Choatic Neutral or Choatic Evil?

[Kalanyr]

Hmmm, dragging an innocent peasant to an altar somewhere and sacrificing them for personal gain without any other reason ? Not even flash of the moment greed, but calculated murder. Definitely an evil act, IMO.

 

[jgbrowning]

neutral? evil?

Neutrals can do evil acts. Without penalty. They can also do good acts. Without penalty.

The issue is how much of which is going on? I've found that most "neutral" characters are actually good because they do many more good than evil acts. This is if you follow the concept that neutral is a balance issue.

If you think neutral is an undecided issue... pick a time frame and count the good vrs evil acts the character does and set their alignment for them.


I've found most people play neutral because they dont want to be limited like a good character, but then just play a good aligned character anyway. Turn them good then. Dont let them fudge on you.

Pick a direction, inform your players and move on.

 

[Tonguez]

Re: neutral? evil?

Neutrals can do evil acts. Without penalty. They can also do good acts. Without penalty.

I've found most people play neutral because they dont want to be limited like a good character, but then just play a good aligned character anyway. Turn them good then. Dont let them fudge on you.

IMC everyone starts as Neutral and then is either designated good or evil according to behaviour - and thats the extent of my ingame alignment system (no lawful, no chaotic), Paladins only differ in that they have a clearly stated code (of chivalry) which they must follow.

As to the above fighter I'd tend to agree with Neutral Evil

 

[Gromm]

[B.. the the chaotic side either. Never have I seen him do anything remotely random or unpredictible. Most of his motivation comes from power-hunger. His actions (as demonstrated by this incident) are deliberate and calculated. I believe that the character should fall under a NE or maybe LE alignment as CE doesn't even fit. [/B]

He sounds like NE. Hes always doing what benefits himself the most, without regards to others. LE usually has some sort of honor or honesty to it, it doesn't sound like he has any and CE is less likely to plan things out so well, so hes most likely NE.

 

[Ferret]

Ask him if he didn't want to kill a PM or was afraid to.

 

[doktorstick]

The alignment issue is a hard one, for sure. We would all like to think that commiting murder, in a case like this, is an evil act which causes an alignment shift. However...

The neutral on the good/evil access means that the person in question tries to hold the balance between good and evil. If too many atrocities are done in the world, he tries to rectify that by bringing down some of the offenders. If too many good deeds are done in the world, he tries to rectify that by bringing down some of the benefactors.

Typically, unless you play in "interesting" groups, the party consists of a bunch of heroes that bring good to a surrounding area. Their increased activities makes things better (typically), not worse. The neutral character (again, on the good/evil axis), might try to balance that by acting on it--in this case murdering a local henchman--to sway the balance a little more.

I guess it depends on what it means to "hold balance" with respect to good and evil and if the actions taken can be extreme or not.

/ds

 

[Hammerhead]

The alignment issue is a hard one, for sure. We would all like to think that commiting murder, in a case like this, is an evil act which causes an alignment shift. However...

The neutral on the good/evil access means that the person in question tries to hold the balance between good and evil. If too many atrocities are done in the world, he tries to rectify that by bringing down some of the offenders. If too many good deeds are done in the world, he tries to rectify that by bringing down some of the benefactors.

Typically, unless you play in "interesting" groups, the party consists of a bunch of heroes that bring good to a surrounding area. Their increased activities makes things better (typically), not worse. The neutral character (again, on the good/evil axis), might try to balance that by acting on it--in this case murdering a local henchman--to sway the balance a little more.

I guess it depends on what it means to "hold balance" with respect to good and evil and if the actions taken can be extreme or not.

/ds

That's the 2e definition of neutral. It always struck me as somewhat insane, and is no longer applicable.

Neutral people mostly act in self interest, but aren't ruthless about it. Most of them would probably like to help other people, but they aren't going to go out of their way. Most normal people are probably going to be neutral.

Good: puts the interest of others ahead of self
Neutral: puts self ahead of others
Evil: will run over others to benefit self

 

[jgbrowning]

Good: puts the interest of others ahead of self
Neutral: puts self ahead of others
Evil: will run over others to benefit self

Good generality, but sometimes a neutral person will put the intrest of others ahead of self and will run over others to benefit self. So the above guy could easily be CN or NE.

What was he going to do with the powerful object? Help others? Hrm.. we have a moral dilemma

joseph browning

 

[Corwin the Confused]

I agree with the people that say that a character's alignment is not based on a single act but the composit of all his acts. And by being CN or a "free spirit" he is allowed greater lattitude, because he follows his whims.

I do like the way evil act were handled in the Old Star Wars RPG. You were awarded a DarkSide point if you did something evil. If you got too many points you became evil.

So lets look at what happened:

I have a player who has a fighter that is choatic neutral. Well in our last adventure he found an altar and figured out how to use it. He discovered if he sacrificed something he would be rewared with a great magic treasure.

So now he knows that this is an evil altar to an evil god. If he sacrafices someone to the evil god on the evil altar, he will be rewarded with magic. So basically he is worshiping the evil god or paying him homage be making the sacrafice. So now he decides that he will murder an innocent to get the magic.

So once we headed back to town he decided to hire a npc to go back with him to this altar. He did not bother to tell the npc what his intentions were. He just lied to them saying he needed his help carrying something and would pay them for there help.

So now he lies to an NPC (probably of good or neutral alignment) to lure him to the altar. He could have found an evil NPC to sacrafice, but he did not bother.

Well needless to say as soon as they got there it was over and the npc was killed. All just so he could have a great magic item.

Then he kills the NCP as a sacrafice on the altar of the evil god.

To me this is just pure evil. He killed an innocent person to make himself better. Without a second thought. So I am thinking about changeing his alignment to Choatic Evil. I would like some other thoughts on this matter from you guys and gals.

Thanks

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh! Well if he is not evil now he is sure well on his way and he can see evil from where he is now.

 

[sineater]

Just so everyone knows the object he got was only for bettering himself not others.