Am I neutral or evil?


Advice


I am starting a conjurer going Genie Binder in Legacy of Fire sometime soon, and plan to have my character be a pragmatist, approaching the "True Neutral" alignment as I see good and evil as extremes, and rather than considering the moral nature of what I summon (be they celestials or fiends), I rather focus on the potential of the individual creature, owing neither parties allegiance nor fealty.

On top of this, I intend to have an imp serving me as my improved familiar. Since there are no paladins in the party, and the imp's ability to assume any animal form it chooses, this should not be hard to keep from the eyes of the good aligned characters in the party, and keep it from being common knowledge. I know consorting with fiends is far from good, which is just about what I am hoping for, since Genie Binder requires you to be non-good.

As a person, I intend to play him as a normal human being, offering respects to Nethys, due to his influence over magic, but otherwise somewhat detached from the whole "GOD WILLS IT!" mentality, seeing the deities as little more than exceedingly powerful versions of the very creatures he pulls down from the heavens, or up from the hells. Certainly, this will create some tension between myself and the cleric of Sarenrae, but I am not going to play him as an evil man. He has a conscience, knows right from wrong, but don't feel motivated nor compelled to act in the name of one against the other. He knows the value of a life, and would rather have friends than enemies, but would not risk his own life to better that of another, unless there is gain to be had. He is not above feeling love, responsibility and have a streak of genuine empathy for the weak and downtrodden, since he was born with a muscle-degenerating illness, leaving him physically as weak as a child, and as one of over a dozen siblings, being physically weak left him bullied.

Now, should I keep him Neutral, as I originally plan, or should he be/become evil? Is pragmatism a good enough reason to stave off the evil brand, since I am indeed summoning based on the creatures' abilities, and thus "using" them for my own needs? (one could argue that a conjurer should be barred from being good, since making celestials fight for you can be construed as morally questionable. This ain't Pokemon, where you gather "friends" :P)

In another campain, the GM said that he employed a system to keep track of people's alignment by attributing points to their actions (akin to Neverwinter Nights and such), which can make me stay the course as long as I have some balance in the creatures I summon. (Summon Monster states that summoning a celestial is a good act, and summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act)


Neutral sounds fine from the write up. But once you actually start playing it will depend on how closely you stick to it. And of course the Imp is not going to go along with it. But how much of a hassle he is will be up to your DM i suppose.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Countering your imp's advice (or better yet, "perverting" it to goodish deeds) is probably your best bet to feel non-evil to your party.

Good on you by the way - usually the easy answer to a thread like this is "If you have to ask...".

Liberty's Edge

In before "PF/D&D has strict definitions of good and evil, it isn't morally subjective like it is IRL. If the spell says casting it is evil, then you're evil."


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
In before "PF/D&D has strict definitions of good and evil, it isn't morally subjective like it is IRL. If the spell says casting it is evil, then you're evil."

No, then you are performing an evil act. You can cast aligned spells without it adjusting your alignment.

To the OP:
I would consider your character squarely neutral. His actions are not for obviously selfish reasons, so I would not consider him evil. Evil would be if he didn't care about most others and promoted himself. This guy seems more willing to help others, but not going out of his way to do it. That is neutral.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
In before "PF/D&D has strict definitions of good and evil, it isn't morally subjective like it is IRL. If the spell says casting it is evil, then you're evil."

No, then you are performing an evil act. You can cast aligned spells without it adjusting your alignment.

To the OP:
I would consider your character squarely neutral. His actions are not for obviously selfish reasons, so I would not consider him evil. Evil would be if he didn't care about most others and promoted himself. This guy seems more willing to help others, but not going out of his way to do it. That is neutral.

I was poking fun at how the general consensus seems to be that performing one evil act makes you evil whereas performing one good act seems to have little to no effect.


Caineach wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
In before "PF/D&D has strict definitions of good and evil, it isn't morally subjective like it is IRL. If the spell says casting it is evil, then you're evil."

No, then you are performing an evil act. You can cast aligned spells without it adjusting your alignment.

To the OP:
I would consider your character squarely neutral. His actions are not for obviously selfish reasons, so I would not consider him evil. Evil would be if he didn't care about most others and promoted himself. This guy seems more willing to help others, but not going out of his way to do it. That is neutral.

