Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kobold Paladin 06-17-07, 07:47 PM	I have a tendency to run npcs with alignments that don't fit into the D&D alignment system at all, because I dont like 2D characters. But recently my PCs have been trying to detect alignment alot on my NPCs so I want to prepared responce. This is the NPC in question right now. I summed up their alignment in PHB format. <Alignment>, "Hurray for Prettiness!!!" A <alignment> character is committed to the furthering of happiness in herself and others while minimizing the unhappiness in those her actions negatively affect. She is adorable, unpredictable and can be brutally violent when called for. If she is simply out trying to have fun, she is generally harmless and benign. If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. Thankfully, she is easily distracted by pretty things and she generally has other’s best interests on her mind. <alignment> is the best alignment you can be because some things in life money can’t buy, for everything else, there’s MasterCard.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-17-07, 07:48 PM	I'd say CG.
Kobold Paladin 06-17-07, 07:49 PM	I would say that too, but she has been know to tourture people for days because they are cute and dont like her.
Cold Napalm 06-17-07, 07:50 PM	Umm I'd set that as either CN or NE depending on how vicious she gets with grudges/how much she cares about her fun. Remember NE = selfish git. But with the flightyness, I'm leaning more towards CN.
Cold Napalm 06-17-07, 07:51 PM	I would say that too, but she has been know to tourture people for days because they are cute and dont like her. Humm that makes me lean more towards NE/CE...
Kobold Paladin 06-17-07, 07:53 PM	Maybe I should just say she has a split personality, one is CG and the other CE, that might work because she does amazingly nice things too, like giving half her gold to fund local charities and puts herself in danger to help people she doesnt know expecting no reward.
Cold Napalm 06-17-07, 07:58 PM	Maybe I should just say she has a split personality, one is CG and the other CE, that might work because she does amazingly nice things too, like giving half her gold to fund local charities and puts herself in danger to help people she doesnt know expecting no reward. Or say she's CN since split personality = insane and insane people have been classically stuck in the CN alignment. WHich is why DM cringe at CN because for some reason a large portion of players seems to think CN means you MUST be insane...
Rabid Dire Wolverine 06-17-07, 08:25 PM	CN would work. However, though it's unconventional, I might consider saying she's both good and evil, as in she tests positive for detect good and detect evil, or you just get muddled feedback for either.
Talisman 06-17-07, 08:25 PM	Sounds like a PC I had to deal with last campaign. Definitely CN, but sliding towards CE. If the whole "torture for petty reasons" thing continues, she should become a solid CE, albeit with the caveat that she promotes beauty and helps her friends. Remember, evil doesn't always wear a black cloak and twirl a mustache. Sometimes it wears a pink dress and blonde curls, and giggles as it offers you candy.
Crystal Monk 06-17-07, 08:35 PM	I would say that too, but she has been know to tourture people for days because they are cute and dont like her.holy crap... it's Piffany the Homocidal Maniac. run while you can.
AAB 06-17-07, 09:00 PM	CE all the way. just because she's nice to some people doesn't mean she's not an evil psychopath.
johnhansen 06-17-07, 09:08 PM	I have a tendency to run npcs with alignments that don't fit into the D&D alignment system at all, because I dont like 2D characters. But recently my PCs have been trying to detect alignment alot on my NPCs so I want to prepared responce. . Characters with alignments are no more 2D than characters without alignments. If your players are trying to detect alignments it maybe because they are not sure how to react to npcs who have the alignment of the moment. Go with CN or CN moving to CE.
windscar18 06-17-07, 09:20 PM	Chaotic Neutral. Most definately. She does what she wants, when she wants, and doesn't have an apparent moral ethics code nor an outright evil aspect of her, unless she gets ******.
Horus_Sungod 06-17-07, 10:06 PM	Chaotic Evil Being nice to one person and then torturing another for no reason amounts to evil. I mean, a paladin saving one person's life and then killing an innocent could not retain his powers for long!
Sildatorak 06-17-07, 10:26 PM	A <alignment> character is committed to the furthering of happiness in herself and others while minimizing the unhappiness in those her actions negatively affect.This bit sounds like good or neutral. Helping yourself doesn't matter for your alignment, and minimizing suffering sounds neutralish, or possibly good depending on whether she'll sacrifice her own benefit to help others. She is adorable, unpredictable and can be brutally violent when called for. This sounds like chaotic for sure and neutral or evil. Brutal violence is not necessarily evil, otherwise paladins would have the special ability "tickle evil."If she is simply out trying to have fun, she is generally harmless and benign. If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering.Solidly evil, no doubts about it.Thankfully, she is easily distracted by pretty things and she generally has other’s best interests on her mind.I have doubts about the having others' best interests on her mind. "Has others' best interests on her mind as long as they don't conflict with hers," sounds much more consistent with the rest of the description, which rings solidly neutral. The easily distracted bit sounds either unrelated to alignment or tending toward chaotic and lack of discipline/following the whim of the moment. I'd say this alignment is chaotic neutral with evil tendencies.
