Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ikki 09-06-07, 03:08 PM	Someone who always supports the community, helps good and in every way acts like a really upstanding -almost exalted charcter... except.. Well, has his very own epic fortress with demiplanes and stuff.. has mastered origin of life -elf, human etc.. Creates these lives on his demiplanes, and keeps them enslaved or sacrificed to demons/devils/nasty gods for boons. Never ever has he captured anyone from the general population, not even orcs.. only his own created subjects. As in fact generally helps good in every way imaginable -old hero that discovered the bad guys were right after all, but doesn't wish any harm upon anyone.. sort of.. I am leaning towards a CN, for this whimsical form of evil, but not quite a fullblows evil maniac.. maybe.. :eek:
Sol_Aedh_Avoth 09-06-07, 03:43 PM	His Alignment is FU (Foolish Unrealistic)...
Kalai_Eljahn 09-06-07, 04:11 PM	Are there any protection vs foolish / detect foolish spells? Lawful can be whimsical, and this sounds vaguely LE to me, actually.
Kamin_Majere 09-06-07, 04:20 PM	This kind of ranks up there with the ones about trapping paladins in a room with 20 babies and telling them to kill the babies or the world will be destroyed. Its one of those things that doesnt fit on the alignment scale and is so improbable that isnt worth really considering. To actually break this down to a somewhat managable situation you would have to find more about the individual. If they are powerful enough to have their own demiplane and races following them, then why do it to begin with. Does the person eventually break the barrier between "created" races and "normal" races and start killing them too? Or does the person eventually feel for his created races and stop the expiraments? Mostly though I would consider them Neutral. But again its a situation that ranks up there with kill babies or the world dies.
ikki 09-07-07, 07:13 AM	Thanks ;) Yeah.. lol.. indeed, babies vs world :D Except he likes to play with little kids "in the real world", not counting the test subjects in those fakeworlds.. lol
Ghulshagg 09-07-07, 09:50 AM	and keeps them enslaved or sacrificed to demons/devils/nasty gods for boons. This debate is what makes DnD and rpg's in general great, they engender these kinds of moral questions. For my part, I find the enslavement/ritual sacrifice of CREATED life to be even more heinous than the same treatment of so-called "natural life". Your PC is displaying evil behavior (enslavement/sacrifice of intelligent beings are inherently evil acts), but engages in these evil acts within the precepts of his own moral (albeit twisted) code. This falls squarely in Lawful Evil.
Elsydeon 09-07-07, 10:19 AM	This isn't a moral quandry. People need to back away from video game morality, where you can slaughter innocents and then go save some orphans and be back in the middle. Dude thinks it's fine to sacrifice people. Created sentient beings are still sentient beings. Where's the issue?
Hsien 09-07-07, 10:29 AM	Not tricky at all as it's clearly closest to.... Lawful Evil
Kamin_Majere 09-07-07, 10:47 AM	This isn't a moral quandry. People need to back away from video game morality, where you can slaughter innocents and then go save some orphans and be back in the middle. Dude thinks it's fine to sacrifice people. Created sentient beings are still sentient beings. Where's the issue? Whos to say the beings he created are sentient? Lets face it this person is powerful enough to create his own universe, does he even consider these created things as sentient, or are they viewed more along the lines of a science project. In Marvel comics Galactus destroys billions and billions of sentient beings yet isnt evil as much as neutral. Galactus is so far advanced of the things he destroys that he no longer sees them as anything but food sources. If Ants were sentient beings and i killed a couple of hundred a day by simply walking would i be evil? Or would i simply be so powerful in comparison to them that i might not notice what i'm doing enough to compare it to a good/evil action? As i said with out knowing ALOT more about the situation you cant claim the person as anything but neutral.