Village protector. What's her alignment?


Advice

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Not sure if this should go here or in general discussion. Anyway, here's a character:

She's from a small village in a remote part of the country. Growing up her dream was to become a member of the Dragon Guard - an elite division of the military whose role is to protect the citizens from rampaging and otherwise troublesome monsters. The happiest day of her life was when she gained acceptance into their ranks after proving her strength and capability. Unfortunately, her idealism was soon challenged when she learned that the vast majority of the Dragon Guard were the children of the nobility whose acceptance into the order was mostly due to familial connections instead of ability. She was looked down upon due to her common origins, but rose in rank due to her outstanding skills and prowess - which only brought more resentment from her genteel comrades.

Her idealism was further eroded when she began to realize that the Dragon Guard had fallen far from its purpose as protectors of the citizens and instead become a tool for noble families to use for their own political intrigues. Her attempts to combat the corruption of the guard ended in disaster as certain members, jealous of her strength and disgusted by her convictions and roots as a commoner, conspired against her and got her framed for trumped up charges. She was stripped of her rank and expelled from the Dragon Guard in disgrace.

Her dreams shattered, she made her return to her village. Dismissal not enough for some of the conspirators, they attempt to then assassinate her but are killed by her in the attempt. She's charged in absentia for their murders, but not really pursued as those in charge prefer to simply let the matter be at rest.

She returns to her village and decides to protect it herself, and doing so very successfully. She tries her best to forget about her past but the anger of being betrays still burns within her. Occasionally some members of the Dragon Guard will pass through her village, and she tolerates it so long as they act in accordance of the Dragon Guard's principles - protecting the village from monsters and in exchange enjoying the hospitality of the village, as is tradition. However, if they neglect their duties or don't treat the villagers respectfully, she kills them. She hates the nobility even more, and if any nobles visit the village and treat the commoners badly she kills them as soon as she can do so without putting the village at risk or giving herself away. Her hatred of the nobility is immense and as far as she's concerned they're the reason the Dragon Guard became corrupt. Any amount of disrespect or mistreatment toward herself or the common people by a noble merits a death sentence in her eyes.

So, given this background, what alignment best fits her?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dot for later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll suggest a LE. She is a bit too extreme in action/reaction for me to say she is neutral aligned, especially in that last few sentences.

Mistreatment = death is a bit too extreme for me to even put forth neutral.

These are the rules i follow(weather you know them or not), break them and i kill you, is the mindset that brings me to LE as a conclusion.

Would be a nice example of = not being trite supervillain monologging though.

my 2cp

Grand Lodge

Lawful Good

She is keeping with old traditions and fighting the greater evil. While many will say she is not good, I do think she is still closer to good then evil. After all, she does not seem to attack first, or attack without reason. Even if she is harsh in her actions, she would be doing evil only to (in her mind) evil.

Hmm, maybe LN actually, with a bent towards Good.


If you clearly know what she has done and will do, and she's not a cleric or other alignment-restricted class, why worry about it? It's not like you introduce NPCs as 'Josie McNobleslayer, LE' right?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would believe either LN or LE, depending on how flimsy an excuse she needs to kill nobles (neglecting to tip the waiter?) and how much she's willing to risk to protect the townsfolk. It would also somewhat depend on the campaign standards - there's quite a bit of variation in how much killing a table will accept in a good/non-evil character.

In general killing someone over disrespect is evil. It doesn't matter on the good-evil scale that she waited for them to cross her - if the retribution is disproportionate to the offense it's not morally justified.

I could easily see this character as a sympathetic villain.

EDIT @avr: might matter if someone uses Detect Evil, or a paladin tries to smite her, or someone hits her with a Holy weapon or Holy Smite. How likely these things are depends on the game - wouldn't come up in the one I'm currently running, but I've played with paladins before and it's rather important who counts as evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Execution for laziness? That's what I read "if they neglect their duties" as—"mooch and die".

This seems a pretty clear LE to me. Maybe you could scrape out a LN if her reasons are more fair than I'm assuming, but in general killing people for being dicks is an evil act and you are not going to get anything Good out of it. She's likeable and, in a way, noble, but not a good person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lawful Evil. Seems she has a strict code and is fiercely protective of what she deems 'her own' but will kill with the slightest/no provocation in perceived vengeance for the smallest slight from those she hates.

