D&D 5E What Alignment am I?

[eryndel]

Actually, I don't see this description for your behavior as lawful at all. First, a job doesn't define your alignment. Being a priest, magistrate, watchman, brigand, or whatever doesn't define if where you fit on the alignment spectrum. Although there are certainly tendencies when you start looking at large populations (most bandits are non-lawful, most magistrates are lawful), an individual can be very different based on motivations.

Furthermore, you specifically say you knowingly and willfully are breaking the rules of the city watch. In my mind, this is almost, by definition, not lawful.

Lawful evil, in my mind, are for those individuals who are still bound by, and believes in, a formal code defined by their society (not an individual code of ethics), but whose goals and actions are inimical to the welfare of the masses. This character is flaunting those rules of society, so it doesn't appear to me (in the description provided) that the rules of the society are particularly important to you. That alone tends to have me think your character isn't lawful.

However, we're missing something important here in order to accurately gauge your alignment, and that's why you do what you do. Are you liberating these ill-gotten gains contrary to the rules of your position, to provide for the down-trodden? In that case, you're definitely not LG, but more likely NG or CG. Are you doing this to pad your own purse... you're probably more neutral to evil. Are you catching the bad guys to clean up the streets and protect those victimized by criminal actions? You're probably more on the good side of things. Are you in the watch to protect yourself when you "accidentally" get too carried away in "enforcing the law"? Well, you're probably not a good guy.

However, for me, lawful really implies a fundamental belief in the validity of the rules of society. If you casually dismiss the rules when they are inconvenient... that's not lawful.

In the end, though... since I'm clearly in the minority in that opinion, I think this indicates there's a wide variety of opinion on what constitutes the various alignments. It's why I don't particularly use it in my games anymore.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you've only just started doing this, you may just be transitioning to that alignment. I think it will be how you act as the watch starts investigating what is happening to these missing goods that will be the real tell of your alignment. Do you start killing the criminals, so there will be no one to claim that the goods were there? When a watchman discovers your corruption, will you confess and try to make amends, or try to bribe or kill the watchman?

This is a good point. Currently, it's a situation of "succumbing to temptation because the consequences seem remote."

The character has only just realized that this sort of thing is possible. Up to this point, he has been handing over the contraband goods/criminals' property, presumably without even thinking about it, which is an example of a Lawful tendency. Coupled with a job working for the city watch, specifically hunting down criminals and bringing them to justice, this reflects another trend toward Lawful. Pretending to be someone you aren't is a touch Chaotic, but as this talent is specifically part of his task, it sort of comes out in the wash. However, it sounds like the character really enjoys having minimal supervision and "a lot of leeway," which is something of a Chaotic tendency. Given some of the other statements, it sounds like the character is just sort of an "average joe" most of the time, following along with the rules without complaint and possibly with enthusiasm, so I'll chalk that up as another wash. Thus, overall, it sounds like on the L/N/C spectrum, the character was moderately Lawful. Clarifying questions include:
1) Does the character take contracts, oaths, and promises very seriously, or does he take a really laid-back approach? ("both" is a valid answer)
2) How does the character view and make use of his leisure time?

Now, however, the character is being tempted by an act which is clearly and distinctly Chaotic (disobeying known rules against appropriating goods, legitimate or not, from suspected/convicted criminals). This act may or may not be Evil--I'll touch on that more later. Mr. Changeling Policeman knows that what he's doing is criminal behavior, but willingly engages in it anyway, assuming he won't get caught. As the good Cap'n said, how your character deals with the long-term consequences will be decisive here. Eventually, he is very likely to be caught. If he humbly submits to judgment, seeks to reform his ways, etc. then I'd say he has remained Lawful and learned a painful lesson in the unexpected difficulties of having a position of authority. If he does go along with the punishment, but does everything he can to lighten the burden and/or bring others to his way of thinking, I'd call that a Neutral approach: he's not overtly fighting the law, but he's certainly not accepting the "right" of an external authority to decide his fate either. If he commits further unlawful acts in order to prevent punishment, then he's clearly transitioned to Chaotic and will probably go through a period of internal conflict between his old nature and his new one.

