are invading and trying to eat the world, is not paid for this. Has committed murder on multiple occasions, Once on a privateer which supported the other faction in a civil war (after said privateer had surrendered) and several times on bandits who would have been too much trouble to tie up and drag to jail as the jail was far and the wilderness they would have to travel through was dangerous.

Luke was at one point attacked by a werewolf and became infected, he has been open about his condition to the people of the town he lives in, so that appropriate steps can be taken to ensure everyone's safety during the full moon and is currently embarking on a quest that will hopefully resolve the issue.

[OldTrees1]

4. Luke
Clearly evil from their actions (Murder and theft are not offset by the evil compatible action of protecting your own).
Clearly chaotic on the (Legal-Illegal) axis
No information on the order-disorder axis
NCE

[AtlasSniperman]

Just wanted to say; this is being a LOT more civil than I expected from a thread from alignment, and I'm impressed with that.

1) Tavar is on that line between Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral, though most definitely Chaotic. I agree with NRSASD that the distinction there is about his base motive and he can go either way. But for the most part he reads as Chaotic Evil

2) Idiot Half-Orc is quite certainly Lawful, not sure if he's Good or Evil. Probably sits happily in Neutral, like Judge Dread; doesn't matter what the order is, as long as it's an order.

3) Ehhhhh, there isn't much if any information here. This wouldn't really indicate any alignment as it does seem more OCD than lawful.

4) Luke is probably Chaotic, the "helping law enforcement" is a movement toward Neutrality in that regard, but given his past it would probably take quite some time to slide across to Lawful. As for his murder and theft; Evil, though that really depends on his motives for doing so. Murdering someone in war is less Evil and more Lawful, but killing a prisoner of war is Evil. So I'd put him at Chaotic Evil.


5) mine(As a DM):
Karanevi Lycrisoora
A typically self sufficient Rilkan woman, living in the wilds. She hunts game and gathers food consistently for the animals residing at her self-built domicile. Of these resident animals are 3 horses that she stole; one from an adventurer that was treating it fine, and the other two from a ranch of ill repute. She is somewhat infamous in the neighouring towns as the main suspect of theft of some very rich houses. This suspicion is driven by her selling the stolen goods in other towns in order to buy things she cannot provide for herself such as paper, clothes and ink. The Players asked her if she stole those things(before a fight) to which she responded with "Well they weren't using them". Asking her why she doesn't just steal what she needs, and by extension attempting to explain that concept to her, simply results in a blank stare.

[Inevitability]

5. CN. She's a thief, but it seems she only steals from those who can take it, and she doesn't seem to have any desire to harm others.


6. A paladin of Health and Purity (initially LG) who travels the continent looking for his lost sister. He tries to be Good, and has helped many people.

However, he travels with two criminals who cause chaos, steal, and even kill. The paladin doesn't punish them for this, though he does verbally berate them. He doesn't leave them because he feels it'd be a betrayal (the criminals saved his life once and are friendly to him), and also because letting the two do whatever they want without anyone responsible might make things worse.

One day, the paladin sees the criminals running towards him, pursued by a large group of guards. The couple quickly drags the paladin into the party's 'vehicle' (think magitech helicopter) and takes off. Then, one of them prepares to attack the guards, even though the party is safe now.

The paladin snaps, attacks, and knocks out one of the criminals. The other tries to flee by climbing down a rope hanging from the vehicle's side, but the paladin cuts the rope and the criminal falls fifty feet to his apparent death. What alignment is the paladin?

[Keltest]

6. A paladin of Health and Purity (initially LG) who travels the continent looking for his lost sister. He tries to be Good, and has helped many people.

However, he travels with two criminals who cause chaos, steal, and even kill. The paladin doesn't punish them for this, though he does verbally berate them. He doesn't leave them because he feels it'd be a betrayal (the criminals saved his life once and are friendly to him), and also because letting the two do whatever they want without anyone responsible might make things worse.