Kaldric 06-17-07, 10:44 PM	She's unpredictable=chaotic She's a torrent of prolonged suffering=evil Not much else to say.
Dragonsblood 06-17-07, 11:10 PM	A <alignment> character is committed to the furthering of happiness in herself and others while minimizing the unhappiness in those her actions negatively affect. She is adorable, unpredictable and can be brutally violent when called for. If she is simply out trying to have fun, she is generally harmless and benign. If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. Thankfully, she is easily distracted by pretty things and she generally has other’s best interests on her mind. Your description is inconsistent. Someone who tortures people for days because they're cute is NOT committed to furthering the happiness of others and does NOT have other's best interests on her mind. I think you're going out of your way to make your character more "complex" than she should be. Your character was CG until you added this: I would say that too, but she has been know to tourture people for days because they are cute and dont like her. With this she's not a realistic being because these two descriptions do not belong together. She can lie to herself and say she has other's best interest at heart, but the way you wrote the description does not imply this. 2 plus 2 does not equal 5.
High Octane 06-17-07, 11:13 PM	Chaotic WHAT IN THE NAME OF PELOR IS WRONG WITH YOU???? So on her character sheet under alignment put "CWITNOPIWWY?"
calronmoonflower 06-17-07, 11:59 PM	<Alignment>, "Hurray for Prettiness!!!" A <alignment> character is committed to the furthering of happiness in herself and others while minimizing the unhappiness in those her actions negatively affect. That points to good on the good/evil scales. She is adorable, unpredictable and can be brutally violent when called for. The unpredictable points toward chaotic. If she is simply out trying to have fun, she is generally harmless and benign. Also seems neutral on the good/evil scales. If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. This actually points toward evil or insane. Thankfully, she is easily distracted by pretty things and she generally has other’s best interests on her mind. Good intention do points toward good, but the psychotic streak points toward evil. I would say that too, but she has been know to tourture people for days because they are cute and dont like her. You should have mentioned that in the first post. That is pure evil behavior. She seems to be psychotic evil, but well intentioned
Stafir Ortnev 06-18-07, 12:43 AM	I have to agree with the CE thing...evil CAN be nice. Evil CAN be kind, it can even win the pure loyalty of people just because they think that person is so good to them. However just because they can be nice..dosn't mean they always are. Evil is more than happy to get its hands dirty if need be. So yeah..she sounds evil...the type of evil who you don't worry about if you are friends with her..but still evil.
Vaelan 06-18-07, 01:41 AM	Maybe I should just say she has a split personality, one is CG and the other CE, that might work because she does amazingly nice things too, like giving half her gold to fund local charities and puts herself in danger to help people she doesnt know expecting no reward. Or maybe you should just accept that a character can exhibit both Good and Evil traits, meaning you need to evaluate which one is a greater aspect of the person's general moral attitudes in order to determine their alignment.
SkyOdin 06-18-07, 02:04 AM	Chaotic Evil. She is obsessed with her own insane world, and fails to realize how illogical and harmful her actions are. I don't see how this doesn't fall under the traditional alignment system. Characters with alignments can be very complex.
Eightbitmage 06-18-07, 09:21 AM	If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. This makes her chaotic evil, no question. "Hey, your dress has too many ruffles!" response: *stab, burn, kill destroy* Not to mention the torture thing.
Leilond 06-18-07, 10:57 AM	A perfect CE character It look like it feet perfectly into the CE category Sure can be "good" every now and then, with some people... but there's not the need to be "good" to make some "good", like good characters can act evil every now and then But this If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. Make the character insane and evil. Pheraps the PC suffer for his "mental illness", but until it isn't cured, you cannot consider him good... nor neutral I think
zzo38 06-18-07, 11:18 AM	I have a tendency to run npcs with alignments that don't fit into the D&D alignment system at all, because I dont like 2D characters. But recently my PCs have been trying to detect alignment alot on my NPCs so I want to prepared responce. This is the NPC in question right now. I summed up their alignment in PHB format. <Alignment>, "Hurray for Prettiness!!!" A <alignment> character is committed to the furthering of happiness in herself and others while minimizing the unhappiness in those her actions negatively affect. She is adorable, unpredictable and can be brutally violent when called for. If she is simply out trying to have fun, she is generally harmless and benign. If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. Thankfully, she is easily distracted by pretty things and she generally has other’s best interests on her mind. <alignment> is the best alignment you can be because some things in life money can’t buy, for everything else, there’s MasterCard. I would say NN or CN, with a few Evil tendencies
Passivearmada 06-18-07, 12:26 PM	A <alignment> character is committed to the furthering of happiness in herself and others while minimizing the unhappiness in those her actions negatively affect. She is adorable, unpredictable and can be brutally violent when called for. If she is simply out trying to have fun, she is generally harmless and benign. If she is she is crossed in the slightest however, she becomes a torrent of blood, pain and prolonged suffering. Thankfully, she is easily distracted by pretty things and she generally has other’s best interests on her mind. i say kill the character off if she isnt crucial to the storyline :P :plotting: but thats your decision. id say that she is CG with a bitter hatred for Evil. if she tortures anyone who doesnt like her, but is very sweet- then i say CE with weird interests and potential hostility. i hope i could help :)
eof 06-18-07, 12:49 PM	CE sometimes emulating NG alignment (perhaps for social acceptance), probably also insane.