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-07-07, 10:51 AM	Someone who always supports the community, helps good and in every way acts like a really upstanding -almost exalted charcter... except.. Irrelevant, after considering his other practices. Well, has his very own epic fortress with demiplanes and stuff.. has mastered origin of life -elf, human etc.. Creates these lives on his demiplanes, and keeps them enslaved or sacrificed to demons/devils/nasty gods for boons. Evil, plain and simple. Enslavement and life sacrifice of sentients is not balanced out by being a good summaritan. Never ever has he captured anyone from the general population, not even orcs.. only his own created subjects. As in fact generally helps good in every way imaginable -old hero that discovered the bad guys were right after all, but doesn't wish any harm upon anyone.. sort of.. This suggests that he follows some sort of universally applicable philosophy or code. "Killing natural life is evil, but killing mortal-made life is A-Okay!" This means that he's lawful, unless I missed my mark about his motives. Final alanysis = Lawful (probably) Evil (definately, 100% without question)
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 11:19 AM	Lets face it this person is powerful enough to create his own universe, does he even consider these created things as sentient, or are they viewed more along the lines of a science project. Doesn't matter what he thinks. In Marvel comics Galactus destroys billions and billions of sentient beings yet isnt evil as much as neutral. Galactus is so far advanced of the things he destroys that he no longer sees them as anything but food sources. He has to eat. Even if he kills them, he only does so for sustenance. If Ants were sentient beings and i killed a couple of hundred a day by simply walking would i be evil? Or would i simply be so powerful in comparison to them that i might not notice what i'm doing enough to compare it to a good/evil action? Morality is about choice. Without choice you can have no alignment (except Neutral, but that's the fencesitter alignment and we all know fencesitters don't count). You don't have to cripple yourself to remain non-Evil. As i said with out knowing ALOT more about the situation you cant claim the person as anything but neutral. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. The bolded part is what makes him Evil.
Kamin_Majere 09-07-07, 11:27 AM	Irrelevant, after considering his other practices. So good deeds cannot make up for evil ones? If you kill in hatred once over your lifetime nothing you do will ever make you good again? If thats the case i'll bet about 99%+ of all adventures on any of the prime material planes are evil Evil, plain and simple. Enslavement and life sacrifice of sentients is not balanced out by being a good summaritan. So if you summon a sentient being as it dies is it evil? What about gating one in and it dies? I mean your still sacrificing and enslaving a sentient being with those spells. Or is it only temporaryly evil... kinda the 1 calorie of evils? EDIT: took to long to post so i missed this Doesn't matter what he thinks. But i thought morality was about choice? If he dosent see the things he created as anything more than "things he created" than his choice is greatly influenced by what he thinks. He has to eat. Even if he kills them, he only does so for sustenance. True, but he discovered that uninhabited worlds could sustain him, its just harder to find and not quite as filling. But still a neutral act as IMO he didnt consider the being he was eating sentient. Because they were so far below him on the pecking order. Morality is about choice. Without choice you can have no alignment (except Neutral, but that's the fencesitter alignment and we all know fencesitters don't count). You don't have to cripple yourself to remain non-Evil. The bolded part is what makes him Evil. Exactly, morality is about choice, and i think in his mind the choice is simply a matter of gaining something through breaking a bunch of toy soldiers. Nothing morally right or wrong about it. He is Neutral As to the bolded part... i think the "Killing with out compassion" would fit better the situation. Hes not killing out of duty he simply gets a boon for doing so.
Sarig the Genie 09-07-07, 12:04 PM	Definately evil, very very evil. And based on how methodic he is in helping some, while sacrificing others, I'd say lawfull too.
Elsydeon 09-07-07, 12:22 PM	Your arguments would be fine... If we were debating whether or not good and evil are subjective or objective. In D&D they are most certainly objective, whatever your opinions on the real world. Evil.
