alignment, w00t [Archive] - Wizards Community

alignment, w00t [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sergikins
04-08-07, 06:14 PM what kind of alignment is this

A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him)

I'm really thinking CN
Pfisiar
04-08-07, 06:16 PM what kind of alignment is this

A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him)

I'm really thinking CN
I would say Lawful Evil most of the time. These type of people care only about the end result, not the methods used to get there.
kelvinaw273
04-08-07, 06:31 PM what kind of alignment is this

A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him)

I'm really thinking CN

Alignment is decided by our methods rather than our goals. Evil is often masked by the fact that it is convenient, but that doe not stop it being evil. A character can have the noblest of goals, but if they pursue them by killing the innocent with no concern they are still evil. These are the methods by which devils and demons seduce mortals to darkness, by offering convenient solutions to achieve their noble aims, all the while knowing that the means will ultimately sabotage the ends and destroy it.

Now the character may not see themselves as evil, but evil is as evil does.
Zorminster
04-08-07, 07:30 PM why does he want to end the war? If its because it's opressive to good people, then i'd say its C/N; if its because its hurting him personally (economically, politically, or otherwise) i'd say N/E. If its because he wants to dominate or opress the people in the war, or people after the war, L/E.
weasel0
04-08-07, 07:40 PM A quick and easy way to describe the Alignments: each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior.

Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system...
Neutral - In a logical and balanced way...
Chaotic - By whatever means necessary...

Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people.
Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice.
Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation.
I forget who i stole this from.
Karish
04-08-07, 07:45 PM Intentions are to stop a war and make things peaceful again = Good.

Methods are unethical or immoral = Chaotic.

And using the undead isn't evil. If it was, you would never have good undead. Which if you think is impossible, you're a moron. ^_~
kelvinaw273
04-08-07, 10:17 PM Intentions are to stop a war and make things peaceful again = Good.

Methods are unethical or immoral = Chaotic.

And using the undead isn't evil. If it was, you would never have good undead. Which if you think is impossible, you're a moron. ^_~

You originally said "Evil, violent ways" and included using undead as an example of one of those ways. If you yourself describe the methods as evil, this means evil actions for a good motive. Alignment is detirmined by actions, not reasons.

Evil = Evil methods.

Evil Methods > Good Motive => Evil alignment.
Manic Man
04-08-07, 10:29 PM what kind of alignment is this

A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him)

I'm really thinking CN

Its <something>E.
Casting Animate Dead is a evil act (as given by the spell's descriptor).

Using evil ways=evil (Check out the old ravenloft modules, plenty of people with good motives turning into monsters they were attempting to defeat)

The description does not give enough information to determine on the lawful/chaotic axis
calvinNhobbes
04-08-07, 10:47 PM Methods are unethical or immoral = Chaotic.

Being Chaotic does not mean unethical or immoral. A Chaotic Good/Neutral person knows the difference between right and wrong.
Roivas
04-08-07, 11:00 PM Precisly choatic people can have a strong morale compass but will have difficulty fitting their ideals into a greater whole. While they might be opposed to a war certainly wouldn't play by the book on how to stop said war. A chaotic good person might kidnap [gently] two of the opposing sides leaders and attempt to get them to work out the issue.
Chaotic neutral might employ simlar methods but might skip the gentle if the war was really starting to irritate him. Neutral doesn't really mean will use evil methods when it suits them they are more likely to walk a fine line between good and evil. Since chaos and neutrality are very hard to define concepts when applied as personality traits it makes chaotic neutral any easy to 'misplay' alignment.
And lastly the guy sounds downright evil to me.
Vaelan
04-09-07, 04:17 AM Here is what the rules have to say...

According to the PHB, alignment is a representation of the character's general moral and personal attitudes.

Good means that your general moral attitudes tend towards helping people.

Neutral means that your general moral attitudes tend towards inaction, usually due to a lack of the conviction necessary to be Good and a lack of the heartlessness necessary to be Evil.

Evil means that your general moral attitudes tend towards being willing to hurt people unduly.

Given those rules, here are my conclusions...

Your character clearly isn't Neutral. Neutral people do not do Evil things and they do not put themselves on the line to uphold Good ideals, both of which you are doing. Neutral is often treated as a dumping place for borderline cases. It is no such thing. It has its own unique meaning.

Generally, Good people do not willingly perform Evil acts and Evil people do not intentionally uphold Good ideals. However, there is a substantial amount of leniency within alignments. The PHB explicitly states this in at least two places. Good people are allowed to commit Evil acts and Evil people are allowed to uphold Good ideals. They generally won't do so without a really good reason though.

Your character is either Good or Evil. He could be Good because of the reasons behind his actions. He could be Evil because of his methods.

There are two things that would have to be true to even have a reasonable shot of being Good.

