Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timespike 05-01-05, 07:06 PM	I'm thinking of creating an absolutely ruthless stealth-killer type of character for my next PC, but here's the catch; he's very much one of the good guys. He's extremely kind and compassionate with the innocent and helpless, generous with his money, willing to sacrifice himself to save others if it ever comes to that, he holds up his end of bargains, is a loyal friend and comrade, and is otherwise exceptionally honorable and compassionate. On the other hand, when it comes to truly evil opponents, he is willing to murder, torture, main, traumatize, and terrorize. He will tie an evil cultist to a chair and torture him in ways that would make observers vomit (if that's what it takes; he's never going to do it for fun, but he won't shy away, either.), burn opponents alive, turn down surrenders, murder opponents from the shadows, poison them, and fight exceedingly dirty. In strict D&D terms, these are in direct conflict with each other, so WHAT ALIGNMENT IS THIS GUY? Lawful Neutral? Neutral? Lawful Evil?
Morka 05-02-05, 12:07 PM	I would say LE. The first section, the "good side" scream "LAWFUL". The second section scream "EVIL". However, fighting dirty is not a lawful thing, he is better to fight "clean" in order to capture his foes, interrogate them nicely and then being more and more dirty.
Josuwar 05-02-05, 01:19 PM	I'd say Lawful Neutral. Neutral because the good and evil equal eachother out. Lawful because you said he is a loyal person, but I just got that from one line... so if he does happen to have a problem with authority or be spontaneous (etc) then he might be another shade of neutral :) .
Dead Jester 05-02-05, 03:41 PM	In his own eyes he probably thinks himself neutral good (well he wouldn't put it in those terms), as in doing the right thing no matter what. By any objective measure he's probably lawful neutral, shading on evil. Could be interesting playing him as going deeper and deeper into evil as he stops seeing torture e.t.c as necessary ills and starts enjoying it.
Timespike 05-02-05, 04:00 PM	The idea is NOT that he's slowly falling from grace, it's that he's willing to do WHATEVER it takes to protect the good and innocent people under his care. He doesn't LIKE doing a lot of the things he does, but if it's the difference between torturing one bad guy and letting an entire city succumb to a necromantic plague, the bad guy's getting tortured. If he can win without using ruthless and deplorable tactics, he will, but if he needs to off the enemy general with a wyvern-poisoned arrow to preserve innocent lives... ....you get the idea. I also want to stress that when he's not fighting, he's not just not bad, he's agressively good. If he comes across a blind, crippled beggar, he won't just slip the man a few coins, he will take him to a local temple, pay for a heal spell to repair his blindness and crippled status, and then find him a trade with one of the businesses in the city that will treat him fairly. If he comes across a starving urchin, it's not just a crust of bread that he'll be giving out, it's a hearty bowl of soup and a referral to an orphanage staffed by the clerics of the god of compassion & succor. Also, it's worth noting: compassion is NOT a lawful trait; it's a good one. Law is usually quite stern.
Dead Jester 05-02-05, 04:18 PM	The idea is NOT that he's slowly falling from grace, it's that he's willing to do WHATEVER it takes to protect the good and innocent people under his care. Well, I wasn't trying to tell you what to do with your character it's just that torturing people is an evil trait. This is a rather black and white game, so I would say that if he's torturing people he can't be good, but since he's helping others he isn't evil. I think the tension between the two wyas of acting is going to pull him one way or the other, either a fall from grace or repenting his earlier ruthlessness and becoming purer good. On a morality scale at the moment he has to be neutral, the ends justifies the means doesn't cut it in the alignment system. If he takes honour and loyalty seriously he'll be lawful neutral, otherwise some other flavour of neutral. Of course the alignment system is imprecise at best so you probably argue for him being any alignment with a bit of sophistry. Lawful neutral is how I'd call it, but at the end of the day it's your character.
Leap 05-02-05, 04:21 PM	I'd guess either neutral good or neutral evil but not really enough info to go on......
LiquidDarkness 05-02-05, 04:54 PM	Personally the character sounds down right Chaotic to me. A person who is, kind, and gental to one set of people and then ruthless, merciless, and detructive to another set is in a very real way chaotic. Go with Chaotic Neutral, or even Chaotic Good.
