Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timespike 08-31-07, 10:54 PM	I'm working on a character for my buddy's new game. We wound up deciding pretty conclusively, but I'd be interested in the opinions of the community. I'll put what we decided in a spoiler box at the bottom so it doesn't influence your opinion as you read. His name is Tariel (I'm still working on a last name) Some quick background: He's an elite agent for a LN country stranded FAR from home. As such he has considerable espionage training. He's disciplined enough to follow orders, but not so much that it's for its own sake. He's neither a sensualist nor an ascetic; he's very happily married and enjoys his wife's charms, good food, and good whiskey, but all in moderation. He's known to get buzzed on the latter, but rarely truly drunk. He's a naturally kind and generous person. If he has time & money and stumbles upon a beggar, said beggar will have been fed, bathed, and possibly given a job before Tariel walks away. He smiles at children and hands out small candies or copper coins to them, especially poor ones, often just for the sake of doing so. He's a loving but stern father and the sort of husband wives everywhere dream about having. He's the kind of friend you'd like to have; loyal, dependable, sympathetic and fun to be around. He won't harm innocents unless there is absolutely, positively no other choice (but he will, for example, put down a person infected with movie-style zombie disease to check the spread, and has the resolve to do so.) Truly evil opponents find force met in kind. He will kill a tyrannical warlord in his sleep to stop his reign of terror. If there's some evil cultist or henchman who isn't cooperating with an interrogation, he has no problem striking a bound prisoner or even breaking a finger or two (though the REALLY horrific scalpel-and-tongs kind of torture is beyond his limits). If he's in a fight with despicable foes, he will refuse surrenders, coup de grace downed foes, and use every dirty trick in the book to triumph. He will unblinkingly dispatch the entire opposing force with poker-faced precision and then calmly search the bodies, clean his sword, and walk away. He'll have levels in malconvoker and believes that flinging fiends into the path of hostiles or using them for trap detectors is more morally responsible than doing the same to celestials. My buddy and I figured that he's True Neutral what do you all think?
Paradox_of_Life 08-31-07, 11:15 PM	He is so obviously on the good axis that its not even funny. True Neutral? Please. He's a naturally kind and generous person. If he has time & money and stumbles upon a beggar, said beggar will have been fed, bathed, and possibly given a job before Tariel walks away. He smiles at children and hands out small candies or copper coins to then, especially poor ones, often just for the sake of doing so. He's a loving but stern father and the sort of husband wifes everywhere dream about having. He's the kind of friend you'd like to have; loyal, dependable, sympathetic and fun to be around. He won't harm innocents unless there is absolutely, positively no other choice (but he will, for example, put down a person infected with movie-style zombie disease to check the spread, and has the resolve to do so.) If anything, that pc is Lawful Good.
Timespike 09-01-07, 12:26 AM	Truly evil opponents find force met in kind. He will kill a tyrannical warlord in his sleep to stop his reign of terror. If there's some evil cultist or henchman who isn't cooperating with an interrogation, he has no problem striking a bound prisoner or even breaking a finger or two (though the REALLY horrific scalpel-and-tongs kind of torture is beyond his limits). If he's in a fight with despicable foes, he will refuse surrenders, coup de grace downed foes, and use every dirty trick in the book to triumph. He will unblinkingly dispatch the entire opposing force with poker-faced precision and then calmly search the bodies, clean his sword, and walk away. Even with this you still say LG? ;) I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is a lot to "forgive". From the right perspective, that's murder, torture, and treachery. This is why my buddy and I compromised on N. I agree that you can be LG and still do this stuff, provided it's for the right reasons. He thinks that's enough to be non-good. Either way this is definitely a character in the Jack Bauer/Francis Walsingham mold...
Nox_Noctis 09-01-07, 12:27 AM	He is so obviously on the good axis that its not even funny. True Neutral? Please. If anything, that pc is Lawful Good. I agree. He's either Neutral Good("He's disciplined enough to follow orders, but not so much that it's for its own sake.") or Lawful Good. He's definitely not True Neutral. Upon rereading the highlighted bits in the above post, I can say I firmly believe he should be Neutral Good.