1. You're intentionally upholding Good ideals. If the fact that you're upholding Good ideals just happens to be incidental to some other interest, you can't cite the fact that you're upholding Good ideals as a point in your favor.

2. You're under a great deal of pressure to find a solution, which is why you have resorted to Evil ways. Good people won't commit Evil acts without a compelling reason.

If both of these are true, you might still be Good. However, the fact that you are willing to do Evil things is still a pretty obvious indicator that your attitudes are falling into Evil.

Seeing as how alignments are a representation of one's attitudes, if the Evil portions of this character's attitude has become more significant than the Good portions, you should go ahead and put that E on your sheet.

Alignment is detirmined by actions, not reasons.
In regards to an action, this is correct.

Many people misinterpret the statement behind this and apply it to a character's alignment too. A character's alignment is determined by their attitudes, which reasons can and often do factor into.

I'm going to restate this, since sometimes I am a bit vague.

Determining the moral value of an act works as you have stated. If a character's alignment were a mere tally of their actions, determining the moral value of a character would work in this way as well. However, a character's alignment is not a tally of their actions, but instead a representation of their general attitudes, and thus you do not determine their moral value in that manner.

Also, before you decide to disagree with me, please read the first few paragraphs of the Alignment section of the PHB. It is often overlooked and you will find that the vast majority of the reasoning I have presented is written there.
Cartigan
04-09-07, 07:27 AM what kind of alignment is this

A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him)

I'm really thinking CN
I'd say chaotic neutral or neutral.
Henchcritter
04-09-07, 08:25 AM Neutral.

Alignment is both determined by the ends and the means.

If it was means only, casting a fireball would be an evil act. It burns people and fire is a nasty way to go. A paladin who accidentally hits it's ally would be a paladin no more.

If it was ends only, one could do anything for a good cause. An evildoer in the inn, burn it. An orc army invades your land, raise some ghouls. You can't be held responsible for those sleeping people in the in or gangs of ghouls ravaging the countryside.

Therefore evil means for a good end would go towards neutral (unless things got out of hand such as ghouls ravaging the countryside)
Thubby
04-09-07, 10:56 AM evil methods make evil person. i can stop all war by wiping out humanity. my goal=good (stop all war). my means= insanely evil (destroy all humanity).
i think i can safely say that is evil.
(intentional) evil ends also make evil person.
if it were "questionable" (someone said kidnap both leaders and FORCE them to sort it out) then it would be chaotic.

