|
I wish more people thought Conan or Lupin III when CN is mentioned. It makes me sad that you can't say you're character is CN without people assuming you're playing LOLRANDOM.
Agreed though I tend to think more of Spike from Cowboy Bebop and Mugen from Samurai Champloo when I think C/N.
CN is certainly getting a bad crazy rap.
I will agree that alignment is tricky and despite how many people seem to make a response as if claiming that their answer is fact over opinion ("This IS evil, period"), opinion is all anyone has.
My opinion I wouldn't see this as an evil act in and of itself. You rely on instincts more than thought sometimes to make a decision. As someone else said, I don't necessarily think of survival as evil.
Your explanation is still a bit confusing of course to me but if its not your fault they're in the way and you're not doing what you do to hurt them and yet at the moment there's not a way around it ... sorry but welcome to the chaotic chance of life. Its a bad thing sure ... but bad things happen. If you kind of see it as a "sucks but its not my problem" thing, then it is a very cold way of looking at it but no i dont think its evil.
Once again, this is my opinion on the matter. No one has the correct answer because there really isn't one. Thats why the system is fickle at best which sucks given all the alignment based stuff out there (monks, paladins, druids, barbarians, smite, harm/cure etc etc).
Anyway I CAN see this as possibly C/N, long story short. Whether it is or not is up to you and the DM to come to terms with.
I agree with how frogboy sees things here. I think it's really funny, and plain out wrong, for people to say that if you murder one innocent you are evil, but that if you do lots of good for your own purposes you are evil too. That's unfair, unbalanced and illogical.
Snake Plinsken is Snake Plinsken. He doesn't need alignments, he is above .... well, everything. ;)
They were oblivious to us. Because they couldn't see through the illusion of what was really going on and we could, they couldn't perceive us in any way (that I know of).Were you playing Carnival of Tears the situation you describe sounds suspiciously from this module. Wouldnt Dispel Magic have sufficed or perhaps you could have casted cause fear to frighten the civilians away. Better yet why didnt you destroy the the machine
Most likely. I'm pretty sure it was from RotRL. The DM is running a hybrid of that and his own stuff right now.
We were pretty low level at the time. My channel was only 2d6 or 3d6. Also, I mostly memorize spells that help the group as opposed to attack spells mainly because my save DCs for my spells isn't very good. It's all in my channel.
I did manage to keep one extra person out of my channel. I can only imagine the horror on her face when 60 people around her just instantly drop dead.
If I still had a dispel magic, I probably used it already (possibly attepted it on the invisible guy). I can't really remember now.
As for destroying the machine, the rogue was the other character that went down (or was so close to going down that another failed attempt would've killed him). He had a couple/few unlucky rolls on disabling the machine while the barbarian, bard and myself were getting jacked up by the invisible attacker. If I remember correctly, he'd attack and immediately go invisible again making it really difficult to get at him. I did wait until things were getting a little desperate (I'm not a raving lunatic). Can't say how much of this was as written and how much was DM alteration. Our DM runs tough encounters. We like it that way though.
CN is certainly getting a bad crazy rap.
You can blame WoC for that. The entry for CN in the PHB was labeled "The Madman". I've played many CN characters that weren't crazy. If memory serves, this is my first one.
Desperate situation, chaotic act, Tragic result. I wouldnt call this murder, but manslaughter. From the circumstances dictated there was really no other option. However, let this be a lesson to your Character that most offensive way can often lead to tragic results for innocents. I judge Chaotic Neutral in this situation.
All of this talk about my character's alignment has given me some great ideas for his story arc. I wonder how the rest of the group will react when he apparently flips alignment trying to overcompensate for some of the things he's done. This should be interesting. :)
As for categorical imperatives, here's another applicable quote from him
"Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology" from the same book.
So he's essentially saying:
"All digressions, objections, delights in mockery, and carefree mistrust are signs of health.""All unconditionals belong in pathology."
Aren't both of those unconditionals? :D
CN's bad rep existed long before WotC labeled it "the madman." I think it was 2e that claimed a CN player was "just as likely to jump off a bridge as they were to cross it"
CN's bad rep existed long before WotC labeled it "the madman." I think it was 2e that claimed a CN player was "just as likely to jump off a bridge as they were to cross it"
Didn't play 2E so you're probably right. Who knows how far that goes back?