I tend to think of "selfish" as "Chaotic", and would leave any determination of Good vs. Evil to actions the player makes regarding respect to life. That is does the player feel life is to be respected (and should be in most cases for the "Good" aligned character, the obvious ones where the character might not respect life being in matters of self defense, defense of a weaker individual - that sort of thing). If the character makes decisions based on "practical" outcomes, irrespective of personal gain and with a tendency to see life "as it is" (circle of life sort of mentality) then Neutral seems correct. Once the character starts deciding on actions that bring personal gain over party goals he may drift toward Chaotic Neutral, and of course the opposite is true if the character is always seeing to it that the party goals take precedence over his own.

Just my thoughts


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
In before "PF/D&D has strict definitions of good and evil, it isn't morally subjective like it is IRL. If the spell says casting it is evil, then you're evil."

No, then you are performing an evil act. You can cast aligned spells without it adjusting your alignment.

To the OP:
I would consider your character squarely neutral. His actions are not for obviously selfish reasons, so I would not consider him evil. Evil would be if he didn't care about most others and promoted himself. This guy seems more willing to help others, but not going out of his way to do it. That is neutral.

I was poking fun at how the general consensus seems to be that performing one evil act makes you evil whereas performing one good act seems to have little to no effect.

You weren't tongue in cheek enough, I thought you were one of the people you were making fun of. Sorry.


Terquem wrote:


I tend to think of "selfish" as "Chaotic"

Lawful people can be selfish, chaotic people can be selfless. It's definitely a question of good or evil. Probably one of the most important aspects of the moral axis.

A lawful evil slaver who breaks no law is definitely selfish, because he will sell people into slavery for his own gain. A chaotic good freedom fighter is selfless, because he risks his life to free others from their shackles.

Terquem wrote:


and would leave any determination of Good vs. Evil to actions the player makes regarding respect to life.

Respect to life can be an aspect of good or evil, but it's not as easy as that: The Dervish of Serenrae who will cut down anyone she regards as irredeemable does not respect their life, but isn't evil because of that. The gourmet who likes to eat meat kills (or tasks others to kill) to sate his hunger, but that doesn't make him evil (except in the eyes of PETA fantatics, and they're b+*&!$$ insane, anyway)

Terquem wrote:
If the character makes decisions based on "practical" outcomes, irrespective of personal gain and with a tendency to see life "as it is" (circle of life sort of mentality) then Neutral seems correct.

See, the defining part here is the "irrespective of personal gain". No selfishness (but also no overreaching selflessness) means neutral.

Silver Crusade

If you aren't playing evil now, a properly run Imp will do its best to see that you are converted to evil. That's their job, even if you think you're in control. I like to look at Salvatore's Cleric Quintet series for a really nasty Imp and the nature of guys that Imp cavorted with.

Plus, you're already trying to deceive and lie to your party about your Imp, and you're indicating unless there's a personal gain to you there's no reason to risk yourself...not a good start to great party mechanics, though you can certainly giggle at night how no one in the party really knows or understands your dark ways....

With that out of the way, I like the concept and think you've got up and running a good character concept. I'm just personally not a fan of evil characters, and anyone who intentionally wants an Imp as a familiar is playing evil to me in the fantasy world.


KaeYoss wrote:
Terquem wrote:


I tend to think of "selfish" as "Chaotic"

Lawful people can be selfish, chaotic people can be selfless. It's definitely a question of good or evil. Probably one of the most important aspects of the moral axis.

A lawful evil slaver who breaks no law is definitely selfish, because he will sell people into slavery for his own gain. A chaotic good freedom fighter is selfless, because he risks his life to free others from their shackles.

Terquem wrote:


and would leave any determination of Good vs. Evil to actions the player makes regarding respect to life.