Fithero 09-01-07, 12:40 AM	yeah id go neutral good too. His mindset about bad guys is fine, but his actions towards good and innocent folk totally makes him good. Sounds like a cool character too :P
DX2052 09-01-07, 03:05 AM	coup de grace downed foes, You do realize that Coup de grāce is french for "blow of mercy" and refers to a merciful stroke putting a fatally wounded person out their misery, there is nothing dishonorable about it.
Nox_Noctis 09-01-07, 03:37 AM	You do realize that Coup de grāce is french for "blow of mercy" and refers to a merciful stroke putting a fatally wounded person out their misery, there is nothing dishonorable about it. D&D gives it a negative spin, however, showing it as "striking a man while he's down,"(like the expression with kicking) rather than as the translation depicts.
Dex 09-01-07, 07:52 AM	Neutral Good, even with the bolded text in the quote.
Stormbrand 09-01-07, 08:24 AM	LG - strongly LG. Simply unsqueamish LG. Shows the mindset of the espionage agent as well. Evidence that LG can be practical. Some behaviour is subtly non-lawful because of his willingness to do good through means inconsistant with the end (torture and fiends). So long as he does not jump to torture or use fiends as more than fodder then he should be fully LG, if he goes to far he could move to NG (not because what he is doing is bad, but inconsistant with his goals). Often people forget that combat is not supposed to be civilised, hence so many alignment debates. Opposing evil with armed force is the foundation concept of the paladin class, and we both know that battle does not require holding back. So this character is mostly on that level of morality - all 'against' him is his willingness to break fingers and perhaps 'dirty tactics' in the specific context of treachery (the zombie-disease example would just be a no-win situation, and considering the alternative it is unlikely to be an alignment issue). Overall, very consistant with LG. Often people mistake 'Good' for 'things I personally feel comfortable with' and personal tabboos. Modern society is not comfortable with deliberate violence, so people tend to have emotional reactions to the subject. Combat and espionage training should be scary to others, how difficult something is to deal with is entirely seperate to the morality of an issue.
Stormbrand 09-01-07, 12:21 PM	This is why my buddy and I compromised on N... He thinks that's enough to be non-good. It is only compromising if your buddy meets you in the middle. ;) At the moment, it is just you being very gracious. :)
ZimTsu 09-01-07, 05:38 PM	Neutral Good. Utilizing fiends, torture, not accepting surrender, assassination and spying is a breach of the Rules of Engagement, which makes it impossible to be Lawful, at least for a character who makes a living from war. By abiding to civil laws, and showing a capacity to follow orders, he is also not Chaotic. And since all of his breaches in RoE are made for the greater good, and his conduct is overall admirable, he is definitely Good. It's idiotic to say he is not Good. You don't have to be a Paladin to be Good. You don't need a mission from the gods. You can be Good in the little things, and by going out of his way to help his fellow men, Tariel is Good. If you want me to believe he is Neutral, then you must convince me that he shows selfishness or unusual cruelty, either by dismissing beggars, byusing minions for less honorable ends, by getting a bit "carried away" during interrogations, or something Evil enough to offset all the Good in his actions. Anyway, it's sounds like a really good character (in terms of role-playing potential, not alignment). Realistic, interesting, and human (not in race, but in personality). I salute you and your friend for the great work.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-01-07, 08:23 PM	Neutral Good... He hasn't a personal code, and obeying orders doesn't make him Legal... Yet, something tends to be unrealistic, like the fact that he wouldn't have problems breaking fingers to a prisoner who won't talk... If he's the portrait of Goodness as stated in the first lines, he will probably have no problems in punching them the needed amount of times, but breaking fingers... it's very hard... those prisoners must make him very Angry, not just refusing to talk... So, I would remove elements like that... Neutrality in the Good/Evil line is not made by "Good 10 - Evil 10 = 0 (Neutrality)"...
ORC_KiRin 09-01-07, 09:23 PM	Neutral Good... He hasn't a personal code, and obeying orders doesn't make him Legal... Yet, something tends to be unrealistic, like the fact that he wouldn't have problems breaking fingers to a prisoner who won't talk... If he's the portrait of Goodness as stated in the first lines, he will probably have no problems in punching them the needed amount of times, but breaking fingers... it's very hard... those prisoners must make him very Angry, not just refusing to talk... So, I would remove elements like that... Neutrality in the Good/Evil line is not made by "Good 10 - Evil 10 = 0 (Neutrality)"... I agree. The character seems to have a bad temper or a streak of cruelty, or both. If played as an NG, the character should be highly provoked before breaking any fingers.