Dan Hemmens 06-18-07, 02:12 PM	Chaotic Evil and as annoying as hell. I'm always slyly amused by threads like this. People seem to think that a character who tortures and maims at will but hugs puppies is somehow morally complex. [Edited to add] Also: do you honestly think that "she's really bubbly and giggly but she will torture you if you cross her" is anything other than "two dimensional"? I wouldn't be so snarky (okay, I probably would) but it really bugs me when people post saying things like "I've created this character which is just too cool for the Alignment system and will totally freak you out with its moral ambiguity". Because it's usually stuff like this.
Esponer 06-18-07, 02:17 PM	Chaotic evil, no question about. See Dan Hemmens' post.
Corpus 06-18-07, 03:05 PM	Not only is that character concept idiotic, but it's also clearly chaotic evil.
Jagyr Ebonwood 06-18-07, 04:16 PM	I wouldn't be so snarky (okay, I probably would) but it really bugs me when people post saying things like "I've created this character which is just too cool for the Alignment system and will totally freak you out with its moral ambiguity". Because it's usually stuff like this. :thumbsup: Chaotic Evil, well-intentioned, stark raving lunatic.
Kobold Paladin 06-18-07, 04:39 PM	Thanks for the input everyone, I'll use Chaotic Evil but I have a question that sorta bugged me about alot of your responces: Why does evil always outweigh good in a character? I could have said a million good things that would make exaulted characters look like CE insane asylem escapees and the tiny hint that that she has been know to tourture people for weird reasons a few times and you would still call her Pure Evil, why is it that it cant work the other way around? Is it Judeo-Christian influence on the game mechanics affects how people veiw good/evil? PS: I'm a switch and I dont like how WotC stance on sadism and masocism is that its evil, they also veiw transsexuallity as a psychosexual disorder (Unearth Arcana) when gender indentity has nothing to do with sexual orintation, so I think they need to get a few things clear....
Dan Hemmens 06-18-07, 04:48 PM	Why does evil always outweigh good in a character? I could have said a million good things that would make exaulted characters look like CE insane asylem escapees and the tiny hint that that she has been know to tourture people for weird reasons a few times and you would still call her Pure Evil, why is it that it cant work the other way around? Is it Judeo-Christian influence on the game mechanics affects how people veiw good/evil? If you can present such a character, by all means do. The character you presented was a shallow stereotype with a vague nod in the direction of good intentions in an effort to put it "outside the Alignment system." I believe this is the point at which one must succumb to Godwin's law and point out that Hitler had many, many fine qualities, but for some reason history remembers him as a mass murderer, not as a man who loved opera.
Anodai 06-18-07, 04:53 PM	She is chaotic evil. everyone has a good side. Hitler was just trying to help the Germans, and he was an Evil Bastard. I'm sure he didn't think he was evil.
Kobold Paladin 06-18-07, 04:58 PM	Please dont turn this into talk about Hitler, it is liable to close the thread. All I was trying to ask is why evil always outweighs good in the mindset of D&D? I dont mean in this character anymore but in general why does an otherwise saint become "Evil" for doing 'an' or 'a few' evil things even if everything else they do is so good they are in the dictionary next to good deeds.
Eightbitmage 06-18-07, 05:11 PM	The problem isn't that evil counts for more. Its that murder is a pretty big crime. As is assault, and torture. If a guy whipped some slaves and enjoyed it he would have less to make up for than killing the slaves after raping their women in front of them. Your character does little good things to offset her gigantic evil things, so she is evil.