I'm pretty sure it's AD&D (or maybe 2e) that I read the line that CN would turn on his own party to help the enemy when they started to win. "To keep 'The Balance'." *rolleyes*
I could never play with alignments being like that. It basically wrote off whole sections of alignment as useless for serious gaming. Insanity and other game-stoppers are best left to corner case rules (like the stuff from Unearthed Arcana, which are great for Cthulu/horror games).
From the way I read 3e alignments, and the only way I can implement them in my game without having gamestopping situations, is that if you are okay with killing innocent people, you are evil.
Evil doesn't have to kill innocent people, but if the situation calls for it to make things easier, he's willing to do so.
So yeah, in my game, your character would be evil. Doesn't matter how much he's donated to the church, or how many people he's helped.
Until he changes his mindset to include "don't hurt the innocent", he's staying evil.
You see, so that evil can be playable in a PC sense without resorting to moustache twirling moments, I allow evil to have some compunction. He might not be willing to kill a child, for instance. That doesn't make him Neutral or Good.. it just means he has a personality.
The fact that he has no problem setting the child's father on fire while trying to fireball the wagon his target is escaping on, makes him evil.
Otherwise, the only evil people would be the kick the dog types, which makes evil a little boring in my opinion. Yes, I understand that I'm using an interpretation of the alignment rules in 3e. This is the only way I can see the alignments being usable for PCs, without basically locking everyone in to about 4 alignment choices.
I'm pretty sure it's AD&D (or maybe 2e) that I read the line that CN would turn on his own party to help the enemy when they started to win. "To keep 'The Balance'." *rolleyes*
I could never play with alignments being like that. It basically wrote off whole sections of alignment as useless for serious gaming. Insanity and other game-stoppers are best left to corner case rules (like the stuff from Unearthed Arcana, which are great for Cthulu/horror games).
From the way I read 3e alignments, and the only way I can implement them in my game without having gamestopping situations, is that if you are okay with killing innocent people, you are evil.
Evil doesn't have to kill innocent people, but if the situation calls for it to make things easier, he's willing to do so.
So yeah, in my game, your character would be evil. Doesn't matter how much he's donated to the church, or how many people he's helped.
Until he changes his mindset to include "don't hurt the innocent", he's staying evil.You see, so that evil can be playable in a PC sense without resorting to moustache twirling moments, I allow evil to have some compunction. He might not be willing to kill a child, for instance. That doesn't make him Neutral or Good.. it just means he has a personality.
The fact that he has no problem setting the child's father on fire while trying to fireball the wagon his target is escaping on, makes him evil.Otherwise, the only evil people would be the kick the dog types, which makes evil a little boring in my opinion. Yes, I understand that I'm using an interpretation of the alignment rules in 3e. This is the only way I can see the alignments being usable for PCs, without basically locking everyone in to about 4 alignment choices.
Sorry mate, I completelly disagre with ou there. Good and Evil in the end, is a social behavior, and what you think, matter only to you. What defines you is what you do. A guy could think about rapping little girls, setting oldman afire, eat human flesh from ladies and if he didn't act on it, he would be not considered evil.
Those kids that go to war are several times given orders to kill innocents, they may not like it, but they do it. I don't consider it inherently evil, but in no way it is good.
What defines evil is selfishness and complete lack of care for other people's well being.
Euthanasia is a good example of killing an innocent for a good reason. Now, by most peoples logic, that would be evil. I just don't think it is.
Funny thing is, that if we got your definition and most of other people's definition here, 90% of every world would be evil (not only Ravenloft) and we all know that it's not like that at all.
He killed 60 innocents to get to one invisible foe? Why is there even a discussion about this?
He killed 60 innocents to get to one invisible foe? Why is there even a discussion about this?
Cause although the act may SEEM evil, it doesn't mean the character himself is evil.
|
|
He killed 60 innocents to get to one invisible foe? Why is there even a discussion about this?Cause although the act may SEEM evil, it doesn't mean the character himself is evil.
sigh.
Yes, he is evil. It's pretty cut and dry.
It's not the [Evil] act that makes this particular case so cut and dry; it's that he didn't care and still doesn't.
Unless the invisible guy was running away so he could unleash a horrible demon of necromantic plague that was going to kill the entire town anyway, there's no justification for killing a bunch of random innocents. The fact that the original poster didn't mention such extenuating circumstances means there weren't any extenuating circumstances. He killed 60 innocent people in an effort to try and stop a single bad person from doing nothing but run away.