Murder is murder. Lawful Neutrals kill when they HAVE to as neutrals still value others lives and would usually avoid the problems wanton murder would bring. Evil kill when they wamtto and she is killing because she wants to and thinly, barely rationalizing it.

Lawful Evils are not crazy murder types usually and are completely capable of living in a lawful good society for example as long as the rules work to their advantage, which they do if they are smart. When the rules do not then they do whatever they wish to fulfill their agenda, which very well could be 'protect my home region'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its an interesting character with complicated motivations. A good illustration of the rather obvious point that people don't neatly fir into 9 alignment categories.

As to the best fit, she certainly started out good, LG or NG I would say. It sounds like she is still good when not interacting with nobles or dragon guards. A large part of her motives are definitely altruistic, so unlike a lot of posts I say she isn't evil. And the groups she does not like are flawed at best, an ideal god character would want to reform them.

But given her propensity for killing people for doing things that may be bad but are nowhere near deserving death to any sensible person, she certainly isn't good. She reminds me of Shylock from "The Merchant of Venice", where perfectly legitimate grievances become horrific when they become murderous. That leaves N.

Both the Dragon Guard and the nobility are part of the existing order, the nobility is a huge part of it one would think. And she is regularly violating the law in a mjor way, murder. So that makes her CN. Not a perfect fit but the best imho.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say that she used to be lawfull good but is sliding towards somthing darker. she still can be in a "punisher" is lawfull good kind of way. Killing folks for not being respectfull is Evil but os they stay away she is lawfull good. As the villiagers start to fear and pehaps resent her for all the killing she will have to make a choice. And that choice will decide if she is good or evil.
My suggestion is to throw away the aligntment system.

Liberty's Edge

Some variety of Neutral. Probably LN.

She's holding people to a rather arbitrary set of standards and then punishing them if they break them. On the other hand, they're an understandable set of rules, and she protects her village and does good things as well.

That screams LN, at least to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I fall into the camp that says lawful isn't necessarily the legal law so much as a code. She oftens steps outside of good intentions and does bad things. Given the balance between good and evil and her personal code I have to go with LN

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMHO it depends on how quickly, often and for what, she gives out the death sentence.
And reading that last line, she's committed an evil act (or very ready/willing to), unjust death sentence for a crime (a.k.a. murder).

The more I re-read the last paragraph, more I believe she's killed multiple nobles for an unknown amount of disrespect.
Disrespect generally is not a crime worthy of the death sentence. Punishment yes, death no.
So I'm going to go with LE.

Reminds me of Dexter, who is also most likely LE

However, if I've misread it, and the deaths aren't common, (and there's a cleric with atonement), she could be LN.
Following that line of thought, if she steals all the wealth off the nobles she kills, she could pay for all the atonements to be LG. Church might be suspicious of that.

Liberty's Edge

She does not even try to reform the system and rejects the way things are in her own culture while actively upholding her personal vision of justice = Chaotic.

She seems intent on killing people for very small things (i.e., nobles "disrespecting" commoners) with no consideration of whether these people are actually guilty or innocent, or even if they actually intended any disrespect = Evil.

So, Chaotic Evil in my book :-)

Of course, if we were given more info about her usual behavior and some actual situations and how she dealt with them, my assessment could change.

Hmm, come to think of it, this could be a delicious background for an ex-Hellknight Paladin turning Anti-Paladin actually :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inquisitor Thrace wrote:
Following that line of thought, if she steals all the wealth off the nobles she kills, she could pay for all the atonements to be LG. Church might be suspicious of that.

Except for the part where atonement completely fails if your not really atoning and sorry and planning on actually changing your ways.

PFSRD wrote:
The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

Commiting murder after murder and expecting magic to wash your soul clean without ever actually wanting to stop means the atonement fails.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

LN to LE. I will say that execution for disrespect, as per OP, is classic LE, so I would lean in that direction. "Any amount of disrespect" is a pretty low bar for murder, and I'd say it's taken her into the deep end of the alignment pool.


Lawful Neutral.


In the old alignment system you could categorize such persons with three parts of the alignment...

Such as
Lawful neutral (with evil tendencies)
OR
Lawful evil (with neutral tendencies)

I liked that optional "system" especially as an option for PCs who believed their PC was more complex than the alignment system, or who wanted (planned)to shift their alignment over time.......


LN.

