I'm playing a character who is borderline evil...or is he evil? I don't know. All of the other players see him as evil but I still consider him (and have his alignment written down as) Chaotic Nuetral. The reason the others see him as evil is because he does some truly evil things. He once channeled and killed 60 innocent bystanders in some twisted carnival (RotRL, I think) just to damage an invisible foe that we had no other way to get at.
On the other hand, he's saved many more people than he's needlessly killed and does do many good things as well. He doesn't do what is good or what is evil by definition. He does whatever he feels is necessary to get the job done. He has dug in and fought very close to death on several occations when the others were about to bail. He's very loyal to the group (and probably only to the group) and I still see him as Chaotic Neutral.
I find it practically impossible to play an evil character mixed with a standard (good and nuetral) aligned group mainly because you'd end up refusing to take part in 95% of the adventures because it goes against your alignment. As I said above, though, the rest of the group still view him as evil because of some of the things he's done.
So the million dollar question is, what makes someone evil? Does commiting evil acts automatically make you evil or does the balance make you nuetral? What alignment do believe my character is.
From what you said I would peg you as NE. you do what ever needs doing to get the job done. I have not seen anything you wrote that says CN, but alot that does seem Evil and more toward the NE type
i have had this same discussion many times in my group, i feel that being neutral is all about the balance of what you are willing to do but my DM says its all about what your willing to do but i dont agree, he says if your willing to do evil then your evil.
my problem with the whole alignment system is it really feels like either you are good and you have to do good in all situations or if your willing to do something evil you are evil. and if you are never concidering to do anything evil and you only sometimes do good then you are neutral.
i feel its a big problem that needs some work and leanancy
Argh! Postwipe!
Let me try again.
Alignment is a tricky debate to get into, because people have differing opinions. Allow me to share mine.
On an ethical axis, lawful means to have collectivist tendencies, and chaotic means to have individualist tendencies. Neutral people are individualists with a few collectivist ideas. (Actually, ethical alignments are the buggiest part of the alignment system, in my eyes.)
On a moral axis, good people are willing to sacrifice themselves to help others achieve a goal, evil people are willing to sacrifice others to help themselves achieve a goal, and neutral people aren't willing to sacrifice anyone to achieve a goal.
So your character, in my eyes, seems neutral evil. That said...
I also think alignment is a categorization of general tendencies, not a wall limiting your actions. Your character can still be evil and a team player - it simply means that he doesn't limit himself to "moral" actions in achieving the groups' goals. You don't have to pursue an actively evil agenda just because you are evil - you just have to be willing to do anything to achieve whatever agenda you have. Think Jayne from Firefly.
Personally, up until very recently I was playing a drow ranger/assassin type of character. He was what I call "pragmatic evil" - no concept of morality, but not exactly looking for darkness to consume the earth. He just wanted riches and power for himself, as many neutral and good characters wanted. He traveled with the party out of common cause. And when someone blew the party's cover in front of some slaves in a drow city... well, guess who had no problem dispatching said slaves to keep the secret?
It's been said before: alignment isn't a straightjacket. Consider yourself evil. Doesn't mean you have to try to doom the world. After all, a dark and dead world isn't much fun to live in.
i ask though why is it if a neutral character is willing to do good then he can still be seen as neutral but if he is willing to do evil he is evil.
i dont like the fact that no one is ever forced into changing in to a good character but on many instances ive seen party members being told "thats an evil act and your alignment will become evil if you do it"
it doesnt seem right
Well, my view on good and evil, to be fair, has religious basis. More like a ray than a line - absolute good is on one side, while there is no absolute evil; you just get farther and farther from absolute goodness, but no matter how far you go you can always get worse. OTOH, absolute goodness is asymptotic - the closer you get to it, the harder it is to get closer, and a nondivine being can never actually achieve it.
As for the neutral character, there is a question of intent. If he does good but only for a reward, is he really sacrificing? Not really. Now, if I was a GM and one of my players consistently was doing good with no expectation of a reward, I would have him change his alignment to good.
Here's the thing everyone needs to understand and keep in mind when dealing with the alignment system (and that the book should really do a better job of explaining): it has nothing to do with you. Whether or not you are a good or bad person is a subjective thing that comes down to how you justify your own actions, cultural perceptions, and a whole bunch of other things. But whether you are Good or Evil (note the capital letters) is a wholly external judgment imposed on you by the laws of magic and the gods - it's simply the way the world you are in works.