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 12:23 PM	So good deeds cannot make up for evil ones? If you kill in hatred once over your lifetime nothing you do will ever make you good again? If thats the case i'll bet about 99%+ of all adventures on any of the prime material planes are evil That's a straw man. Good acts can make up for Evil ones, but the man isn't really Good because he really only cares about his own community, and the fact is that he serves an Evil power. So if you summon a sentient being as it dies is it evil? What about gating one in and it dies? I mean your still sacrificing and enslaving a sentient being with those spells. Summoned creatures don't die while in service. Called ones do. Could be Evil, but it likely isn't. But i thought morality was about choice? If he dosent see the things he created as anything more than "things he created" than his choice is greatly influenced by what he thinks. Like I said, it doesn't matter what he thinks. What matters is what the creatures really are. They are probably not lower beings if they're worthy of sacrifice. True, but he discovered that uninhabited worlds could sustain him, its just harder to find and not quite as filling. But still a neutral act as IMO he didnt consider the being he was eating sentient. Because they were so far below him on the pecking order. The choice he's faced with is comparable to eating soy food vs. eating meat. It's not really a moral issue (except to some people, people that need to get over themselves). Exactly, morality is about choice, and i think in his mind the choice is simply a matter of gaining something through breaking a bunch of toy soldiers. Nothing morally right or wrong about it. He is Neutral But the thing is that those toy soldiers are not his to break. As to the bolded part... i think the "Killing with out compassion" would fit better the situation. Hes not killing out of duty he simply gets a boon for doing so. Then he's doing it for self gain. A case could be made for self gain falling under the reason "for sport" (everybody likes getting gifts; he likes it so much that he's willing to kill innocent beings to get them).
Hsien 09-07-07, 12:50 PM	So good deeds cannot make up for evil ones? If you kill in hatred once over your lifetime nothing you do will ever make you good again? If thats the case i'll bet about 99%+ of all adventures on any of the prime material planes are evil Performing "good" acts to make up for "evil" ones may work. Characters/beings can atone for previous misdeeds and evil. What doesn't work, when trying to become "good/neutral" alignment is... 1: You're only doing it for appearances. Heck my current character is considered "lawful good" by the party but is actually neutral and well...very sneaky. What the party thinks does not actually change his actual alignment though. 2: You continue to do evil acts. In order to be considered a "good" alignment you have to stop performing evil acts. It's that simple. There is no business module to determine the ratio...this fiscal quarter I performed X amount of Evil acts and Y amount of Good acts...so what's my alignment? EVIL continuing to perform evil acts...that makes you EVIL ~ nuff said
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 09-07-07, 12:55 PM	*sigh* http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd153/Nerindil981/Alignment2.jpg
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 12:57 PM	*sigh* http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd153/Nerindil981/Alignment2.jpg I disagree.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 09-07-07, 01:02 PM	I disagree. Care to expound upon that? Or do you just like to disagree?
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 01:16 PM	Care to expound upon that? Or do you just like to disagree? For one, nice person/prick doesn't describe Good or Evil to any appreciable extent, and "the rules" refers to what? I'm guessing they just assumed that alignment was relative because it simplifies things. What it really is: Good = Exaltation of moral innocence Evil = Exaltation of the worthy Law = Exaltation of structure the whole Chaos = Exaltation of freedom and the individual Utilitarians and deontologists apply these definitions differently from each other.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 09-07-07, 01:26 PM	For one, nice person/prick doesn't describe Good or Evil to any appreciable extent, and "the rules" refers to what? I'm guessing they just assumed that alignment was relative because it simplifies things. What it really is: Good = Exaltation of moral innocence Evil = Exaltation of the worthy Law = Exaltation of structure the whole Chaos = Exaltation of freedom and the individual Utilitarians and deontologists apply these definitions differently from each other. You know? That is a really eloquent, valid point. I concede the argument to you.