Jagyr Ebonwood 06-18-07, 05:12 PM	PS: I'm a switch and I dont like how WotC stance on sadism and masocism is that its evil, they also veiw transsexuallity as a psychosexual disorder (Unearth Arcana) when gender indentity has nothing to do with sexual orintation, so I think they need to get a few things clear.... Careful on that thin ice, buddy, this stuff is for the Mature Boards. To answer your concerns briefly... 1) S&M in the real world, as a consensual sexual variant, is NOT how it is in D&D*. When D&D talks about sadism, it's not paddles and handcuffs, it's taking an innocent and gutting them with a rusty whaling spear just to delight in their complete anguish. Masochism in D&D isn't clamps or collars, it's the euphoria you feel as the man you're trying to kill flays your arm to the bone. It's bad stuff. 2) Notice that they also list such mild things as impotency and voyeurism as "psychosexual disorders", right next to necrophilia and bestiality. See it more as a list of things that aren't the norm. 3) I don't notice where WotC states that gender identity is related to sexual orientation. About the evil outweighing the good... It's because the evil in your character is more evil than the good in your character is good. Evil characters may aspire to be altruistic, or perform "good" acts, such as donating to orphanages. A good character, on the other hand, wouldn't ever torture someone. Torture is a pretty good rule of thumb. If your character tortures someone, they are evil. Under the right circumstances, you can make a case that the torturer is actually neutral with evil influences, but these circumstances are rare. *using the BoVD as a guide - Jagyr Ebonwood, a gamer who identifies as a member of the LGBT community.
Dan Hemmens 06-18-07, 05:19 PM	Please dont turn this into talk about Hitler, it is liable to close the thread. All I was trying to ask is why evil always outweighs good in the mindset of D&D? I dont mean in this character anymore but in general why does an otherwise saint become "Evil" for doing 'an' or 'a few' evil things even if everything else they do is so good they are in the dictionary next to good deeds. It's because the "good" such characters do is always utterly superficial, and the "evil" they do is usually massive. Another way to look at it is that Good requires the absence of Evil, but Evil does not require the absence of Good. Somebody who tortures people whenever they feel like it cannot be said to display compassion or a respect for others.
Kobold Paladin 06-18-07, 05:27 PM	3) I don't notice where WotC states that gender identity is related to sexual orientation. I liked you post but I'll respond to this part specificly. It lists Transsexuality as a psychosexual disorder however transsexualism has nothing to do with sexuality, the only reason 'sexual' is part of the word is because the term was coined a long time ago when distinctions between sex and gender were not made. Transsexuality deals with Gender Indenity, and it is nothing to do with sexuality, dispite what the media might suggest.
Sildatorak 06-18-07, 06:12 PM	The reason evil outweighs the good in this case is because of magnitude. If you are looking for evenly matched pairs in terms of amount of evil/good, here are some pairs that I think would at least come close to balancing out. Evil- will torture somebody Good- will take torture in someone's place Evil- will attack (with lethal force) someone for a petty reason Good- will defend a complete stranger against an obviously superior foe who is using lethal force Good- gives money to an orphanage Evil- steals money from an orphanage
AAB 06-18-07, 06:31 PM	i really liked Dan Hemmens' post about how good is the absence of evil. envision, if you will, the magnificent plateau of goodnes. it is a happy land, filled with unicorns and pixies and other wondrous creatures. as long as you're nice you get to stay up here and frolic. but there's no torturing allowed up here, no sir. to torture someone you have to climb the "ladder of moral ambiguity" down to the valley of evil gross stuff. then you can torture people all you want. and you know you want to, you sicko. but then when you go to try to hang out with your unicorn buddies again you find out that they have pulled up the aforementioned "ladder of moral ambiguity" and are pointing crossbows and holy symbols at you. you are now evil.
Sildatorak 06-18-07, 06:38 PM	Good is more than the absence of evil. If a character doesn't ever do anything to hurt anyone else, but also does nothing to help anyone at his own expense, he is solidly neutral. Good requires sacrificing for the benefit of others.
AAB 06-18-07, 06:39 PM	and frolicking. you can't be good unless you frolic.
Corpus 06-18-07, 09:24 PM	I liked you post but I'll respond to this part specificly. It lists Transsexuality as a psychosexual disorder however transsexualism has nothing to do with sexuality, the only reason 'sexual' is part of the word is because the term was coined a long time ago when distinctions between sex and gender were not made. Transsexuality deals with Gender Indenity, and it is nothing to do with sexuality, dispite what the media might suggest. Actually, you're wrong. You're thinking of transgenderism, not transsexuality.
Kobold Paladin 06-18-07, 10:01 PM	Actually, you're wrong. You're thinking of transgenderism, not transsexuality. I'm pretty sure as a transsexual, I know what I'm talking about. Transsexuality is more or less a manifestation of transgenderism, or atleast that what most trans people I know (I know alot from my clinic) seem to think...
Kuronue 06-18-07, 11:15 PM	Evil doesn't outweigh good, or the evil of killing dozens of (evil) sentient beings who get in your way would outweigh the good of saving the world or what have ye, therefore all adventureres would be evil. However, murder outweighs hugging puppies. Also, DnD is very, VERY simplistic. WotC isn't going to go into issues like you raised; as far as sadism (as I'm both kinds of DM), the BoVD Sadist inflicts pain on innocents against their will, which is an evil act. I had a couple were NPCs in my campaign reveal that they'd become that way because they'd been bit while being a bit too kinky in bed with a natural were, and that's hardly an evil act- anything consensual like that is a fetish rather than an evil act. It's like how rape is generally considered evil IRL, but rape play (where both parties pretend to enact a rape because they find it erotic) is not.