One day, the paladin sees the criminals running towards him, pursued by a large group of guards. The couple quickly drags the paladin into the party's 'vehicle' (think magitech helicopter) and takes off. Then, one of them prepares to attack the guards, even though the party is safe now.

The paladin snaps, attacks, and knocks out one of the criminals. The other tries to flee by climbing down a rope hanging from the vehicle's side, but the paladin cuts the rope and the criminal falls fifty feet to his apparent death. What alignment is the paladin?

I would say, still lawful good, even if he is a pretty big jerk. His chaotic companions should at that point know what kind of a person he is, so if they expected anything other than resistance from him, they were deluding themselves. Cutting the rope was not a cool thing to do, but its not like the paladin was trying to kill them, only incapacitate them, and said criminal was certainly not about to let the Paladin apprehend him at that point.

[goto124]

5. CN. She's a thief, but it seems she only steals from those who can take it, and she doesn't seem to have any desire to harm others.

Robin Hood: I steal from the rich, and give to the poor!
This Thief: I steal from the rich, and... yea, that's it.

[Inevitability]

Robin Hood: I steal from the rich, and give to the poor!
This Thief: I steal from the rich, and... yea, that's it.

This guy/gal gets it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Robin Hood: I steal from the rich, and give to the poor!
This Thief: I steal from the rich, and... yea, that's it.

Any good thief steals from the rich, that's where the best loot is.

[Sredni Vashtar]

1. I'll agree with the consensus that Tavar is CE. He's also kind of a hypocrite, given that he wants to free slaves but also sold wererats to be experimented on, although that could show character growth depending on when the events happen.

2. Our dim-witted half-orc is probably Lawful, given how he seeks authority, but I'd personally put him as plain Neutral in the sense that he doesn't seem to care for ethics or morals one way or another, and is kind of a blank slate when left to his own devices. (The cruel DM in me wants to lock him in a room alone to see what he'd do.)

3. This is sort of a non-alignment thing. Probably some sort of obsessive disorder, and that could strike any alignment. The behavior shows some form of Lawful leaning with the organization aspect, but nothing strong enough to be written on a character sheet.

4. I'd put Luke at Chaotic Neutral with Evil leanings.

5. I agree with DireStirge's assessment, she's Chaotic Neutral.

6. Our paladin is still Lawful Good. He acted as LG the entire time, and from where I'm sitting, the falling criminal's death was unintentional.

[NRSASD]

4. I need a bit more info on Luke before I'm willing to pass judgement. Why is he offering his services to the lawful authorities without expecting or demanding compensation upfront, especially since he's a bounty hunter/ex-pirate? Is he doing it because "it's the right thing to do"? Is he expecting some serious reciprocity (being granted a title?) down the road? Is he just bored? Related, why is he "murdering" people? What was his motive? It sounds like he was killing prisoners, which is definitely evil, but if Luke was certain of their guilt and absolutely certain that imprisoning them would be ineffective, I would rate that as less evil than just murdering innocent bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Finally, why is he being open about his lycanthropy? In most scenarios being open about it will get you driven off or killed for being a ticking time bomb. Does the village trust him, or does he have any special ties to it?

Pending more info, I'd say Chaotic neutral, but it really could go good or evil, or even possibly lawful. From my perspective, alignment is all about people's motives and the consequences thereof. We only have half the picture with Luke.

5. Chaotic Neutral. She's only stealing things from people who can afford the loss, but she isn't using it for anything besides self benefit. If she were stealing from everyone, that'd be neutral evil or chaotic evil, but to a lesser degree than Tavar, but she isn't. She appears to be conscious of her impact on society and is trying to ameliorate it.

6. Still Lawful Good. Admittedly, I'm biased since I saw this story from the Paladin's point of view earlier. He stuck around and tried to redeem these two wayward souls, but when they were about to perpetrate a massacre he acted to save the lives of the probably innocent guardsmen. Honestly, if he hadn't acted that'd be a betrayal of his alignment because he would be condoning the massacre by not acting. Cutting the rope was rather harsh though.