Kamin_Majere 09-07-07, 01:27 PM	That's a straw man. Good acts can make up for Evil ones, but the man isn't really Good because he really only cares about his own community, and the fact is that he serves an Evil power. What good person doesnt just care about his community? I mean you wouldnt stop the Orc raiders if you cared about their community. But because you value the community of the "goodly races" more you stop the orcs, whether or not they have ligimate claim to be doing something Summoned creatures don't die while in service. Called ones do. Could be Evil, but it likely isn't. Why isnt the death of a gated creature evil? Espically since it was enslaved before death by you? Does the spell somehow give you plausable deniability? If Gate does then why not orgin of species? You could consider it just a much broader reaching gate spell after all. Well except for you get to controll the lifeforms and most of their qualities. I mean at least with this situation the creatures never knew freedom, unlike the poor gated creature that was basically enslaved and forced to kill itself through an unwanted combat. Like I said, it doesn't matter what he thinks. What matters is what the creatures really are. They are probably not lower beings if they're worthy of sacrifice. Devils veiw prime material beings as lesser forms of life and still gladly accept them as sacrifices. This wizard could still be so far out there in teh power scale of things that these creatures really are as ants to him. So i still say it does matter what he thinks But the thing is that those toy soldiers are not his to break. Why? Did the wizard not create them and therefore have quite alot of say in their fate. Then he's doing it for self gain. A case could be made for self gain falling under the reason "for sport" (everybody likes getting gifts; he likes it so much that he's willing to kill innocent beings to get them). The self gain is an absolute. Hes doing what hes doing for purely selfish reasons. But selfish doesnt equal evil (sometimes it can, but good can be just as selfish if taken to extremes) But i dont see it as sport as much as clinical. Hes more like a scientist pushing boundries than a person that hunts lesser beings for fun. It still could be evil, i just think its more of a neutral aligned situation. Though i still rank it up there with babies vs the world by Hsien Performing "good" acts to make up for "evil" ones may work. Characters/beings can atone for previous misdeeds and evil. What doesn't work, when trying to become "good/neutral" alignment is... 1: You're only doing it for appearances. Heck my current character is considered "lawful good" by the party but is actually neutral and well...very sneaky. What the party thinks does not actually change his actual alignment though. 2: You continue to do evil acts. In order to be considered a "good" alignment you have to stop performing evil acts. It's that simple. There is no business module to determine the ratio...this fiscal quarter I performed X amount of Evil acts and Y amount of Good acts...so what's my alignment? EVIL continuing to perform evil acts...that makes you EVIL ~ nuff said Good points, but how do you weigh evil vs good then. If i preform an evil act and do good to atone for it. Can i never do evil again lest i become evil? Again i say if thats the cast most all adventures in all worlds are the most horrible evils on those worlds. .... I have to disagree with you as well Count. The chart is funny and does solve most all normal alignment issues. But it cant quite rationalize a concept of a single entity being the savior of one world and the destroyer of another.
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 01:42 PM	You know? That is a really eloquent, valid point. I concede the argument to you. *takes a bow* What good person doesnt just care about his community? I mean you wouldnt stop the Orc raiders if you cared about their community. But because you value the community of the "goodly races" more you stop the orcs, whether or not they have ligimate claim to be doing something I haven't seen anything to indicate that the man cares about anything other than himself and the community he's serving. And Good people don't have to care about any Orcs or Goblins that invade their community because they have foregone their right to be left alone by invading. Why isnt the death of a gated creature evil? Espically since it was enslaved before death by you? Does the spell somehow give you plausable deniability? If Gate does then why not orgin of species? You could consider it just a much broader reaching gate spell after all. Well except for you get to controll the lifeforms and most of their qualities. I mean at least with this situation the creatures never knew freedom, unlike the poor gated creature that was basically enslaved and forced to kill itself through an unwanted combat. Because you generally gate in creatures that serve your cause. You gate in a Solar to fight Demons and if the Solar dies, then it still died doing something it would have done anyway, for example. Devils veiw prime material beings as lesser forms of life and still gladly accept them as sacrifices. The Devil's opinions don't matter. Their opinions make them arrogant, not right. This wizard could still be so far out there in teh power scale of things that these creatures really are as ants to him. So i still say it does matter what he thinks It doesn't. Why? Did the wizard not create them and therefore have quite alot of say in their fate. They're living beings (and likely sentient too), and therefore have the right (as recognized by the forces of Good) to live. The self gain is an absolute. Hes doing what hes doing for purely selfish reasons. But selfish doesnt equal evil (sometimes it can, but good can be just as selfish if taken to extremes) It does if you go as far as to kill innocent beings to receive gifts from Evil beings of great power. In fact, that's both service and self-gratification. But i dont see it as sport as much as clinical. Hes more like a scientist pushing boundries than a person that hunts lesser beings for fun. It still could be evil, i just think its more of a neutral aligned situation. Though i still rank it up there with babies vs the world Doesn't matter. He's sacrificing living beings to receive gifts from an Evil power. How the hell is that not Evil?
