I've made the following character to replace my Carrion Crown wizard. My intent was for him to be neutral, but some seem to think he is evil.
I wanted to get a few second opinions on the matter. Based on what is shown, what do you think is alignment is/should be?
If you don't consider him neutral as I do, what would it take for him to come off as more neutral?
|
Id try and sell it as being Evil was too much for him. He doesn't mind stealing and lying but isn't too keen on murder. I'd allow it but Id also watch the character to see how he acts going forward. If he becomes evil oh well unless of course your group has a no evil rule.
How does he meet the other PCs? What would motivate him to help them? kind of what I would like to know.
A *lot* of this IMO would depend upon how he acts against those engaging in the torture, depravity, murdering, etc that he witnessed as a Razmiran cultist. In the backstory, he did nothing, only plotting a way out to begin anew in Ustalav.
You'll also need to include why he's involved against the bad guys, which should enforce his neutrality.
How does he meet the other PCs? What would motivate him to help them? kind of what I would like to know.
I haven't technically introduced him yet (at least not in-game), but the party has just had their butts handed to them by a huge air elemental while trying to cross a high bridge and infiltrate a castle.
I was planning on having him meet the remaining survivors as they flee from the site. Just a random traveling priest who briefly witnessed their ill fortune and wanted to help. He offers them free healing in the form of potions to get them back on their feet in exchange for learning about why they were trying to infiltrate the castle. Once he learns of their good intentions, he encourages them to try again, even offering to help.
In truth, he cares little for the PCs or their fate. He's hoping their own foolishness will get them killed leaving him free to take all their obviously powerful magical gear. Alternatively, he and his new companions succeed in their quest. His new friends would be practically obligated to share the spoils with him, especially after he performed those expensive burial rituals over their deceased companions...
Even if it all falls apart and he is forced to retreat with everyone else, he has powerful new allies who owe him a favor.
Either way, it's win win for him, unless he gets killed too, but such is the life of an adventurer with nothing else to lose I guess.
Evil would be, after clearing the castle, he kills the party and takes the entire load of loot.
Chaotic Neutral is probably useful. It is the selfish-but-not-destructive option. You won't be doing anything objectively evil and harmful to the party and those you consider useful. Even when they aren't useful, you won't just kill them.
Unless you will.
At which point... EVIL!
|
|
It sounds to me like he's evil, willing to manipulate and exploit others to his own advantage regardless of the loss of their lives.
Actively seeking the deaths of other creatures isn't a requirement of evil, imo.
I have a fairly narrow interpretation of what counts as 'neutral' in my games, so make of that what you will.
|
|
How does he meet the other PCs? What would motivate him to help them? kind of what I would like to know.I haven't technically introduced him yet (at least not in-game), but the party has just had their butts handed to them by a huge air elemental while trying to cross a high bridge and infiltrate a castle.
I was planning on having him meet the remaining survivors as they flee from the site. Just a random traveling priest who briefly witnessed their ill fortune and wanted to help. He offers them free healing in the form of potions to get them back on their feet in exchange for learning about why they were trying to infiltrate the castle. Once he learns of their good intentions, he encourages them to try again, even offering to help.
In truth, he cares little for the PCs or their fate. He's hoping their own foolishness will get them killed leaving him free to take all their obviously powerful magical gear. Alternatively, he and his new companions succeed in their quest. His new friends would be practically obligated to share the spoils with him, especially after he performed those expensive burial rituals over their deceased companions...
Even if it all falls apart and he is forced to retreat with everyone else, he has powerful new allies who owe him a favor.
Either way, it's win win for him, unless he gets killed too, but such is the life of an adventurer with nothing else to lose I guess.
I can see this as neutral but you are dancing on the line. Traveling with adventurers because they have nice things and may die is one thing, but manipulating them into harms way is another. So as long as you avoid actively getting the PCs killed I'd say its neutral.
As a player the situation calls for taking this guys help. However, if I don't develop some type of camaraderie or feeling of common goal I don't think I would continue to travel with this guy. Any plans on how to gel with the group or do you guys roll with a PC is a PC mentality?
So as long as you avoid actively getting the PCs killed I'd say its neutral.
