A question of alignment

[Myrddin ap Taliesen]

Thanks for all the input everyone!

After looking at a couple of points made, I think I'm gonna go with Chaotic Neutral, rather than CE, because it isn't as though he makes a habit of commiting minor wrongs on his way, merely when they seem necessary.

-Myrddin

 

[dead]

I would say Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil.

If he's just drowing "puppies" then he could probably get away with Lawful Neutral. If was drowning people, then Lawful Evil.

I don't play alignments in my game and this is one reason I don't do it. You see, Myrddin, it doesn't matter what "alignment" your character is; you just play him how you *want* to play him. It sounds like you've got a great character concept going there, but to tag it with an alignment is not only unnecessary but it can create all sorts of disputes in the game.

Just take a look at people's opinions so far. Some say Chaotic Good, some say Lawful Evil, and I've just added another: Lawful Neutral. With alignment, everybody has a different opinion and if there's a differing of opinion then this can lead to trouble. Say a GM says your character is Lawful Evil but you vehemently disagree. You say he is Chaotic GOOD! This will lead to a dispute and resentment for the GM when he starts to penalize you for "evil" actions that you think serve the higher goal of "good".

This is one reason I don't play alignments. If you were in my game, Myrddin, and asked me "What alignment is my character?", I would not answer "LN or LE", I'd answer: "It doesn't matter, you just play the great character sketch that you've come up with and we'll let the NPCs in the game world judge your actions. People of your faith will call you 'good'; people not of your faith (and whose puppies your drowning) will probably call you 'evil'".

This way alignment becomes relative to the situation and not a game mechanic. And this is essentially why it remains in D&D, because it is a game mechanic that determines the outcome of spells like Detect Good/Evil and Holy/Unholy Smite. If you choose to have no alignment, then you can still keep these spells but they will need some tweaking. In the end, from my experience, the game is still 100% D&D.

 

[Kalanyr]

I'm not sure I'd call the debate over Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil, a reason to discount alignment, the problem is that these two diametrically opposing alignments have the same basis (which is true of all opposites Hot & Cold are differents end of the same scale of heat) which is "respect to those which I respect". The thing that differentiates them is precisely WHAT you respect, the CG character respects people who do not impinge on the freedom and wellbeing of yet others, the LE character respects those who can twist the law and inspire fear of consequences of doing the same in him.

In this case I'd be inclined to say the character is probably LE, simly because he does not fit the first category (he's quiet happy to trample on anyone else as long as they are in the way of his goal not based on their relation with other people) not because he fits the later.

 

[Dogbrain]

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.

Neutral evil. No morals, no restraints on actions, only the goal matters. Murder the innocent, no problem, claim that it was "necessary". Break law, break ones word? No problem. It was "necessary". Only the goal matters. The means do not matter, only the end.

Evil, purest evil. Therefore, Neutral Evil.

(Mind you, I say this from the perspective of a Christian.)

 

[dead]

So what have we got now?

Chaotic Good
Chaotic Neutral
Neutral Evil
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil

Any takers for the other 4 alignments?

Myrddin, it's really gonna depend on your DM's ruling which, mind you, you may violently disagree with. Good luck!

 

[Umbran]

So what have we got now?

What we have now is a bunch of people taking a very rough stab given minimal information. I'm not so sure we are so different in how we read the alignment system, but we differ in what parts of the description stick out to us.

Note, for example, how the character is described as willing to "lie, cheat, steal, drown puppies, swear oaths he fully intends to break...whatever". There's a lot of possible but not explicity stated stuff packed into "whatever". It isn't terribly clear really how far he'll go. Also note how it is left to our imagination exactly how good this church actually is, and what kind of good results come from the mission? And willing or no, how many of these nasty acts are actually going to be required? Lots and lots of room for interpretation, here.

 

[Dogbrain]

Thanks for all the input everyone!

After looking at a couple of points made, I think I'm gonna go with Chaotic Neutral, rather than CE, because it isn't as though he makes a habit of commiting minor wrongs on his way, merely when they seem necessary.

That is how the evil salve what little conscience they have left.

 

[Piratecat]

I disagree, dogbrain. If he isn't going out of his way to do harm then he's probably not evil. I think CN is probably pretty close.

 

[Myrddin ap Taliesen]

There's a lot of possible but not explicity stated stuff packed into "whatever". It isn't terribly clear really how far he'll go. Also note how it is left to our imagination exactly how good this church actually is, and what kind of good results come from the mission? And willing or no, how many of these nasty acts are actually going to be required?

Sorry for the lack of details, didn't want the thread to end up too tedious. As far as that, the mission from the church in question is stopping the rise of a dark god, Malor, who would destroy the world if unleashed.

The only such dark acts that have occured so far are the swearing and breaking of an oath and the (perhaps) unnecessary use of force to gain an artifact we were trading to a powerful group of wizards for their assistance. As far as that goes, though, as far as what's in a person's heart, does it matter that he hasn't actually commited worse acts merely because they haven't been necessary, since he would if they were?

Neutral evil. No morals, no restraints on actions, only the goal matters. Murder the innocent, no problem, claim that it was "necessary". Break law, break ones word? No problem. It was "necessary". Only the goal matters. The means do not matter, only the end.

You're making it sound as though acting evilly is really the goal and the quest is merely an excuse.

dead - My main reason for being interested (beyond a personal love of philosophy) is for rules decisions based upon alignment, such as the spells you mentioned.

-Myrddin

 

[Al]

Lawful Neutral.

Lawful doesn't have to mean 'following the law' or even following a set code. It entails inflexible adherence to a dogma or goal. To this character, it seems that nothing else matters other than the dogma, the quest, the objective. His ardent determination to achieve it sounds Lawful- lawful is not equal to law-abiding.

On the Good/Evil axis, it has to fall at Neutral. Evil implies some personal gain, gratification or a perverse desire to harm. He's none of those. He doesn't derive pleasure from what he does, nor does he opt for it unless it's the only choice, and he certainly does not wish to harm. His motives are undeniably pure, so if his actions are dubious then it averages out at neutrality.