Rathis Darkwielder 05-02-05, 05:39 PM	LE all the way He may think he's good and he might even tell himself he's doing all the torturing etc for a good cause, but in the end he's using evil methods to achieve a good goal. That's still evil(tm)
WerePlatypus 05-02-05, 06:14 PM	Definitely Chaotic. This guy doesnt trust anyone else, organizations or individuals. He doens't go to the authorities, and doesn't bother with the legal systems and due processes of law, which are obviously of no concern to the guy. Actually, how does the law feel about him? Is he a member of a protectorate in a city, or is he a lone wolf vigilante type? I'll bet you have him pegged as the lone wolf type. . . so I'd say Chaotic, in a Dirty Harry kind of way. As far as good vs. evil, it's trickier. His methods are chaotic, but are they evil if they serve the greater good? I would say "no." What would make his actions evil is if he was doing it for personal gain, or something like that. He's doing it to save people, etc. In this case, the end justifies the means. So, I'd say he's good. Chaotic Good. Incidentally, here's the real moral issue... sure, you can rationaize tying a stereotypically black-hearted, insane with power, mad cultist to a chair, but what about the non-evil, misguided 12 year-old girl that the evil cultist bribed to poison the water supply? In addition to getting paid, the evil cultist kidnapped her poor, blind father, and is holding him hostage. He gives proof of life by sending her an amputated finger from the father's hand every day. She won't talk for any amount of cajoling or promises. What does the PC do in this situation?
Ponderosa 05-02-05, 06:33 PM	I don't think there is any question as to whether or not this character is non-good. In D&D terms, torture is always evil. No matter what. In fact, the entire idea of "the ends justify the means" is almost always evil, as well. No matter what the character's belief in the "greater good," certain methods are evil. It depends on what means you employ and how evil they are, but for the examples you provided, the character would definitely be non-good. The fact that your character is so compassionate and helpful would most likely put him above evil. He certainly won't enjoy what he does when he's working for the greater good, but he falls short of good. Thus, he is solidly neutral, his good and evil sides cancelling out. As far the law/chaos example, that's up to you, although the traits you mentioned suggest Lawful to me. You might want to consider how far your character is willing to go, such as in the example WerePlatypus provided, but so far, your character is most likely Lawful Neutral.
Timespike 05-03-05, 03:15 PM	Incidentally, here's the real moral issue... sure, you can rationaize tying a stereotypically black-hearted, insane with power, mad cultist to a chair, but what about the non-evil, misguided 12 year-old girl that the evil cultist bribed to poison the water supply? In addition to getting paid, the evil cultist kidnapped her poor, blind father, and is holding him hostage. He gives proof of life by sending her an amputated finger from the father's hand every day. She won't talk for any amount of cajoling or promises. What does the PC do in this situation? With a child? If it's actually a child (as opposed to a shapeshifter posing as one, and he is posessed of the resources to know the difference.) he'll probably use magical means of finding out (divination, scrying, zone of truth, or what-have-you) The cultist that was doing this will meet a SWIFT end once he finds out, too, and he'd pay out of his own pocket to heal the father as well. I'm figuring LN, myself. I just wanted some second opinions.
WerePlatypus 05-04-05, 06:59 AM	If the character has access to Zone of Truth, Diviniation, and what-not. . . why does he need to brutally torture anyone? Maybe he is evil. . . what situations wouold be rewuired for torture where these alternatives didn't exist? I can also see Lawful Nuetral. Your character concept DOES have very rigid moral codes, and is obviously VERY black and white in his thinking. He still doesn't respect any authority outside of his own, which is okay. . . that don't count ofr a hill o' beans when determining alignment necessarity. He just seems so robin hoodish. . . but instead of stealing he stick a hot poker up people's %#@^$. That's why I was thkning Chaotic Good initially. But sure, I can buy Lawful Neutral.