Respect to life can be an aspect of good or evil, but it's not as easy as that: The Dervish of Serenrae who will cut down anyone she regards as irredeemable does not respect their life, but isn't evil because of that. The gourmet who likes to eat meat kills (or tasks others to kill) to sate his hunger, but that doesn't make him evil (except in the eyes of PETA fantatics, and they're b%@~*%% insane, anyway)

Terquem wrote:
If the character makes decisions based on "practical" outcomes, irrespective of personal gain and with a tendency to see life "as it is" (circle of life sort of mentality) then Neutral seems correct.
See, the defining part here is the "irrespective of personal gain". No selfishness (but also no overreaching selflessness) means neutral.

I disagree with almost all of your assesments as they tend to be examples you are choosing to define in your own way other than in the way the traditional rules for D&D have defined them, but I am not going to argue the point.

Shadow Lodge

KaeYoss wrote:
PETA

Why would PETA be evil?

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals


M P 433 wrote:

If you aren't playing evil now, a properly run Imp will do its best to see that you are converted to evil. That's their job, even if you think you're in control. I like to look at Salvatore's Cleric Quintet series for a really nasty Imp and the nature of guys that Imp cavorted with.

Plus, you're already trying to deceive and lie to your party about your Imp, and you're indicating unless there's a personal gain to you there's no reason to risk yourself...not a good start to great party mechanics, though you can certainly giggle at night how no one in the party really knows or understands your dark ways....

With that out of the way, I like the concept and think you've got up and running a good character concept. I'm just personally not a fan of evil characters, and anyone who intentionally wants an Imp as a familiar is playing evil to me in the fantasy world.

I was thinking of trying to "turn" it. I recall that there was/is a faction in the planescape setting consisting of fallen angels and "risen" fiends. Champions of balance instead of the Good/Evil axis. Since there is precedence for this, I hope that I will at least have the possibility to do so in-game, and end up with a LN imp. I have a decent charisma (14) and plan to build heavily on it with the Genie Binder, since I need to take the "Persuasive" feat.

If not, I become more and more competent in binding creatures, and since I need Craft Wondrous Item, I was thinking of making some manner of alignment-warping item as last resort (would be fun to stick a helm of opposite alignment on an imp and make it Chaotic Good).


Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Grand Lodge

I think I may have proposed this in an earlier post, but my belief in Alignment (at least Good to Evil) is relative to a sphere of concern.

Evil - The diameter of your sphere of concern is very small, if non-existent, and your area of concern is you and your legacy. What directly concerns you is going to be what drives you...

Neutral - Your diameter grows to include the people that you interact with, your family, your small group of friends. You are driven, because you care about them... but not necessarily anyone else. If you help others, it is by default, because your friends are doing it, etc.

Good - The diameter grows further, including people that you don't know. Your concern might be the village, or the nation, or the entire world! There are varying degrees of Good, but I think that if you are willing to help someone you don't know, for no hope of reward (because that brings the scope back to yourself) then you would be considered Good.

Now, this is my opinion, and it is rather simplistic, but I also feel that it is extremely difficult to be Good, because it requires sacrifice on your part, and therefore, as a GM, I reward being Good greater than being Neutral. (By these standards.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

What are you talking about? The mere thought of cutting in line would cause any paladin to immediately fall and have a million dollar bounty placed on his head by those of his former order. No atonement allowed!

Sovereign Court

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Wouldn't that depend on if the kid you cut in front of was the DM's kid?


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Oh yes it does. The paladin is required to patiently wait his turn and prevent others from cutting.


Kamelguru wrote:
Now, should I keep him Neutral, as I originally plan, or should he be/become evil? Is pragmatism a good enough reason to stave off the evil...

I'd say you can stay Neutral as long as your pragmatism doesn't include actively killing innocent people (not letting them die by inaction, but actually actively committing murder/torture, etc).

I've played a character who's personality was extremely pragmatic in methods. I hadn't run into the situation in nearly 20 levels of gaming to push me over the edge, but it was getting close...

I think it can be done. It's a different game than when playing the Lawful Good Paladin.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

In my campaign, yes, it would. It is both chaotic and evil. A very minor evil, but still evil.

Dark Archive

Chaotic is not selfish. Robin Hood is the prime example of Chaotic Good, but you could never call him selfish. Chaotic just means you go against law; do what you have to, spotaneous thinking.

On the opposite side, the very selfish King John was using literal law interpretation to get things his way. Selfish and evil, yes, but very very lawful.


