Having a fair bit of trouble pinning down the alignment of a character, due to how their personality pans out. Chaotic good was put down as a placeholder, but there are elements of his core personality that seem polar opposite that, but at the same time, he doesn't seem true neutral. The alignment test on easydamus suggests neutral good, but I have a hard time believing even that, so I'm interested in some outside opinions.
Here's what I have:
First off, he's a witch with the seducer archetype.
He's power-hungry, seeing himself as someone to be idolized, and wants those he sees as beneath him (not his adventuring allies, obviously) to be devoted to him in a cult-like manner (and he has the Charisma to back it up). Almost like the leader of Razmiran. And he's not above using his charming abilities to get the ball rolling on an individual.
However, on the other side of the coin, the character is not cruel or tyrannical the way one would expect a lawful evil character to be. He doesn't care to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of others, and believes himself to be above the law, scoffing tradition and iron-fisted control in favor of hedonistic pleasure and stroking an ego which is so large it needs its own ZIP code. Beyond that, he is legitimately kind and courteous towards anyone who shows him any measure of respect and helps others when the opportunity presents (what better way to gain followers?).
In addition, he is loyal to friends and his only known blood relative (his mother), for whom he would drop everything on his to-do list to help.
Sounds Lawful Neutral to me
Lawful neutral leaning good is my assessment. Remember lawful doesn't have to mean "follows the law" one of my most memorable characters was lawful good. He resented the law but followed what he saw appropriate and he had very strict rules he followed that he made that made him lawful. Since your character wants to have followers like a cult I'd say lawful counts. Good is maybe an overstatement but I think neutral is understating it
Neutral on the evil-good axis. The other is so dependent on personal views as to be meaningless outside a particular campaign; 'my wishes overrule all laws and traditions' is the definition of chaotic to me but there's two votes for lawful right above me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He doesn't care to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of others, and believes himself to be above the law, scoffing tradition and iron-fisted control in favor of hedonistic pleasure and stroking an ego which is so large it needs its own ZIP code.
This is basically the definiton of Chaotic.
He's power-hungry, seeing himself as someone to be idolized, and wants those he sees as beneath him (not his adventuring allies, obviously) to be devoted to him in a cult-like manner (and he has the Charisma to back it up). Almost like the leader of Razmiran. And he's not above using his charming abilities to get the ball rolling on an individual.
This sounds Evil ...
However, on the other side of the coin, the character is not cruel or tyrannical the way one would expect a lawful evil character to be.
...
Beyond that, he is legitimately kind and courteous towards anyone who shows him any measure of respect and helps others when the opportunity presents (what better way to gain followers?).
This sounds Good on first appearance, but his reasons for altruism are selfish. Evil doesn't have to have to be a mustachioed maniacal villain, most real-world villains are good to those around them.
Having said that, having selfish ideals and ambitions of power doesn't make you Evil either. The real question is how far you're willing to go for personal power.
Personally I see it as Chaotic Neutral, but that last question about how far you're willing to go. You couod be Evil, or maybe even Good. Remember your alignment can change, so if you write down an alignment and decide it doesn't fit how you're playing the character you should change it. Probably discuss it with the GM.
From what little you described Chaotic Evil is the most likely. His only concern is with his own wants and needs. That sounds pretty much like chaotic. He is willing to impose his own will on others for his own pleasure. That sounds like evil to me.
As far as being kind and courteous to people around him that is probably more to do with the fact that doing so creates a pleasant environment. Also by doing so he ensures a steady supply of potential victims. This is similar to a pedophile grooming their victims.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with MrCharisma, Either Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Neutral, depending on what he's willing to do for personal power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MrCharisma sees it well, Chaotic Evil if the character is willing to harm others for personal gain, Chaotic Neutral otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the CN or CE camp, probably CE.
Also, this is a great example of how you can play a CN or CE character without being a chaotic stupid edgelord murder hobo. Props!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he is legitimately kind and courteous towards anyone who shows him any measure of respect and helps others when the opportunity presents (what better way to gain followers?).
What would he do to someone who does not show him the respect he believes he is entitled to?
