Align this character.

[Kahuna Burger]

You don't typically torture somebody until they are defenseless. The alignment system doesn't handle doublethink especially well.

There's also :

- He'll give the shirt off his back to a stranger if that would help them.
- A fervent believer in eugenics, he has sterilized many useless or stupid people along his travels.

So he'll help a stranger unless he decides they are "useless" or "stupid" in which case he will sterilize them? Maybe he'll give them his shirt after he judges them unworthy to breed?

 

[DarkKestral]

LE or CE. Definitely evil, though the "Well Intentioned" type.

 

[Brazeku]

On second thought, if you want to go by current mainstream Western values (outliers like torture apologists excepted), I guess I can do an assessment.

- He would never harm a child or defenseless person.
Good!

- He wants to save the world from a tyrannical and thoroughly evil organization.
Good!

- He'll give the shirt off his back to a stranger if that would help them.
Good!

- Staunchly loyal to his friends.
Good!

- Won't keep rewards from quests, preferring to give it back to the town or to another worthy cause.
Good!

- Uses torture as his primary questioning technique for prisoners.
Evil!

- Has, on several occasions, beaten someone to death with their own limbs. (This was their punishment for a crime, most likely hurting children or the defenseless.)
Really evil! Also what the hell! (triple points bonus)

- A fervent believer in eugenics, he has sterilized many useless or stupid people along his travels.
Really evil! (double points bonus)

- Seduces women in every town he comes across, hoping to sire an army along the way (ala Ghengis Khan).
Chaotic!

So looks like we have 5 good, 6 evil, and a chaotic. I guess that means neutral with evil and chaotic tendencies. If this were actually a medieval setting, the assessment would be somewhat more rosy- and even moreso if you threw God in there a couple times.

 

[Tal Rasha]

Interesting. My first response would be that this character essentially models a real-life person, which IMHO can't be mapped out correctly by the D&D alignment system. But that's not terribly useful, so let's look at it as D&D.

Neutral Evil. Evil, because he maims people, beats them to death with their limbs, tortures people, and, most importantly, believes in sterilizing people that are unfit. Reread that last sentence - he sterilizes people that he thinks are unfit. Let it sink in.

Nobody cares that he gives alms to the poor or that he has never hurt a child. He could just as well be saving babies from being eaten by dragons every other day. As long as you actively torture and sterilize people (i.e., have not stopped doing this a long time ago and repented for it), you are evil.

Neutral, because he basically only does what he thinks is right. The one point where I had difficulty with this reasoning was the "staunchly loyal to his friends" part, but that's not contradictory in any way - people of neutral alignment can feel as strongly for someone else as any other people. Lawful people will tend to always follow a code of conduct (e.g., honor an agreement even if they don't want to), whereas chaotic characters will naturally be unpredictable (e.g. stabbing their friends in the back for no discernible reason). I believe this character falls between these two extremes.

This line of thought keeps with the philosophy that a person's alignment is dictated by their actions, not their intentions. I'd be glad to argue about that too, if anyone desires to.

 

[Technik4]

whereas chaotic characters will naturally be unpredictable (e.g. stabbing their friends in the back for no discernible reason).

:\ Evil people would stab their friends in the back, not chaotic. Wrong axis.

Back to the OP, tough to say. I agree with those that say he is clearly not good. The first line is very misleading:

- He would never harm a child or defenseless person.

He does though, quite often apparently. People he feels are stupid or useless get harmed by not being able to procreate. Also, unless every woman he sleeps with wants to bear his child, he is burdening them with his child while he takes off.

Ask yourself if this is the kind of person that would help a maimed prisoner (who could no longer meaningfully contribute to a community)? Would he try and figure out whether someone has been the subject of a feeblemind spell (or just assume they are 'an idiot')?

I would award him a solid Neutral (he is neither bound to order, or prone to going to great lengths to break down laws and order) Evil (he does what he feels is necessary in pursuit of his own goals, without thinking (or caring) about the consequences to those he deems stupid or useless).

NE

 

[Merkuri]

Lawful neutral. He has a strict code of morals and behavior, which makes him lawful. He has both good (defending the helpless and giving the shirt off his back to help others) and evil (using torture, selfishly trying to spawn an army) tendencies, which puts him smack in the middle of that scale.

There's a chance he's lawful evil, but I'd need to know more about the character than what was stated above. I doubt he's lawful good, simply because torture is an extremely evil thing to do. He probably thinks of himself as lawful good, in any case.

Characters like this make great villans because they're on gray ground. They may be accomplishing great things that the PCs want to happen, but the methods he's using are abhorant.

 

[pallandrome]

Chaotic Neutral.

That is the alignment that you become if you go insane, if memory serves. Since the character has no sustainable moral code (torture and generosity do not generally go togeather in a sound mind), and no grounded sense of human rights (eugenics against their will), he is obviously insane.

 

[Will]

He has a strict code of morals and behavior, which makes him lawful.

What evidence do we have that he has a strict code of morals and behavior? From the write-up, it sounds more like a bunch of exceptions and arbitrary decisions based on viewpoints.

 

[Merkuri]

What evidence do we have that he has a strict code of morals and behavior? From the write-up, it sounds more like a bunch of exceptions and arbitrary decisions based on viewpoints.

The way the list was laid out is in and of itself lawful. Chaoic characters would be harder to quantify like that. The list is sometimes self-contradictory, but I'm guessing it makes sense in the character's head. He has ways to justify what he is doing.

 

[shdwrnr]

Meh

I would say Lawful Neutral. In my opinion good and evil isn't about what you want to accomplish or what your goals are, it's how far you're willing to go to achieve your ends. The further lean away from good, the greater atrocities you're willing to commit to attain your goal, regardless of how noble the end result may be. This character is willing to torture and brutalize those he has judged, but not willing to harm or abandon the innocent. He's a fence sitter IMO.