[Haarkla]

1. Unquestionably CE
2. LE (+ low wisdom score)
3. LN as far as I can tell. Lawful stupid.
4. Evil. Non-Lawful.
5. Not enough information to tell, but definitely not lawful
6. Probably LG.

[Fable Wright]

7. Amoral Druid. So far, he's never dealt non-subdual damage, and yet he has plans to kill everyone he meets (because the only kind of justifiable murder is premeditated), plans to deal end up on top in the aftermath of killing any major figures (in case someone doesn't think he's serious), builds dangerous magic items because SCIENCE!, and plans on letting most dangerous threats to society live (you know, unless they start harming creatures other than humanoids). Has no native inclination to save people he doesn't know (doesn't care about a threat on monarch's life), but will leap to action the moment someone he does is in trouble. Sees nothing wrong in steering a young mage towards lichdom, or in removing a captive vampire's fangs (because the vampire's not talking, and they would make excellent syringes).

It'd seem like a textbook case of Neutral Evil to me, save for the fact that the druid leans very strongly towards mercy for... pretty much everyone who hasn't left a permanent affliction on one of his friends, and hasn't been killing or abusing nonhumanoid sentient life.

[AMFV]

7. Amoral Druid. So far, he's never dealt non-subdual damage, and yet he has plans to kill everyone he meets (because the only kind of justifiable murder is premeditated), plans to deal end up on top in the aftermath of killing any major figures (in case someone doesn't think he's serious), builds dangerous magic items because SCIENCE!, and plans on letting most dangerous threats to society live (you know, unless they start harming creatures other than humanoids). Has no native inclination to save people he doesn't know (doesn't care about a threat on monarch's life), but will leap to action the moment someone he does is in trouble. Sees nothing wrong in steering a young mage towards lichdom, or in removing a captive vampire's fangs (because the vampire's not talking, and they would make excellent syringes).

It'd seem like a textbook case of Neutral Evil to me, save for the fact that the druid leans very strongly towards mercy for... pretty much everyone who hasn't left a permanent affliction on one of his friends, and hasn't been killing or abusing nonhumanoid sentient life.

I would say textbook LN, he has a very strict code that's dependent on his love of nature. Now he is willing to kill, which is evil, but all of his killing is entirely based around his code, rather than any implicit love of killing. you might be able to argue LE, but I would argue that isn't the case. If you look at NE, you'll see that it's principally motivated by selfishness, or that this is a guideline mark for that alignment, since he's not acting out of selfishness, but rather out of the desire to preserve, I would say that it moves towards good, although not there, since it's pretty openly amoral.

I mean this is a toughie, but that's how I'd play it out.

[eru001]

4. I need a bit more info on Luke before I'm willing to pass judgement. Why is he offering his services to the lawful authorities without expecting or demanding compensation upfront, especially since he's a bounty hunter/ex-pirate? Is he doing it because "it's the right thing to do"? Is he expecting some serious reciprocity (being granted a title?) down the road? Is he just bored? Related, why is he "murdering" people? What was his motive? It sounds like he was killing prisoners, which is definitely evil, but if Luke was certain of their guilt and absolutely certain that imprisoning them would be ineffective, I would rate that as less evil than just murdering innocent bystanders who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Finally, why is he being open about his lycanthropy? In most scenarios being open about it will get you driven off or killed for being a ticking time bomb. Does the village trust him, or does he have any special ties to it?

He is paid for his work with the law enforcement, but when off duty has a habit of charging in to assist the commoners with their problems (read, defend them from bandits/montsters etc) without asking for compensation.

The bandit prisoners were executed because Luke could find no way to transport them to a prison without putting himself in danger. The civil war prisoner was executed because he refused to renounce his loyalty to the rebellion's government.

The reason he is open about his lycanthropy is to avoid accidentally killing innocent bystanders as he has found a method of curing himself but it will take time (read a long quest which he is currently about 1/3 the way through) to make happen.

[Sredni Vashtar]

7. Funny, because I was coming in here with a druid myself. I think this Amoral Druid is a self-interest driven Neutral with Evil tendencies. I can see the argument for some Lawfulness in there, but I feel like one would need more than just a personal code of ethics to be Lawful enough to remark upon.