My own instinct is that being power-hungry and seeing others as beneath him makes him Evil, but that's not necessarily true. I also think that people tend to confuse Good with being nice and Evil with being ill-natured. A character may be charming and pleasant to everyone around them, and still be evil, while another may be asocial and ill-tempered and still be good.
I'm going to go with Neutral Evil-ish. It really comes down to what he does when he doesn't get his way.
I'm in the CN or CE camp, probably CE.
Same for me. It really doesn't matter how he treats people that are nice and respectful to him. What matters is how far is willing to go achieve his own desires. If he is willing to cross the line, well, that precludes him from being Good. If he has zero issues with crossing the line, solidly Evil. Evil people can love others and be willing to sacrifice for them.
What is that line? "... hurting, oppressing, and killing ... without qualms if doing so is convenient."
Shifting vote to True Neutral. Not because this character strives for any balance, but because he lacks any ties to the ethical considerations of the other alignments. He might be sentient, but he has all the morality of an animal. The cat with the mouse is not evil, and the dog on your feet isn't necessarily good.
The problem with this is that it ignores the intellectual ability of the character to understand that the concepts of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are actual forces within the universe, and while they might not particularly feel any kind of emotional or ethical pull one way or the other, they are still capable of making informed, moral decisions. Sociopaths can have an intellectual understanding of what is right and wrong, and they still possess the ability to chose whether or not to follow those standards.
Animals do not possess the level of intelligence to make these kinds of choices, or to even know there are choices to be made. That is why you do not see an animal with an alignment, except when it has been touched by those very forces to become a magical beast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would put the character into the CE camp but with a capital C and a small e. He's out for self grandisement and is willing to manipulate and magically assault others to get his way. But he does not set out to inflict pain and suffering for personal pleasure so wouldn't get the capital E.
The "beneath him" and cult building part points towards LE, but feeling "above the law" significantly pushes him towards chaos. The rest is rather unspecific for alignment: Using charm, not micromanaging people, kind if it's beneficial, loyal to friends and mother.
So that's yet another vote for CE.
Usually, if someone asks what alignment there character is based on their description, it's CE. :)
True, likewise someone declaring that their character is CN, usually means that the player wants to be a disruptive dick and have fun at everyone else's expense.
I should say that the character concept is one I would allow. The concept does not appear to be one that would cause discord between players and the CE alignment label is really an aid for game mechanics.
So... he's not non-violent. He's a PC. When's the last time you met a non-violent PC?
:P
So... he's not non-violent. He's a PC. When's the last time you met a non-violent PC?
:P
Well, the snarky remark is generally.... whenever they are clearly outmatched and need to solve the situation in a non-violent manner.
I was bringing a touch too much real world consideration to this. In a game world where beings can come into existence as a certain alignment (i.e. devils and demons), regardless of the fact that they have yet to take any actions, it seems fair that alignment can be assigned, just of the concept or internal makeup of a character. So, yep, this dude is Evil. Whether or not he (or any demon for that matter) can change or be redeemed, is another debate.
Yeah, the real world stuff tends to cloud the issues much more than is needed. Mostly, those real world outlooks can be boiled down to fit within the alignment spectrum of the D&D/Pathfinder universe, BUUUUUUUUUT ... people generally don't like the answer they get, which tends to be 'Yes, this is evil. You would be evil in this universe.'...
That doesn't bother me at all, but it must bother a lot of people to generate all the chatter that alignment threads generally get. I tend to acknowledge the inherent evil nature of humanity (and the inherent goodness as well). Both can, and do, exist with unequal measures in us all.
Seeing a lot of CE responses, which is somewhat understandable, but still surprising. xD
Perhaps a bit of clarification since there were questions as to how far he's willing to go for power, and how he would react to someone who doesn't show him respect.
Starting with the latter, if someone he didn't know openly disrespected him, he wouldn't torch them with burning hands or otherwise harm them, but depending on the severity, he'd either try to persuade them otherwise (ideally, he wants everyone to actually like him) or charm them if they prove potentially violent or especially recalcitrant, then otherwise treat them well as they apologize for their behavior. He's not prone to holding grudges.
Charm effects, after all, do not control one's behavior, but alter their perceptions toward the caster, usually toward a more positive light.