Leap 05-04-05, 07:08 AM	Not sure on the lawful thing...... Is he dedicated to society being as productive as possible with specific roles assigned to each person that best suits the needs for such productivity? If yes then he's lawful.... But if he's not overly concerned that society remains so strictly ordered and productive/industrious then he's more likely Neutral (as regards law and chaos) - with chaos reserved for those who dont give a squat about such matters :)
Gurthoron 05-04-05, 10:42 AM	Sorry, but I have to say evil. There is NO excuse for torture. The killing from the shadows without mercy, etc. thing, is purely efficiency. That trait makes him either a neutral or he can still be good aligned, depending on whether he A.) Makes sure his target is evil or killing said target is a good thing to do. B.) Has regrets about killing In the PHB it specifically says that a neutral is someone with generally loose morals but with compunctions against killing. A good aligned person will seek every alternative before resorting to lethal means. Judging by your description, lethal means will be taken for expediency's sake. Unless you get rid of the torture thing, hes an evil person. Just becuase hes doing it for the good of the community (I'm guessing thats the motivation here) does not mean its a good act. The fact that he is honorable, an upstanding member of his community, etc. make him prbably lawful. Thus, your alignment is LE. A fun alignment, btw.
Timespike 05-04-05, 03:16 PM	If the character has access to Zone of Truth, Diviniation, and what-not. . . why does he need to brutally torture anyone? Maybe he is evil. . . what situations wouold be rewuired for torture where these alternatives didn't exist? I can also see Lawful Nuetral. Your character concept DOES have very rigid moral codes, and is obviously VERY black and white in his thinking. He still doesn't respect any authority outside of his own, which is okay. . . that don't count ofr a hill o' beans when determining alignment necessarity. He just seems so robin hoodish. . . but instead of stealing he stick a hot poker up people's %#@^$. That's why I was thkning Chaotic Good initially. But sure, I can buy Lawful Neutral. Actually, I think it's more than a little interesting some of the stuff that's been extrapolated. He doesn't respect authority so much as he IS the authority. The guy in question is the head inquisitor for the church of Myrtain (LN diety of Justice, Retribution, etc.) The torture thing is used after everything else fails. There will always be people who make their saving throws on spells or who have spell resistances too high to penetrate. Very few bad guys are immune to pain, however...
Lady_Firehawk 05-04-05, 09:10 PM	Hmmm... so he will torture baddies, but only after he's exhausted every other possible method, and he doesn't like doing it and would probably have regrets about needing to resort to those means... well, it might depend on how often he ends up actually having to do that. Does the overall balance of his 'good' acts far outweigh the 'necessary evils' he has to perform to keep people safe? Well, then... he might actually have a shot at Lawful Good... although it might be an extremely precarious balance. Definitely on the edge between LG and LN, I'd say... he might miss LG because of questionable methods, but at the same time it seems he has a contrite heart about it. So I couldn't actually call him 'evil'... Just my :twocents:! I can see that my opinion is probably in the minority here. ;)
Istarion 05-04-05, 11:08 PM	I agree with Lady_firehawk that this guy is not evil, but his ways are not good neither. My shot is for LN...
Ambian Eagleheart 05-10-05, 04:40 AM	Lawful UMMM! I think that could be a bit of a stretch. He'd have his own misguided sense of justice. After all "It is not treason to betray a traitor". But just how does he choose what is evil. Most roleplayers are just going to label enemies as cruel and act accordingly. Think of some of the evil that both sides did to each other in the crusades. They would have thought of themselves as Lawful Good, but were they. My guess is Chatic Good or Chaotic Nuetral. The Chaotic nature reflects their inconsistency (why do you think Elves favour Chaotic alignments) . If he roots out evil for the greater good then great. Eventually, the power may get to his head. Not the downfall of grace, but more like he becomes motivated by his own selfish desire for power. After all he is operating way outside the boundaries of the law, so they can't be lawful.
