Alignment - What am I?

[Winternight]

However... ask yourself what would you have done if the orcs, ghouls and drows were just humans; if the answer is "the same", then you are probably evil. Right now, the fact that your victims were likely evil (orcs), certainly evil (ghouls), and almost certainly evil (drow) is the only thing that holds you to neutrality.

Shure I would!
mmm I may miss our point. (this time for real)
I kill ghouls and drows, because I don`t want them to kidnap my serfs. I am neutral.
I kill humans who did the same, I am evil.
I genocide a lair of goblins, because i am a paladin and they are in the dungeon which happens to lay on my way (the typical advenure) - I am good.

Am I evil?
Yes I am.
Am I evil?
I am man, yes I am!

I think I have heard dis song somewhere
My court bard has song it.
I didn´t like the tone though, it was too ...
modern.

 

[Thanee]

I genocide a lair of goblins, because i am a paladin and they are in the dungeon which happens to lay on my way (the typical advenure) - I am good.

Nope, that's usually evil as well. Only, if the paladin has a proper reason (not that these goblins might someday do something evil, which is no reason), would such a behaviour be warranted. A paladin is not the one to draw his sword first.

You can't simply derive an alignment by the deeds done, but rather by the motivations which drive the deeds. In your case, they are clearly evil in the game sense (not as evil as a demon or devil, but still evil).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Atridis]

There's one thing that stands out to me: He speaks of someday ruling a kingdom that includes undead as taxable residents (i.e. citizens). Depending on the nature of undead in his campaign-world, this alone suggests to me that he is...

Lawful Evil.

This wouldn't conflict with his other behavior, I don't think:
- The fact that he will kill "if it's easier" shows that he has no inherent regard for life.
- That all his adversaries have been Evil is not necessarily indicative of Good. After all, Evil people fight one another as often as they fight Good people. Good people are more likely to bend over backwards to avoid violence by cooperating and negotiating (something that Evil people routinely exploit).
- There's nothing to suggest that the alignment or race of his enemy was a concern, one way or the other.
- He has some loyalty to other people, but this suggests Lawful to me, not Good. Everyone needs allies, after all.
- "The end justifies the means" is illuminating. His desire to avoid violence could simply be acknowledging the fact that he isn't invulnerable, and that violence often creates complications and eliminates opportunities.

Unless it's an unusual campaign world, I don't see how anyone who's Good or Neutral could plan to rule a kingdom that includes undead.

 

[Winternight]

Nope, that's usually evil as well. Only, if the paladin has a proper reason (not that these goblins might someday do something evil, which is no reason), would such a behaviour be warranted. A paladin is not the one to draw his sword first.

You can't simply derive an alignment by the deeds done, but rather by the motivations which drive the deeds. In your case, they are clearly evil in the game sense (not as evil as a demon or devil, but still evil).

Bye
Thanee

I tend to agree with you, but in the most adventures, you invade a lair of some evil guys orcs/ goblins/ trolls/ ghouls/... because they have made a raid/kidnapped the mayors daughter/... of you friendly local village.
You enter it, those inside attack you (sure you are in their home) and you kill èm all. Looting all the treasure.
And the typical adventure group is good (more or less)

I did the very same.
Those drows tried to kidnap one of my serfs. I rescued him on their way back to their lair.
My torturer extracted the information of their stronghold. (I did neither watch nor did participate in the interrogation)
If one of them had surrendered, i might have taken him as a slave (not serf!): but none have.
And I can`t do subdual damage, If i could, I had done it, to have some slaves in the mines. (to protect my serfs in the really dangerous shafts and to give some of my serfs a better work)

 

[Nightfall]

You are a tomato. That's your alignment. A tomato wizard.

 

[Zappo]

Shure I would!
mmm I may miss our point. (this time for real)
I kill ghouls and drows, because I don`t want them to kidnap my serfs. I am neutral.
I kill humans who did the same, I am evil.
I genocide a lair of goblins, because i am a paladin and they are in the dungeon which happens to lay on my way (the typical advenure) - I am good.

That's because, unlike the real world, in D&D there are genetically evil races and even "races" (undead, devils...) that deserve genocide.

Ghouls are intrinsically, inhumanly evil and impossible to redeem; they don't have any positive quality, they aren't even alive. Killing them is never an evil act IMO, and it is good in many circumstances; there are no problems there.

Drows and orcs are almost always evil; the individual may be worth talking to, but it can safely be assumed that any large group of drows and orcs has committed atrocities in the past and is going to keep them up in the future if given a chance. Attacking them so that they stop it, even using lethal force, is a good act in D&D; attacking them because you are following a personal agenda is neutral IMO, though I can see it being debatable. Killing them all, to the last one, even the ones that are fleeing, even the ones that have surrendered, even after your objective has already been reached, even when there is no need to kill them? Uhm... at least neutral, and probably evil, depending on circumstances and the interpretation of the DM. Besides, they deserve a chance to prove that they aren't normal drow and orcs, and aren't dedicated to evil. Naturally, if none of them have tried to flee or surrender - well that's just the DM being unrealistic.

Humans though - you can't make assumptions on humans. A human stronghold may be a den of evil in need of eradication, or it could be a fortress of paladins. It will contain heaps of people that don't have the general alignment. It will contain lots of people that are not a threat. They tried to kidnap and torture a party member - ok, so the leaders definitely aren't good and a whoopin' is in order, but this still isn't a justification for a complete massacre.

I hope I have been clearer.

 

[Humanophile]

Those drows tried to kidnap one of my serfs. I rescued him on their way back to their lair.
My torturer extracted the information of their stronghold. (I did neither watch nor did participate in the interrogation)
If one of them had surrendered, i might have taken him as a slave (not serf!): but none have.
And I can`t do subdual damage, If i could, I had done it, to have some slaves in the mines. (to protect my serfs in the really dangerous shafts and to give some of my serfs a better work)

Up to this post, I could see you as just a dark neutral. Many of the races you were talking about are historically cannon fodder, and in D&D, "Heroes" seem to have some moral wiggle-room when it comes to things like violence (against baddies, of course) and destruction of property.

But keeping slaves and the services of a torturer is just out-and-out evil. Your character is NE, with the kind of evil that continues to think of itself as neutrality. But you've crossed that point where your means outweigh any end you could use them for.

 

[Hand of Evil]

You are a tomato. That's your alignment. A tomato wizard.

I am missing something, I don't get it?

 

[shilsen]

Now, now, we're talking about his character, not him... His character may be a master grammerian...

Grammarian

As for the original question, NE in my book.

 

[Maerdwyn]

NE

Evil, for the same reasons many others have pointed out.

Neutral, rather than Lawful, because the are the hints of a moral code, it's not really there. "The end justifies the means" is not a principled stand, as it allows any sort of behavior what soever as long as the goal can be justified somehow or other. "Let's try to solve this without violence", when coupled with (paraphrasing) "I do whatever is easiest, killing without hesitation if that happens to be the easiest course of action" has no worth - the motto suggests aspirations of non-violence, while your description of your actions suggest an actual devotion only to expediency. The desire to rule a kingdom doesn't pull you into the realm of lawful, but it does pull you away from Chaotic.