He might use charm to change an impression if someone is disagreeable, but his end-goal when dealing with people is idolatry achieved through mundane means (doing favors, improving the lot of those he views as potential subjects, etc.), because lip service through domination is not real.
If a known ally disrespected them, he'd be more confused than offended, given past interactions, and try to fix things without forceful measures.
As to how far he's willing to go for power, he does have some lines he won't cross. He wouldn't use dominate person or suggestion to send the subject into harm's way if he can help it, but he wouldn't be against domination of hostile enemies in the middle of combat as a means of self-preservation, ceasing combat, or improving the odds of winning.
Huh, my last post didn't go through ...
I'd start with CN and if you decide you swing to G or E then change it to show uour character changing.
Regarding combat tactics: Good and Evil don't really apply to Combat, if someone's trying to murder you then you murder them right back. The exceptions to this are things like hostages (and even then threatening to CdG someone might end a fight with 0 casualties, so ...) and spells with the Good/Evil descriptor (using an Evil Spell for a Good reason might suit your character, nut in game it objectively turns you a little more Evil - the spell corrupts your soul). Besides that things like Charm and Domination are non-lethal options so whatever.
Outside of combat is a different matter, but it gets so subjective that there's really not much of a guide any of us can give you - ask your GM.
As to how far he's willing to go for power, he does have some lines he won't cross...
This is the important bit. My vote has shifted to solidly Chaotic Neutral. It matters if the character has compunctions and qualms about how far they are willing to go to accomplish their means. I have not seen any indicators about this character that would raise them to any degree of Good alignment, because that requires a certain level of self-sacrifice that does not benefit them.
However, that vote will shift once again towards Chaotic Evil if the character displays any indicators of being willing to sacrifice others to further his own success.
Starting with the latter, if someone he didn't know openly disrespected him, he wouldn't torch them with burning hands or otherwise harm them, but depending on the severity, he'd either try to persuade them otherwise (ideally, he wants everyone to actually like him) or charm them if they prove potentially violent or especially recalcitrant, then otherwise treat them well as they apologize for their behavior.
Neutral Evil for me, then. He has no respect for the self-determination of others: by hook or by crook they will love him, and he is willing to use magic to affect their feelings.
Charm effects, after all, do not control one's behavior, but alter their perceptions toward the caster, usually toward a more positive light.
Kind of splitting hairs, isn't it? Suppose we were choosing a new General Director of the Vegetable of the Month and Chowder Tasting Society. I intend to vote for Muriel, but you use a charm effect on me to improve my perception of you and change my vote. Technically you may not be controlling my behaviour but you certainly affected my behaviour to something that I did not want to do. That, in my opinion, counts as Evil.
Still looks like chaotic evil to me.
What makes him evil is that he sees that vast majority of people as being beneath him. He is actively manipulating them for his own pleasure without regards to their desires and needs. Saying that using charms are not evil because they are only altering perceptions is untrue. Alcohol and drugs also alter only alter perception. By that line of reasoning getting a woman drunk or drugging her and then having sex with her is not evil. Sorry but I cannot agree with that.
Chaotic neutral is more of a live and let live kind of attitude. A chaotic neutral character is not really interested in other people one way or another. They focus on their own pleasures and only concern themselves with others when they have to. They may manipulate those around them, but don’t look to build followers unless those followers unless there is something in it for them.
The fact that the character has a few things he would rather avoid doing does not mean he is not evil. The sentence about not using dominate person or suggestion to send a subject into harm’s way if he can help it say it all. Using spells is something you always have a choice about. That is like the abusive father blaming the kid for the father beating him.
It is not the manipulation that makes the character evil. It is the motivation. If you are manipulation people for your own profit and please that is evil. If you are manipulating them for their own good, that can be good. But even when you are manipulating someone for their own good it is often a gray area. Many good people have started out with that idea only to slide down the slippery slope.
This is not to say your character is completely evil villain, but there are some villainous aspects to the character.
Still Ce for me but whether the character is CN, CN(E), Ce, or CE is largely irrelevant. It is a concept I would allow at my table as it does not seem disruptive to table harmony. You would be warned however that if you were to move into PvP territory with the character, demanding the other characters idolise your character and follow your demands then the character would soon become an NPC.
|
Still CE in my book. Preferring Non-violent ways or Non-blatant ways does not mean not-Evil.