Sarella Starshine 06-19-07, 12:44 AM	You know, I think that is the best way to define if an act is evil or not: if the person who is on the reciving end is consenting or not. If that person is consenting its not evil (maybe kinky or unusual, but not evil), but if that person denys consent (i.e. not willing) or is unable to give consent then that act is is evil. For examples: if you give someone consent for kinky sex acts, then no matter what type of kinky sex act it is (anything from different position to super hard-core S&M practices), that act would not be evil. Trying to kill someone in thier sleep will be evil because the person is unable to give consent (and 99.99% of the time, will deny consent if awake (the reason for the percentage to be less than 100% is that there ARE exceptions. Someone who may be tired of living (due to various reasons) may give consent to someone to kill them (a.k.a. assisted sucide) and therefore, that killing will not be evil, as it was consentual)). Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you is NOT evil however (as that person is trying to kill you without your consent). With that aside, the person you are describing is evil. I agree with those that say torturing someone for days on end because she does not like them outweighs her triffling ammount of good (the orphanage donations). However, if her good outweighs her evil (for example she acctually takes in orphans and devotes her time to finding them good homes if possible and treats the rest as her own children, but occasionally has an off day where she kicks puppies or takes her hand to one of the children), then she would be good. The thing is, her evil is VERY evil, almost to the point of vile and her good is very weak, almost to the point of neutrality, so her good does not outweigh her evil, most of the time, it does not even balance out.
calronmoonflower 06-19-07, 02:48 AM	Thanks for the input everyone, I'll use Chaotic Evil but I have a question that sorta bugged me about alot of your responces: Why does evil always outweigh good in a character? It is inherently harder to be good. When you start breaking with the good alignment and preforming evil deeds with they feel like it, then they are a wolf in a sheep's skin. I could have said a million good things that would make exaulted characters look like CE insane asylem escapees What does that have to do with this character? If you what to start a new thread on why exalted=insanity then feel free. and the tiny hint that that she has been know to tourture people for weird reasons a few times and you would still call her Pure Evil, It wasn't a tiny hint. If you didn't directly say that she tortured people for not simply not liking her that I would say that she would most likely be chaotic good, but in need of help. why is it that it cant work the other way around? The definition of good/evil in the Player's Handbook make it such. Is it Judeo-Christian influence on the game mechanics affects how people veiw good/evil? Personal beliefs do effect the interpolation of alignment, but that's not the bases for the alignment that I gave. PS: I'm a switch and I dont like how WotC stance on sadism and masocism is that its evil, they also veiw transsexuallity as a psychosexual disorder (Unearth Arcana) when gender indentity has nothing to do with sexual orintation, so I think they need to get a few things clear.... I personally don't like many of the stances that the Book of Vile Darkness took on weird or unusual behaviors being evil. Icky or weird or strange=/=evil.
Dan Hemmens 06-19-07, 03:39 AM	Evil doesn't outweigh good, or the evil of killing dozens of (evil) sentient beings who get in your way would outweigh the good of saving the world or what have ye, therefore all adventureres would be evil. Except that, in D&D, killing evil sentient beings isn't evil. It is, in fact, good. You are risking your own personal safety to protect others. An Evil sentient being presents a clear and present danger to innocent people, just by existing.
Dan Hemmens 06-19-07, 03:44 AM	Good is more than the absence of evil. If a character doesn't ever do anything to hurt anyone else, but also does nothing to help anyone at his own expense, he is solidly neutral. Good requires sacrificing for the benefit of others. What I actually said was that Good *requires* the absence of evil. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you torture people for personal gain, you are never going to be "Good", you might just about be neutral if - as somebody suggests above - you willingly submit yourself to torture in somebody else's place, but otherwise you're just plain evil no matter how many nice things you do for old ladies.
AffableDoomwalker 06-19-07, 04:15 AM	Not only is that character concept idiotic, but it's also clearly chaotic evil. Roffle Thanks for the input everyone, I'll use Chaotic Evil but I have a question that sorta bugged me about alot of your responces: Why does evil always outweigh good in a character? I could have said a million good things that would make exaulted characters look like CE insane asylem escapees and the tiny hint that that she has been know to tourture people for weird reasons a few times and you would still call her Pure Evil, why is it that it cant work the other way around? Is it Judeo-Christian influence on the game mechanics affects how people veiw good/evil? Simple, it is a lot harder to be good than evil. You know, The power of the Dark Side, the Highway to Hell? As opposed to the Stairway to Heaven? Think about it, you're playing a character who is nice, pretty, and generally amicable towards people, until something sets her off, at which point she'll torture (evil), murder (evil), and generally make life miserable for everyone around her (via bloody violence; evil). That, coupled with what amounts to a series of violent bouts of manic depression that can be activated, makes for a mighty evil character. It doesn't matter how many times she giggles, smiles, kisses puppies, farts cinnamon and sunshine, or generally is "nice." She is psychotic, chaotic, and EBIL. The girl needs therapy. Failing that (like, say, her killing the therapist), she needs a heavy dose of Smitillicium Evillius, prescribed and handed out by George M. Justice, P.(aladin of...)H.(elm, hailing from the...)D.(alelands). Yeah, she's that bad, I actually want a Paladin to smite her.