She probably sees herself as LG, mind. But realistically she seems to commit good as much as evil, so neutral there, and she definitively has a code, so lawful. Assuming she still follows the Dragon Guard code-- does she? Or has she forsaken it? If she's ditched the code, definitely Chaotic.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

She thinks she's lawful and good in the same way that Victor Von Doom sees himself as a lawful hero to his people.

Both however, are strongly Chaotic Evil. Both apply a self-centered view of things, and neither even hesitates to kill for even minor infractions

In the Vampire scale though, the character you describe is even lower in Humanity rating than Doom himself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

She thinks she's lawful and good in the same way that Victor Von Doom sees himself as a lawful hero to his people.

Both however, are strongly Chaotic Evil. Both apply a self-centered view of things, and neither even hesitates to kill for even minor infractions

In the Vampire scale though, the character you describe is even lower in Humanity rating than Doom himself.

I'd call Doom LE, not CE.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
LazarX wrote:

She thinks she's lawful and good in the same way that Victor Von Doom sees himself as a lawful hero to his people.

Both however, are strongly Chaotic Evil. Both apply a self-centered view of things, and neither even hesitates to kill for even minor infractions

In the Vampire scale though, the character you describe is even lower in Humanity rating than Doom himself.

I'd call Doom LE, not CE.

Why? Doom rules his country by HIS own standards. His plan for succession was to have his mind imprinted on and overwrite that of a young boy, his ward Kristoff. (didn't work out too well) The only laws he follows are the ones he writes. The only authority he respects, is his own, and he's pathological about having his authority rule unquestioned. And while he does operate under a code of behavior, it's a self-generated code. He's also pretty big on simply not listening to anyone else, including what was once a close friend. (that's the character flaw that literally blew up in his face.)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Lawful alignment is about a code. It can be self-generated. Doom is classic LE. As is the OP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have you considered using the alternate Loyalties rule from Unchained? In my game, we're using this system; you have 3 Loyalties (one must be an alignment (i.e. Lawful, Good, Chaotic, or Evil)), which denote something you have strong bonds with, or a strong belief to. You also order them from strongest Loyalty to weakest. For this character, I'd list her loyalties as 1. Her town's protection 2. Revenge on nobility 3. lawful

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
A Lawful alignment is about a code. It can be self-generated. Doom is classic LE. As is the OP.

Wrong... chaotics can keep to a code as well. The difference is where that code comes from. The Lone Ranger adheres to the code of the Texas Rangers he once was a member of. Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Killowog each adhere to the code of the Green Lantern Corps, all of them are codes from hierarchical organisations. The code comes from without.

Victor Von Doom's codes all come from within, as do his standards of rulership. Same thing with Lord Strahd of Ravenloft, or Soth in Dragonlance. On the good side of chaotic, you have the Wally West Flash, the Earth 3 Joker, Gamora, and Adam Warlock. Robin Hood is in the middle of the fence. having both strong chaotic and lawful aspects in his role. (If it wasn't for Prince John and the Sheriff, he probably would have been an ordinary landed noble, and presumably that's the role he returns to, with the return of King Richard.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As others have said, depends on what constitutes disrespect. But theres many nations with the death penalty for far less than murder which are not considered evil in the game - if we view a nation executing someone for stealing the queens regalia as a LN nation, theres no reason why a character who kills a noble for the arrogance of refusing to pay the poor barkeep would have to be evil. If killing a goblin that tries to steal chickens is okay, then so might killing a human aristocrat that refuses to pay for the chicken.

I could see the character being of any non-chaotic alignment, and arguöents could be made either way. And honestly, good characters often have faaaar more flimsy reasons for killing sentient beings than "the creature is part of a self-declared rulership that treats everyone else as lesser beings, and actively seeks out peasants and other common folk", which is par for the course for nearly all nobility.

Would a king refusing wyverns entry into their nation be considered evil for that action alone? Would they if they threatened to kill invaders? Would they if they said "you may enter, but only if you are respectful - if youre not youll be treated as an invader"

I do think the character should be more upfront to visiting nobles about what would happen if theyre not respectful, and that is a point against goodness and/or lawfulness, but that seems like a fairly minor point.

I do think that for her to be truly good, she should probably have a well-defined list of what is considered "disrespect" and put it up in a public place, so Id probaböy go with LN as is, but again, I can see arguments in either direction and as a GM I wouldnt have a big issue with a paladin with this backstory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
The difference is where that code comes from.

Worth noting that the OP's code comes from without, too, specifically, from the idealized chivalric principles of the "pure" Dragon Guard of the heroic past, before their corruption.

