A question of alignment

[Myrddin ap Taliesen]

I'm currently playing a D&Dish game using the Engel rules. My character is an Engel, a divine emisarry of the church on a quest to defeat a mighty evil god known as Malor. Part of the character is that, while he is good, his first and foremost devotion is to the mission of the church. He will lie, cheat, steal, drown puppies, swear oaths he fully intends to break... whatever, if that's what he believes to be the best path towards fulfilling his mission because the mission is all important and is for a greater good. The idea of anyone can give their life for a cause, only the truly devout would be willing to sacrifice their soul for it.

The issue at hand is the game is ending after only a few sessions, but I love the character and want to continue with the basic idea in a normal D&D game we'll be starting soon. On one hand, the character could almost be a paladin, except some of his actions are hardly lawful. Any ideas on an appropriate alignment for such a character?

-Myrddin

 

[Crothian]

I'd go Chaotic Good. Basically the ends justifty the means, as long as good is the final goal, it doesn't matter so much how ytou get there.

 

[JimAde]

Sounds Lawful Evil to me. This is someone so dedicated to his cause that he's willing to sacrifice himself and even do evil things for it. Obviously this depends a lot on the flavor of your campaign, but in a "typical" heroic fantasy, the heroes don't have to do evil to achieve good. You've heard it in a thousand hokey movies and TV shows: "If we resort to their tactics, we're no better than them." In a more realistic or morally ambiguous game he might be classified as good, since he does have the best intentions in the long run. But many people don't believe "the end justifies the means."

 

[Myrddin ap Taliesen]

But wouldn't a LE character typically have some sort of personal gain or evil ambitions from the whole thing, plus, at the very least, a personal code he sticks to? Plus, the character considers himself to be acting in the cause of good, despite all, so should intentions count for anything? I suppose it ends up sort of like John Travolta's character in Swordfish with the question of, "If you could end suffering, all human suffering, but the cost was the life of one innocent child, would you do it? Now what about 10 children? 100 children? 1,000 children, to save the lives and health of billions?"

Don't know if that's exact, but you get the idea. A character who believes that the ends, no matter how extreme, do justify the means and that sometimes the only way to achieve the greater good is through unscrupulous means.

-Myrddin

 

[Umbran]

Any ideas on an appropriate alignment for such a character?

Well, first off, actions dictate alignment. In the long run, what you declare at the start isn't relevant. He will eventually be classified by what he does. So, more's the question - wwhat alignment will the DM think this character woudl be?

Be that as it may...

This character has a particular goal,but he sticks to no particular methodology. He is dedicated to an end, but not to any particular means. He sticks to no particular code of rules himself, nor does he care overly much about the rules of others. Organization, on the whole, is not a selling point for him. He's not lawful.

He is willing and able to toss aside any system of rules in order to achieve his goal. He does not worry overmuch about the disruption he causes, so long as he reaches his goal. He does not really demand personal freedom, but he will exercise it if that's easiest. He's probably neutral, possibly Chaotic.

This character is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and drown puppies. While he expects that the overall goal is good, he's willing to comit at least minor harms in order to reach that goal. I'm not so sure he's necessarily Good. He may well be neutral. If he's really willing to run roughshod over others in order to reach his goal, he might well be evil.

 

[Gideon]

Alignment questions are always fun.

I would say true neutral unless he is specifically going out of his way to hurt people (I don't think your basic description shows that). He will follow laws if it helps or completely ignore them when need dictates that action. Basically, he gets the job done and doesn't mind squishin some toes to do it. He, however, doesn't squish toes for self gain or for the fun of making other people hurt.

But then again I could be wrong.

 

[Rokonin]

I'd go Chaotic Good. Basically the ends justifty the means, as long as good is the final goal, it doesn't matter so much how ytou get there.

I agree. Definitely Chaotic Good.

 

[pdkoning]

I agree. Definitely Chaotic Good.

If the Engel hurts people, lies, cheats, steal, drowns puppies, swears oaths he fully intends to break, I would be careful when saying: CG. Although breaking laws may sometimes be necessary to achieve a greater good, the character MUST try to avoid or work around these situations, in order to remain Good aligned. If the character does not care at all about lying, cheating, and such, I think he is neutral at best.

It is not only the final result that counts, but also the way the character goes while achieving the final result. - the actions the character takes in the game.

 

[simmo]

He will lie, cheat, steal, drown puppies, swear oaths he fully intends to break... whatever, if that's what he believes to be the best path towards fulfilling his mission because the mission is all important and is for a greater good.

This to me is an evil character. Perhaps one with noble intentions but it is the act and not the thought that determines the alignment in my opinion. Will the character be remembered for all the good that they achieved or all the atrocities that they commited along the way?

 

[Agemegos]

A living, breathing example of a the proposition that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions, this character is one whom I would unhesitatingly classify as Evil.

I am never very strong on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, because it seem to me to muddle together things that don't go together (such as honour and authoritarianism). But I would say on balance that this character's law-breaking and oath-breaking propensities outweigh his dog-like devotion to his church.

Chaotic evil, in my book.