He could have tracked him. He could have divined his location / destination. He didn't - he went for the "kill him now regardless of the consequences" approach. That's pretty cut and dry; in fact, that's so cut and dry it reminds me of classic 1980's cartoon villainy: "The prisoner who was falsely accused has escaped and is hiding on that planet! Destroy it!" sort of thing.
He's evil.
***
As for the more general discussion, I thought we agreed to leave this topic alone. There's no single right answer. Alignment is intentionally somewhat vague and fluid.
He killed 60 innocents to get to one invisible foe? Why is there even a discussion about this?Cause although the act may SEEM evil, it doesn't mean the character himself is evil.sigh.
Yes, he is evil. It's pretty cut and dry.
It's not the [Evil] act that makes this particular case so cut and dry; it's that he didn't care and still doesn't.
Unless the invisible guy was running away so he could unleash a horrible demon of necromantic plague that was going to kill the entire town anyway, there's no justification for killing a bunch of random innocents. The fact that the original poster didn't mention such extenuating circumstances means there weren't any extenuating circumstances. He killed 60 innocent people in an effort to try and stop a single bad person from doing nothing but run away.
He could have tracked him. He could have divined his location / destination. He didn't - he went for the "kill him now regardless of the consequences" approach. That's pretty cut and dry; in fact, that's so cut and dry it reminds me of classic 1980's cartoon villainy: "The prisoner who was falsely accused has escaped and is hiding on that planet! Destroy it!" sort of thing.
He's evil.
***
As for the more general discussion, I thought we agreed to leave this topic alone. There's no single right answer. Alignment is intentionally somewhat vague and fluid.
He's neutral.
He did state that everyone in attendance would die, including himself and his companions if he didn't do it.
What he did was bad, was a crime and was in a way "evil" this doesn't mean HE is.
And as I stated ealier, why does one evil act makes one person Evil and when someone does something Good, he is still considered evil?
It makes no sense and is completelly unfair.
He's neutral.
He did state that everyone in attendance would die, including himself and his companions if he didn't do it.
What he did was bad, was a crime and was in a way "evil" this doesn't mean HE is.
And as I stated ealier, why does one evil act makes one person Evil and when someone does something Good, he is still considered evil?
It makes no sense and is completelly unfair.
He can still atone, but only if he has violated his conscience here. He cracked under pressure, made a mistake, reacted without thinking. It happens. And if he feels bad about it, he can atone and avoid alignment repercussions due to his actions. Sounds like an adventure with some meat on its bones.
As far as 'everyone was gonna die anyway', where does one obtain the omniscience to foretell another's doom? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy when you're the one pulling trigger.
Or you can disregard alignment connotations and go your merry way.
He's neutral.
He did state that everyone in attendance would die, including himself and his companions if he didn't do it.
What he did was bad, was a crime and was in a way "evil" this doesn't mean HE is.
And as I stated ealier, why does one evil act makes one person Evil and when someone does something Good, he is still considered evil?
It makes no sense and is completelly unfair.He can still atone, but only if he has violated his conscience here. He cracked under pressure, made a mistake, reacted without thinking. It happens. And if he feels bad about it, he can atone and avoid alignment repercussions due to his actions. Sounds like an adventure with some meat on its bones.
As far as 'everyone was gonna die anyway', where does one obtain the omniscience to foretell another's doom? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy when you're the one pulling trigger.
Or you can disregard alignment connotations and go your merry way.
I agree with you on the atonning part... if he was good. Since he was Neutral I see no use for it.
I am arguing this cause I do LOVE alignment, and it's a topic that's VERY interesting to me. I'm just saying that if a guy can be judged as evil for one bad thing he did, why can't the oposite happen, and no one gave me a nice answer for that yet.
I agree with you on the atonning part... if he was good. Since he was Neutral I see no use for it.
I am arguing this cause I do LOVE alignment, and it's a topic that's VERY interesting to me. I'm just saying that if a guy can be judged as evil for one bad thing he did, why can't the oposite happen, and no one gave me a nice answer for that yet.
Well the evil acts are usually pretty atrocious. He killed a bunch of people. What good act can offset this? I'll give you one - he can raise/resurrect those people, and I'd allow this good act to offset his evil act (with a stern talking to, as well). What else do you think balances the scales?