eof 06-19-07, 08:02 AM	Except that, in D&D, killing evil sentient beings isn't evil. It is, in fact, good. You are risking your own personal safety to protect others. In my book, killing evil sentients is only good if actually done to protect others (and even then, there are provisions; see below). Somebody killing someone evil just because "he stands in my way" is neutral at best, IMO. Evil guy A killing evil guy B because B is closer to achieving world dominion than A is not a good act. Also, I personally tend to differentiate between degrees of evil. Some poorly thought-out examples: An evil person will not hesitate to cheat at the friendly Friday night poker games so that he can have some extra quality time at the brothel (or similar), even though he knows that his friends and their families will have a rough time for the next month. An evil person will not hesitate to routinely completely screw over other people, possibly getting their life savings and/or sending them to their possible deaths (say, like selling a known fake treasure map to a band of novice adventurers, leading them to "who knows where, and who cares?"). An evil person will happily sell out his friends and lie to shift any blame from himself to them in order to save his own skin, will have no problem with kidnapping people and selling them into slavery and death for profit, and will readily commit murder to cover his own tracks. An evil person have no compunction about how many people he has to kill to accomplish his personal quest for power, merely balancing the effort involved in doing/not doing so. An evil person will kill people and revel in doing so. All of these will detect as evil and smite evil will work on all of them. Yes, that includes the Friday night cheater (although some people would maybe tag him as "neutral with evil streaks" or some such), but you will never see a paladin unleashing on him, because they have bigger fish to fry and they know it. Petty evil simply does not call for that kind of reactions, anymore than helping a grandma over the street calls for exalted status. For the same reason, killing the cheater would hardly qualify as good IMO, even though it would technically "protect others." Anyway... To the OP: Alignment, especially the good-evil axis, is not some sort of +/- system where you can do one good act and one evil act of "equal value" and you having therefore done the equivalent of two neutral acts. (Some older editions may have suggested it, but quite frankly, IMO nothing sensible ever came out of druids changing sides in the middle of battles.) In spite of them being opposites, they can't be mixed; it is not like one bucket of white paint and another of black paint and mixing them produces gray paint, but more like a white car and a black car and running them into each other produces a mess and bodies everywhere (figuratively speaking). Or put another way: a +2 bonus to your AC will not cancel out your -2 penalty to your saving throws. Good and evil (and neutral) should be measured separately, and as for their "sum," i.e. what the character's alignment is, well, significant values in evil override both good and neutral, regardless of their values. Quoting from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm): Good Vs. Evil Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "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. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Ignore the first paragraph, which is meant as a summarization of the rest. Then, use a simple process of elimination in this case: Is the character altruistic, respecting life and concerned with the dignity of sentient beings? No, because she tortures and kills when peeved. It does not matter that she does this only some of the time, it's enough to make this option impossible. Hence, she can't be good. Is the character hurting, oppressing and killing others? Yes. It does not matter that she does this only some of the time, it's enough to satisfy this option. So evil is clearly a possibility. Does the character have compunctions against killing the innocent? No, so she can't be neutral. (Notice that the "[...] but lacks the commitment [...]" is an additional qualifier, and having already failed the first, meeting the other does not matter.) Since the only available option is evil, she is evil. It is quite clear-cut in this case, really. I disagree with those that say you should not run this type of character, though. Run it if you want to, it can be quite interesting as such but don't turn it into some alignment mystery thing. An anti-hero monk that punishes the wicked for their crimes, but really does not actually care for the victims and considers a few deaths acceptable collateral damage when hunting down murderers, would count as LE IMO (although a case could be made for LN, depending on how often and how much collateral damage would be acceptable), but it would be interesting to see how a paladin reacts to that type of evil.