alignment is complicated, probably too much so to put entirely into words.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sergikins 04-08-07, 06:14 PM	what kind of alignment is this A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him) I'm really thinking CN
Pfisiar 04-08-07, 06:16 PM	what kind of alignment is this A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him) I'm really thinking CN I would say Lawful Evil most of the time. These type of people care only about the end result, not the methods used to get there.
kelvinaw273 04-08-07, 06:31 PM	what kind of alignment is this A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him) I'm really thinking CN Alignment is decided by our methods rather than our goals. Evil is often masked by the fact that it is convenient, but that doe not stop it being evil. A character can have the noblest of goals, but if they pursue them by killing the innocent with no concern they are still evil. These are the methods by which devils and demons seduce mortals to darkness, by offering convenient solutions to achieve their noble aims, all the while knowing that the means will ultimately sabotage the ends and destroy it. Now the character may not see themselves as evil, but evil is as evil does.
Zorminster 04-08-07, 07:30 PM	why does he want to end the war? If its because it's opressive to good people, then i'd say its C/N; if its because its hurting him personally (economically, politically, or otherwise) i'd say N/E. If its because he wants to dominate or opress the people in the war, or people after the war, L/E.
weasel0 04-08-07, 07:40 PM	A quick and easy way to describe the Alignments: each part of an alignment has a phrase that goes with it. String them together for an extremely rough way to describe behavior. Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system... Neutral - In a logical and balanced way... Chaotic - By whatever means necessary... Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people. Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice. Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation. I forget who i stole this from.
Karish 04-08-07, 07:45 PM	Intentions are to stop a war and make things peaceful again = Good. Methods are unethical or immoral = Chaotic. And using the undead isn't evil. If it was, you would never have good undead. Which if you think is impossible, you're a moron. ^_~
kelvinaw273 04-08-07, 10:17 PM	Intentions are to stop a war and make things peaceful again = Good. Methods are unethical or immoral = Chaotic. And using the undead isn't evil. If it was, you would never have good undead. Which if you think is impossible, you're a moron. ^_~ You originally said "Evil, violent ways" and included using undead as an example of one of those ways. If you yourself describe the methods as evil, this means evil actions for a good motive. Alignment is detirmined by actions, not reasons. Evil = Evil methods. Evil Methods > Good Motive => Evil alignment.
Manic Man 04-08-07, 10:29 PM	what kind of alignment is this A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him) I'm really thinking CN Its <something>E. Casting Animate Dead is a evil act (as given by the spell's descriptor). Using evil ways=evil (Check out the old ravenloft modules, plenty of people with good motives turning into monsters they were attempting to defeat) The description does not give enough information to determine on the lawful/chaotic axis
calvinNhobbes 04-08-07, 10:47 PM	Methods are unethical or immoral = Chaotic. Being Chaotic does not mean unethical or immoral. A Chaotic Good/Neutral person knows the difference between right and wrong.
Roivas 04-08-07, 11:00 PM	Precisly choatic people can have a strong morale compass but will have difficulty fitting their ideals into a greater whole. While they might be opposed to a war certainly wouldn't play by the book on how to stop said war. A chaotic good person might kidnap [gently] two of the opposing sides leaders and attempt to get them to work out the issue. Chaotic neutral might employ simlar methods but might skip the gentle if the war was really starting to irritate him. Neutral doesn't really mean will use evil methods when it suits them they are more likely to walk a fine line between good and evil. Since chaos and neutrality are very hard to define concepts when applied as personality traits it makes chaotic neutral any easy to 'misplay' alignment. And lastly the guy sounds downright evil to me.
Vaelan 04-09-07, 04:17 AM	Here is what the rules have to say... According to the PHB, alignment is a representation of the character's general moral and personal attitudes. Good means that your general moral attitudes tend towards helping people. Neutral means that your general moral attitudes tend towards inaction, usually due to a lack of the conviction necessary to be Good and a lack of the heartlessness necessary to be Evil. Evil means that your general moral attitudes tend towards being willing to hurt people unduly. Given those rules, here are my conclusions... Your character clearly isn't Neutral. Neutral people do not do Evil things and they do not put themselves on the line to uphold Good ideals, both of which you are doing. Neutral is often treated as a dumping place for borderline cases. It is no such thing. It has its own unique meaning. Generally, Good people do not willingly perform Evil acts and Evil people do not intentionally uphold Good ideals. However, there is a substantial amount of leniency within alignments. The PHB explicitly states this in at least two places. Good people are allowed to commit Evil acts and Evil people are allowed to uphold Good ideals. They generally won't do so without a really good reason though. Your character is either Good or Evil. He could be Good because of the reasons behind his actions. He could be Evil because of his methods. There are two things that would have to be true to even have a reasonable shot of being Good. 1. You're intentionally upholding Good ideals. If the fact that you're upholding Good ideals just happens to be incidental to some other interest, you can't cite the fact that you're upholding Good ideals as a point in your favor. 2. You're under a great deal of pressure to find a solution, which is why you have resorted to Evil ways. Good people won't commit Evil acts without a compelling reason. If both of these are true, you might still be Good. However, the fact that you are willing to do Evil things is still a pretty obvious indicator that your attitudes are falling into Evil. Seeing as how alignments are a representation of one's attitudes, if the Evil portions of this character's attitude has become more significant than the Good portions, you should go ahead and put that E on your sheet. Alignment is detirmined by actions, not reasons. In regards to an action, this is correct. Many people misinterpret the statement behind this and apply it to a character's alignment too. A character's alignment is determined by their attitudes, which reasons can and often do factor into. I'm going to restate this, since sometimes I am a bit vague. Determining the moral value of an act works as you have stated. If a character's alignment were a mere tally of their actions, determining the moral value of a character would work in this way as well. However, a character's alignment is not a tally of their actions, but instead a representation of their general attitudes, and thus you do not determine their moral value in that manner. Also, before you decide to disagree with me, please read the first few paragraphs of the Alignment section of the PHB. It is often overlooked and you will find that the vast majority of the reasoning I have presented is written there.
Cartigan 04-09-07, 07:27 AM	what kind of alignment is this A person who strives to do some good deed (such as end a war) in evil violent ways (such as using undead from a local cemetary or from people he has assainated since they opposed him) I'm really thinking CN I'd say chaotic neutral or neutral.
Henchcritter 04-09-07, 08:25 AM	Neutral. Alignment is both determined by the ends and the means. If it was means only, casting a fireball would be an evil act. It burns people and fire is a nasty way to go. A paladin who accidentally hits it's ally would be a paladin no more. If it was ends only, one could do anything for a good cause. An evildoer in the inn, burn it. An orc army invades your land, raise some ghouls. You can't be held responsible for those sleeping people in the in or gangs of ghouls ravaging the countryside. Therefore evil means for a good end would go towards neutral (unless things got out of hand such as ghouls ravaging the countryside)
Thubby 04-09-07, 10:56 AM	evil methods make evil person. i can stop all war by wiping out humanity. my goal=good (stop all war). my means= insanely evil (destroy all humanity). i think i can safely say that is evil. (intentional) evil ends also make evil person. if it were "questionable" (someone said kidnap both leaders and FORCE them to sort it out) then it would be chaotic. alignment is complicated, probably too much so to put entirely into words.