Timespike 05-10-05, 02:12 PM	Lawful UMMM! I think that could be a bit of a stretch. He'd have his own misguided sense of justice. After all "It is not treason to betray a traitor". But just how does he choose what is evil. Most roleplayers are just going to label enemies as cruel and act accordingly. Think of some of the evil that both sides did to each other in the crusades. They would have thought of themselves as Lawful Good, but were they. My guess is Chatic Good or Chaotic Nuetral. The Chaotic nature reflects their inconsistency (why do you think Elves favour Chaotic alignments) . If he roots out evil for the greater good then great. Eventually, the power may get to his head. Not the downfall of grace, but more like he becomes motivated by his own selfish desire for power. After all he is operating way outside the boundaries of the law, so they can't be lawful. Ah, here's a question. How can you assume he's acting in an extralegal manner when I haven't given you any data about the legal system in the setting?
karmhundredfists 05-10-05, 07:44 PM	In a world where GOOD and EVIL are defined for you and it is clear to see what they mean then you cannot say that someone who tortures is nessicarily evil no matter what else they do in their life. The epitome of Lawful Good... the Paladin, wouldn't think twice about torturing a demon because that demon is evil. This character is undoubtedly not evil specifically because he hates evil deeds and actions. If you define torture as inherently evil (which I think is a bit of a stretch) then he could be considered to be evil if he relished the act. If it pains him to have to hurt any creature but he does what he must then that is not evil. This may sound harsh but in a world where there is true evil, I would not call a paladin who tortured a demon evil, even if he enjoyed it. The perfect example of this is Cadderly from the Cleric quintet. He summons a demon to find out information for Drizzt and co. and he has to cast a spell that pains the demon to find out information. He doesn't like having to do that but he does it anyways.
tivs 05-10-05, 11:35 PM	i say neutral evil he's just out to get the bad guys :)
Ryver 05-11-05, 11:51 AM	Tricky question. I may still be a novice to the system, but I'll try my hand. First of all, if I'm to understand this guys correctly, he's got a strong sense of Duty; he has a code of honor that dictates his actions regarding the preservation of (his interpretation of) Good. As I understand it, in his actions against Evil, he has a particular methodology that he will go through, instead of just jumping straight to the removal of flesh. Feel free to correct me on this, by the way. To me, that reeks of Lawful, simply because Law doesn't necessarily have to be legal in nature. Codes of Honor, tradition, loyalties and the like all fall under Law. Furthermore, if he's to be a follower of Myrtain, his actions would likely be falling under the command of his God, which is also a Lawful trait. Good vs. Evil... his actions are in the name of Good, but are sometimes (not necessarily often) marked by Evil. In the end, he's too Good to be Evil, and just a little too Evil to be Good. Therefore, Neutral seems to be a good fit, in my opinion. This character is undoubtedly not evil specifically because he hates evil deeds and actions. If you define torture as inherently evil (which I think is a bit of a stretch) then he could be considered to be evil if he relished the act. If it pains him to have to hurt any creature but he does what he must then that is not evil. This may sound harsh but in a world where there is true evil, I would not call a paladin who tortured a demon evil, even if he enjoyed it. You have a point. Sometimes, Good and Evil are far from black and white. While the "Hurting is Evil, helping is Good" mentality works for some situations, in this case, he's both helping and harming at the same time. And you're right, Torture may not necessarily be Evil. However, it is most certainly non-Good. Aside from that, one must realize that there is still a choice to be made. The character in question here can still make a choice not to torture the enemies. There are many other ways he can bring Justice and Retribution (according to his God) without resorting to torture. Even if he were commanded by Myrtain to torture someone, the act itself brings needless pain and suffering to another sentient creature, which is still regarded as non-Good (if not out-and-out Evil). But I digress. The 3.0E Player's Handbook calls Lawful Neutral, "The Judge", and I think this is the case here- while he has an inclination to do more Good than Evil, in the end, Evil will meet rightful Justice by any means necessary. On a side note, this character seems interesting, and should be fun to play, especially as a PC. It could potentially create some PC-conflict, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how your fellow players handle it. Good luck with it!
foderch 05-11-05, 03:33 PM	Chaotic good all the way. Good intentions, will do whatever it takes to get his "point" across (chaotic) Kinda like wolverine from the x-men: Good heart, but look what he does to the bad guys...