Knowingly killing 60 innocent bystanders was a horrendously Evil act, period. You get a giant pile of Evil points and that's where the alignment system stops. You may also have Good points lying around from the other actions you described. The balance of those is your alignment. It's like physics - the alignment system doesn't care if you thought you were doing the right thing when you killed innocents any more than physics cares about whether or not you wanted to drop that rock on your foot. The laws of the universe respond to action, not intent.
Based on the limited selection of actions you described, your character does, in fact, sound like Chaotic Neutral.
|
I find this site to be an excellent compass for alignment issues. Based on what you wrote (and if you're really only concerned with rewards and getting the job done whatever the cost or methods,) I'm also inclined to view this PC as NE.
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
^^Funny. :P
In my group, there is also one of these-almost-evil-but-still-not-evil-characters. A Narcistic Half-orc ranger, who is ready to be kill all witnesses, and when halfling thief bbegged for mercy, he promised not to kill him, but after saying that, he backstabbed him. He doesn't care about people, and killed his fosterfather for being in grateful to him.
I have not yet made any changes in his alignment, but what do you think?
|
|
There's pretty much no question that killing 60 innocents is unspeakably evil, and one of those things that will tend to knock someone toeing the dark-gray line flying off into the black.
That's sort of like bringing a bomb to a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around where that would be anything but an absolutely last-ditch effort by a neutral/good to keep a huge disaster from happening. (Not that such a thing wouldn't wear heavily on their soul)
As far as Neutral characters going Evil and not Good, that's because evil is easy. It's easier and more seductive to lie, cheat, and steal than it is to be selfless. Sure, a selfless Neutral character is eventually going to work his way up to good if he has his heart in it, but that's just not as likely. It's a lot easier to fall than it is to be redeemed.
I find it practically impossible to play an evil character mixed with a standard (good and nuetral) aligned group mainly because you'd end up refusing to take part in 95% of the adventures because it goes against your alignment.
I've done the impossible, then!
Remember that evil doesn't mean you cannot help anyone - if you're out for wealth, power and fame, helping others in dramatic ways is often a great way. The evil character will do it for himself, though. And he'll insist on compensation (unless waiving the reward will benefit him in some other way). Evil is calculating and selfish. It's not "I am Evil! I must abduct princesses, not rescue them! HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN" (starts killing kittens and bunnies and puppy dogs and little children)
Also remember that fighting evil is not necessarily good. Go and kill the demon! Save the kingdom - for yourself!
^^Funny. :P
In my group, there is also one of these-almost-evil-but-still-not-evil-characters. A Narcistic Half-orc ranger, who is ready to be kill all witnesses, and when halfling thief bbegged for mercy, he promised not to kill him, but after saying that, he backstabbed him. He doesn't care about people, and killed his fosterfather for being in grateful to him.
I have not yet made any changes in his alignment, but what do you think?
Evil. Pretty much exactly NE.
So the million dollar question is, what makes someone evil?
Your character killed 60 innocent people . . . on purpose . . . to damage (not kill) an invisible foe?
And, your character "does what's necessary to get the job done"?
Yes, you are playing an evil character.
One act doesn't make an evil character. A series of acts, yes. I would say you have made a series of decisions for the character that place him in the "evil" category. And you seem to want to perform a few relatively insignificant acts of "good" to balance it out.
Just my opinion, but the good-evil balance doesn't work that way.
|
I'm playing a character who is borderline evil...or is he evil? I don't know. All of the other players see him as evil but I still consider him (and have his alignment written down as) Chaotic Nuetral. The reason the others see him as evil is because he does some truly evil things. He once channeled and killed 60 innocent bystanders in some twisted carnival (RotRL, I think) just to damage an invisible foe that we had no other way to get at.
On the other hand, he's saved many more people than he's needlessly killed and does do many good things as well. He doesn't do what is good or what is evil by definition. He does whatever he feels is necessary to get the job done. He has dug in and fought very close to death on several occations when the others were about to bail. He's very loyal to the group (and probably only to the group) and I still see him as Chaotic Neutral.
