D&D 5E Evil Vs. Neutral - help me explain?

[DMCF]

Running a Dragonlance game and a certain player is decidedly evil. If the job is to assassinate someone, he will assassinate them. If it is to save a kitten then he'll save the kitten. This is all done for the right price. The problem is he stands by the fact he is chaotic neutral and can do whatever he feels like because he "could" do something good any time he wants to.

Everyone in the group agrees that contract killing is an evil thing amd the his excessive motivation by greed is evil as well.. This player however thinks it isn't and all but flips out.

We all have our opinions on ethics but to craft a world I'm using RAW. It helps me craft the reactions of NPCs in a world that has firmly entrenched sides of good and evil. So how do I do this? He's even carrying a powerful magical artifact that is very evil but I'm not going to spill the goods to bribe him into being evil.

 

[TerraDave]

The line between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral...

is a fine one?

Actually, the "mobster" alignment is sort of tricky. Curious to see what others say.

 

[iserith]

Running a Dragonlance game and a certain player is decidedly evil. If the job is to assassinate someone, he will assassinate them. If it is to save a kitten then he'll save the kitten. This is all done for the right price. The problem is he stands by the fact he is chaotic neutral and can do whatever he feels like because he "could" do something good any time he wants to.

Everyone in the group agrees that contract killing is an evil thing amd the his excessive motivation by greed is evil as well.. This player however thinks it isn't and all but flips out.

We all have our opinions on ethics but to craft a world I'm using RAW. It helps me craft the reactions of NPCs in a world that has firmly entrenched sides of good and evil. So how do I do this? He's even carrying a powerful magical artifact that is very evil but I'm not going to spill the goods to bribe him into being evil.

"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)... Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment." (Basic Rules, page 34)

If you think the character's actions are evil and you choose to have NPCs react on the basis of the character's known deeds, then that's your prerogative as DM. You don't need to change anything on the player's character sheet. You don't need any other justification for having NPCs behave as you choose, provided what you seek to do is compatible with the goals of play, that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

Alignment's a shorthand descriptor for how a person might act. It's not a straitjacket, nor a good reason to debate ethics and morality at the table if that is negatively impacting the game experience.

 

[Cernor]

Let's consider a burning orphanage for a lesson in alignments: LE would burn down the orphanage if he was paid enough to do it (or it fit his master scheme). NE would burn down the orphanage to build his new lair on the ashes. CE would burn down the orphanage just for kicks. CN would burn down the orphanage, but then probably help get the children out afterwards.

 

[jgsugden]

There are a lot of ways to approach this issue. The one I've always elected to use: Relative alignment. In other words, alignment is in the eye of the beholder, or more specifically, the power behind the beholder.

Alignment is entirely internal outside of the presence of magic. It is, in fact, irrelevant without magic. It is unknowable without magic.

Accordingly, when I look at good/evil & lawful/chaotic, I turn to the precepts of the divine, arcane or other magical force that is allowing insight into the alignment of a PC, NPC, monster or magic.

For example, there may be a paladin of Helm (duty god) that has taken an oath of celibacy to better allow himself to follow his devotion to his duties and the people he serves. He considers himself to be LG, and so does his God. However, the nearby Priest of Sune (God of Love) may look at that Oath as a sin beyond measure and may decide that this "paladin" is LE. If the paladin used his paladin sense, he'd come out smelling like goodly roses... but if the Priest of Sune cast "Detect Good or Evil", the paladin might come out as evil....

The vast majority of the time there will be no conflicts in alignment interpretation... but there can be. It should be noted that Evil Gods would not consider an Anti-paladin good under this view or any such silliness... Takhisis and Sargonnas revel in being evil, as do their followers. However, there might be some oppositional negativity in the views of some evil Gods that may find that actions that goodly gods consider to be evil are not so evil... for example, An evil Water God might look at a 'religious warrior serving Surtur (evil fire god) that seeks to cleanse the world with fire' might look at the actions of the religious warrior differently others... in fact, his goals might be considered to be despicable goodness in the eyes of the water God....