Thalin wrote:

Chaotic is not selfish. Robin Hood is the prime example of Chaotic Good, but you could never call him selfish. Chaotic just means you go against law; do what you have to, spotaneous thinking.

On the opposite side, the very selfish King John was using literal law interpretation to get things his way. Selfish and evil, yes, but very very lawful.

Robin Hood is also the perfect example of Lawful Good. So bound by his duty to his king that, once returning from war in a foreign land for his liege, he confronts a usurper who has taken up the throne. Defeated by him and disgraced, he rallies the populous behind the rightfull king's banner and takes only from those who sit happily by and support the pretender. He happily accepts a challenge he knows to be a trap because of a chance that he can end his war in a less bloody and more honorable way than the gurilla war he has been pursuing. He fights to maintain the honor of his household and his sworn alliegence to his king. Robin Hood is the epitome of lawful, depending on which version you look at.


This is the first time I am dealing heavily with alignment-oriented spells (95% of all summoning is alignment-oriented, since you affix either the celestial or fiendish template to just about everything except elemental creatures), which is why I felt like I needed input. The GM wanted us to take thematic classes/prestige classes, and the only viable one was Genie Binder, which requires non-good alignment, and the GM doesn't want EEEEEEVIL! *Dr Evil Pinky* characters.

(Yes, the Daivrat is the non-evil version, but there is no chance in any of the nine hells that I will ever surrender a level of spellcasting as a dedicated wizard. Doesn't matter how sweet the class abilities may be, spellcasting is your lifeblood, your bread and butter, alpha and omega.)

So I guess I should just keep track of the spells I cast, because unlike the conventional "LOL I AM CN, DERP!" meta-alignment of balancing out burning down orphanages with saving a village from a rampaging dragon, this is not something I can get around and still be neutral, due to the nature of summoning.

Imp will likely factor in, and may be changed to Mephit down the road, depending on how the campain progresses. The primary three reasons to me wanting an imp is;

1 - It's the best choice for familiar survivability, with invisibility at will, and the ability to change into a burrowing animal in case of blindsight and such.

2 - It's a freaking IMP ^^

3 - Keeps me from going GOOD, even if I associate with charismatic good clerics and such, which will kill my progression in my prestige class. Balance of influences. (Keep imagining the old cartoons with the tiny devil and tiny angel on either shoulder, giving/countering advice to Donald Duck etc, where the imp is the devil, and the cleric is the angel)


I recommend dressing your Imp in diapers and giving him a stogie whenever he gives you bad advice.

Liberty's Edge

roguerouge wrote:
I recommend dressing your Imp in diapers and giving him a stogie whenever he gives you bad advice.

I recommend having the cleric hold him down and giving him a noogie too.... man, whatever happened to noogies... and charlie horses!


Terquem wrote:


I disagree with almost all of your assesments as they tend to be examples you are choosing to define in your own way other than in the way the traditional rules for D&D have defined them, but I am not going to argue the point.

I don't care for any traditional rules. I'm discussing Pathfinder, and thus look at pathfinder for external guidance.

"Good implies altruism". That's selflessness. Ergo, the opposite (evil) will imply the opposite of altruism (selfishness)

Thus, my assertion that selflessness/selfishness is an aspect of morality (good/evil) rather than ethics (order/chaos) is supported by the game.

And the very fact that paladins (who must be good - and not just that: they must be exemplars of goodness) get offensive abilities in this game supports my assertion that respect for life isn't a simple, black/white thing.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Cutting in line certainly is not a good act. Just because it won't straight-up rob a paladin of her powers doesn't mean it's not evil.


Thalin wrote:

Chaotic is not selfish. Robin Hood is the prime example of Chaotic Good, but you could never call him selfish. Chaotic just means you go against law; do what you have to, spotaneous thinking.

Let's use an in-game example:

For selfless, chaotic people: The Bellflower Network. They "steal" halfling slaves from Cheliax and get them to freedom. These guys risk their lives and break Chelish law in order to help others.


KaeYoss wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Cutting in line certainly is not a good act. Just because it won't straight-up rob a paladin of her powers doesn't mean it's not evil.