8. Darwinist Druid - Raised by wolves/apes/tyrannosaurs, our druid believes in survival of the fittest, with the "fittest" described as those who are able to adapt to changing environments. He reveres nature as an example, and sees all creatures, from normal animals to humanoids to aberrations and dragons, as merely going about their natural activities. The conflicts these activities tend to breed are only concerning to him if they interfere with him directly. He has no concern for "artificial" laws, and he will take drastic measures if his survival or the survival of those he considers friends are in danger. If pushed, he may take actions that may be considered cruel to some, but he maintains that he abhors cruelty and that others have a less nuanced definition. For example, he will not torture someone, but he may not help stop a plague from spreading, as the plague organism has a right to exist as anything else, and the plague may thin out the weak and feeble. It is unfortunate if innocents die in the process, but unfortunate things happen, he would reason. He is a loner of sorts, preferring animals to humanoid company, but will form strong bonds if befriended.

I feel he's a strong True Neutral, but I'm curious what others would think.

[AtlasSniperman]

8. Darwinist Druid - Raised by wolves/apes/tyrannosaurs, our druid believes in survival of the fittest, with the "fittest" described as those who are able to adapt to changing environments. He reveres nature as an example, and sees all creatures, from normal animals to humanoids to aberrations and dragons, as merely going about their natural activities. The conflicts these activities tend to breed are only concerning to him if they interfere with him directly. He has no concern for "artificial" laws, and he will take drastic measures if his survival or the survival of those he considers friends are in danger. If pushed, he may take actions that may be considered cruel to some, but he maintains that he abhors cruelty and that others have a less nuanced definition. For example, he will not torture someone, but he may not help stop a plague from spreading, as the plague organism has a right to exist as anything else, and the plague may thin out the weak and feeble. It is unfortunate if innocents die in the process, but unfortunate things happen, he would reason. He is a loner of sorts, preferring animals to humanoid company, but will form strong bonds if befriended.

I feel he's a strong True Neutral, but I'm curious what others would think.

Personally I would agree he's NN(in the 9) with strong leanings toward CG. He's more toward the freedom and is a little unpredictable to be lawful but not so much to actually be chaotic, and though for the most part he seems like a good guy, he does have some tendencies toward evil that push him out of the good bar. I'd put him at (8,9) in cartesian alignment

[AMFV]

Personally I would agree he's NN(in the 9) with strong leanings toward CG. He's more toward the freedom and is a little unpredictable to be lawful but not so much to actually be chaotic, and though for the most part he seems like a good guy, he does have some tendencies toward evil that push him out of the good bar. I'd put him at (8,9) in cartesian alignment

Well the thing is that lawfulness isn't so much about predictability as it is about having a specific code. If he is putting nature first in a way that is firm and codified that makes him lawful. If he is kind of putting nature first in a gut-instinct kind of way, that would make him chaotic. The reading seems to favor the first interpretation, to include stiff codified scenarios. So hence my argument towards LN.

[Belac93]

9: He is a lizardfolk (homebrew) rogue (assassin) with a homebrewed healer background.
He started his life as an egg in the hands of some slavers. They trained him to heal, and to harm. They ended up using him as a torturer, as he could keep the victims alive the longest. He did not like his job, but did it, sometimes more viciously than needed, because he was fed the leftovers of his victims, even if for the day it was just a severed finger. Eventually he escaped, and now works as a healer, and also as an assassin. He is never cruel anymore, and goes out of his way to be quick, and he will heal people who pay him. He can kill a political rival, or heal a political ally.

However, if he ever comes into contact with slavers, no matter what, he will kill them. Not always nicely, but usually not going to all out torture. But if he ever had a chance at the slavers who raised him, he would torture them with all the tricks he knew before finally letting them die. He never spares his enemies unless they pay him, but he will heal an innocent as long as it does not risk his life.

I'm using him for a PbP, and at the moment have him as TN, but I'm not sure.