I know this will most likely degrade into another alignment debate but I am having trouble pinning a concept into an alignment. Please try to keep to the question at hand.
Jokingly me and a friend started to flesh out a concept of a person who decides to take action against the "stupid" people in the world who he feels no longer deserves to live (long days at work dealing with consumers over the holidays). Essentially he would kill those people to stop further breeding. After a couple months of discussing this we have decided a few things.
1) He will be an inquisitor. He also feels that what he is doing is justified by his deity (it doesn't matter if it is or not, he believes it is).
2) He worships Irori. This is where things fall apart a little. Depending on his alignment he might not be able to worship Irori and stay within 1 step of his alignment. Either way that is who he originally worshipped. The story being he became to focused on the self-perfection aspect and then tried to promote self perfection in others. This leads to his inevitable path of pronouncing judgement on those who will not change from their path of Gluttony, Idiocy, etc. (The concept changed a little from our original idea so he is no longer focused on stupidity)
3) There originally was this idea that he would test individuals before he pronounced judgement on them to give them a chance to change which is still a fledgling idea.
Given what you know here, what alignment would you make him? We have mainly settled on neutral evil or true neutral except we have also argued points for any of the non-good alignments. Reading the descriptions of the alignments seems to point toasted Lawful Neutral. Lawful because he is following a certain personal code and neutral because he doesn't care if they are good or evil. Anyway, we can't reach a final verdict so thought I'd ask.
toast > pie > cake
Lawful Evil
Lawful neutral if he's gonna be giving people trials or at least a chance to atone.
I agree that it sounds more Lawful Evil.
Killing someone of a certain alignment doesn't necessarily mean that you represent the opposite alignment, nor does killing people from both imply that you are neutral. Being indiscriminate with who you are killing definitely implies Evil, while your systematic, self-justified concept of punishing stupidity would be a matter of Lawfulness.
I would definitely say Lawful Evil.
We had settled on Lawful Evil about midway through this concept but I forget why we deviated from that alignment. Your probably right though. I'm ok with Lawful Evil since he would still be allowed to worship Irori. He originally was going to be a PC but I think he will be better served as an NPC. We don't play evil campaigns and I can't see how to integrate him into a normal campaign without wrecking the game. Thanks for the input everyone! I'm pretty sure I would have come back around to Lawful Evil again on my own anyway. You just reenforced the idea.
Doh. Ninjaed by the OP. Leaving this here anyway.
I know this will most likely degrade into another alignment debate but I am having trouble pinning a concept into an alignment. Please try to keep to the question at hand.
Jokingly me and a friend started to flesh out a concept of a person who decides to take action against the "stupid" people in the world who he feels no longer deserves to live (long days at work dealing with consumers over the holidays). Essentially he would kill those people to stop further breeding. After a couple months of discussing this we have decided a few things.
1) He will be an inquisitor. He also feels that what he is doing is justified by his deity (it doesn't matter if it is or not, he believes it is).
2) He worships Irori. This is where things fall apart a little. Depending on his alignment he might not be able to worship Irori and stay within 1 step of his alignment. Either way that is who he originally worshipped. The story being he became to focused on the self-perfection aspect and then tried to promote self perfection in others. This leads to his inevitable path of pronouncing judgement on those who will not change from their path of Gluttony, Idiocy, etc. (The concept changed a little from our original idea so he is no longer focused on stupidity)
3) There originally was this idea that he would test individuals before he pronounced judgement on them to give them a chance to change which is still a fledgling idea.
Given what you know here, what alignment would you make him? We have mainly settled on neutral evil or true neutral except we have also argued points for any of the non-good alignments. Reading the descriptions of the alignments seems to point toasted Lawful Neutral. Lawful because he is following a certain personal code and neutral because he doesn't care if they are good or evil. Anyway, we can't reach a final verdict so thought I'd ask.
Yep, I'd say Lawful Evil.
Lawful Evil: 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.
This suits your description well: he is following a code of enlightenment put forth by his god, but twisting it to serve his purposes of destroying those he deems "stupid" or unenlightened. His "tests" would be his playing by the rules to justify his action, his killing those who are "stupid" without regard for the consequences (is he killing someone's family member, someone who saved or would save someone else's life, etc.) follows the "without mercy or compassion" or "regard for whom it hurts" clauses.
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.
Or in your character's case, according to a false standard defined by a combination of the teachings of the inquisitor's church and the inquisitor's own perceptions of that status. It is basically condemnation due to a form of status, in this case intellectual status.
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.
This also fits the character's intent to "test" his targets before killing them, making the killing "seem alright" if they fail the test. He justifies his actions according to the laws of his gods and of his own code, and therefore does not see what he is doing is evil (even though he is still abstractly harming likely innocent people).
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.
This part doesn't fit, but this is only "some" lawful evil people. He still is justifying his actions by zeal for a higher authority.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
Character sounds methodical, intentional, and organized in his efforts to harm others. (Remember in the PRD, direct quote, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Good characters tend to hurt or kill in self-defense or when they feel they have no other choice.)
Stuff
Seems pretty Black & White now that it's been laid out. In the midst of discussions about alignment and the alignment system I think the lines between alignments got blurred fir us. Lawful Evil makes a lot of sense. Again thanks for the insight.
|
Clearly lawful good like a paladin.
The character beleives he is doing the will of his higher power.
He offers a chance for retribution and forgiveness... or death.
If they don't turn from thier old ways, the only way is death.
"Lawful Evil: 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."
If he has mercy and gives them a chance to change it would be good right?
"Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."
It's an injustice for "stupid" people to go unpunished.
Sounds like a paladin to me.
Cake or death?
My vote: Lawful Good.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Yup. You've got yourself a bona-fide, religion-fueled, murderous sociopath here. Lawful Evil, possibly Neutral Evil depending on how strictly he holds to the result of his "tests."
Lawful Evil might say "Okay, you passed, you get to live." Neutral Evil would say "Well, you passed, but I still think you're an idiot, so die anyway."
Although I actually have no problem with LE, I'm going to play devil's (or actually demon's) advocate here.
I could make a case for CE. To me this character sounds, as others have mentioned, like a sociopath, as in a truly mentally ill individual who is now becoming a danger to everyone around him. He's not so much following a code as he is listening to those persistent voices in his head that only he can hear. To the extent there is a code, it is a concoction of his own troubled mind. He's taken an unhealthy obsession with one aspect of his god, self-perfection, and is now projecting it out in ways his God probably would not approve of.
But that all just demon's advocacy. Lawful evil is also a valid choice, as others have mentioned. Any evil is fine, in my opinion. Neutral only works if you take the view that there really is no such thing as objective good and evil, and that it is all really just a matter of perspective. If you at all acknowledge the possibility of objective evil, then killing people because they don't meet your standard of perfection surely fits within the definition of evil.
.
..
...
....
.....
Cake or death?
Death please.
I mean Cake!
Prepair thyself for the "Order of the stick quote"
"I'm True Neutral. I go both ways." -Julia Greenhilt