Timespike 09-01-07, 11:04 PM	It is only compromising if your buddy meets you in the middle. ;) At the moment, it is just you being very gracious. :) I don't know; torture is pretty Evil in D&D terms. In the real world and in real ethics, it gets more complicated.
Timespike 09-01-07, 11:10 PM	I agree. The character seems to have a bad temper or a streak of cruelty, or both. If played as an NG, the character should be highly provoked before breaking any fingers. He's just VERY pragmatic. He'll go through and do the whole: "Look, you have information I don't have. If you don't provide me with the information I need, bad things will happen to people I care about. You probably see that as wonderful, but I see it as unacceptable. So. We can reach a compromise here, where you give me the information I need, and I keep you confined in relative comfort, or we can go the hard road. The hard road involves crunching noises and screaming. Your call." He'll say the whole speech with a very calm, placid expression on his face, and if he needs to break fingers, will do that the same way. In fact, after each one he'll probably say something like: "Now, that hurt, didn't it? Here's the other thing; I'm not just limited to doing that ten times. I have access to healing magic. So I can go through all ten of your digits, drop a cure spell on you, and then break them again. It won't feel any better the second time around. Or the fiftieth. Now you're SURE you don't want to just give me the information I need?"
Timespike 09-01-07, 11:14 PM	Neutral Good... He hasn't a personal code, and obeying orders doesn't make him Legal... Yet, something tends to be unrealistic, like the fact that he wouldn't have problems breaking fingers to a prisoner who won't talk... If he's the portrait of Goodness as stated in the first lines, he will probably have no problems in punching them the needed amount of times, but breaking fingers... it's very hard... those prisoners must make him very Angry, not just refusing to talk... So, I would remove elements like that... Neutrality in the Good/Evil line is not made by "Good 10 - Evil 10 = 0 (Neutrality)"... But "those elements" are what make him so INTERESTING!!:(
Timespike 09-01-07, 11:19 PM	You do realize that Coup de grāce is french for "blow of mercy" and refers to a merciful stroke putting a fatally wounded person out their misery, there is nothing dishonorable about it. I do. I've always thought that it was vaguely humorous that something meant to be humane was viewed as so wicked by so much of the D&D community. Where this particular PC darker side comes in is that he'll probably casually cut down a wounded enemy begging for mercy.
Nox_Noctis 09-01-07, 11:52 PM	Neutrality in the Good/Evil line is not made by "Good 10 - Evil 10 = 0 (Neutrality)"... Actually, it can be. It can either be indifference/a lack of acting either way, or by a balance of both sides. Both ways are balanced/neutral. I remain by my declaration of Neutral Good, however.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-02-07, 05:50 AM	But "those elements" are what make him so INTERESTING!!:( But unrealistic too... That is why many people hate Alignments: they want to play characters who do whatever the player thinks...
Stormbrand 09-02-07, 10:37 AM	I don't know; torture is pretty Evil in D&D terms. In the real world and in real ethics, it gets more complicated. If actual torture is used as a last resort - after bargaining, trickery, magic and so on - and the safety of others rests on the information, then I would consider any act of torture to be done under duress (out of options to protect X). Still a mark against him, but a small mark under the circumstances. Belting a bound prisoner is probably okay - because being a prisoner means that they will be treated well so long as they cooperate within reason. If they stop cooperating, they break the social contract that prohibits their captor from harming them. Otherwise prisoners would be in a position of power over their good aligned captors because no consequences would exist to stop the prisoner's actions. Refusing surrenders is fine - not everyone deserves to be spared. True, deliberate villains frankly need killing. Losing a fight does not change any of the wrongs they have done. Same with a tyrannical warlord sleeping - being in bed does not change the suffering caused by his reign of terror. It will unnerve lots of people (and probably the DM by the sounds of it) but is not truly immoral or evil. Provided that torture is only used when faced with worse alternatives, I would say the character still fits LG pretty well - with a few scary aspects. He is allowed to be scary.
Khadmus 09-03-07, 05:11 PM	Engy! Engineer? NG? NG.
Fithero 09-04-07, 12:12 AM	Engy! Engineer? NG? NG. Does anybody have any idea what he meant by that?