How does the character react when, no matter his efforts, "lesser" people keep on refusing to adore him?
BTW, rating people according to their power and treating them differently because of this is a big hint of evil in my RL experience. People who care only about themselves and do not mind nor care belittling, abusing and hurting others are Evil, not Neutral.
They sound neutral evil to me. All of their motives and their perspective are selfish, so I don't see any shift out of evil here. The fact that the character has a short list of those whose well fare he is concerned about, isn't enough to change anything.
Their disregard for order sounds incidental, and their need to please other people makes it seem as if they'd narrow the scope of their impact for the sake maintaining their personal appeal. I'd go chaotic evil if their cult attraction interests are strong enough to pull people out of their families and leave them entirely reliant upon him.
They sound fun, and appealing, and I'd happily have such a character in a game I was running, but they're evil.
Alright. I'll probably start him out as CN (with evil tendencies), and see how the character plays out. It certainly fits his backstory, being the illegitimate son of a priestess of Calistria, who is also his chosen deity.
Given he aims to help people to build reputation and gain idolatry (as selfish a reason as any), it probably at least puts him into anti-hero category, especially since, like a lot of morally sketchy characters, he sees himself as a good person. Perception of alignment vs. actual alignment is something that is not often utilized.
Also a CE character could be fun to play if done right. Regongar from Kingmaker is probably the best execution of a CE companion in a game I've ever seen.
Something to remember: Alignments are not straitjackets. They are general descriptions and it is likely that a character can possess traits described in different areas at the same time. The only reason I did not peg the character as Chaotic Evil in my last post is only because they haven't explicitly stated exactly how far they would go to achieve their goals. "no matter the cost to anyone else." has not come up yet.
|
|
Something to remember: Alignments are not straitjackets. They are general descriptions and it is likely that a character can possess traits described in different areas at the same time. The only reason I did not peg the character as Chaotic Evil in my last post is only because they haven't explicitly stated exactly how far they would go to achieve their goals. "no matter the cost to anyone else." has not come up yet.
I find it pretty worrying actually. If the character really wants no limit on his behavior (or cannot fathom one), the aligment veers inexorably to Evil.
I find it pretty worrying actually. If the character really wants no limit on his behavior (or cannot fathom one), the aligment veers inexorably to Evil.
I tend to agree with you. Even within the game universe, you can have NPCs that are absolutely Evil but have never actually DONE anything overtly evil. They are simply aligned that way because if they had the opportunity, well... you get the idea. It is a grey area that rightly requires deific level omniscience to truly place judgement on the soul in question. Good thing we have Pharasma for that, eh?
|
|
TBH, my first Pathfinder character (more precisely, my last 3.5 character who got converted) was heavily based on Biff Tannen. He started True Neutral, in adventuring for the glory and the girls but he really was a closet CE guy. If he had dared do things the way he wished, but he was too afraid of authorities to really step over the line.
He worshipped Erastil but only because he was an archer and wanted the best chances to hit his targets.
Then AP happened, he became a lord and commander and turned Lawful Neutral.
AP continued and he got humiliated by an Evil force far beyond his reach. To one day get revenge, he swore himself to Erastil's holy service and ended up LG and multiclassing as a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, anymore I always put true neutral on a character sheet anymore (at the start of character creation) and wait for others to inquire what my alignment is to know when it's time to update that.*
*This assumes the class I'm playing doesn't depend on alignment, which is most of them.
Honestly, anymore I always put true neutral on a character sheet anymore (at the start of character creation) and wait for others to inquire what my alignment is to know when it's time to update that.*
I do something similar, though I default to Neutral Good. I've already seen most of the cliche reasons as why a Neutral (irreligious) character would even bother picking up the adventuring lifestyle, or even continuing it beyond a certain level of wealth (ie, they are set up for life). Honestly, I like playing the hero and having a real, meaningful motivation for doing it. I get my evil jollies off when I am behind the DM screen. For me, Neutrality is as bland as playing a Cleric (mechanically).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a lot of the descriptions of the alignments in Pathfinder and in various editions of D&D are...not very helpful. Being "spur of the moment" versus knowing what you want down the line has nothing to do with good, evil, chaos or law. It's just a personality trait.
