ok, so we will be starting a new campaign soon. im playing a Tengu ranger, who is the leader of the group's "sword" he points a finger, they r dead. no questions asked, no tears shed for men, women or children. would this classify as LE or LN?? or any of them. if you need more info on personality/ background story. i be happy to add
im playing a Tengu ranger, who is the leader of the group's "sword"What does this mean?
i kill for the leader so he does not bloody his hands and can remain in the good graces of others.
ok, so we will be starting a new campaign soon. im playing a Tengu ranger, who is the leader of the group's "sword" he points a finger, they r dead. no questions asked, no tears shed for men, women or children. would this classify as LE or LN?? or any of them. if you need more info on personality/ background story. i be happy to add
Is the leader acting in accordance with the law? Are we talking about a knight/lord relationship or a mercenary/leader one?
Why is he doing this? And would he ever disobey, under any circumstances (such as being asked to murder children)? The answers to these questions go a long way towards answering which Alignment he should be.
never disobey, he was originally a slave on a pirates ship and was freed by the leaders late father. he was never able to pay back the man who set him free, so he made an oath to protect the mans son no matter what the cost.. hes cold and calculating. only care is leaders life, even over his own. children are just another target to him. i also believe a death order will never come from the leaders mouth, but more from his "first mate" who is the one who bosses around the crew, like the xo Saul Tigh to the captain Adama in Battlestar Galactia. so i believe that the hits would be from the XO's mouth.
|
Hmmm. Based on that description, LE since he seems to have a sense of obligation but no empathy ("children are only targets to him").
You could have a LN guy willing to kill children, but he'd try and avoid such a distasteful task and would feel sorry about it afterwards. Anyone who can do it without batting an eye is Evil.
ok, so we will be starting a new campaign soon. im playing a Tengu ranger, who is the leader of the group's "sword" he points a finger, they r dead. no questions asked, no tears shed for men, women or children. would this classify as LE or LN?? or any of them. if you need more info on personality/ background story. i be happy to add
LE
Why is he doing this? And would he ever disobey, under any circumstances (such as being asked to murder children)? The answers to these questions go a long way towards answering which Alignment he should be.never disobey, he was originally a slave on a pirates ship and was freed by the leaders late father. he was never able to pay back the man who set him free, so he made an oath to protect the mans son no matter what the cost.. hes cold and calculating. only care is leaders life, even over his own. children are just another target to him. i also believe a death order will never come from the leaders mouth, but more from his "first mate" who is the one who bosses around the crew, like the xo Saul Tigh to the captain Adama in Battlestar Galactia. so i believe that the hits would be from the XO's mouth.
Sounds NE to me. You don't need to be lawful to have a personal code that you live by.
LE no doubt about it.
LN only if he has the option and inclination to modify or evaluate his choices (like can i just kidnap the kid and put it on a boat to china?)
in this case the bosses alignment is irrelevant. boss can be Lawfull Good Paladin of pure water. if the paladin of pure water asks you to kill children because they are sin spawn and you dont bother to question the act just do the deed... your evil. (not in the BAD sense but in the moral sense)
i agree. he said he will want nothing to do with me if he find out i kill kids and such.......guess if i do he will just never need to find out. it may never come up either. :))
of course the player himself is usually the paladin of the crew. he does not like evil characters. i honestly would like to try one
He sounds like he's playing a robot. Neutral.
He sounds like he's playing a robot. Neutral.
DOES NOT COMPUTE
ERRORERROR
lol,
I'm gonna say Lawful neutral.
Lawful good would be if you questioned orders when asked to do something evil, and actively tried to find less objectionable ways to get the job done.
Lawful evil would be the reverse, attempting to find the most brutal, objectionable methods possible to carry out your orders whenever possible.
Lawful neutral because you're doing neither of these things. You're doing what your told, without regard for how distasteful the act is.
Why oh why do people tend to associate evil with 'the most brutal, objectionable methods'?
To me, both LN and LE appear to be valid choices of alignment, LE being the more appropriate choice.
|
|
Why oh why do people tend to associate evil with 'the most brutal, objectionable methods'?
Indeed. My would-be Evil Overlord LE Drow Bard was polite and conscientous as a rule, always treated his personnel extremely well, had no personal hatreds or prejudices of any kind (and considered racial prejudice foolish), and always attempted to negotiate with enemies prior to the outbreak of hostilities. He treated his personal prisoners well (securing their loyalty in many cases), and never personally engaged in wanton cruelty, as he saw no point in it. Really, he was an urbane, pleasant, individual to associate with.
He was just utterly without anything resembling a conscience. and completely willing to do anything necessary to accomplish his goals. A consumate pragmatist.
For example (in his backstory), his most reliable subordinate (a Half-Drow cousin and family retainer) was CE and personally enjoyed torturing people to death in the most horrible fashion possible. My character's sister was in the line of succession before him (Drow, after all) so he decided to remove her, lured her into an isolated location, and gave her to his retainer to dispose of. While she still lived. The awful things that happened to her thereafter probably don't bear thinking on.