Otherwise, the only evil people would be the kick the dog types, which makes evil a little boring in my opinion. Yes, I understand that I'm using an interpretation of the alignment rules in 3e. This is the only way I can see the alignments being usable for PCs, without basically locking everyone in to about 4 alignment choices.
This view which makes anyone willing to commit evil acts Evil, which appears to be notably more common than my take, IMO causes big balance issues. Why is the Paladin considered overpowered and (by some) broken? His special abilities are usable against 95% of his enemies. Why are the Cleric's alignment spells based on Evil so much more useful than the Law/Chaos/Good ones? Just about anyone who does anything wrong enough that the PCs feel the need to stop them is considered Evil.
I believe the intent of the alignment system was to put an equal number of people/creatures in each of the six buckets and not have them skewed so heavily to one side. I think that the heroes should face (close to) as many Neutral enemies as they do Evil ones meaning that the Paladin is better than the Fighter half of the time and worse the other half. By putting the game in balance like this, yes, only the kick the dog types would be of Evil alignment. This doesn't mean that half of the Neutral people/monsters in any given world wouldn't be doing things that the PCs would consider bad or evil and actively want to stop...the same things they are doing now. They just wouldn't be penalized so much in game terms.
I personally feel that evil is more interesting when it's reserved for only those who truly deserve it.
He killed 60 innocent people in an effort to try and stop a single bad person from doing nothing but run away.
Incorrect. He wasn't trying to run away. He was getting close to ending our lives (and the campaign). If he were trying to run away, I wouldn've chanelled. I'm not sure if we'd even scratched him yet.
Other points you made which I didn't include in the quote are perfectly valid though especially the part about not caring.
I like the old concept of tendencies. In our group we use boxes for alignment, there are 3 boxes for each, completing nine boxes on each axis.
For instance, you can be good 2 or 1.
In this case I would say that this guy went from complete balance (middle of the alignment) to 1 or 2 boxes to the evil side. He is still no evil, but he has evil tendencies now, got it?
I am arguing this cause I do LOVE alignment, and it's a topic that's VERY interesting to me. I'm just saying that if a guy can be judged as evil for one bad thing he did, why can't the oposite happen, and no one gave me a nice answer for that yet.
I've been (pretty much) asking this question the entire thread and haven't gotten a really good answer to it yet.
Well the evil acts are usually pretty atrocious. He killed a bunch of people. What good act can offset this? I'll give you one - he can raise/resurrect those people, and I'd allow this good act to offset his evil act (with a stern talking to, as well). What else do you think balances the scales?
Probably impossible. The carnival travels so it'd be difficult to locate them and likely impossible to tell the difference between the 60 I took out and the many, many more that the twisted carnival did. When we freed the owner of his curse/obsession, I don't really know what they actually did with all the bodies. Plus, I'm still not powerful enough to resurrect them as it's been at least six months (in game) since it happened. My raise dead spell isn't going to cut it.
This was part of my original question though. Does saving the lives of hundreds, probably even thousands, offset taking the 60...or even 1 if it may have been avoided? How does the alignment system really work or is supposed to work? It doesn't sound like anyone really knows in game terms. Seems like everyone has a (at least a slightly) different opinion/interpretation.
As I said.
A neutral character does things of his own accord, doing good sometimes and evil on other times, it's impossible for a neutral character to stay neutral in his actions all the time.
Probably impossible. The carnival travels so it'd be difficult to locate them and likely impossible to tell the difference between the 60 I took out and the many, many more that the twisted carnival did. When we freed the owner of his curse/obsession, I don't really know what they actually did with all the bodies. Plus, I'm still not powerful enough to resurrect them as it's been at least six months (in game) since it happened. My raise dead spell isn't going to cut it.
This was part of my original question though. Does saving the lives of hundreds, probably even thousands, offset taking the 60...or even 1 if it may have been avoided? How does the alignment system really work or is supposed to work? It doesn't sound like anyone really knows in game terms. Seems like everyone has a (at least a slightly) different opinion/interpretation.
Nobody said it would be easy to offset. You can Raise Dead? How many did you bring back?
Nobody said these were easy questions. Future actions aren't guaranteed. They may salve this wound, however. If it's your intent to not be evil, you need to consider your character's whole career.
As has been said, your GM needs to establish how the alignment system works in the campaign you're playing in.
The best description of C/N I have ever come across is an individual who does what they want, when ever they want.