On the Good/Evil axis, it's a lot more difficult to say. Does the character "enjoy" putting murderers in prison because they broke the law, or because they hurt people? The former is a more Lawful-primary answer (e.g.: I wouldn't enjoy it as much if the killing were legally justified, but still immoral), while the latter is a Good-primary answer (e.g.: I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I found out it was morally justified, but still illegal). Beyond that, we don't really know anything specific about the character's perspective on helping or hurting others, so we kinda have to default to a Neutral stance unless more information is provided. Taking stolen goods, knowing that it was likely another was hurt by their loss, is a mildly Evil act (callous disregard for the welfare of others in the face of being able to improve your own welfare). Stealing the legitimately-owned goods of a murderer is probably also mildly Evil, though to a lesser extent (I'd almost call it Neutral, actually).

So, overall, the character appears to have started off LN (though really it should be L? because we don't have enough info), and is being tempted to do Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil things. He is currently behaving as though he is "above the law" (e.g. "the law applies to other people, not to me, because I have Authority aka power over others"). He may still believe he respects the law, but breaking it because it is beneficial to him while claiming to uphold it (and punish those who, presumably, also broke the law because it was beneficial to them) shows a form of true hypocrisy. That is, he probably does still sincerely believe in upholding the law--but he is intentionally failing to do so. If he starts to tell lies and destroy evidence of his illegal seizure of goods, he will fairly completely cement his Chaotic side and slowly layer in more Evil; if he goes so far as to kill somebody to keep the secret, I'd call him Chaotic Evil. It's hard to call "murdered an upstanding, innocent person to avoid being punished for knowingly committing a crime" anything else.

To say it briefly:
Change-a-Cop is being a hypocrite, and might be halfway through an alignment flip. "Epiphany or bust" at this point.

 

[Jaelommiss]

Let's take theft. Stealing some M&Ms from a store is not evil. Heck, even breaking into a house and stealing a TV is not evil. Bilking a little old lady out of her life savings that she needs to survive........that's evil. Stealing the cancer medication from someone who will die without it......that's evil. A line has to be crossed before something is truly evil. Where that line is may be a bit fuzzy, but it's still far enough down that the theft of gold from criminals isn't anywhere close.

This is a character who breaks into peoples' homes*, brutally beats or murders them, then steals everything of value that they had. The theft in this situation is a pittance compared to the murder. Given that this is being done outside of his duties as a law officer, I can only assume that the system determined these criminals to be innocent, or they are somehow beyond his jurisdiction. In either case, his actions blatantly disregard the oaths sworn as part of his station and the rules and procedures he is supposed to follow.

Based on that I would declare that the character is Neutral Evil.

Of course, this could be contested at every point. I read the character's writeup and interpreted it one way. The original post is clearly written from the perspective that this is not a bad guy. The author even mentioned it directly. In contrast, I described the same actions in a way that is clearly damning. The big problem about determining alignments is that everyone will read it differently. Without knowing why the character acts in this way (I think that the police are powerless to stop real crime, my wife's killer walked free and I will never force another innocent to suffer that pain, etc.) it is very hard to accurately assess the situation.

If the character was capturing and killing criminals to bring them to justice (lawful), then I would expect him to either leave the wealth behind, or take it and invest it in the law enforcement agency he works for. Pocketing it shows that his assaults are at least partially out of selfishness. If he was taking the money to pay for treatment of a sick daughter (or for some other altruistic cause) then I could see him being neutral instead of evil, especially if he viewed his actions as deplorable but unfortunately necessary. If he only targeted criminals he knew were going to commit further serious crimes then I'd move him a step away from evil. I could even accept that this character is good if he, in addition to the previous two points, offers a chance to come peacefully and avoids killing at all costs, including expending personal resources (healing potions) to stop them dying if struck too hard.


*It would strain credibility to assume he always finds them wandering the streets

 

[I'm A Banana]

Many thanks for your reply, I'm A Banana.