Paradox_of_Life 09-04-07, 01:09 AM	Point in fact, he is Lawful Good if you go by the view of lawful good from a Grey Guard's (COM Scoundrel) position. Want to torture a few people while being good? No, you can't. Wait...whats that? OH NO, ITS THE GREATER GOOD! FLEE ALL YE WHO THOUGHT THAT GOOD COULDN'T GET DOWN 'N DIRTY!
Radijs 09-04-07, 06:57 AM	Lawful good. Lawful means that he follows a code, and he seems to do so. The code isn't a paladin's code but its still a code. And he actively opposes evil which is good. Okay his methods aren't NICE but since when does good have to be NICE?
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-04-07, 07:27 AM	He's disciplined enough to follow orders, but not so much that it's for its own sake. He's neither a sensualist nor an ascetic This seems Neutral to me, I don't see any Lawful code... He obeyes order, but not because he firmly believes in them...
Khadmus 09-04-07, 01:42 PM	Does anybody have any idea what he meant by that? Thankfully, I at least knew what I was talking about. I vouch for him being NG, for the same reasons that people presented. He seems Good, and he has a "healthy respect for authority" (enough to be N, but not enough to be L).
Timespike 09-04-07, 11:13 PM	But unrealistic too... That is why many people hate Alignments: they want to play characters who do whatever the player thinks... The real world is full of complex people. It is entirely possible to be kind and compassionate towards one class of people (in this case, innocents) and harsh towards another (loathsome, evil cultists). Think about real-world soldiers for goodness' sake. They're kind and loving towards their families, lots of them volunteer for charitable stuff. You think there's an undue amount of remorse when they kill someone vicious bastard? There's not. I know some soldiers.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-05-07, 06:35 AM	Indeed, when they kill, not torture just to spare time in gaining infos from a prisoner...
Timespike 09-05-07, 10:50 AM	Indeed, when they kill, not torture just to spare time in gaining infos from a prisoner... I can virtually guarantee you that not every police officer who has beaten a confession out of a suspect, intelligence agency interrogator who has waterboarded a terrorist, or what have you has been the same way towards everyone in their life, or wanted to be. Sometimes people feel they have to do unpleasant things to keep even worse things from happening. Sometimes, they're even right. And sometimes, time is critical in getting information. If the ritual (or terrorist attack) is going to happen SOON, there may not be time to wear the bad guy down with sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop or other psychological tricks. It's not inconsistent, impossible, or even particularly unlikely for a person to be capable of both kindness and ruthlessness. The real question here in this thread is whether that makes him still good, or neutral, (or evil) aligned.
Fithero 09-05-07, 11:04 AM	The real question here in this thread is whether that makes him still good, or neutral, (or evil) aligned. -He goes out of his way to help the poor and innocent when it has no benifit to himself. -He wont harm an innocent unless he absolutely has to. -He rights wrongs and goes after the bad guys. In my eyes, thats a pretty damn good case for a good aligned character. Peace
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-05-07, 12:51 PM	Sometimes people feel they have to do unpleasant things to keep even worse things from happening. Indeed, if they have, not to take the choice lightly like: he has no problem striking a bound prisoner or even breaking a finger or two If Sufferance in others makes them act so good as described in the first part of the background, hardly they'll find no problem in inflicting Pain to someone, whoever may it be, if there is no real necessity... :)
Timespike 09-06-07, 09:41 AM	Indeed, if they have, not to take the choice lightly like: If Sufferance in others makes them act so good as described in the first part of the background, hardly they'll find no problem in inflicting Pain to someone, whoever may it be, if there is no real necessity... :) He only does it if there is necessity, but if necessary it is, he's able to do it it without flinching and without losing sleep over it later. I suppose a good way of putting it would be that he's indifferent to the pain of those who have caused pain to so many innocents. Even if you have difficulty picturing a real person who is capable of both love and torture, there's plenty of fictional precedent. Jack Bauer from 24 is probably the most obvious example, but there's also Benjamin Martin from the Patriot, Creasy from Man on Fire, etc.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-06-07, 10:10 AM	He only does it if there is necessity, but if necessary it is, he's able to do it it without flinching and without losing sleep over it later. I suppose a good way of putting it would be that he's indifferent to the pain of those who have caused pain to so many innocents. This is a different thing than "not having any problem", and it's ok, overall... Even if you have difficulty picturing a real person who is capable of both love and torture, there's plenty of fictional precedent. Jack Bauer from 24 is probably the most obvious example, but there's also Benjamin Martin from the Patriot, Creasy from Man on Fire, etc. Don't know any of them... :P But if they're as stated above... well, see answer above... :)
Turin71 09-06-07, 03:58 PM	The first impression I got is Lawful Neutral with good tendancies. Precisely the problem with alignment is that hardly anyone can be classified in such a black and white manner. However, not accepting surrender and killing the wounded, as is implied, is not Good no matter how bad the guys are.
