A question of alignment (!=4E)

[Grey Paladin]

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]

I'd say somewhere between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil.

[fractic]

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]

lawful evil i would say

[kamikasei]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

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

[The_Werebear]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A king is a king by law, but it is by his law.

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

[fractic]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

+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]

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.