I find it practically impossible to play an evil character mixed with a standard (good and nuetral) aligned group mainly because you'd end up refusing to take part in 95% of the adventures because it goes against your alignment. As I said above, though, the rest of the group still view him as evil because of some of the things he's done.
So the million dollar question is, what makes someone evil? Does commiting evil acts automatically make you evil or does the balance make you nuetral? What alignment do believe my character is.
Try reading some of the inserts in the Forgotten Realms books "Champions of Ruin" and "Champions of Valor". They have very long entries as far as different types of evil as well as differnt views of good. It goes in depthas to how it all depends on where you are as well. If slavery is legal in a particular area a good person may own a slave because it is a sociatal norm, as well as ritualistic cannabalisim.
After reading few some of the article my self the character you described above is definitly Chaotic Evil under the catagory of "just plain mean" which states that this person usually thinks that their character is not evil at all and may even think of himself as impartial or good but is determined by his actions in those moments of duress. If you nuke a group of people without thought because there is no other way to find n invisible enemy then you are acting in an evil way because you did not stop to take others into consideration, and this mean not only did you break the law "chaos" but you disregarded the saftey of others to justify you own means "evil".
Not being judgmental at all hear just saying if you get to read that excerpt from the "Champions of Ruin" it describes the character you described to a "T".
|
After reading few some of the article my self the character you described above is definitly Chaotic Evil under the catagory of "just plain mean" which states that this person usually thinks that their character is not evil at all and may even think of himself as impartial or good but is determined by his actions in those moments of duress.
Just curious, how then would the CN, in your eyes, have handled the situation? Getting 60 people to kill an invisible threat seems well in line with neutral in my mind.
A CN person may harm folks or just not care for his actions but flat out killing 60 people in a calculated attack to harm one man is not CN thats plan evil. He said himself he has a whatever needs done mindset, thats not CN, that's evil
|
|
On the other hand, who was this invisible foe? Was he going to kill 60,000? Was it a question of sacrificing 60 in order to save a thousand times that number?
That's not known.
Would it have been a good act if it were?
Its still evil. Killing any innocent puts the blood firmly onto your hands, its only the lesser of two evils. It would never be good, nor even a neutral choice... though those characters might be forced to make them.
Remember, Alignmnet is just a tendancy and it can always change.
Try reading some of the inserts in the Forgotten Realms books "Champions of Ruin"
... without vomiting. That was one crappy book. I generally liked the stuff they wrote for FR 3e, but Champions of Ruin was horrible.
|
|
Its still evil. Killing any innocent puts the blood firmly onto your hands, its only the lesser of two evils. It would never be good, nor even a neutral choice... though those characters might be forced to make them.Remember, Alignmnet is just a tendancy and it can always change.
Yes but he specifically mentioned other GOOD acts his character performed. Does ONE evil act make you evil? No more than ONE good act makes you good. As long as there is balance, I feel the neutrality has been maintained.
|
|
Yes but he specifically mentioned other GOOD acts his character performed. Does ONE evil act make you evil? No more than ONE good act makes you good. As long as there is balance, I feel the neutrality has been maintained.
Its still evil. Killing any innocent puts the blood firmly onto your hands, its only the lesser of two evils. It would never be good, nor even a neutral choice... though those characters might be forced to make them.Remember, Alignmnet is just a tendancy and it can always change.
I was refering to the specific act in question from LilithsThrall. I also say that a good or neutral character can make this choice. I'm not sure what your addressing here. There should be more than one act described to say who is good, neutral, or evil. There is no easy way to judge without more.
To me killing 60 folks is enough of an evil act to change his AL by itself.
"Sure I killed 11 little girls, but I give blood and am an outspoken member of my church, I give time at the homeless shelter and am a scout master and give can food at the drives. I have done more good then evil right?"
|
|
I was refering to the specific act in question from LilithsThrall. I also say that a good or neutral character can make this choice. I'm not sure what your addressing here. There should be more than one act described to say who is good, neutral, or evil. There is no easy way to judge without more.
Ahh I thought you were referring to the OPs situation. Carry on.
|
|
To me killing 60 folks is enough of an evil act to change his AL by itself.
"Sure I killed 11 little girls, but I give blood and am an outspoken member of my church, I give time at the homeless shelter and am a scout master and give can food at the drives. I have done more good then evil right?"