Timespike 05-12-05, 12:23 AM	Tricky question. I may still be a novice to the system, but I'll try my hand. First of all, if I'm to understand this guys correctly, he's got a strong sense of Duty; he has a code of honor that dictates his actions regarding the preservation of (his interpretation of) Good. As I understand it, in his actions against Evil, he has a particular methodology that he will go through, instead of just jumping straight to the removal of flesh. Feel free to correct me on this, by the way. To me, that reeks of Lawful, simply because Law doesn't necessarily have to be legal in nature. Codes of Honor, tradition, loyalties and the like all fall under Law. Furthermore, if he's to be a follower of Myrtain, his actions would likely be falling under the command of his God, which is also a Lawful trait. Good vs. Evil... his actions are in the name of Good, but are sometimes (not necessarily often) marked by Evil. In the end, he's too Good to be Evil, and just a little too Evil to be Good. Therefore, Neutral seems to be a good fit, in my opinion. You have a point. Sometimes, Good and Evil are far from black and white. While the "Hurting is Evil, helping is Good" mentality works for some situations, in this case, he's both helping and harming at the same time. And you're right, Torture may not necessarily be Evil. However, it is most certainly non-Good. Aside from that, one must realize that there is still a choice to be made. The character in question here can still make a choice not to torture the enemies. There are many other ways he can bring Justice and Retribution (according to his God) without resorting to torture. Even if he were commanded by Myrtain to torture someone, the act itself brings needless pain and suffering to another sentient creature, which is still regarded as non-Good (if not out-and-out Evil). But I digress. The 3.0E Player's Handbook calls Lawful Neutral, "The Judge", and I think this is the case here- while he has an inclination to do more Good than Evil, in the end, Evil will meet rightful Justice by any means necessary. On a side note, this character seems interesting, and should be fun to play, especially as a PC. It could potentially create some PC-conflict, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how your fellow players handle it. Good luck with it! Heh. If only. I'm the DM. This is an NPC.
Timespike 05-12-05, 06:18 PM	You have a point. Sometimes, Good and Evil are far from black and white. While the "Hurting is Evil, helping is Good" mentality works for some situations, in this case, he's both helping and harming at the same time. And you're right, Torture may not necessarily be Evil. However, it is most certainly non-Good. And then there arethose of us whose worldviews don't always view violence in general as necessarily being a bad thing. There are certain circumstances I can think of (and provide examples) where vioence is the only morally appropriate response...
agent_paper 05-15-05, 10:02 AM	Well, I don't really think he seems Evil . . . just very judgmental and pragmatic. Personally I think of torture as essentially evil, but just because a person does something evil, even very often, doesn't mean that the person could be accurately described as Evil. He torments people that he sees as Evil - yes? - and I imagine he'd see that as a good act himself (which doesn't actually come into it). He's kind to people, he helps others if he can, he just doesn't believe in trying to be kind to people whom he sees as monstrous. I would guess that he would be Neutral. He's kind to people he sees as innocent, and cruel to those he sees as wicked. He makes no effort to spare or aid people he reviles, even if only to teach them a lesson in compassion, and he makes no effort to avoid paying back evil with evil. Right? But he doesn't seem really Evil. He's not generally malicious, spiteful, antisocial, or very narcissistic - he's just ruthless. As for Law and Chaos, I'd guess Lawful, because, as I said, the impression I have from your description is that he is very intolerant of wrong-doers, to the point that he sees them as almost demonic or diabolical. Am I correct? EDIT: Also, as people have noted, Alignment tends to be black-and-white - but you don't necessarily have to play it that way, as life isn't really black-and-white. The game many times can be dichotomous, but isn't inflexible. It depends on how important Alignment is in the way you and your group plays the game, and on how the DM sees it.
DBoot 05-15-05, 10:54 AM	Timespike, ultimately, as a DM, you abdjucate where the boundries of alignments go, so answers may (and do) vary from what you might believe. My nitpick is that even if he uses it as a last resort, this guy uses torture. More importantly, he knows he has torture to fall back on. It's my belief that given his love of expediency, he is less likely to search for every possible alternative than a Paladin who outright refused to use torture. It's only natural. And over the course of years, it becomes easier to search less and less for a better solution, which is why the use of torture is extremely precarious. I'm willing to say that at the beginning of his carreer he might even be LG. Depending on how long he's been doing this gig, he could even be LE. Be aware, almost anything can be justified. However, it doesn't make it right.