(With a quite murderous reaction to transgressing the code in any way, of course, which may or may not have been a feature of the original).

That said, let's look at LE.

Quote:
Core Concepts: Calculation, discipline, malevolence, might, punishment, rationality, subjugation, terror

And CE.

Quote:
Core Concepts: Anarchy, anger, amorality, brutality, chaos, degeneracy, freedom, profaneness, violence

LE core concepts are at best entirely appropriate (calculation, discipline, malevolence, punishment), to somewhat related (might, terror), and at worst, there's a few aspects of LE that are neutral/unimportant to the character (subjugation).

CE core concepts go from somewhat related (anger, brutality, violence) to quite a few sharply opposed (anarchy, amorality, chaos, degeneracy, freedom, profaneness).

She's a better fit for LE than CE, and in fact, she's sharply opposed to the majority of of CE's core concepts. "Degeneracy" is the star of that show. She's specifically set out to punish the degeneracy of the modern Dragon Knights.

Taking a closer look at the UCam alignment stuff has convinced me that she's more LE than LN. "I have principles and I am right." Sounds like her alright.

Classic case of "he who fights monsters." In this case, she's become LE to fight CE.


Her true goal of wanting to protect all persons in the area not just her village would place in the good or neutral area.
Her strict adherence to a set code is definitely Lawful'
As a side note could make an interesting twist on a Ranger with favored enemy Nobility

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lawful Evil wrote:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the parts you bolded...

She cares about tradition, loyalty, and order (to the old chivalric code), and the OP is at pains to note that she plays by its rules, but she applies them without mercy or compassion (murder for the slightest transgression of Dragon Guard values). Her enmity is also primarily driven by social rank, re: immense hatred of the nobility.

(Similar to the totalitarians of the 20th century, her code elevates the peasantry and opposes the nobility, but her evaluation remains driven by class).

Yup. Those rules also would suggest LE.

Grand Lodge

She values society over herself, which is Non-Evil behavior.

She used to value the law, but she is self-appointed and administers own justice. (Non-Lawful) I disagree with the "code" thing as Chaotic Good follow justice from thier own code outside societies norm.

She executes for slight transgressions rather than get them to see the error of their ways. (Non-good)

So that leaves CN, TN in my book.

This still only paints an incomplete picture though.

Why? this question never really gets answered.

Does she defend the village because she knows the area and inhabitants, and this means she can lash out with a modicum of safety? This could empower her to use the villagers as an excuse to lash out at nobility. In this case she'd be NE. Even if she handed out the money and valuables she gained, its really only seed money to ensure future village loyalty towards her.

Does she defend it out of loyalty to the village and simply sees herself more aware of the threat than others? If shes absolutely sure the legal system is incapable of dealing with these knights, she could even be CG.

Is she looking to reform society the proper way, and since she's the Sheriff of this town so it will start here with her? LN

Who does she want to be?

Shadow Lodge

What does disrespecting the commoners mean? It could constitute everything from not paying your bill at the inn to helping yourself to all a peasant families food for a season to taking their daughter out for a roll in the hay with or without permission.

If it's the harsher stuff I don't think the protector is doing anything particularly evil even it many nobles end up as hog food.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Both the Dragon Guard and the nobility are part of the existing order, the nobility is a huge part of it one would think. And she is regularly violating the law in a mjor way, murder. So that makes her CN. Not a perfect fit but the best imho.

Violating the law does not make her chaotic. Law Is Not Legal. Law Is Not Legal.

The black raven wrote:
She does not even try to reform the system and rejects the way things are in her own culture while actively upholding her personal vision of justice = Chaotic.

She actually did try. They framed her. Then tried to murder her. Then framed her for murder.

If you think a "lawful" character would turn themselves in and let themselves be executed rather than break the law...well, I hate to imagine what you think about paladins. :P

People talk about how she "upholds her own idea of law", and this makes her chaotic. So what would a lawful character do in this situation? Uphold no law at all? Are kings and revolutionary leaders not allowed to be lawful?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holy crap lots of responses and lots of alignment opinions.

-She has no interest in trying to reform nobles or the Dragon Guard. She tried that when she was a member and her reward was to be charged with false crimes as a pretense for kicking her out. While she recognizes there are still some decent and honorable members of the Dragon Guard, the nobles are corrupt, one and all.