Dan Hemmens 06-19-07, 09:18 AM	In my book, killing evil sentients is only good if actually done to protect others (and even then, there are provisions; see below). Somebody killing someone evil just because "he stands in my way" is neutral at best, IMO. Evil guy A killing evil guy B because B is closer to achieving world dominion than A is not a good act. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I've just been through about five alignment debates in the past two days, and I've got more and more extreme as I've gone on. Basically I find that a lot of DMs seem to use a "Luke Skywalker" definition of Evil. It's okay to kill the 230 Orcs you cut down on your way to the final battle, but if you get to the final battle and the Cheiften - who you have no reason to trust - offers to parlay with you, and you decline, then you become an Evil Racist Who Hates People Because They Are Different. Also, I personally tend to differentiate between degrees of evil. Some poorly thought-out examples: An evil person will not hesitate to cheat at the friendly Friday night poker games so that he can have some extra quality time at the brothel (or similar), even though he knows that his friends and their families will have a rough time for the next month. An evil person will not hesitate to routinely completely screw over other people, possibly getting their life savings and/or sending them to their possible deaths (say, like selling a known fake treasure map to a band of novice adventurers, leading them to "who knows where, and who cares?"). An evil person will happily sell out his friends and lie to shift any blame from himself to them in order to save his own skin, will have no problem with kidnapping people and selling them into slavery and death for profit, and will readily commit murder to cover his own tracks. An evil person have no compunction about how many people he has to kill to accomplish his personal quest for power, merely balancing the effort involved in doing/not doing so. An evil person will kill people and revel in doing so. All of these will detect as evil and smite evil will work on all of them. Yes, that includes the Friday night cheater (although some people would maybe tag him as "neutral with evil streaks" or some such), but you will never see a paladin unleashing on him, because they have bigger fish to fry and they know it. Petty evil simply does not call for that kind of reactions, anymore than helping a grandma over the street calls for exalted status. For the same reason, killing the cheater would hardly qualify as good IMO, even though it would technically "protect others." Anyway... Fair enough. For what it's worth I view the line between evil and neutral as being pretty squarely around the "killing for profit" level. Essentially I'd say that whether somebody is evil or not isn't so much about what they do as why they do it, or perhaps more importantly what they refrain from doing and why they refrain from doing it. So your friday night cheat is only evil if the only thing stopping him murdering his friends and taking their stuff is the fear of getting caught. For what it's worth, I wouldn't call somebody who *betrays* his friends to save his own skin evil, any more than I'd call somebody who kills in self defence evil. Survival is a powerful motivator. I don't think that you can say that somebody who betrays his friends to avoid torture or death has "no respect for life."
eof 06-19-07, 02:18 PM	Yeah, you're absolutely right. I've just been through about five alignment debates in the past two days, and I've got more and more extreme as I've gone on. Basically I find that a lot of DMs seem to use a "Luke Skywalker" definition of Evil. It's okay to kill the 230 Orcs you cut down on your way to the final battle, but if you get to the final battle and the Cheiften - who you have no reason to trust - offers to parlay with you, and you decline, then you become an Evil Racist Who Hates People Because They Are Different. That's OK. I personally dislike the alignment system a fair bit. For one thing, it tries to shoe-horn everything into nine convenient slots, and there are always those that try to push the envelope. No offense to the OP, but things like "sure, my character is a murdering hateful SOB, but look, he likes kittens, let's call him neutral, OK?" is a fine example of trying to get around Detect Evil spells (and other things). Second, it is inconsistent when it comes to animals and "other creatures incapable of moral actions." This tends to tie into the first issue, resulting in things like "look, by character has INT 3 and WIS 3, he doesn't understand that killing people is bad, shouldn't he be neutral?" and "look, my character is insane, he is incapable of moral actions, for all we know he thinks he's picking flowers when he's killing innocents, he should read as neutral." And thirdly, it is inconsistent when it comes to treatment of PCs vs. NPCs. The PCs' alignment is determined by their actions rather than the other way around (meaning that PC paladins can fall). However, for convenience it works the other way around for NCPs (or at least many DMs and players play it that way; I personally disagree); their actions are determined by their alignment. For orcs, that are "often evil," this results in things like this: DM: "You see an orc in the wilderness. It seems surprised to see you." PP (paladin player): "I attack it." DM: "Um, are you sure about that? Not all orcs are evil, you know." PP: "Sure they are, it says so in the Monster Manual." DM: "Putting aside the fact that that is metagaming information, orcs are actually listed as often evil, not as always evil. This means 40-50% of orcs are evil." PP: "Bah, my character has heard the tales of orcs raiding villages and killing people. Of course he'd know that they are evil, that's not metagaming. And orcs are evil in order to give us players convenient ways to level up without us having to worry too much about it." DM: "I guess you aren't interested in the perspective of adventurers raiding the orcs' lairs for treasure and killing everything they find without consideration for possibly innocent lives, then?" PP: "We're the heroes. They're XP." DM: "Fine." (rolls) "You attack and kill the orc before he even has a chance to react." (rolls) "Looks like he was one of those orcs that aren't evil. Guess you'll be playing a fighter from now on." PP: "I hate you!" In short, IMO you should either choose to play a moral game, and take the good with the bad (meaning, your good characters should consistently make choices in line with their alignment (or change their alignment) and not only when it is convenient), or