The tool you sent told me Neutral after a couple of goes regarding questions I wasn't exactly sure about, but you make a really good case for LN I think it fits too.
...
The first time he did so, he felt guilty. As this progressed, it got easier and he disliked himself for it getting easier, but this still did not stop him.

The guilt points a little more strongly toward (currently) LN - he knows its wrong, he doesn't agree with what he's doing, he'd probably judge anyone ELSE doing this harshly. He cares about the rule. He thinks it even applies to him. He has just chosen to....sometimes...not...exactly...follow it. If someone caught him and punished him for it, he would, on some level, agree that he should be punished (even if he didn't like it).

When you stop feeling guilt, that's when you might no longer cling to Lawful.

 

[Celebrim]

What Alignment am I?

A puzzle. Ok. I'll take a crack at it.

I am a Changeling Rogue Thief.

This information doesn't really help us, because a PC can be whatever alignment that they want.

Background. I am a Sgt in the City Watch who uses shape-shifting to track down murderers and bring them to justice.

There is a serious question of motive here, but the implication of bringing someone to justice is lawful.

This lets me work alone and gives me a lot of leeway. I have recently turned on to the fact that I can take all the criminal's stash for myself. This is exciting me.

This now confuses your motivation. Are you actually bringing criminals to justice because you want to see justice served, or do you simply want to take stuff for yourself. Are you motivated to hunt murderers because it is exciting, and you enjoy the thrill of the hunt. Is justice even really a strong motivation for you? You do not once even mention the victims. To me this suggests you are a character who is self-deluded. You say to yourself that you care about justice, but you really are in it for yourself. The implications of being in it for yourself are Chaotic. The implications of being self-deluded, is that your character's wisdom is not exceptional and perhaps no more than average.

So by day (so to speak) I uphold the law and imprison criminals, and this is something I enjoy and do wholeheartedly.

It's important to note that a lawful person desires to but doesn't necessarily enjoy doing their duty. They do their duty because it is their duty. But we've already established that you have motivations other than doing your duty, and that that motivation isn't really to uphold the law - because you yourself are breaking it. You enjoy the thrill of the hunt. You enjoy enriching yourself with stolen property. I dare say you'd do these things anyway, but conveniently the government pays you to do it. These motivations to please self seem much stronger than your motivations to please the state. You may be personally loyal to other members of the watch as your comrades and friends, but you aren't actually loyal to the government out of a since of obligation. This again suggests you are more Chaotic than Lawful.

On the sly, after I capture/kill the criminals, I take their stuff (gold, contraband, stolen Items, anything). This is not allowed by the rules of the city watch. Therefore I am a thief.

Not only are you a corrupt magistrate (a corrupt 'cop') but you are a thief and your day job involves killing people in order that you can take their stuff. You aren't merely self-centered, but rapacious and destructive. Your character is Evil. It just so happens, that your character is paid to indulge his psychopathy on the criminal population of the state, and that makes your character useful to the state and the state useful to you. But you don't appear to be motivated by any sort of idealism or sense of honor.

If by bringing criminals to justice and embracing the policeman's job I am Lawful, what does this mean for my other activities.

I've already established that your character is less interested in bringing criminals to justice than killing them and taking their stuff. So your job as a police officer upholding the law doesn't make you lawful, because you in fact don't do so out of respect for the law.

If I am not Lawful, am I deceiving everyone all the time during my day job?

This question has an objective answer. Yes. How do we know? Because you probably aren't telling all your associates about the fact that you are appropriating stolen property for yourself. (Leaving aside the possibility that the entire watch is just as corrupt as you are.) You are definitely deceiving everyone. Indeed, deceit seems to be your one universal attribute. By day you go around using your shape-shifting to kill and deceive criminals, in order to kill them and take their stuff. Then you go back to your friends and the watch and deceive them about you being an upright citizen. You are possibly even deceiving yourself about your commitment to justice, with self-serving beliefs about your own heroism.

