Align this character.

[Klaus]

Conan had a strong personal code. Conan was not lawful; he routinely ignored the laws of the lands he was in.

Again, I have to put this out there: A personal code of ethics and conduct does not necessarily mean that the person is Lawful.

Lawful doesn't equate someone who follows laws. A villain who breaks the law on a daily basis but has an unshakable devotion to his own credo is Lawful.

Case in point: Deathstroke The Terminator (DC Comics). He's a hired assassin, the world's finest killer. He breaks the laws just by being there. But he has a deep devotion to his own moral code. He would rather let a rival slash his infant son's throat than to break his code and name his latest employer. His son died without finishing his contract, so he took it upon himself to finish that contract (kill the Teen Titans).

Lawful. and Evil.

 

[Tarek]

I went back and looked at the alignment definitions in 3e again. They've changed a bit from 1e.

However, I really don't see this character's "code" as being Lawful. "I won't hurt an innocent or a child, but if they're useless or stupid I'll neuter them. I'm really loyal to my friends... I hope they never become useless or stupid. I'm going to set out to liberate people from this tyrant, and after I seduce enough women, I'll get all my kids together when they're grown up and we'll all take him down together. Plus I'll get laid a lot, woohoo."

This really sounds more like a "Free Spirit" with anger problems than a "Judge" who believes in law and order.

 

[Nifft]

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

IMHO loyalty to an abstract concept or an organization is a Lawful trait.

Loyalty to individuals is a Chaotic trait.

Basically, a Lawful person sees themselves (and everyone else) as a cog -- they pay attention to social status and the like -- while a Chaotic person sees everyone as a unique individual.

A Lawful person forges a treaty with nation X, and expects it to be honored by the next king.

A Chaotic person forms a bond of honor with the king of nation X, and expects nothing from the next king.

Cheers, -- N

 

[GSHamster]

I vote CE. No tendency about it.

He's a selfish bastard who happens to have high-minded ideals that he chooses to apply as he sees fit. Torturing as 'primary questioning technique' shows a casual attitude towards cruelty, beating someone to death with their own limbs is chaotic, eugenics is thoroughly evil, seducing women along the way is chaotic and possibly evil (does he lie and pressure them?).

By way of reference, I think it's perfectly possible to have a character with LG motives and goals who is thoroughly CE... typically, a revolutionary/committed warrior who will HAPPILY do anything and everything to save the kingdom, and doesn't see a contradiction between breaking the law to save the law.

Going to have to go with Will on this one.

 

[Tarek]

Conan's code of conduct came down to three rules:

1. Face your enemies bravely.
2. Keep your given word unless you've been betrayed or coerced into giving it.
3. Never, ever, allow yourself to be imprisoned. If imprisoned, always seek the best opportunity to escape.

Deception was okay, no problems there. Lie to someone? If necessary. Theft? Sure, easy peasy. Seduce married women? Sure, why not, more's the fun! Assassination? Murder? Never!

Conan was not Lawful. Conan respected no laws, no traditions, no rituals. His code was all personal. Everything in the world was free for his taking.

This is where 3e gets it wrong. A code of conduct can be followed by a Chaotic character as well as by a Lawful one.

 

[Merkuri]

Loyalty to individuals is a Chaotic trait.

Why? How does sticking by your friends imply that your character leans towards disorganization, freedom, and chaos? I'm sorry, but I'll need more explanation before I believe that.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Why? How does sticking by your friends imply that your character leans towards disorganization, freedom, and chaos? I'm sorry, but I'll need more explanation before I believe that.

Sticking with your friends over society might be chaotic.
Argument for it:
If one of your friends were arrested for theft and you knew you could lead the cops to proof that he did it and you chose to do so you're acting lawfully if you chose that loyalty to friends comes before rule of law and duty to society you're acting in line with being chaotic.

To the OP: I can see both the arguments for CE and LE for this character therefore I'd be inclined to say he is NE.

 

[Nifft]

Why? How does sticking by your friends imply that your character leans towards disorganization, freedom, and chaos? I'm sorry, but I'll need more explanation before I believe that.

Loyalty to individuals over organizations is Chaotic.

Loyalty to organizations over individuals is Lawful.

If there's never a conflict between an individual friend and a respected organization, then you may never find out if that person is Lawful or Chaotic with respect to loyalty.

But this guy is allegedly known specifically for his personal loyalties, which I assumed (bad me) meant he had demonstrated them in exclusion to the other kind.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Squire James]

Hey, I invited discussion, right? I guess my initial thought of him was that he was Lawful Good, but various hangups were threatening that image. Maybe starting from True Neutral is really the only fair thing to do... let's see how my "strike system" works now...

Never harm a defenseless child. Most people wouldn't. No Strikes.

Wants to save the world from a tyrannical evil government. All good guys want this, chaotic or otherwise. 2 Good Strikes.

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

Staunchly loyal to his friends. Again, most people are. Loyalty is a trait of Law, though, so I'll give him 1 Law Strike.

Won't keep rewards from quests, preferring to give it back to the town or to another worthy cause. 2 Good Strikes, and 2 Law Strikes. The main reason why I started him Lawful Good in my first assessment.

Uses torture as his primary questioning technique for prisoners. OK, 2 Evil Strikes like before... this cancels out 2 Good Strikes. Heck, take away 1 Law Strike as well - this sort of thing is usually against the law...

Has, on several occasions, beaten someone to death with their own limbs. I fail to see the big distinction between one using limbs and using swords. Dead is dead. Killing is killing. I'd be giving him more Good Strikes if I knew all the people he did this to deserved it. The other text implies this might be the case, but the general gristliness of the deed cancels it out. No Strikes.

A fervent believer in eugenics, he has sterilized many useless or stupid people along his travels. I believe I gave him 2 Evil Strikes for this. Nothing has happened to change my opinion of this. I understand his hatred of "stupid" and/or "useless" people and share some of it, but I consider it a fault within me rather than a virtue.

Seduces women in every town he comes across, hoping to sire an army along the way. 1 Law Strike for his strangely lawful purpose, and 2 Chaos Strikes for the odd way he chooses to go about it.

To tote things up: 2 net Good Strikes. He's True Neutral guy whose evil traits drag him down like a lead weight. My answer was different, but not by much. I still refuse to ignore all his positives and judge his alignment purely by his negatives (which I would have to do, to declare him Evil).

 

[Nifft]

This is where 3e gets it wrong. A code of conduct can be followed by a Chaotic character as well as by a Lawful one.

Very much agree.

IMHO the difference is that a Lawful person follows the code of an organization (e.g. paladins or monks of a specific order), while a Chaotic person follows a personal code.

Cheers, -- N