Align this character.

[Merkuri]

Merkuri: You wouldn't consider being castrated 'harm'?

Oh yes, by all means. Unwilling castration of another human(oid) being is harmful and probably evil. I was not arguing that his view of it made it right, just that it was consistent with his internal code and that the "contradiction" wasn't necessarily something that made him any less lawful.

 

[Klaus]

Let's see:

- He would never harm a child or defenseless person. - Good
- He wants to save the world from a tyrannical and thoroughly evil organization. - Undecided. Does he want to replace it with another form of government, or let everyone fend for themselves?
- He'll give the shirt off his back to a stranger if that would help them. - Good
- Staunchly loyal to his friends. - Neutral. Loyalty to one's friends doesn't swing the pendulum.
- Won't keep rewards from quests, preferring to give it back to the town or to another worthy cause. - Lawful. Thinks of the whole before the one.
- 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.) - Evil.
- A fervent believer in eugenics, he has sterilized many useless or stupid people along his travels. - Evil. And Lawful, as he is doing that to what he sees as the benefit of society.
- Seduces women in every town he comes across, hoping to sire an army along the way (ala Ghengis Khan). - Evil. And Lawful, as he seems to be planning long-term.

So 4 Evils, 3 Lawfuls, 1 Neutral, 1 Undecided and 2 Goods. Seems Lawful Evil to me. One less Evil instace and he'd be LN. So I'll call LE (LN).

 

[Merkuri]

- Staunchly loyal to his friends. - Neutral. Loyalty to one's friends doesn't swing the pendulum.

Really? I thought loyalty was a trait of Lawful characters, just like keeping your word.

 

[Trench]

Really? I thought loyalty was a trait of Lawful characters, just like keeping your word.

IMC and others I'm playing in, we have bad guys that are very loyal to their friends. They just don't have any problem with killing or screwing over those they DON'T consider friends. And that's where the line lies, IMO.

 

[Merkuri]

IMC and others I'm playing in, we have bad guys that are very loyal to their friends. They just don't have any problem with killing or screwing over those they DON'T consider friends. And that's where the line lies, IMO.

Okay, I see that.

Loyal to only friends = neutral
Loyal to all = lawful
Loyal to none = chaotic
Loyal to only non-friends = stupid

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Really? I thought loyalty was a trait of Lawful characters, just like keeping your word.

No, loyalty to your friends is a neutral trait. I mean, they are your friends. Lack of loyalty even to your supposed friends would be an evil trait, not a chaotic one. A chaotic person might be more willing to lie to a friend for their own good, while a lawful one might be more likely to keep a specific promise that isn't really helping the friend anymore, but remaining loyal to friends, meaning that you stick with the people you care about even when things get rough and not selling them out is merely "not particularly evil". Even some evil characters (like this one) are capable of it.

 

[felwar]

A characters good/evil alignment is generally defined by the worst things they do, not the best. Even an evil businessman might donate money to charities and have a personal code of conduct. Just think of your classic movie mobster.

That said, I would think this character falls more in the CN or CE category. He might fall closer to lawful if not for the siring children thing.

 

[Merkuri]

He might fall closer to lawful if not for the siring children thing.

Funny, the children thing makes me think "lawful." He has a plan - a very long-term one at that - and is working to bring it to fruition. If he were just in it to "have fun" then that might be more chaotic or neutral.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Funny, the children thing makes me think "lawful." He has a plan - a very long-term one at that - and is working to bring it to fruition. If he were just in it to "have fun" then that might be more chaotic or neutral.

It's a weird plan when you stop to think about it, though... what makes him think these children will be loyal to him? Does he have some sort of hidden racial trait and/or magic lineage which will somehow call or bind these children to him when he reaches adulthood? Or is he just THAT full of himself that he figures any child with half his DNA will be strong, noble and inclined to fight the BBEG with him? (given his eugenics, this sort of meglomania might not be so far out there.)

 

[Trench]

A characters good/evil alignment is generally defined by the worst things they do, not the best.

I don't think I agree. I think that devaluing that good acts cheapens the evil acts.

That said, I would think this character falls more in the CN or CE category. He might fall closer to lawful if not for the siring children thing.

We don't have specifics on the siring children thing. If he were forcing himself upon women, then that'd be pretty evil. But it was written as "seducing", which isn't inherently evil or even terribly chaotic. You can go to a bar and watch everyone get their mack on to see that.

Again, for me, it's the fact that the seducing and subsequent pregnancies are part of a distinct PLAN rather than simply pleasure that pushes it into Lawful territory for me- although the dishonesty places it on the evil scale.