Why did he do it? It was the most effective solution to the problem she posed, and he had nobody else he could trust to dispose of her and never talk about it under an circumstances. Simple pragmatism, not any real hatred or desire to hurt her per se.
Also, the definition of Evil.
Simple pragmatism, not any real hatred or desire to hurt her per se.
Also, the definition of Evil.
*laughs* While I must admit that this extreme self-centered pragmatism is more along the lines of NE in my book, I say, 'Well done, sir!'
|
|
*laughs* While I must admit that this extreme self-centered pragmatism is more along the lines of NE in my book, I say, 'Well done, sir!'
Well, he had a personal code he abided by, and valued a certain degree of order both personally (he prided himself on his self-control) and societally, hence the Law.
And thanks, it was fun coming up with. :)
Especially since the CE guy was one of the other PCs, and had come up with his character's proclivities already when I suggested it. His reaction of "Wait, he just gave his sister to me?" was pretty funny. That whole game was a whole lot of fun.
something that may stray from the "evil" is he has a violent hatred for slavers....but being he grew up as one and was also made to witness many vile things, like the murder of his parents, bot sure if his coldness could count either way. but i agree with the fact that he can kill any thing living with out batting an eye, can give a evil alignment. i just dont want the GM im playing under to view me playing a LN guy wrong cuz his inability to care for any he kills for any reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
something that may stray from the "evil" is he has a violent hatred for slavers....but being he grew up as one and was also made to witness many vile things, like the murder of his parents, bot sure if his coldness could count either way. but i agree with the fact that he can kill any thing living with out batting an eye, can give a evil alignment. i just dont want the GM im playing under to view me playing a LN guy wrong cuz his inability to care for any he kills for any reason.
Violent hatred fits just fine with an evil character, even if it is against a group of people who by definition are themselves evil.
I'd rule some shade of Neutral, actually. But I reserve Evil alignments for really nasty pieces of work, frankly speaking, and Good for actual paragons.
I tend to run worlds where the vast majority of people are some shade of neutral.
Again, I'd stick to neutral. My view of neutral is just that: neutral. Doesn't care about good or evil, just does what he wants.
Evil is when you actively look for ways to do the evil thing, good is when you're actively looking for ways to do the good thing.
Deadman's example for instance is Evil. Why? Because he could have just executed his sister, which would have been the most effective and straightforward answer. Instead? He gave her to someone and potentially a fate worse then a quick end. This wasn't just the most effective means, this was going to an extreme.
Now, giving your character a violent hatred pushes towards evil again. A morally justified hatred pushes towards good. I'd still say neutral.
While the lack of empathy pushes me towards evil, I would most likely say Neutral probably will help better with group cohesiveness and your Character's attachment towards the son of the man that saved you. It implies to me that you are most concerned with your oath to that man.
End of the Day Lawful Neutral works, it won't lead to awkward conversations with a Paladin, and gives you the flexibility to play a character that is morrally ambiguous.
I'd have to go with LN as well, echoing the thoughts and postings of others that he'd do what is he is told by his oath, but he doesn't enjoy killing like a evil character would (i.e. he doesn't go out of his way to kill people), they are just targets to him. His oath is above all else.
|
|
Deadman's example for instance is Evil. Why? Because he could have just executed his sister, which would have been the most effective and straightforward answer. Instead? He gave her to someone and potentially a fate worse then a quick end. This wasn't just the most effective means, this was going to an extreme.
For the record, this is Drow society, and a male trying to usurp a female's place as heir. This wasn't something he was allowed to do at all, and would've resulted in his execution were he caught. It was an assassination, not an execution.
Secondly, he needed help to take her on (she was his older sister, and dangerous in her own right), and the retainer was the only one he could trust to help and never speak of it...and even then only trust completely if he (the retainer) did something unforgivable to Drow society in the course of things (like what he did). Hence what happened.
It really was the simplest, most effective, solution to the problem. No real malice involved. Still Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the whole "doesn't care about good or evil while killing children, so is neutral" argument is that it completely ignores the concept of reciprocity.
A machine that is used to kill someone is not "neutral" alignment, it is "un-aligned." Machines have no alignment. They simply do what they are programmed to do.
The existence of free will implies the ability to make a choice. Choosing to kill an innocent child is evil, even if it is done at the orders of another.
That's why sentience matters.
The problem is with how people interpret the acts that the character does. We start going back and forth on what is "evil" and you'll get as many opinions as there are posters on the forum.
Asking us here you'll get everyone arguing over what our beliefs are and it will just melt down rather quickly from there as most alignment threads tend to do. I've seen half a dozen in the last couple of months turn into flaming of people and arguing the definitions like a bunch of rules lawyers until they are blue in the face.
My last piece of advice is to talk to your own group and your DM specifically, come up with your own definitions within your group as to what each alignment means and roll with it. Perhaps your DM will think that your character is true Neutral or NE.
Just have fun in your group!