Align this character.

[+5 Keyboard!]

How do you associate this with a methodical plan? He sterilizes people he considers stupid or useless as he adventures. He isn't keeping a log of people he's sterilized and doesn't appear to have a list of people that he will keep from breeding in the future. He's easy-come, easy-go, doing it as he goes. That's not lawful.

Further:



Good conquers evil. There is nothing lawful suggested from the above statement. If he had a problem with the way the organization was being run or the practices, that may hint at a lawful or chaotic motivation, but it seems to me he perceives them as evil and thus wants to overthrow them because he perceives himself as good.

You can't isolate each of these things and come up with a conclusion. You have to put them all together. This guy is totally methodical. The mere fact that he does this repeatedly (not just once, but repeatedly) because he has for some reason appointed himself as judge of who is worth or not worthy of breeding is most definitely methodical.
BTW, what does a log have to do with anything? If this guy doesn't immortalize each snip (or whatever) he makes, he is somehow not Lawful? That makes no sense.

Good conquers evil? Sure. That's the way a lot of adventures and stories go, but it's not the way they ALL go. In D&D or any other RPG for that matter evil has just as much motivation and chance at conquering (and replacing) evil as good does. Demons and Devils, anyone?

Anyway, that's my opinion and how it looks to me.

 

[Technik4]

This guy is totally methodical.

Ok, if he's methodical (lawful) describe to me someone doing the same action in a chaotic way. It's not keeping a log, or having a list of people that he's going to take care of next that are necessary components to what I feel a lawful mien would be, but some kind of aspect involving planning or bookeeping or strict criteria to adhere to that would indicate lawfulness.

This guy, he basically castrates people he thinks are stupid or useless.

That is not a 'judgement' aspect of law. He's just a self-righteous guy with a big stick. You can call it 'tyranny', but he's not in any way methodical about it. That's just evil, without much taint of law or chaos, in my book.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

You don't have to be methodical to be lawful. Doing something to abridge individual rights in service to a greater whole is lawful though.

Stopping people from breeding to (apparently) improve the gene pool is very lawful.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Ok, if he's methodical (lawful) describe to me someone doing the same action in a chaotic way. It's not keeping a log, or having a list of people that he's going to take care of next that are necessary components to what I feel a lawful mien would be, but some kind of aspect involving planning or bookeeping or strict criteria to adhere to that would indicate lawfulness.

This guy, he basically castrates people he thinks are stupid or useless.

That is not a 'judgement' aspect of law. He's just a self-righteous guy with a big stick. You can call it 'tyranny', but he's not in any way methodical about it. That's just evil, without much taint of law or chaos, in my book.

Tell me if this guy sounds familiar:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
PHP pg. 105

Now, I hadn't actually looked in the PHB until now. My take on this PC was from memory of how the alignments are described. Now that I've read this, it's almost as if this particular character went and duplicated some of this stuff exactly as described in the PHB.

If you still believe this guy isn't Lawful Evil, that's cool. I do.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

You don't have to be methodical to be lawful. Doing something to abridge individual rights in service to a greater whole is lawful though.

Stopping people from breeding to (apparently) improve the gene pool is very lawful.

That's my opinion as well. But this methodical approach to impregnating women from town to town and sterilizing people that this PC deems unfit to reproduce is in fact a methodical practice. It is planned. It is repeated. Being methodical in itself is not necessarily something that makes you lawful, but in this character's case, it reinforces his Lawful Evil qualities and supports my argument for it.

BTW, to the OP, great topic. I love a lively debate over alignment. This was fun

 

[Tal Rasha]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question... Since this entire discussion is about the character's persona and morals, I can't figure out what's "only" about it. The end results? The end results of everyone's life are the same, you end up dead. Maybe there's no practical difference if you torture someone for a few minutes just before they die.... maybe it can be for an hour... I suppose you could torture them for a few days straight and as long as you were going to kill them anyway, it would only impact your persona and morals.

Right, I could probably have expressed myself better. I meant to ask to which degree you think the character's intentions matter. That is, he's at one point beating a person to death. Agreed, the act in itself is evil. But how, if at all, do you factor in his motivation? Although a bit hard to imagine, it is possible that he thought he was doing the right thing. Suppose the character was a member of a clergy that considered physical pain a way to expunge one's sins. This is also why I had the "same end results" reference in there - since you end up with the same situation, the difference between mercifully and quickly terminating an opponent and doing the same in a different manner is either in the process used or in the reasons behind the process - or both.

Incidentally, +5 keyboard made a very good point with the above quote from the PHB. Maybe he's not NE after all...