Interpretations that result in Chaotic characters essentially rolling dice to determine what they'll do next or Lawful ones all having crippling OCD are not useful.
I like Chaotic characters with traditions and Lawful ones who break their word sometimes. Good characters who hold grudges and evil characters who don't roast their victim's quivering hearts on a spit. And most of all, I like alignment changes. It's a great way to represent the growth and conflict an adventurer's life would surely contain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Chaotic characters with traditions and Lawful ones who break their word sometimes. Good characters who hold grudges and evil characters who don't roast their victim's quivering hearts on a spit. And most of all, I like alignment changes. It's a great way to represent the growth and conflict an adventurer's life would surely contain.
Ditto. And you want to know why? Those characters tend to be the best reflections of actual personalities. Every character of a certain alignment exhibits traits and choices of the various other alignments. They aren't outsiders to be entirely bound up in a certain behavior. It is the sum collection of who they are and what they believe that assigns them an alignment, and it is a moving target.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I think the character concept is the most important factor and the alignment is a game mechanic that is too woven into the game to unpick. As the GM I'm interested in the player's character concept and their defined personality and allow anything that won't disrupt the table's harmony. Once the concept is agreed, the resulting alignment is determined.
In practice, I've found some Paladin concepts to be as disharmonious as the CE village burner. The 'my character wouldn't let your character do that' argument is as troublesome as the 'it's what my character would do' argument.
Honestly, anymore I always put true neutral on a character sheet anymore (at the start of character creation) and wait for others to inquire what my alignment is to know when it's time to update that.*I do something similar, though I default to Neutral Good. I've already seen most of the cliche reasons as why a Neutral (irreligious) character would even bother picking up the adventuring lifestyle, or even continuing it beyond a certain level of wealth (ie, they are set up for life). Honestly, I like playing the hero and having a real, meaningful motivation for doing it. I get my evil jollies off when I am behind the DM screen. For me, Neutrality is as bland as playing a Cleric (mechanically).
There are a large number of reasons why a character, even a neutral one can become and stay an adventurer. I choose neutral, because barring alignment restrictions forcing otherwise, most people are honestly neutral. They lack the conviction to do true good, they are not sociopathic to do real evil, and lets not get started on Law (really Order) vs Chaos.
I find the best characters (that I develop) come from having a good idea of where the campaign starts, tying myself to it, and setting myself up to be tied into where the campaign is going somehow. I might start neutral, but defend my city because I'm compelled to save my loved one from the goblin attack. But then, I've gotten wrapped up with this group of adventurers. Now, they want my help to go investigate why the goblins attacked. I don't really want to do it, but I have a kid to make sure is protected and the gold the mayor just gave me is more than I make in a 2 months working at the saw mill. Months later I'm too attached to my companions to simply let them go without me, besides the whole kingdom is on the line. If I'm not there, they may fail and again put my loved ones at risk. Blah blah blah.
There are a lot of clichés and stereotypes but you don't have to write a character that way. You can start with one, and develop it into your own thing. You may end up writing the same thing that's been done before, but it can be organic. Just because it's not unique doesn't mean it can be good or be yours.
Sometimes it's super fun to just lean into it anyways.
There are a large number of reasons why a character, even a neutral one can become and stay an adventurer. I choose neutral, because barring alignment restrictions forcing otherwise, most people are honestly neutral. They lack the conviction to do true good, they are not sociopathic to do real evil, and lets not get started on Law (really Order) vs Chaos.
Yes, I can agree with you on that. My main issue is that I've grown away (or evolved, whether that's progress or not) from much interest in playing a Neutral character. That lack of conviction to really do anything Good (or still shy away from Evil but might do it if pressed) unless motivated by some outside force simply does not appeal to me any longer. I've effectively chosen a side on the Good/Evil spectrum and have turned my attention to Law/Chaos as a more interesting, if even more complex, dynamic to unpack.
I suppose I've developed a taste for heroes. I've seen enough villains and fence sitters.