In your situation, by his own moral code the assassin may not be evil. However, his interpretation of his own morality would likely not match that of Paladine, Mishakal, Kiri-Jolith, etc... or Priests of these Gods that grant the divine power that interacts with his alignment.

This type of approach can create some convoluted questions for DMs to handle, but it is much more powerful and less restrictive in the end - and tends to result in less arguments between players and DMs whether an action meets the absolute definition of good or evil.

 

[seebs]

Neutral implies a desire not to harm innocents. You might not be willing to sacrifice much for them, but you should be avoiding hurting them. If you don't care whether innocent people get hurt, that's pretty evil. Neutral does not mean "does good things sometimes and evil things other times", and it certainly doesn't mean "does evil things some times but could in theory do good things other times."

I mean, yes, some people do both good and evil things, but by and large, the way D&D will tend to look at it, if you've got a strong tendency towards one side over the other, that's going to be your alignment. Killing for money is, by and large, considered "evil" in D&D.

Note that in 3E, it was quite possible for a single creature to register as both strongly-evil and strongly-good for alignment. You can't actually check anymore in 5E; there's no "detect evil" as such, anymore. But I would tend to say that someone who did both good and evil things was better understood as having a conflicted alignment than being "neutral". Especially if the good things are purely theoretical.

Thing you might want to ask: Why does he care what alignment the character is? My guess would be, he identifies with the character and does not want people thinking that something he identifies with is evil. (As someone who could quite easily be identified as "evil" by some people's standards, I guess I'm a little sympathetic, but I think knowing yourself is more valuable than feeling good about things.)

 

[Leatherhead]

Being hired to kill people and things is standard fare for adventurers.
Has he actively harmed anyone for reasons other than just gold?
Negotiating prices for tasks performed before hand, every time, is more lawful than chaotic however.

 

[Mephista]

Two thoughts.

1) I personally consider Chaotic Neutral to be less of a player-friendly option than Lawful Evil. I tend to forbid the former and allow the latter at my table - I've seen well done "evil" characters but I've yet to see a Chaotic Neutral character that's not pretty much either insane or corrupt. So, the fact he's taken CN is a red flag in my mind to begin with.

2) Alignment only matters with NPC interactions (especially artifact-as-NPCs). In Dragonlance, Law v. Chaos doesn't matter as much as Good, Neutrality, and Evil being the big three. Neutrality specifically deals with things like elemental powers and raw natural forces, as well as knowledge and craftsman aimed at no specific purpose. That's how Neutrality is defined in Dragonlance. The assassin has a means (killing) and goal (get money). This behavior is championed by the Evil Gods. Tell the player that he can call his character whatever he wants, but NPCs won't perceive him that way and, upon death, the Evil Gods will claim his soul.

No one likes thinking of their actions as evil - as humans, we almost always justify it to ourselves instead of being in the wrong. The player might have some emotional attachment wrapped up in this, so trying to change his mind could be an issue - alignment arguments only bring tears, and can upset people. I suggest avoiding a fight and just running things as if the character was Neutral Evil from behind the screen.

 

[steeldragons]

What Mephista said. You're playing in Dragonlance. "Here's how DL works." Between that and the DM's rulings of what the parameters of good/evil/law and chaos are for their games, this player has little to no leg to stand on.

Whatever personal rationalizations/justifications he wants to make for himself have no baring on what the world and game, as a whole, are going to consider him.

Not to mention that if pitching a fit is what he considers an appropriate response to a mirror being held up to his character, then you and he have choices to make. Of course, he is welcome to find (or be "encouraged" to seek out) himself another table.

 

[Dausuul]

Alignment has essentially zero mechanical impact in 5E. Have NPCs react based on his (known to them) behavior. If he's an assassin who'll kill anybody for money, and this is known, he'll get hostile reactions from Knights of Solamnia, clerics of Paladine, and pretty much anyone else with a shred of decency. When the player complains, simply point out "They don't know what your alignment is. They're reacting to what they know about you."

Then if he wants to write "Chaotic Neutral" on his character sheet instead of the "Neutral Evil" that he clearly is, fine. He can put "Lawful Good" if he wants. Won't change anything.