Man in the Funny Hat 09-07-07, 01:55 PM	Alignment is determined by your actions. He creates beings and then sacrifices them for personal gain. Not creates fertility art or carrot soup, not mindless shell-corpses, but living BEINGS.
Hsien 09-07-07, 02:01 PM	Good points, but how do you weigh evil vs good then. If i preform an evil act and do good to atone for it. Can i never do evil again lest i become evil? Again i say if thats the cast most all adventures in all worlds are the most horrible evils on those worlds. As I said it's not about weighing a ratio. In game terms it's how the character/being acts in general, and does not specify exceptions or extraneous circumstances ( babies vs world ) that may occur. So no performing another evil act may not cause an alignment change, thats a DM discretion depending on circumstances, but additional evil acts would absolutely cause it.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 09-07-07, 02:02 PM	Why? Did the wizard not create them and therefore have quite alot of say in their fate. One could say the same about parents and their children you know. Still think it wouldn't be evil?
Kamin_Majere 09-07-07, 02:10 PM	*takes a bow* well deserved on that point too! I haven't seen anything to indicate that the man cares about anything other than himself and the community he's serving. And Good people don't have to care about any Orcs or Goblins that invade their community because they have foregone their right to be left alone by invading. by ikki Someone who always supports the community, helps good and in every way acts like a really upstanding -almost exalted charcter... except.. Seems like hes the prime example of good (as far as we know, i still maintain we dont know enough about this persons motivations) As to the Orc's Whos to say that the goodly races didnt push them out to begin with. Humanity (in most realms) is pretty much a manifest destiny race. So its entirely possible that the orcs are simply trying to take back what is theirs. This is usually not the case, but there are a few times it has been and they were still crushed by "good" because the goodly community was held to have more value than the orcs Because you generally gate in creatures that serve your cause. You gate in a Solar to fight Demons and if the Solar dies, then it still died doing something it would have done anyway, for example. Yeah but thats taking a very high road. Most of the time gate is simply a means to an end. Its rare that the situation lines up exactly like that and more often than not if simply the most effecient way to end a fight or the best way to save yourself/party. Its still enslavement and death unless its that perfect sort of situation. The Devil's opinions don't matter. Their opinions make them arrogant, not right. True. It doesn't.(about opinions on lesser beings) Why? Neutrality can do quite evil(ish) things for its goals. They're living beings (and likely sentient too), and therefore have the right (as recognized by the forces of Good) to live. It does if you go as far as to kill innocent beings to receive gifts from Evil beings of great power. In fact, that's both service and self-gratification. Doesn't matter. He's sacrificing living beings to receive gifts from an Evil power. How the hell is that not Evil? The creatures are likely sentient, but might not be. (again more info needed) And yes the act of gaining power from the evil sources is indeed evil. But is it enough to push a character that also does great works for good into the evil alighment, or would it only push them toward neutral? I still say neutral... maybe even true neutral if the wizard considers this some kind of oddball cosmic balancing act (though that would be a bit of a stretch)
Kamin_Majere 09-07-07, 02:17 PM	Forgive the double post the otheone was simply too long As I said it's not about weighing a ratio. In game terms it's how the character/being acts in general, and does not specify exceptions or extraneous circumstances ( babies vs world ) that may occur. Well then what if this Wizard generally acts as the height of goodness, and only does this rarely. If the general way a person acts defines alignment then they would be good...? One could say the same about parents and their children you know. Still think it wouldn't be evil? One could say that, but i'm not going to. I'm enjoying this to much to try to place real life morality to a subject that cant even be concieved of IRL.
Tequila_Sunrise 09-07-07, 02:55 PM	Now that you've spent about a page doing nothing but splitting hairs, I'm going to point out that Ikki hasn't posted since #5, which btw implied that his dilemma is solved.