Timespike 05-15-05, 04:11 PM	I'm willing to say that at the beginning of his carreer he might even be LG. Depending on how long he's been doing this gig, he could even be LE. Be aware, almost anything can be justified. However, it doesn't make it right. I'm aware of this. He's supposed to provoke some discomfort. ;) However, I'm a little taken aback by the idea that an occasional misdeed in the earnest cause of greater good completely erases a life of otherwise exemplary virtue to some of the posters. The original model I used for this particular guy was Sam Fisher from Splinter cell, BTW.
DBoot 05-16-05, 12:20 AM	Timespike: I can understand your surprise, but by the same token, torture is not a small thing. Moreover, its not the only thing. You also mention murder, maiming, traumitization, terrorization, burning, turning down those who surrender, poison, and dirty fighting. Dirty fighting? Fine, no big whoop. That's more a law vs chaos thing, depending on how far you take it (sand in the eyes? Meh. Have their loved one and swordpoint, running into some problems...). Murder and killing from the shadows? Well, Slayer of Domiel proves it can be done and still be good. No question there. Poison? I don't buy into the whole 'poison is evil'. Some might say its dishonorable, and I'll agree, but evil? No. Turning down surrender? I don't see the point of this. If you've won the day, you interrogate them, bring them to court, throw the book at them, and they land in jail. If it something outside of anyone's jurisdiction, you still may want to think twice. Evil Outsiders are one thing. Mortals are another. Why does he grant mercy to the neutral NPC and not the evil NPC? Because of what he/she has done? Mortals have the potential for change. If they are dead, they cannot do that. Because they have a potential to do evil in the future? So does a good NPC. It's dicey. But Maiming, traumitization, terrorization, burning... That's excessive cruelty. This steps over the boundries of neccessity. If you have the resources to absolutely ascertain the guilt, intent, and alignment of a suspect, why not the resources to read their mind? I'd closely exam this NPC's motives for doing the good he does, and his willingness to do the evils he can and has done. If there is an inconsistancy, consider what can be done to bring it more in line with the character concept.
Timespike 05-16-05, 11:35 AM	The maiming traumatization, burning, etc. is combat tactics. It goes into the "dirty fighting" category. This guy will cover a battlefield with something flammable and ignite it once the enemy is there, leave slain enemies in such a way as to terrorize their fellows (spiked to a tree with their own sword, for instance) hack someone's leg off and coup de grace them as they lie there screaming, etc. IF it gives him a tactical advantage. As far as turning down a surrender, if he's after a demon-worshipping, innocent-sacrificing, well-poisoning cult, he's going to kill them to the last member.
DBoot 05-16-05, 04:33 PM	I think we're at a philisophical impasse. I'm not inherantly an optimist, but I still believe that the past is the past and the future is the future, and that we are not bound to our past, nor is our future a given. Then again, I really don't consider myself to be a good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, so it may mean more or less from your stand point. I'll leave it at this: Can this guy accomplish his goals without the tactics he uses? If he can, and with equal ease, then its a matter of excess, and his actions are cruel, evil even. If he can, and it takes him more effort, then he values expedience more than good, and he is neutral at best. If there is really no other way, then I think that perhaps he should reevaluate his goals and ask himself why there is no other way. At any rate, the character is certainly contriversial (which is an excellent thing, depending on what you're going for) and I applaud you on that. Though what remains to be seen is how the party reacts to him. Especially if the party has a Paladin.
Timespike 05-16-05, 11:15 PM	I think we're at a philisophical impasse. We may be. I consider myself to ride the line between lawful good & lawful neutral (a notion that every alignment test I've ever taken written by ANYone seems to support) In terms of the numerical alignment system in Green Ronin's advanced player handbook I'm probably something like Good 16 Evil 5 Law 18 Chaos 3 on a good day and Good 14 Evil 7 Law 20 Chaos 1 on a bad one. But that's neither here nor there. I picture this particular NPC as LN with good goals and occasional evil leaning in the execution of them. He's probably getting closer to LG these days as he's been out of the field for a while, and he tends to direct followers to use somewhat softer methods than he trusts himself with. He actually had to track down and eliminate or capture several of his peers for going tyrannical on orders from his superiors when he was still active. As it is, he sometimes stares out the window of his office, in a relatively peaceful city located in a dangerous part of the world that he helped to make safe with a mixture of pride and wondering if it was worth some of the things he had to do.