John Wayne Gacy FTW
Alignment can be a pretty nebulous subject. Still, my opinion is that any character who disregards the lives of innocents is some degree of evil. That doesn't mean your character can't do good things, or even that your character doesn't largely do good things. A fighter might defend the kingdom from lycanthropes, but if he kills and tortures innocent werebears as part of that campaign, then he is still evil.
Since your character is steadfastly loyal to the party, and not just out for himself, I don't think you could say that he's chaotic evil. Also, since he doesn't seem to have a specific code of ethics that he adheres to, I don't think you could call him lawful. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with those here who say that your character is probably neutral evil. Ultimately, though, I say it's up to your DM.
|
|
The argument of "balance" by doing both Good and Evil things is reasonable, but flawed in two ways.
First, it's trying to break down alignment into some sort of "point" system. This, in and of itself, is enough to invalidate the the approach and make it completely unreasonable.
For an alignment "point" system to work, an "evil" act has to be "more" evil than a good act. Otherwise you end up with people going around and donating money to charity to "balance out" torturing someone for nine hours. But even that has problems. How much money is a life worth? The idea is inherently flawed.
More importantly, the "balanced" approach misses the whole point of alignment. It's wrong to damn a single innocent soul in order to save a thousand lives. Period.
"Evil" characters would do it, because they believe the balance argument is valid - "I am personally damning an innocent soul, but by doing so I save a thousand people. I am being noble and self sacrificing." The evil person is deluding himself. It is the wrong choice.
"Neutral" characters would not do it, because they recognize the true balance, and because they are not responsible for the situation at all - it is being forced on them. To do nothing is a neutral act, its simply permitting the other entity to do a horrible thing. It's not right, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not wrong either. To willingly damn one innocent soul, regardless of the circumstances, is an evil act.
"Good" characters take a third option. The classic example in this case would be a self-substitution, followed by divine intervention.
Damning one innocent to save a thousand lives is the Evil choice. Killing 60 people to stop one person is the Evil choice.
|
|
I'm with most people (pretty blatantly NE). From DND's perspective, the average American is "Neutral". You like to think of yourself as good and do reasonably what society tells you to, but don't dedicate your life to bettering the world (tons of volunteer work, giving half of everything you own to charity, etc; or in DND's terms good deeds without reward and supporting the good gods). On the other hand, the average person doesn't tend to mow down 60 innocent bystanders to get their purse back.
Alignment is a slippery slope, and I've said many times I wish they would get rid of it; but your actions define, in any game, a truly evil character.
To me killing 60 folks is enough of an evil act to change his AL by itself.And to me, sitting back and doing nothing and, thereby, letting 60,000 people die so that I can keep from getting my hands dirty by killing 60, is enough of an evil act to change his AL by itself.
No killing the 60 is an evil act. You may say you did it for the greater good and believe it is, but it is a evil act. You can dress it up however you want it is evil.
Kill one to save a thousand is evil, your commenting evil to do "good' but it does not make it less evil.
|
|
In your opinion, yes. Not everyone shares your opinion on what is moral.More importantly, the "balanced" approach misses the whole point of alignment. It's wrong to damn a single innocent soul in order to save a thousand lives. Period.
I find this to be a very interesting statement, if far too short.
Let's be more specific.
A Balor has captured a thousand people, and will begin devouring them at sunset. He will stop only if a paladin (from a neighboring kingdom, so under no direct obligation to help beyond being a servant of Good) is willing to sacrifice a 6 year old girl in a specific ritual that will bind her innocent soul to the Balor.
What is the right thing to do?
|
|
I don't believe it's either a good or evil act (inherently). Then again, I've never believed "all that's required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". I believe if the good men are doing nothing, they aren't good.So, if the only options available in order to save 60,000 people are a.) to do nothing and b.) to sacrifice 60, then sacrificing 60 is the good act. It may not be a pleasant or easy act, but noone said that doing good is suppossed to be pleasant or easy.
I Disagree. They are both evil acts. Killing to save many more is just the lesser of two evils. Its the choice a neutral or good character would likely make, though maybe not the only choice. I would steer away from calling this a good act by any means.
I can see a CN actions harming folks and him not caring all that much, But the issue is he Chose to kill 60 people. It was not something that just happened, like "oppsy I knocked over that wall to escape and it crushed that due, sorry bout your luck"