Kraikken 09-07-07, 03:08 PM	An interesting point here. It's like describing a farmer who raises livestock to be sacrifised to appease a god as part of a ritual within his culture. As a cultural manifestation this is niether good nor evil when looking from the outside to the in, yet assuredly this would be viewed as a good thing within the community as it benefits the community as a whole. However, this character is plainly aware that this use of sacrifice is simply a tool to aquire greater resources of power, even when used in a capacity of good it is still an act of killing. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." Now I agree with an earlier statement that D&D alignment is largely objective, and under that understanding I agree with the assesment that this is a LE character. However when I DM I rarely conform to any rigid law set of alignment, and tend to avoid any alignment specific ideal entirely and instead rely on ethical domains as they refer to the peoples they affect (IE a Lawful sword only equipable by a lawful creature would still be equipable by a Goblin who obeyed the laws to which they held true too.) Under that understanding I would assign no alignment to the character and have him applauded as a hero by the people, yet possibly a party upon discovering this act may view him as an evil creature that needs destroying. Kraikken "I fear no king with a thousand men and all the riches of the world. I fear but a single man, with a sharp blade, and nothing left to loose".
Ghulshagg 09-07-07, 06:01 PM	.. has mastered origin of life -elf, human etc.. the OP tells us that these created beings are sentients. About galactus, he's a force of nature that has assumed personality traits. if this PC is a god, why is he offering sacrifices to his equals, or in the case of archdevils and demon princes, his inferiors? I'll stand by my original assessment: the sacrifice of intelligent beings to evil outsiders is an inherently evil act. BTW, The Book of Vile Darkness agrees. Both murder and worship of evil gods are specified as "evil acts".
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 06:11 PM	or in the case of archdevils and demon princes, his inferiors? This is heavily contested. Outside of that I agree with you.
Chardre 09-07-07, 06:56 PM	Unfortunately I'd have to go with lawful evil. If a paladin lives his entire life helping others and funding orphanages, but then ends up slaughtering a hundred babies (I don't know why... maybe he had a bad day) he is definately evil. It is much easier to be evil than good. A bad deed usually counts for more than a good deed.
IRememberCecil 09-07-07, 10:09 PM	Unfortunately I'd have to go with lawful evil. If a paladin lives his entire life helping others and funding orphanages, but then ends up slaughtering a hundred babies (I don't know why... maybe he had a bad day) he is definately evil. True, but for a different reason than people might think. Being Good requires you to care about innocent lives non-selectively. If someone loves 100 babies and kills 100 more, then he does not care about babies. He cares about a specific group of babies (Neutral), but will still kill other ones (Evil). It is much easier to be evil than good. Wrong. Alignment reflects your personality. If you have a caring personality and act like it, then you are Good. It comes naturally. A bad deed usually counts for more than a good deed. An Evil act never counts more than a Good act unless it was committed on a grander scale or was decidedly worse than the Good act committed, and vice versa.
Vaelan 09-08-07, 12:30 AM	An Evil act never counts more than a Good act unless it was committed on a grander scale or was decidedly worse than the Good act committed, and vice versa. Since there aren't any rules to govern it, that is purely subjective. It all has to do with the standard you hold people to.
zzo38 09-08-07, 08:19 PM	Someone who always supports the community, helps good and in every way acts like a really upstanding -almost exalted charcter... except.. Well, has his very own epic fortress with demiplanes and stuff.. has mastered origin of life -elf, human etc.. Creates these lives on his demiplanes, and keeps them enslaved or sacrificed to demons/devils/nasty gods for boons. Never ever has he captured anyone from the general population, not even orcs.. only his own created subjects. As in fact generally helps good in every way imaginable -old hero that discovered the bad guys were right after all, but doesn't wish any harm upon anyone.. sort of.. I am leaning towards a CN, for this whimsical form of evil, but not quite a fullblows evil maniac.. maybe.. :eek: I would say CN or NN or LN, not sure which one. He isn't a Good or Evil alignment, only Neutral because that is in between (or he is both Good and Evil, but that just can't be!). But, why he does that is a different thing entirely but should be considered. Of course I don't know why, maybe even he doesn't know, ... whatever ... etc... I don't know
Man in the Funny Hat 09-09-07, 02:06 PM	An interesting point here. It's like describing a farmer who raises livestock to be sacrifised to appease a god as part of a ritual within his culture.Only when you fail to distinguish between WHY you create your "livestock" and exactly what kind of livestock is being created. There may be analagy but NO DIRECT COMPARISON to domesticated cattle and sentient creatures like humans, elves, dwarves, etc. The fact that this particular "creator" considers his creations as being nothing more than cattle doesn't mean he's RIGHT about that perspective. Alignment in D&D - unlike real world morals and ethics - is intended to provide black and white distinctions between good and evil. You can't therefore say that just because he thinks of his created humans as his to abuse for fun and profit because HE made them, that he's not thoroughly EVIL in his perspective.