If by being a thief I am the opposite of Law (Chaos), how do I not exhibit any of that behaviour during the day job

I don't really understand the question. You exhibit your Chaotic nature by being a self-serving corrupt member of the watch.

Ps. I do not deliberately just set out to kill Criminals for enjoyment or just to take their stuff, so I don't believe myself to be Evil.

What you may believe about yourself may not be relevant here. Very few people like to believe themselves to be evil, but your theft appears to be actively harming persons and I don't see a lot of good aligned actions or motivations here. Where is the character's sense of mercy and compassion? Where is the character's acts of altruism or charity? You don't suggest anything about your character that is muddling the good/evil axis enough that we have to throw up our hands and assign 'Neutral' to that axis. Your lawful/chaos axis is rather muddy, but not so conflicted that we can't see a strong strand of deceit and self-interest woven through it suggesting Chaotic. Hence, you are a very typical evil person that believes that they are less evil than they actually are. Virtue tends to follow the Dunning-Krugar effect. Everyone but the very virtuous assume that they are above average. The very virtuous see their minor flaws and assume they are more wretched than they are. The immoral tend to be blind to even their big failings.

What Alignment would you consider me to be, and why?

I would consider this character to be Chaotic Evil. You whole-heartedly enjoy killing and stealing, and you spend your life deceiving people - including possibly yourself.

 

[Celebrim]

To say it briefly:
Change-a-Cop is being a hypocrite, and might be halfway through an alignment flip. "Epiphany or bust" at this point.

I think this is also a solid answer. It's possible that until recently, the character has been LE or even LN, but the character has just taken a hard turn into selfish and destructive behavior. It is possible that this is a violation of their former beliefs. It's possible that the character had no strong former beliefs and therefore was true Neutral, and this recent temptation is revealing a previously undisclosed aspect of their character. However, from the brief description we've been given, we really know none of those things.

One aspect that argues against this interpretation is that the character in question gives no sign of being in a moral crisis. We'd expect a character that had strong beliefs before hand to now be feeling a sense of guilt or shame about their current behavior. The fact that they only feel excitement suggests a lack of contrasting a priori strong commitment.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a character who breaks into peoples' homes*, brutally beats or murders them, then steals everything of value that they had. The theft in this situation is a pittance compared to the murder. Given that this is being done outside of his duties as a law officer, I can only assume that the system determined these criminals to be innocent, or they are somehow beyond his jurisdiction. In either case, his actions blatantly disregard the oaths sworn as part of his station and the rules and procedures he is supposed to follow.

I thought for a minute based on this response that I had missed something, so I went back and looked. He does not break into people's homes and brutally beat or murder them. He does go in his official capacity as a shape shifting sergeant and bring criminals to justice. That's it. That's what he does to them. He then does some theft.

Of course, this could be contested at every point. I read the character's writeup and interpreted it one way. The original post is clearly written from the perspective that this is not a bad guy. The author even mentioned it directly. In contrast, I described the same actions in a way that is clearly damning. The big problem about determining alignments is that everyone will read it differently. Without knowing why the character acts in this way (I think that the police are powerless to stop real crime, my wife's killer walked free and I will never force another innocent to suffer that pain, etc.) it is very hard to accurately assess the situation.

Motivation helps to understand things.

If the character was capturing and killing criminals to bring them to justice (lawful), then I would expect him to either leave the wealth behind, or take it and invest it in the law enforcement agency he works for.

Why? People are complex and not simple caricatures. They can have major flaws such as a weakness for the gold, while still strongly believing in going after criminals to bring them to justice.

Pocketing it shows that his assaults are at least partially out of selfishness. If he was taking the money to pay for treatment of a sick daughter (or for some other altruistic cause) then I could see him being neutral instead of evil, especially if he viewed his actions as deplorable but unfortunately necessary. If he only targeted criminals he knew were going to commit further serious crimes then I'd move him a step away from evil. I could even accept that this character is good if he, in addition to the previous two points, offers a chance to come peacefully and avoids killing at all costs, including expending personal resources (healing potions) to stop them dying if struck too hard.