-The amount of slack she's willing to cut visiting nobles/guard is inversely proportional to how much she hates those particular individuals. Which she believes nobles to be corrupt, she's willing to allow them to remain unharmed if they act like decent, honorable individuals toward the people of her community. On the other hand, if one of the guard who conspired against her were to show his face in her community she'd kill him on sight unless he immediately upon seeing her he grovelled before her in apology and convinced her that he was repentant - and even then it might not save him.

-Some examples of "disrespect" that she would kill a noble for: Striking or otherwise harming a commoner for not prostrating before them, ripping off or intimidating a shopkeeper to get an unfair deal, general bullying, and needless to say any behavior that's even worse.

-While she's utterly ruthless toward the objects of her hatred, the vast majority of her days are spent protecting her community - since it's somewhat remote nobles/dragon guard rarely visit or pass through; maybe a few times per year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerney wrote:

What does disrespecting the commoners mean?

[...]
If it's the harsher stuff

OP actually clarifies a couple lines further down that it is "any" amount of disrespect, which treatment is motivated by immense hatred.

Once you start lynching passing esquires for whistling at the cute peasant girl, and doing so out of race, err, class hatred, you've gone a few bridges too far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xexyz wrote:
-The amount of slack she's willing to cut visiting nobles/guard is inversely proportional to how much she hates those particular individuals.

Heh, that's actually a bit milder than I got from your OP. I suppose it's possible, maybe, that she could scrape by with a LN with that.

I do still think in general that murdering people for disrespect is LE. But if she applies some restraint and doesn't go to murder for every instance, it's vaguely possible that she's a deep-end LN who is fairly comfortable with committing LE acts against "acceptable targets," but also has enough other goodly principles left that she hasn't completely slid into that alignment.


Killing someone for intimidating a shopkeeper...yeah, I'd say that's skirting. You could pull off LN.


From a lawfulness standpoint, how much difference is there between these two scenarios:

1. The Dragon Guard have a code of conduct they're supposed to uphold, so any guardsman who comes to her village and sullies that code disgraces the Dragon Guard with his actions and must be punished with death. In the end, whether or not he lives or dies depends on his adherence to the code.

2. The Dragon Guard have a code of conduct they're supposed to uphold. She watches any guardsman who comes to her village for any transgression against the code, and then uses any misstep as justification for indulging in her hatred and killing him out of anger. In the end, whether or not he lives or dies depends on his adherence to the code.

Grand Lodge

Xexyz wrote:

Holy crap lots of responses and lots of alignment opinions.

-She has no interest in trying to reform nobles or the Dragon Guard. She tried that when she was a member and her reward was to be charged with false crimes as a pretense for kicking her out. While she recognizes there are still some decent and honorable members of the Dragon Guard, the nobles are corrupt, one and all.

-The amount of slack she's willing to cut visiting nobles/guard is inversely proportional to how much she hates those particular individuals. Which she believes nobles to be corrupt, she's willing to allow them to remain unharmed if they act like decent, honorable individuals toward the people of her community. On the other hand, if one of the guard who conspired against her were to show his face in her community she'd kill him on sight unless he immediately upon seeing her he grovelled before her in apology and convinced her that he was repentant - and even then it might not save him.

-Some examples of "disrespect" that she would kill a noble for: Striking or otherwise harming a commoner for not prostrating before them, ripping off or intimidating a shopkeeper to get an unfair deal, general bullying, and needless to say any behavior that's even worse.

-While she's utterly ruthless toward the objects of her hatred, the vast majority of her days are spent protecting her community - since it's somewhat remote nobles/dragon guard rarely visit or pass through; maybe a few times per year.

Why?

She may keep some alive to live to tell others to be respectful in PC-ville. This is more efficient than slaying every nobleman that comes through. (CG or LN)

She may keep some alive to see them grovel. She enjoys the feeling of power over them (LE or NE)

She may simply see the world she loves is out of order, and the best way to balance it is to remove a few of the extreme individuals throwing everything out of whack. (CN, TN)

Rereading your update, I'm leaning more towards the NE aspect.
-the law is okay as long as its a law she agrees with
-she believes more in personal vendetta than overall justice

Understand the answer to this problem is what would she do if the local militants decided a scorched earth policy is the best way to deal with her. They send in an entire company of 100 knights or so to eradicate the trouble in PC-ville by killing every man, woman or child? (After all, 1000 gallons of peasant blood spilled is better than 1 of noble blood) The PC catches on after 50% of her village burned and murdered. What does she do?