He's no killer. If the PCs die, it's going to be from their own doing. He doesn't even encourage people to do dangerous things unless (1) there's something he can get out of it and (2) they were probably going to do it anyways.
As a player the situation calls for taking this guys help. However, if I don't develop some type of camaraderie or feeling of common goal I don't think I would continue to travel with this guy. Any plans on how to gel with the group or do you guys roll with a PC is a PC mentality?
He is a silver-tongued, focused study human with 22 Charisma, +21 Diplomacy, and +39 Bluff. He is an extremely likeable guy. Most NPCs go straight to friendly after only a momentary introduction (and some go to helpful). If he's posing as a nice guy offering aid, what's more, what is there to not like?
I don't foresee any such problems as you describe with the party.
I consider him evil. Tagging along with people, regardless of whether you are actively encouraging them to be bold, in the hopes that they die or you become powerful or gain duped allies ... who may still always die, gaining you powerful loot ... definitely evil. Its not a moustache-twirling demon-cavorting evil, but it is a social form of evil.
If you had any inclination to risk yourself to save them (and not merely risk the general dangers you know you will encounter) or heck, even if you didnt view their possible foolish demise as a stepping stone to power, then sure, Neutral. But not as you have presented him.
Neutral people lack certain moral convictions, but generally do the kinds of things that fit into the social contract (even if chaotic). But you are proposing that if they die or get in a jam, well more loot for you. The fact that you are acting more benevolent (offer of potions) as a ruse to get them to trust you so that you can benefit from their rise to power or their deaths ... evil, all the way.
A neutral person who had hitched a ride with a stranger and then the car wrecks still calls 911 and may even try to save the driver if they were trapped in the car. You, on the other hand, are the hitch-hiker who pretends he is in the peace corps, says "whatever dude" if the driver wants to drink some beers, and when the wreck happens, you act like you are calling 911 but are waiting for them to bleed out so you can take their wallet. Or hey, if his drunken driving spree gets you to Las Vegas and to the booze and house of ill repute for one heck of a party and maybe he even picks up the tab or covers your debt, well hey, all the better, right?
Not neutral.
Well i'm sold. Problem is your GM and possibly players are not. Anything in particular that makes them say this guys evil? Maybe stress the fact that hes not a killer and that's why he wanted out.
I think much of it is stemming from the fact that this character is a high charisma arcane blooded sorcerer with the Silent and Still spell metamagic feats. It very strongly resembles another character I once played: Hama, a deceptive and manipulative witch-themed sorceress who truly was evil. Hama was also an evil manipulative NPC in a game that I hosted, responsible for putting the PCs through all sorts of hell.
They are probably projecting negative feelings of Hama onto this new character. They may also believe that I am incapable of playing him as true neutral, as are expecting him to slip into evil (as I obviously have a lot of experience in that role).
Animation: He's not going to just stand there and let the others die. It goes against his role of kindly priest. To compromise the role is to compromise himself. Besides, if he has the opportunity to save one adventurer, and lets him die instead, then surely the remaining two witnesses will blame him for it. That's a lose/lose situation. He prefers to avoid those whenever possible.
He is evil but a sort of lame evil. He's evil enough to seek his own benefits from manipulating and taking advantage of others, but he balks at serious evil like torture and murder.
So he's like a tier 1 evil dude in a tier 5 evil hierarchy.
If he commits himself to atoning for some of his acts, stops treating other people like tools to reach his own ends and actively pursues some positive acts to balance out the evil he's done, then he'd be neutral.
Raving: but his kindness is a ruse. You just admitted it. He will help, but only until such time as he is promoted into power via coat-tails or via them slipping up and dying.
Still evil, to me.
People slip up and die anyways. Once he's rich and powerful, he will probably retire.
I don't see how this is any different from any other adventurer.
|
|
Well i'm sold. Problem is your GM and possibly players are not. Anything in particular that makes them say this guys evil? Maybe stress the fact that hes not a killer and that's why he wanted out.I think much of it is stemming from the fact that this character is a high charisma arcane blooded sorcerer with the Silent and Still spell metamagic feats. It very strongly resembles another character I once played: Hama, a deceptive and manipulative witch-themed sorceress who truly was evil. Hama was also an evil manipulative NPC in a game that I hosted, responsible for putting the PCs through all sorts of hell.