Selfishness is the root of everything, including every good act. People act in selfless ways because it makes them feel good about themselves to do so. Even if someone is not consciously aware of it, selfishness is driving their behavior. By itself, selfishness is not good or evil.

 

[Celebrim]

Let's take theft. Stealing some M&Ms from a store is not evil.

Of course it is. What it may not be is so depraved that we could assign to the person as a whole the title of evil. Stealing some M&Ms is a very minor evil. The harm you are causing is very small and mostly to yourself (because you are confusing your own sense of right and wrong). We wouldn't expect a petty shoplifter to be so depraved in all their thinking that we could now call them evil, but we wouldn't be surprised if these petty acts of evil were the grease to worse and worse things.

It's worth noting that there is a sliding scale of accountability here. A Wisdom 30 Solar is so perceptive and self-aware that he immediately discerns the full depravity of stealing the MM's. If the Wisdom 30 Solar decides to steal the MM's fully knowing how wrong it is, the Wisdom 30 Solar immediately plunges to Evil. He has the wisdom to fully discern the meaning and consequences of his actions. Where as the Wisdom 5 child doesn't really understand what they are doing and doesn't see the full wrongness of the action. They can persist in shoplifting for quite a while, and their own ignorance and lack of understanding will protect them from the harm that they do. And it's worth noting, that most legal systems take this idea into account.

Heck, even breaking into a house and stealing a TV is not evil.

Sure it is. And it's the sort of evil that is almost certain to lead to even worse acts of evil. Again, the person can be self-deluded here, but by the time we've graduated up to burglary and grand theft, the character has already demonstrated significant inability to distinguish between right and wrong and a definite disregard for the needs and feelings of others. The next stage of this is you burgle a house, the little old lady turns out to be home and tries to stop you, and in a panic you throw here to the ground and fracture her hips and/or skull. At this point, maybe - just maybe you think - "I've become a horrible person." Whether that makes you change your ways or not is another matter.

Bilking a little old lady out of her life savings that she needs to survive........that's evil. Stealing the cancer medication from someone who will die without it......that's evil. A line has to be crossed before something is truly evil. Where that line is may be a bit fuzzy, but it's still far enough down that the theft of gold from criminals isn't anywhere close.

That's the sort of argument people make to justify their evil. Again, the Dunning-Krugar effect is very instructive here. The more evil the person gets, the more they will compare themselves to persons who are clearly depraved and act as if this makes them above average. They don't compare themselves to the 90% of people who wouldn't burgle a home. There like, "Ok, I'm a hit man. But Tony deserved it. He knew the score. He should have never welched on Big Eddy. It's not like I'm Stalin or anything, killing random people. It's just business."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Let's take theft. Stealing some M&Ms from a store is not evil. Heck, even breaking into a house and stealing a TV is not evil. Bilking a little old lady out of her life savings that she needs to survive........that's evil. Stealing the cancer medication from someone who will die without it......that's evil. A line has to be crossed before something is truly evil. Where that line is may be a bit fuzzy, but it's still far enough down that the theft of gold from criminals isn't anywhere close.

I'd argue that shoplifting / stealing another person's possessions is evil. You might not regard it as very evil, and you might try to justify it to yourself: "Everyone does it". "Its only a company, not real people." "I wasn't going to buy the hard copy anyway." etc. That does not stop it being evil though. You are still deliberately choosing to take something for yourself at the expense of others.
I'd regard it as a spectrum, not a line.

However, just because you do something evil once, doesn't put your alignment at Evil. You'll often get people committing both Evil and Good acts.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd argue that shoplifting / stealing another person's possessions is evil. You might not regard it as very evil, and you might try to justify it to yourself: "Everyone does it". "Its only a company, not real people." "I wasn't going to buy the hard copy anyway." etc. That does not stop it being evil though. You are still deliberately choosing to take something for yourself at the expense of others.
I'd regard it as a spectrum, not a line.

However, just because you do something evil once, doesn't put your alignment at Evil. You'll often get people committing both Evil and Good acts.

I'm not justifying it and I don't do it. Wrong=/=evil.