Lie in wait for a favorable time to strike regardless of the innocents continuing to be killed? This gives more justification to her dark side (NE)

Turn herself in to spare others? Enough is Enough. TN, LN

Go out in a blaze of glory valuing the locals over herself? CG

The alignment system is guidelines, rather than guard rails. People are welcome to cross them all the time. The question is whether her powers are derived from staying in a particular lane (as Paladins, or Clerics under a Deity's code) and an Atonement is required to regain them after straying. Other than that which lane is she in most the time? She could be evil that sometimes does good things, or a good person who does evil things.

Just understand that your GM gets a vote in the matter. He she is well within the right to change your LN to NE on your character sheet or simply treat you that way without your knowledge. ("Why are all the Paladins looking at me funny?")

At my table I'd consider you NE and watch your future actions carefully.


When "disrespect" means physically attacking or robbing the poor through intimidation, I dont see any evil points really.

Basically, if it wouldnt be evil to kill an orc for it it shouldnt be evil to kill a noble for it. If anything, the orc is more liely to act out of necessity and not arrogance than the noble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say clear-cut LE. She's willing to accept DGs so long as they hold to the original traditions, but a DG being elitist towards commoners warrants execution in her mind while a non-DG being elitist doesn't. That is judgement based on social status rather than actions. LN would say that it's the action itself that determines the punishment, not who commits it. LN says that murder is equal whether you're a peasant or a noble. LE says that murder by a peasant is not equal to murder by a noble. She just happens to flip the normal order of such things and says that a high-status person who acts "wrong" is punished harder (normally, it's the peasants who are punished harder for minor offenses while the high-status people get off light). Moreover, she considers ALL nobility to be irredeemable just because they are nobility. Even if she's right, a Good person puts their own safety on the line and still waits for the person to actually do something wrong before punishing them, even knowing that they are bad. A Neutral person wouldn't put their safety on the line, but also isn't going to kill someone "just in case" they were thinking of being Evil.

So, the bottom line is that she has willfully embraced a minor evil attitude in order to fight what she considers to be a greater evil; fight fire with fire. She's LE, but highly selective and rationalizing about how she goes about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey_Mage wrote:


Does she defend the village because she knows the area and inhabitants, and this means she can lash out with a modicum of safety? This could empower her to use the villagers as an excuse to lash out at nobility. In this case she'd be NE. Even if she handed out the money and valuables she gained, its really only seed money to ensure future village loyalty towards her.

Does she defend it out of loyalty to the village and simply sees herself more aware of the threat than others? If shes absolutely sure the legal system is incapable of dealing with these knights, she could even be CG.

I'm thinking she does so for two reasons. First, because she loves her village and wants to protect it from monsters so the citizens can live peaceful lives.

The second reason is pride. Selflessly protecting the village (she receives no pay or compensation for doing so) proves that she truly embodies the principles of the Dragon Guard and therefore is morally superior to those [Dragon Guard & nobles] who do not. Therefore she still considers herself a fundamentally good person and can excuse herself for getting angry and killing them occasionally for minor transgressions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Evil characters aren't always the villain. Or even largely horrible people. She seems to be that type of LE. The one who is willing to do whatever it takes to protect her charges.


Also, please dont imply that a hatred based in someones inherited position of power is equal or even comparable to racism. Theres a gulf of difference between them, and it downplays the huuuge consequences of racism that hating monarchies just doesnt have


2 people marked this as a favorite.

She doesn't slaughter every nobleman, just every nobleman who acts like a dick. Also note that she carefully avoids putting the town at risk with her enforcement of her laws.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Xexyz wrote:
So, given this background, what alignment best fits her?

I'd say drop alignment and use the loyalty system

1st to your town, second to honor, third to resisting noble privledge.

else Chaotic neutral.

read a lot of people put lawful evil, but the character seems to be fighting and opposing lawful leadership. the motivation is suitable grey so she's neutral. she also conducts herself outside the law believing the law to not be capable of sending out justice, which gives further support that she is not lawful. codes don't make someone lawful, else cavaliers couldn't be chaotic.

likewise chaotic doesn't make you unpredictable or mean you have no code, it just means you overall want to oppose strict leadership or following orders.

for instance pirates had long lists of aboard ship laws but most hated the Spanish crown and how rich it was, and thus were chaotic neutral or evil because they did their work to hamper the Spanish crown while getting paid for it.

if she was lawful evil, she would be bribing, murdering and blackmailing officials to get them officially disgraced and have her rightful position reinstated, she however is doing this outside the system, putting things into her own hands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
LazarX wrote:

She thinks she's lawful and good in the same way that Victor Von Doom sees himself as a lawful hero to his people.