skip the moral aspect and accept that your invading, dungeon-looting, monster-killing PCs might be something else than good (although they can still be the heroes adored by everybody they know). Mixing the styles freely results in stuff like your orc example. IMO, PCs mowing down random orcs should be no different than invading the neighboring corrupt kingdom and mowing down random humans there. Strangely enough, PCs tend to engage in the former far more than the latter. Fair enough. For what it's worth I view the line between evil and neutral as being pretty squarely around the "killing for profit" level. I don't really want to get into an alignment discussion, don't have the time for it, but I guess I can say a few words. Killing for profit is essentially what most PC parties do. And anyway, a single example is not quite enough to define a line. What about killing for fun, torture, maiming? Stealing food from a starving child? Kicking a puppy? Do you consider them neutral acts? (Assume it is not an evil puppy.) Essentially I'd say that whether somebody is evil or not isn't so much about what they do as why they do it, or perhaps more importantly what they refrain from doing and why they refrain from doing it. I like the latter part better than the first, but still disagree. Alignment is meant to be objective, but I don't think that is possible. If you draw the line by specifying "this is still neutral, this is already evil, this is really evil" for particular instances, you will be left with gray areas (those not exemplified), and there will always be those that try to argue that "their case was different," or just plain not agree with you. Even when using the broad guidelines in the rulebook, there'll be arguments. "No, I totally respected the town constable's life, which is why I sneaked attacked him with a dagger rather than a longsword when I saw him coming around the corner. It's not my fault that he died, I tried to avoid this as well as I could. I'm still LG, right?" The whys matter, obviously, but it should not be permissible to justify every counter-alignment act with "well, but..." At that point, you can drop alignment completely. Most of D&D is technically and clearly defined in the game nowadays; the same thing should happen for alignment, or then it should be removed or at least replaced with something that can be clearly defined. As it is now, it is often far more trouble than it's worth; it's like a vestige that should have been dropped entirely long ago, but has stuck because it evidently somehow is part of the game's identity. Bah I say, simplify it into "us," "them" and several "others" instead, and you get something both simpler and more realistic when it comes to who you are allowed to smack around, and who you aren't. Slap a versatile reputation system on top of that ("murderous scum among the nearby orc tribes, brave hero to the humans in the city") and you are ready to go. So your friday night cheat is only evil if the only thing stopping him murdering his friends and taking their stuff is the fear of getting caught. He is ready to greatly inconvenience his friends just for some extra kicks for himself. It is not the "Aha! Smite ye sinner!" quality of evil, never will be, but I still consider it evil. He's definitely out for himself and could probably not care less for those that consider him his friend. He may have the "does what seems like a good idea" of a neutral character, but what he considers good ideas are ultimately self-serving only, and he cares not for what consequences his actions may have for others; they can starve for all he cares (although, of course, it is doubtful that they will remain friends for long). The descriptions of the evil alignments often mention killing. I personally don't think you need to kill (whether for fun or profit) in order to be evil; it is a wider concept than that. However, killing others for fun or profit is on the level that warrants smiting from a paladin, which is why I think that particular aspect is stressed so much. It's like, "once you're here, you are fair game for paladins and other evil-hunters, make no mistake about it." But, to be perfectly fair, this is personal opinion. I think there is a whole lot of small-time evil that a character can do without receiving a paladin's wrath (although the paladin's swordhand might itch every time he sees the character). However, if a character constantly displays small-time evil behavior, I think that character should ever so slightly read as evil, not neutral. If the cheater occasionally helped his friends for free, I'd be more willing to call him neutral. In reality, a person like the cheater would be shunned by everyone for his selfish attitude ("Oh, you'd need to take your kid to the healer? Tough luck, I won your money fair and square, and I'm keeping it") even if never discovered to be cheating. Unfortunately, the game is meant to pander to action scenes and arousing battles, and not that much to social interaction, and so does not really have concrete rules for things like reputation. The easiest way to simulate it is with alignment, as far as it can be used. Few players will expect a character that they are told "cheated me of all my money, me, his friend, even though he knew my boy needed herbs from the healers, and now my boy lies dying" to be anything but evil anyway, so the alignment assignment seems suitable either way. For what it's worth, I wouldn't call somebody who *betrays* his friends to save his own skin evil, any more than I'd call somebody who kills in self defence evil. Survival is a powerful motivator. I don't think that you can say that somebody who betrays his friends to avoid torture or death has "no respect for life." It depends on the kind of betrayal, obviously, just as the cheater's alignment would depend on what he typically does. I intended the examples as general indications of what kind of personality the characters possessed, not as one-of occurrences. I thought of a person that consistently, when put in a tight spot, diverts blame and readily sacrifices his friends and companions in order to get away scot-free himself. And yeah, I consider that evil, smite-worthy even. Considering that "[n]eutral people are committed to others by personal relationships[,]" even a neutral person would not be so callous with his friends' lives as to sacrifice them to torture and death in order to get away themselves at the drop of a hat, at least not constantly. If it happens once, and there is no other way out, then sure, I'd accept it as a neutral action born of desperation and fear, but not if it is indicative of the character's general behavior.