You sound more N/N or L/N, as the chaotic, especially the neutral, don't tend to be loyal.
An evil individual would take pleasure in causing others pain and suffering, and that would be their goal.
Nobody said it would be easy to offset. You can Raise Dead? How many did you bring back?
At the time I was at least four levels away from being able to cast raise dead. I can now but the window of opportunity has long past.
As has been said, your GM needs to establish how the alignment system works in the campaign you're playing in.
Yes, I know (and I will). I just wanted to get a good grasp of how others perceive the alignment system in game terms. It seems that a lot of people apply the real world concepts how good and evil is commonly observed as opposed to the physical, observable forces (mechanics) that apply to the game. Maybe they are one in the same but I think that causes some serious balance issues. It's been a good insight into helping me understand how most of the group sees my character (and alignment in general).
The best description of C/N I have ever come across is an individual who does what they want, when ever they want.
You sound more N/N or L/N, as the chaotic, especially the neutral, don't tend to be loyal.
An evil individual would take pleasure in causing others pain and suffering, and that would be their goal.
Well, Chaotic Nuetral was the alignment that my character was created with. At the time, he didn't have any loyalty to the group (since there wasn't one yet) and was pretty much a man with a death wish. He's been a dynamic character with a lot going on (more than I've shared here). In other words, he's developing and changing as time goes on. He probably has shifted more towards Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis if not gone all the way there. We don't update our character sheets nearly as much as they probably should be when it comes to this aspect of the game. I'd guess this is fairly common but I don't know for sure. This is the only group I've played with for any extended period of time.
It's fair to bear in mind that a Chaotic character can have loyalty and probably will, without being lawful or neutral.
This arguments are pretty complicated, and if you put a number on everything people say you will realize that there are 90% of evil people in the world and 5% of chaotic. Now, that doesn't seem right, does it?
I am arguing this cause I do LOVE alignment, and it's a topic that's VERY interesting to me. I'm just saying that if a guy can be judged as evil for one bad thing he did, why can't the oposite happen, and no one gave me a nice answer for that yet.The way I see it evil and good aren't perfect opposites. It isn't always the case that the best thing to do in a situation is the opposite of the worst thing and vice versa. Therefore being good shouldn't be the exact opposite of being evil.
Take a situation where you have a man who appears to be a great pure-hearted guy. He spends his days helping those less fortunate, saving lives and generally making the workd a better place. However every Friday without fail he sneaks out, abducts an innocent child and murders them in a particularly gruesome fashion. He believes that he's entitled to his 'dalliances' because of all the good he does and figures it all balances out in the end.
To my mind the man I've described above is evil. It doesn't matter that he does more good things than evil things. He goes out and kills innocent people for fun out of a sick sense of entitlement. Despite all the other things he does I couldn't see such a man as anything but evil. I don't see alignment as something where somebody can do truly atrocious acts on a regular basis, but end up not being considered evil because he does an equal number of extremely good acts to balance things out. That's not being neutral (I'd call it the Profit and Loss statement view of neutrality :p), that's being insane (and alignment can be a tricky thing philosophically for truly insane people).
I can agree with you there. But what if said guy saves children from death on a regular basis? What if he is a fireman or a cop, and REALLY helps the comunity, and likes it, by the way. What then?
I know it's complicated to put a number on this, that's why the alignment system is fallible.
But let's say this, there is a guy that is really evil and does this for a long long time (kill children, cheat, steal, lie, etc), and he doesn't care about the comunity but one day he stops being like that. And the next day he saves thousands from a fire, what would u say this guy was?
Now, on the other hand, a good guy that saves people everyday for a long, long time, one day snaps and burns people inside of a church.
I'm pretty sure everyone is gonna say this guy is now evil, but the guy above will not be considered good.
That's not "just", is it?
|
I'm just saying that if a guy can be judged as evil for one bad thing he did, why can't the oposite happen, and no one gave me a nice answer for that yet.
Because while the game encourages the notion that a character could 'turn evil' from doing evil things (or casting [Evil] spells), the reverse assumption, that someone could 'turn good' from doing good things (or casting [Good] spells) is considered preposterous.
Evil is 'special.' You can't 'accidentally turn good' by casting Summon Monster I (Celestial Monkey) every day for a year, or 'accidentally turn lawful' by casting Protection from Chaos a hundred times, but you can 'accidentally turn evil' by casting Deathwatch too much.