They are probably projecting negative feelings of Hama onto this new character. They may also believe that I am incapable of playing him as true neutral, as are expecting him to slip into evil (as I obviously have a lot of experience in that role).
Animation: He's not going to just stand there and let the others die. It goes against his role of kindly priest. To compromise the role is to compromise himself. Besides, if he has the opportunity to save one adventurer, and lets him die instead, then surely the remaining two witnesses will blame him for it. That's a lose/lose situation. He prefers to avoid those whenever possible.
I see. Well you certainly have your work cut out for you then. This character seems like a tough sell without your groups past experiences. Not really knowing your group im afraid there's not much advice I can give you at this point. You may want to throw this one in the reserve pile for the groups sake. It's a nice concept maybe you will be able to use it in another game.
People slip up and die anyways. Once he's rich and powerful, he will probably retire.
I don't see how this is any different from any other adventurer.
Ravingdork,
I think many adventurers are, in fact, evil. The best evil characters believe they aren't. :)
Anyway, one difference is that you are planning for them to die, nay waiting to capitalize on it, and if they luck out and that helps you too, well so be it. :)
But its all good. We may simply disagree. :) No worries. You have to convince your players, not me.
You should flip it around on them and secretly be Lawful Good, and watch them bicker as they assume you are evil when at most you are strident. :)
You may want to throw this one in the reserve pile for the groups sake. It's a nice concept maybe you will be able to use it in another game.
I'm considering it. I want to be able to talk to my friends in person and get a personal feel for their stance before I make that decision though (so far it's just been instant messaging, which can be misleading).
How is "I dont trust you and your sicko evil characters, dude" misleading? :)
/just kidding
People slip up and die anyways. Once he's rich and powerful, he will probably retire.
I don't see how this is any different from any other adventurer.
Flavorful character you have there Raving dork. Liked the backstory, good stuff. I wish more characters in-game had such detailed backstories. In regards to his alignment, he definitely isn't a good aligned character but classifying him as evil is a bit too severe. I'd put him as a chaotic neutral or true neutral character. Depending on what he does in the adventure, the DM may change his alignment to good or evil but thats separate issue. Hope that helps. Good luck with the adventure and the character.
He objects to evil acts, but is pretty much a bastard himself.
I'd make a vote for Chaotic Neutral.
How does he meet the other PCs? What would motivate him to help them? kind of what I would like to know.I haven't technically introduced him yet (at least not in-game), but the party has just had their butts handed to them by a huge air elemental while trying to cross a high bridge and infiltrate a castle.
I was planning on having him meet the remaining survivors as they flee from the site. Just a random traveling priest who briefly witnessed their ill fortune and wanted to help. He offers them free healing in the form of potions to get them back on their feet in exchange for learning about why they were trying to infiltrate the castle. Once he learns of their good intentions, he encourages them to try again, even offering to help.
In truth, he cares little for the PCs or their fate. He's hoping their own foolishness will get them killed leaving him free to take all their obviously powerful magical gear. Alternatively, he and his new companions succeed in their quest. His new friends would be practically obligated to share the spoils with him, especially after he performed those expensive burial rituals over their deceased companions...
Even if it all falls apart and he is forced to retreat with everyone else, he has powerful new allies who owe him a favor.
Either way, it's win win for him, unless he gets killed too, but such is the life of an adventurer with nothing else to lose I guess.
The actions you take are important when it comes to alignment, but so are the motivations behind them.
For example: If your party members die, what would he want to do with their gear and What is the reason behing it?
Option A:
"Comrades. you have fallen. You shall be buried with your gear in an honorable fashion."
Or- "Your gear shall be kept safe, I shall use it to Avenge you and Honor your great sacrifice."
Option B:
"Dont worry, Ill take your gear. It doesnt make any sense not to put your gear to good use, its not like you can still use it, and if I happen to find one of your family members Ill give it to them... if they ask about it/ I remember it."