No, but it's not an evil act either.

This is the problem people hit with alignment - they believe everything has to be an act of good or evil. It doesn't.


*sigh*

Lost a huge post on how my character interacts with slavery...

Basically:
- Slaves kept from achieving real potential is a travesty. Lording over slaves is a sign of weakness and inability to wield true authority.

- A conjurer is used to controlling others, but should be cautious to blur the line between man and summoned critters. An angry low-level demon can only sulk in it's fiery pit. A slave can stab you in your sleep, and would be right to do so if you treat them like animals.

- He would fight to free someone near to him from slavery, and punish the slaver in question, risking his life. He would not do the same for others, but might buy free/advocate for/tutor a slave that interests him and shows great promise. But those with the mental faculties of a camel might just as well life the life of one. Pharasma is fickle in her blessings, and not all are born for greatness.

- He would keep an indentured servant for physical tasks that his Str7 can't reliably complete, but make sure that said servant is content and gets to have a life of their own.

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:


This is the problem people hit with alignment - they believe everything has to be an act of good or evil. It doesn't.

+1

This

Being a d!ck = / = Evil
If anything d@ckishness would probably qualify as a neutral act. Though that has the same ramifications mechanically speaking as an evil act. Neutral does not lie somewhere between good and evil, it represents to me more than anything a curios skepticism of the world around them, and self interpretation of morality not defined by selfishness


ProfessorCirno wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Cutting in line certainly is not a good act. Just because it won't straight-up rob a paladin of her powers doesn't mean it's not evil.

No, but it's not an evil act either.

This is the problem people hit with alignment - they believe everything has to be an act of good or evil. It doesn't.

Denying people what is rightfully theirs is evil. Theft is evil. Butting in line is denying them their rightful place in line. Therefore, it is evil. There is a reason 1/4 of the population is evil.

While a Paladin would lose his Paladin status for butting in line, he would not for decapitating someone who but in line. He is the rightful punisher of wrongs, assigned by his god to impose justice.


Caineach wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Being selfish isn't evil unless you're actively hurting someone in doing so.

Seriously, come on. Cutting in line in an amusement park doesn't make a paladin fall.

Cutting in line certainly is not a good act. Just because it won't straight-up rob a paladin of her powers doesn't mean it's not evil.

No, but it's not an evil act either.

This is the problem people hit with alignment - they believe everything has to be an act of good or evil. It doesn't.

Denying people what is rightfully theirs is evil. Theft is evil. Butting in line is denying them their rightful place in line. Therefore, it is evil. There is a reason 1/4 of the population is evil.

While a Paladin would lose his Paladin status for butting in line, he would not for decapitating someone who but in line. He is the rightful punisher of wrongs, assigned by his god to impose justice.

What.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
What.

I think this deserves to be repeated.

Shadow Lodge

Wonz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
What.
I think this deserves to be repeated.

+1 to that.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Wonz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
What.
I think this deserves to be repeated.
+1 to that.

I will take that as a +2

Can I add fiery to this sentiment? Maybe keen?

Shadow Lodge

Themetricsystem wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Wonz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
What.
I think this deserves to be repeated.
+1 to that.

I will take that as a +2

Can I add fiery to this sentiment? Maybe keen?

Vorpal, Speed, maybe Brilliant Energy to cut through the armor and hurry things up?


This reminds me of the "Conan the Librarian" skit where he cleaves someone for being overdue.

A paladin is a force of justice. Justice is balanced out by the severity of the crime. The paladin should take the one who cut in line to the back of the line, or kick him out and deny him entry.

Decapitating someone for cutting in line is a ridiculous notion, and not something a lawful good character should even consider, let alone a paladin. That would be kinda like in the Blade of the Immortal manga, where a samurai cut down a simple girl that "dared to insult him" by stepping into the road in front of him to pick up her doll, and not respect his right of way: He was in his right, she was breaking a law for her own gain, and he meted out "justice"


It is a lawful but not evil act to kill someone for breaking the law. It is an evil and chaotic act to cut the line. The Paladin can perform lawful acts without it affecting his alignment or breaking his oaths.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
It is a lawful but not evil act to kill someone for breaking the law. It is an evil and chaotic act to cut the line. The Paladin can perform lawful acts without it affecting his alignment or breaking his oaths.