If all of the alignments worked the way the game assumes that evil / [Evil] works, it would be even more obviously nonsensical and reductionistic and meaningless than it already is.
"Just"? They've both committed evil deeds and are regarded as evil. What's 'unjust' about that? Are you only judged by the last thing you've done? Yeah, one was a great guy, shame he went all evil there. And that evil bastard, nice of him to help those folks in the fire.
|
In my own games the measure of a character's shade and depth of evil is regret. Given the denouement of a Sophie's Choice situation, do they carry some guilt and self doubt for the way things went? Does it inform their future decisions?
If it's a yes, then they're not completely corrupt. If it's no, then they've entered a state of expediancy and selfishness which is evil.
For the OP: you as a player are obviously concerned your character might be evil. But is your character concerned? Is he doubting his own methods and taking to heart the opinions of his companions? If he is, perhaps he's CN. If he's uncompromising, he's NE.
Other points you made which I didn't include in the quote are perfectly valid though especially the part about not caring.
Well, there we have it. Evil. Not caring about killing 60 innocents makes him a clear sociopath.
you see the result of the act itself and not the conditions that led up to the tragedy. His character already has exhibited unstable behavioral patterns and had a major deathwish at the begining of his career. He tried everything he could to catch the invisible foe, but it didnt work out. He saw he was about to die along with his friends so he snappedOther points you made which I didn't include in the quote are perfectly valid though especially the part about not caring.Well, there we have it. Evil. Not caring about killing 60 innocents makes him a clear sociopath.
Exactly, not evil.
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"
I agree with Seeker here, but I'd reserve the final ruling to what the character lived/felt after the event.
Its mainly the intention behind the act, and how one repents from those acts that makes one evil (or not).
That is especially true in a frame-work like D&D, where your pious and goody-doer character is likely to leave a trail of dead people and other sentient creatures in its wake regardless to how 'good' you play them. So 'killing' can surely not be an evil act in its own, otherwise paladin would run around with butterfly nets instead of sharp swords...
IMO, even neutral characters will attempt to reserve life, but an accidental death or collateral damage will not deprive them of too much sleep. Remorse being the basic distinction between the good and neutral character here...
Anyone that would use the death - or even suffering - of others as a tool to get the 'job done' is committing an evil act IMO. Once somebody doesn't care about doing evil acts, he's evil as far as I'm concerned.
That being said, I know a few groups that use the Good = avoids killing / Neutral = doesn't mind killing / Evil = enjoys killing philosophy. At one point, as long as everyone in the group has the same version of what alignment are, things should be OK. But this is rarely the case...
Yet in my experience, the Good/Evil axis causes A LOT less dissension than the LAW/CHAOS dichotomy...
'findel
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?"
All those other things you just mentioned are ALSO evil so yes in THAT instance the person would be EVIL AS SIN!
|
|
Chaotic Neutral was usually put on character sheets to say "I want to be evil but want to be accepted in campaigns". In fact, Living Greyhawk nicknamed it "Greyhawk Evil".
At its heart the person in this story actually works well with groups; that's the opposite of Chaotic anything. He's able to justify slaughter; we don't know the exact situation, but very few games I've seen are absolutes. He took the easy route, and slaughtered 60 people as his "only escape"; that's just being lazy, he's certainly not trying to help the people.
This is an evil act, plain and simple. If he does even a few, he's evil. But again, it's hard to fully justify anything. In PFS I play a character I openly admit would be Lawful Evil if it was rules-allowed; instead I list my character as Lawful Neutral, stay slightly within the bounds of non-evil (make sure I can make an excuse when I send people to their death), and that's that. "Evil" characters can work fine in a party, even those with good characters.
Kinda like the food industry is poisining people with High Fructose Corn Syrup, but we don't lynch mob them. They are killing for profit, but are otherwise working within confines of society; so it can work.
you see the result of the act itself and not the conditions that led up to the tragedy. His character already has exhibited unstable behavioral patterns and had a major deathwish at the begining of his career. He tried everything he could to catch the invisible foe, but it didnt work out. He saw he was about to die along with his friends so he snappedOther points you made which I didn't include in the quote are perfectly valid though especially the part about not caring.Well, there we have it. Evil. Not caring about killing 60 innocents makes him a clear sociopath.
Aaaaand still not feeling sorry *after* he killed those 60 innocents. Evil.