Timespike 09-07-07, 09:05 AM	This is a different thing than "not having any problem", and it's ok, overall... Don't know any of them... :P But if they're as stated above... well, see answer above... :) You need to see some more movies, man. Another decent example would be Lucas Davenport from John Sandford's Prey series.
Novalon 09-07-07, 11:23 AM	Now I'm a bit of a noob, but what strikes me as interesting is that I played a Shadowbane Inquisitor (Paladin/Rogue PrC, Complete Adventurer) very much like this, and there are similar ideals that the character follows. Yes, there are a few gray areas, but the bottom line is that the class itself is still Lawful Good. Dirty tactics to slay evil? Sneaking up on an evil warlord and killing him in his sleep? Wiping out a town to cleanse an infestation of evil? The Shadowbane Inquisitor would find all these situations in his job description, and since the basic rules of the class still involve the character being Lawful Good, I believe your character still classifies under that alignment. If you don't want to be LG, however, slight deviations may have to occur, but it looks like you already have something good fleshed out.
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-07-07, 07:15 PM	You need to see some more movies, man. Another decent example would be Lucas Davenport from John Sandford's Prey series. Actually, I think I would better not share my opinion about movies... :)
Timespike 09-09-07, 02:12 PM	Actually, I think I would better not share my opinion about movies... :) Don't take this too personally, but your words carry progressively less weight with each successive post.
LietX 09-09-07, 06:00 PM	Gray Guard from p40-41 of Complete Scoundrel openly allows ruthless pro-church activities like beating up heretics for information. It may not be the degree of 'efficiency' you are looking for but it certainly illustrates an extreme example. >:-)
Timespike 09-10-07, 06:33 PM	Gray Guard from p40-41 of Complete Scoundrel openly allows ruthless pro-church activities like beating up heretics for information. It may not be the degree of 'efficiency' you are looking for but it certainly illustrates an extreme example. >:-) I'm quite familiar with and like the Grey Guard; I've made several builds with 'em.
astro_paro 09-12-07, 11:02 PM	In your D&D world a character can stab a npc repeatedly with a flaming magical two handed sword of doom and then 10 minutes later the npc completely falls apart after someone breaks their pinky?
LadyLindis 09-14-07, 12:38 PM	I think playing him Netural Good is the best Route. LG Characters are suckers for the Evil Cutlist's surrender trick... and if he won't fall for that and has no problms with torturing, of any degree, he's not Lawful Good by current D&D standards.
Timespike 09-16-07, 12:59 PM	I think playing him Netural Good is the best Route. LG Characters are suckers for the Evil Cutlist's surrender trick... and if he won't fall for that and has no problms with torturing, of any degree, he's not Lawful Good by current D&D standards. This is what I finally wound up going with.
The_Shaman 09-17-07, 06:47 PM	LN leaning to LG or vice versa. The difference is just where he draws the line, imo. Personally, I think that while good characters may, in extreme circumstances, use methods like the above, but they probably won't keep a very straight face while at it, and especially afterwards. I personally think that alignment is 35% what you do and 60% why you do it.
Timespike 09-19-07, 07:41 PM	LN leaning to LG or vice versa. The difference is just where he draws the line, imo. Personally, I think that while good characters may, in extreme circumstances, use methods like the above, but they probably won't keep a very straight face while at it, and especially afterwards. I personally think that alignment is 35% what you do and 60% why you do it. Which begs the question of what the last 5% is.
Shrapnel_Blast 09-20-07, 12:58 AM	Giving a beggar a job? Loving his wife and kids? Serving his country? These things definitely put him at Good. His motivation for doing these things isn't any sort of selfish objective; he's a good guy. Another vote for Neutral Good. Which begs the question of what the last 5% is. Whether or not you woke up aboard the Dirigible of Hate.