Kamin_Majere 09-09-07, 02:16 PM	Only when you fail to distinguish between WHY you create your "livestock" and exactly what kind of livestock is being created. There may be analagy but NO DIRECT COMPARISON to domesticated cattle and sentient creatures like humans, elves, dwarves, etc. The fact that this particular "creator" considers his creations as being nothing more than cattle doesn't mean he's RIGHT about that perspective. Alignment in D&D - unlike real world morals and ethics - is intended to provide black and white distinctions between good and evil. You can't therefore say that just because he thinks of his created humans as his to abuse for fun and profit because HE made them, that he's not thoroughly EVIL in his perspective. I can see that as true, but would it be universal? Would there be a being high enough on the evolutionary scale to no longer consider humaniods sentient? What if its so powerful that it dosent notice things like the gods, and actually is capable of destroying them like we do bacteria?
NewBlood808 09-09-07, 07:39 PM	I feel that there are two aspects of alignment in many cases. There's the alignment a character thinks he is, and the alignment he actually is. For example, the destruction of innocents in order to harm an enemy government; terrorism. The terrorist believes he is chaotic good, fighting the evil oppressor. Yet he is clearly chaotic evil. Alignment is a meta game concept designed to aid players when they role play characters. The character doesn't necessarily know his own alignment. This guy sounds Lawful Evil to me, but at the same time he's probably a really nice guy.
snffff 09-10-07, 12:09 AM	Maybe I'm misinterpreting the alignment system, but a character who is good in his daily life and then goes home to torment or otherwise injure and control the lives of the helpless (at least against him) sounds decidedly neutral evil to me. Keep in mind that the usage of good and evil in the alignment system are not moral judgments, they are ideas about character motivation. In other words, a character's alignment is not determined by their actions, but their actions should be determined by their alignment. In fact when it comes down to it, most people's idea of moralistic good falls more into the lawful alignment than good. The idea of doing things because it is the right thing to do (following a code) is the fundamental idea behind the lawful alignment in the d&d system. Good and evil would probably be better written as altruistic and selfish. Good characters are motivated to do things to help others and make the world a better place. Evil characters are motivated to help themselves and make their lives easier and more comfortable. This has nothing to do with methods at all. An evil character could easily do kind things, and support a community and make the world a better place if he felt that in doing so it would serve him better than mistreating them, particularly if this method was easier than oppressing them or injuring them in some way. Conversely a good character might run a horse until it died in order to save someone, or kill an evil person to prevent them from doing harm (though presumably they would have compunctions about it) A lawful character might be capable of the kinds of things this person is doing, but it seems contradictory to the lawful alignment that he would act one way publicly and a completely different way in private, because a lawful person is motivated to do things because they are the correct method, and so should have no embarrassment or concern over his actions (the exception to this being if his actions were only acceptable in private, i.e. an aristocrat maintaining mistresses has classically been socially acceptable so long as it is kept discreet) I think that the general consensus that he is not chaotic is sound, a chaotic character would likely have no compunction about the actions he is taking, but would also lack the discretion. A chaotic character, particularly one which is evil, as this character seems to be would be oppressive as is suited his fancy and would not be carefully separating his actions in the outside world from the ones in his home. A neutral evil character however is motivated to do things that make their lives easy and comfortable. A neutral evil character would think nothing of screwing one crowd to get in with another crowd that he valued more, or mooch off of a party of good and reputable adventurers in order to get money or magic or power or repute, or If he could use the lives of a group of unimportant people to sacrifice for boons to build up his social status in the world he does care about for instance, he would. That said, this character sounds pretty neutral evil to me.