Option C:
"I hope you die. I need that gear. I Cant wait til something kills you so I can use it"
Notice the shift in thinking from careing about the group: "you, you, you" to caring only about your self: "I, I, I." That is essentially the difference between good and evil. A is obviously "Good", B is "Neutral", and C "Evil".
If your character is turned off by the wicked deeds he sees his religion performing against others, he probably wouldnt wish harm on his allies, and should have an interest in their survival. He might be reluctant if their survival cost him something, but shouldnt wish them outright harm.
Alignment would probably be evil. From what RD has been saying race would be at least half troll :)
Being opportunistic is not the same as hoping they will die.
It seems many of you think he's neutral, and many think he's evil, If you're in the latter group, what would it take for him to come off as more neutral, do you think?
I don't see the Evil, personally. I do see the Chaotic, though. People get those confused all the time.
The character is described as...
Self-Centered: Chaotic
Deceptive: Non-Lawful
Ethically opposed to torture and murder: Non-Evil
Thievery is Chaotic, not Evil. I would be comfortable calling this character either N or CN, but definitely not LN, LE, LG, NG, or CG. The character could, with the right motivations, move towards NE or CE.
|
I don't see the Evil, personally. I do see the Chaotic, though. People get those confused all the time.
The character is described as...
Self-Centered: Chaotic
Deceptive: Non-Lawful
Ethically opposed to torture and murder: Non-EvilThievery is Chaotic, not Evil. I would be comfortable calling this character either N or CN, but definitely not LN, LE, LG, NG, or CG. The character could, with the right motivations, move towards NE or CE.
Chaotic is NOT self centered. CG would happily risk death to bring freedom to others. Thievery can be evil or not. it is not inherently aligned
Chaotic is NOT self centered.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Guess you're right about that, at least.
The more I look at it, the more I think he might be CN.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
Chaotic is NOT self centered.Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Guess you're right about that, at least.
The more I look at it, the more I think he might be CN.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
RD, he actively manipulates and takes advantage of others for his own personal gain.
That's evil. His particular BRAND of evil is pretty lame, but it's still evil.
I already told you what he needed to do to be neutral. A little atonement (not the spell, just something that proves he's sorry that he's been manipulating and taking advantage of people for his own ends) and then stop manipulating and taking advantage of people for his own ends. That's it.
Some people mistake lame, everyday sorts of evil for neutral. It's not neutral to be an arrogant, self-centered jerk who manipulates and takes advantage of people for your own gain. That's evil. It's wrong. It's a "sin" if you want to take the religious approach.
It's evil because it's using people. Using people is evil. Even if it's just boring everyday using people. Still evil. Just lame.
AD: So if I play him off as turning from his old ways, then he will basically swoop in and help the PCs as a form of atonement. If he keeps on, that would make him good--which no longer makes it feel like the character I want.
If he continues on much as he has, you say he's evil.
If I make him true neutral, than he pretty much has no reason to join the party whatsoever.
I just don't see how it's going to work out under your interpretaiton.
AD: So if I play him off as turning from his old ways, then he will basically swoop in and help the PCs as a form of atonement. If he keeps on, that would make him good--which no longer makes it feel like the character I want.
If he continues on much as he has, you say he's evil.
If I make him true neutral, than he pretty much has no reason to join the party whatsoever.
I just don't see how it's going to work out under your interpretaiton.
Playing neutral is not easy RD. So long as his motivations are purely selfish and he is willing to use other people to attain his goals, then you've got a problem if you want him to be "neutral".
You can make him selfish, but change his tactics somewhat so that while he might take advantage of situations, he doesn't actively pursue manipulating and taking advantage of others. Have him work out deals where there is a quid pro quo. Then he can make it as neutral.
Seriously, neutral is hard. This is one of the main reasons why.
Hey, here's a thought, how about you play your character's alignment as non-existant and let that awesome background guide your character, instead of that.......system.
Just saying.
Basically your character is a magnificent bastard trope, pretty cool.
Hey, here's a thought, how about you play your character's alignment as non-existant and let that awesome background guide your character, instead of that.......system.
Just saying.
Basically your character is a magnificent bastard trope, pretty cool.
I can absolutely get behind this advice. Play him how you see him and let the GM work out his alignment.
From the SRD:
•People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
•Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Neutral fits your character to a T.