Both however, are strongly Chaotic Evil. Both apply a self-centered view of things, and neither even hesitates to kill for even minor infractions

In the Vampire scale though, the character you describe is even lower in Humanity rating than Doom himself.

I'd call Doom LE, not CE.
Why? Doom rules his country by HIS own standards. His plan for succession was to have his mind imprinted on and overwrite that of a young boy, his ward Kristoff. (didn't work out too well) The only laws he follows are the ones he writes. The only authority he respects, is his own, and he's pathological about having his authority rule unquestioned. And while he does operate under a code of behavior, it's a self-generated code. He's also pretty big on simply not listening to anyone else, including what was once a close friend. (that's the character flaw that literally blew up in his face.)

Because of that.

I mean, Iomedae also operates under a code, and it's self-generated. Is she LG or CG?

And yes, it is entirely in Doom's character to be compared to a god, for he is Doom.

But seriously... you mean to contend that the first Texas Ranger must be Chaotic because he follows a self-generated code, but the second Texas Ranger, following the exact same code, doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons, must be Lawful? That's silly.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the difference between someone making laws and being lawful is how strongly the leader believes his laws need to be followed. strictly means he's lawful, if he is fine with local enforcement looking the other way when tax season comes around in a county hit by drought he's more neutral or even chaotic.

LE would be tyrannical, while Chaotic Evil would simply require everyone acknowledge his superiority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lawful is not legal, however, lawful is not just having a code either. If my code is "I do what I want, when I want" I can certainly follow that code religiously and I am chaotic as all get out. This person may have a code, but she doesn't have a code that requires consistency, discipline, honor, or any of those things.

She is also for the most part extremely selfish. Her only altruism is 'protecting the her village' and it seems like the 'her village' is possibly more like 'her house' than it is like 'her friends.' In any event, she certainly doesn't seem to be consulting them or caring about their feelings in regards to her murdering. Also, although not said, it feels to me like she is 'paid' either directly in coin or through status/respect etc. for the protection services. That would mitigate any altruism.

And of course, the murder is pretty much the definition of evil. Her punishment is disproportionate to the crimes they commit, and it seems obvious she is looking for an excuse to do what she wants to do, not really trying to help the downtrodden. She wants to kill them, and she doesn't care why, but her tattered sense of honor requires something for her to rationalize it. She is definitely evil.

I don't think she is chaotic though. She isn't lawful, but her previous values have some restraining effect on her. I would call her neutral in regards to law-chaos.

So neutral evil.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Dave Justus wrote:

Lawful is not legal, however, lawful is not just having a code either. If my code is "I do what I want, when I want" I can certainly follow that code religiously and I am chaotic as all get out. This person may have a code, but she doesn't have a code that requires consistency, discipline, honor, or any of those things.

She is also for the most part extremely selfish. Her only altruism is 'protecting the her village' and it seems like the 'her village' is possibly more like 'her house' than it is like 'her friends.' In any event, she certainly doesn't seem to be consulting them or caring about their feelings in regards to her murdering. Also, although not said, it feels to me like she is 'paid' either directly in coin or through status/respect etc. for the protection services. That would mitigate any altruism.

And of course, the murder is pretty much the definition of evil. Her punishment is disproportionate to the crimes they commit, and it seems obvious she is looking for an excuse to do what she wants to do, not really trying to help the downtrodden. She wants to kill them, and she doesn't care why, but her tattered sense of honor requires something for her to rationalize it. She is definitely evil.

I don't think she is chaotic though. She isn't lawful, but her previous values have some restraining effect on her. I would call her neutral in regards to law-chaos.

So neutral evil.

from what i read, he said most of her time is spent defending her village meaning the killing of nobles is by far a side project.

also, she's essentially killing people for ruining her life and others, as disrespecting the locals has been clarified as nobles abusing their status to get freebies on the backs of the commoners, or outright attacking commoners. extreme yes, but she believes the legal aspect of her society is corrupt and untrustworthy, and unable to punish nobles, as she was attacked legally.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Village protector. What's her alignment? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.