Choatic Neutral or Choatic Evil?

[Magic Rub]

...Honestly it really matters more how he handles everything else. Is he a normally nice guy other than this incident? Is he using the magic item for the good of the people, or just himself?

You have to consider that if someones CN and they say give a large sum of money to some poor person (or whatever you consider a very CG thing to do), they don't automatically become CG for it. They can get away with a little evil and a little good.

Of course this is more like a whole bunch of evil balanced against what I'm sure is a life of middle the roadness, so he's probably CE. Or just say that the altar made him that way, its the easiest solution and he can't really complain since he had to know tis was the likely result of his actions.

My thoughts to a "T" Gromm.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

"His parents gave up they couldn't influence his attitude
Nobody could help
The little man had no gratitude

And when he stole the car
Nobody dreamed that he would
Try to take it so far
He didn't mean to hit the poor man
Who had to go and die
It made the judge cry "


I am with Reapersaurus. <shiver>

 

[Ferret]

It wasn't Chaotic evil, they would have sacrificed anyone that was there, neutral evil, would have done the one that gave the most bonus, lawfull evil would have done it on the quiet, carefully, but still not cared who, chaotic neutral would have done what they wanted, they want a magic Item, they don't want the others to die, maybe done what he did. If it was a nasty NPC that act is N, other wise it is CN.

 

[MidKnight]

I believe that it was a cowardly act - the player in question knew that their character couldn't stand up to most of the rest of the party members in a straight fight. Besides, if he would have tried to sacrifice any party member, the entire group would have smacked him down.

In my mind this is a purely, dispicably, evil act. The character frequently disreguards moral values and does whatever he can to gather more power to himself.

Further - The player doesn't abide by 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.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Betraying an ally is definitely a Chaotic act, sometimes it is even Evil.

Killing someone purely for personal gain is definitely Evil.

The old "ends justifies the means" argument does not apply here. That is a loophole a Neutral PC can sometimes use. But a Good character will almost never do so because evil acts for the "greater good" are still evil acts.

Keep in mind that a single isolated action does not make an alignment. But a pattern of actions is more important for determining alignment than what is scrawled on the character sheet.

Chaotic does not necessarily imply "random". It has more to do with attitude towards traditions, authority, and honor, than unpredictability. I will reiterate that lying and betraying the NPC is definitely Chaotic.

 

[Dagger75]

Blah Blah morals, ethis of society Blah blah.....
Okay got that argument out of the way.

I always ruled that if you have explain and justify that what you did was not evil then it is evil. Thats the long and short of it.

Also would we be arguing this point if he had grabbed a goblin or orc and sacrificed him at the alter. I still think it would be evil. He killed someone for personal gain and just that sounds evil.

You will get different responses and reasons from everybody on this board. You are the DM its your call.

 

[clark411]

Hm I dunno.. if it was premeditated and purposeful I'd lean away from chaotic. But it's definitely evil. He should be pinging on the local paladin-radar pretty soon.

 

[reapersaurus]

He should be pinging on the local paladin-radar pretty soon.

ROFL!!!

Hey - since when do people waffle on calling a MURDERER evil?

One act - murder - DOES make your alignment irrevocably change, IMO.
There's no way he can come back from that, without a complete 180 turn, complete with self-recrimination and all that.

 

[AuraSeer]

He took little Susie to the Junior Prom
Excitable boy, they all said
and he raped her and killed her, then he took her home
Excitable boy, they all said
Well, he's just an excitable boy
After ten long years they let him out of the Home
Excitable boy, they all said
And he dug up her grave and built a cage with her bones
Excitable boy, they all said
Well, he's just an excitable boy

--"Excitable Boy", by Warren Zevon.

[churchlady] Evil, evil, evil! [/churchlady]

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Selfish, wants something, doesn't want to risk his life, ready to kill, greedy.

Sounds like NE to me.

But it's pretty hard to judge character's nature by a single act.
Any non-good character might have made such choice depending on situation and motivation, of course. Let's say, if character would have really needed that magic item to be able to do something very important to him.
(if it was rendom item thing, this possibility is very doubtful)..

Greed and willingless to kill for it is not always evil. Not all mercenaries are 'evil', and they kill for money. It's their livehood and job.

Anyway, what really makes it sound 'evil act', is fact that he hired some poor dumb villanger, and lied to this, to get him more easily to place where villanger was then killed.

If he'd chosen enemy and instead of 'just killing him' would have dragged that creature to altar for 'more profitable killing', it would have been more 'neutral act'.

But, if that, well, sacrifising was not any neutral magic, but linked to worship of some evil deity for example, it would be kind of 'soul-endangering' act to perform such sacrifise in any case.