It might be a lawful act but it is also an evil act.

Cutting in line might be a chaotic act but it does not mean it is full on evil. It is mildly evil. The cutter isn't stabbing peasants and laughing maniacally while cutting in line.

Killing someone is generally an Evil act.

There is no need to go into black/white extremes. If someone breaks the Law it does not mean they deserve to die. Imprisonment, warnings and fines are also acceptable forms of punishment.

There should never be a reason for a paladin to kill or decapitate someone for cutting in line. Not even if it's a food line for the poor and there are hungry crying children. Remember, Paladins are Lawful GOOD not Lawful stupid. I don't even think most Lawful Evil people would go as far as killing someone for something so trivial. They would deal justice based on the crime. If it does come to blows, then the Paladin would be looking at subjugating the culprit using nonlethal means.

What would/should a Paladin actually do? Call the Guard, talk to the cutter and tell him/her to please respect others rights. It would first go the diplomatic route and when all other options are exhausted, then and only then should violence(nonlethal) be considered.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

No, but it's not an evil act either.

I'd actually say it is. Very minor, but still. There is no Moral Planck Length that says things less evil than this are not evil.


Caineach wrote:
It is a lawful but not evil act to kill someone for breaking the law.

It might not be, but often, it totally is:

In order for it to be lawful, you have to be a duly assigned executioner, executing someone for a capital offence.

Killing someone for a minor act like cutting in line is evil. And unless the prevailing laws actually state that cutting in line is a capital offence punishable by death, you're breaking the law by committing murder - even if you are an executor. If you're not, you're engaging in unlawful behaviour even if the guy really did something that is punishable by death.

Silver Crusade

Feel the posts have gone off-course from the original question, but on topic, curious at the attempt of a caster to "convert" an Imp. Can it be done? Are creatures of the Lower Planes birthed from the nature of that plane and thus immutable (aka always evil?)

I can see a neutral bend on the alignment with this in mind. Keeping the Imp on a short leash (not letting it go sting someone while you're asleep) will prevent you from straying too far to the evil side (neutral folks generally don't want to see others hurt) while the notion that you've summoned a nasty killer that corrupts wizards into the world will probably keep you from pure good.

Good luck, the more I learn about your character concept the more interesting it gets. Now you have a motivation to keep the Imp hidden (the rest of the world won't understand what I'm trying to do...) that doesn't play as a negative in group mechanics.

Shadow Lodge

Caineach wrote:
It is a lawful but not evil act to kill someone for breaking the law. It is an evil and chaotic act to cut the line. The Paladin can perform lawful acts without it affecting his alignment or breaking his oaths.

That 9-year old just cut in front of his sister(and everyone behind her), have at him!

Can you see how cutting off the head of everyone that cut in line is not good? You see someone cut in line, you pull them out and take them to the end of the line. No bloodshed needed.


M P 433 wrote:

Feel the posts have gone off-course from the original question, but on topic, curious at the attempt of a caster to "convert" an Imp. Can it be done? Are creatures of the Lower Planes birthed from the nature of that plane and thus immutable (aka always evil?)

I can see a neutral bend on the alignment with this in mind. Keeping the Imp on a short leash (not letting it go sting someone while you're asleep) will prevent you from straying too far to the evil side (neutral folks generally don't want to see others hurt) while the notion that you've summoned a nasty killer that corrupts wizards into the world will probably keep you from pure good.

Good luck, the more I learn about your character concept the more interesting it gets. Now you have a motivation to keep the Imp hidden (the rest of the world won't understand what I'm trying to do...) that doesn't play as a negative in group mechanics.

I know 3.5 had many examples of fiends/angels of differing alignments than their initial subtype, and the core rules includes from the bestiary introduction:

Alignment, Size, and Type::
While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

This implies that yes, you can have alternate alignments for outsiders, they just are not normal at all. Also, if their subtype is an alignment, they are still affected by and detect as that alignment. A Lawful Good demon would still be affected by a Paladin's Smite.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Am I neutral or evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice