D&D 5E (2024) Neutral or Evil?

[Plaguescarred]

You can look at it another way being an act of good.

You captured and binded the Chaotic Evil spirit of the strongest and most cunning member of an Orc tribe blessed by Gruumsh after lying to it, which you will be able to summon thrice to obey your commands, that can include all the good deeds you wish in pursuit of redemption...

Nothing a good penitentiary rehabilitation program doesn't do

 

[MGibster]

So we're all on the same page here? Slavery is bad, right?

 

[Clint_L]

Do you plan the play the character during the campaign as Neutral or as Evil? I would base the alignment choice on how you plan the character moving forward

I would say that the Orc Stone backstory stuff is indeed Evil, but one single action doesn't determine the morality of your entire life.

It's not a single action! He's continuing to imprison and gaslight the victim! This is an ongoing choice!

 

[ECMO3]

You can look at it another way being an act of good.

You captured and binded the Chaotic Evil spirit of the strongest and most cunning member of an Orc tribe blessed by Gruumsh after lying to it, which you will be able to summon thrice to obey your commands, that can include all the good deeds you wish in pursuit of redemption...

Nothing a good penitentiary rehabilitation program doesn't do

This is a great argument centered in moral relativism. I think I am going to take it .... we have to think about the greater good here!

 

[Umbran]

You captured and binded the Chaotic Evil spirit of the strongest and most cunning member of an Orc tribe blessed by Gruumsh after lying to it, which you will be able to summon thrice to obey your commands, that can include all the good deeds you wish in pursuit of redemption...

Mr. Machiavelli will see you now...

 

[Clint_L]

This is a great argument centered in moral relativism. I think I am going to take it .... we have to think about the greater good here!

That's not a moral relativst argument, it's a consequentialist one. But it's a pretty weak one. It totally fails in terms of rules utilitarianism, since it is being used to justify slavery "for the greater good." And it 's pretty dubious in terms of act utilitarianism because it's an ongoing act. Plus the gaslighting just seems to be for shiggles.

A moral relativist argument would look something like "my character comes from a culture where enslaving and deceiving people is considered normal and moral."

 

[DrJawaPhD]

It's not a single action! He's continuing to imprison and gaslight the victim! This is an ongoing choice!

Technically true, "one action" is not the correct wording to use. It's still just one (very evil) aspect of the character, and we don't really know anything about the rest of their backstory or the way they'll be played in the campaign

Umbran described it well above, when taken as an indication of overall behavior, this would be Evil. Is this indicative of their overall behavior though? We have no idea

 

[Clint_L]

Technically true, "one action" is not the correct wording to use. It's still just one (very evil) aspect of the character, and we don't really know anything about the rest of their backstory or the way they'll be played in the campaign

Umbran described it well above, when taken as an indication of overall behavior, this would be Evil. Is this indicative of their overall behavior though? We have no idea

I feel like keeping and consistently abusing and psycholoigically manipulating a slave is all the indication you need of someone's overall behaviour. Like, I don't care if he volunteers at a nursery and rescues puppies as well, he's still a terrible person.

If we find out that Superman keeps a slave that he gaslights into thanking him for it, do we still think he's a good guy?

 

[DrJawaPhD]

If we find out that Superman keeps a slave that he gaslights into thanking him for it, do we still think he's a good guy?

If Superman performed many noble, good, and selfless acts, plus some overwhelmingly evil acts, then that sounds like Neutral to me

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If Superman performed many noble, good, and selfless acts, plus some overwhelmingly evil acts, then that sounds like Neutral to me

Sounds like bad writing to me.
Why does this person commit such a mix of acts? If they were driven to do good, then why would they also commit evil acts? Do they feel it is "justified" to commit evil acts against specific people? Are they not aware of what they are doing?
Likewise someone who has no issues with committing evil acts in general performing selfless acts to help others? Do they have a particular code? Are they aware that they are evil and guilt drives them to do good sometimes?

The character given in the OP is outright evil. Its not just the ongoing evil that they are perpetrating, their intelligence in setting up their persecution of another being indicates that they have the understanding to know that what they are doing is evil. No pleading ignorance there.

The question is how to justify the cognitive hoops that the player will have to jump through to work with the rest of the party and be accepted by them. Unless its an "evil" game. In which case they will probably fit right in.