Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thubby 07-03-06, 01:12 AM	im not sure what alignment to make a character he's a duelist, your standard issue swave s.o.b. who can steal your girl without trying, and will. he only respects the law when it benefitss him, but stricly follows his own warriors code which is little more than: doesnt sneak attack always pays respect to equel warriors wont cheat wont use bad tactics (i.e. poisons, wounding weapons, etc.) and always fight on equal terms (wont kill sick or dying, and wont kill lessers unless they force him to"not worth the effort") he lives for the fight, the clash of steal, :the true face of a man is seen on the field" ,he takes no joy in killing mind you, and wont make any effort to kill if the enemy is defeated. he hates, and rarely respects, authority figures, and looks distanfuly on non fighting types like spell casters, along with barbarians who have "no class". thanks in advance for the help
LuckyLeprechaun 07-03-06, 01:18 AM	I'm thinking True Neutral for a character like that. I would say Lawful Neutral, but he only follows the law when it benefits him, and he seems to fit the description the best. Neutral, "Undecided" A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. Hope it helps! Lucky P.S. For future purposes, things like this are better suited here (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=340).
JadeSpider9643 07-03-06, 02:01 AM	that's not true neutral, that's "not enough information" Basicly you've described the character as liking the color blue and asking for an alignment ruling. Your not asking the right questions to determine your alignment. check out the test here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b). All I can really say from what you posted is at most, it sounds like he MIGHT be lawful, but only in the organized, code of conduct sense.
kelvinaw273 07-03-06, 04:14 AM	Now I would have puit him down as the stereotypical rough-diamond Chaotic Good type myself: whimsical, but honourable in his own way.
Stormbrand 07-07-06, 12:15 PM	Chaotic Stupid. Chaotic Nuetral. Only just avoids being evil. In fact I'd say Chaotic and make him suffer half damage from things that only hurt evil. he's a duelist, your standard issue swave s.o.b. who can steal your girl without trying, and will. he only respects the law when it benefitss him, but stricly follows his own warriors code which is little more than: Complete disregard for the rights of others = towards evil, also chaos because suggests whimsy. Arbitrary actions, irresponsibility, untrustworthy = chaotic. Anarchist/resistant to the concept of society = chaotic, and I would say mildly evil(but then I'm probably very lawful). he lives for the fight, the clash of steal, :the true face of a man is seen on the field" Judges worth by physical strength = chaotic and also the philosophy of evil. Self-centred way of life = chaotic (merely irresponsible and not actively malign). he hates, and rarely respects, authority figures, and looks distanfuly on non fighting types like spell casters, along with barbarians who have "no class". Resents authority = chaotic. Arbitary judgements: HE has no class! = sheer arrogance, at least outright ruling out good or lawful. doesnt sneak attack always pays respect to equel warriors wont cheat wont use bad tactics (i.e. poisons, wounding weapons, etc.) and always fight on equal terms So do death knights. They are chaotic evil. Those rules are pride, nothing better. Poor tactics does not help alignment. (wont kill sick or dying, and wont kill lessers unless they force him to"not worth the effort") he lives for the fight, the clash of steal, :the true face of a man is seen on the field" ,he takes no joy in killing mind you, and wont make any effort to kill if the enemy is defeated. "not worth the effort" and "wont make any effort to kill" show no suggestion of respect for others. He would probably kill them if it became convenient so that rule doesn't really change anything. he takes no joy in killing mind you, His *one* redeeming feature. The only thing that stops him from being Chaotic Evil is the absense of sufficient malice. OVERALL Harsh judgement I know, but it fits. Maybe that character could steal someones girl, but no one in their right mind would want to know him after more than an hour.
Zillah 07-07-06, 12:29 PM	chaotic good. you follow your own rules. and you are a good guy. even with the girl stealing thing haha
LuckyLeprechaun 07-07-06, 03:24 PM	Arbitary judgements: HE has no class! = sheer arrogance, at least outright ruling out good or lawful. ~ Judges worth by physical strength = chaotic and also the philosophy of evil. While I mostly agree with the rest of that post, I'd like to point out that arrogance really isn't a deciding factor in alignment, you could very well have a Lawful Good Paladin who thinks himself better than everyone except the gods. Arrogance is more of just a character feature, doesn't impact the alignment, just is something you'd roleplay on. Also, the same goes with judging people by their combat prowess, not an alignment factor, just a character feature. Anyways, I'd agree Chaotic or True Neutral, leaning towards chaotic. Lucky
Stormbrand 07-08-06, 07:14 PM	While I mostly agree with the rest of that post, I'd like to point out that arrogance really isn't a deciding factor in alignment, you could very well have a Lawful Good Paladin who thinks himself better than everyone except the gods. Arrogance is more of just a character feature, doesn't impact the alignment, just is something you'd roleplay on. Not necessarily a strong alignment factor, but it can decide things that do decide alignment. For example, chaotic and evil characters often feel "above the rules" which may explain their behaviour. Lawful implies some obedience to authority, and thus the assumption that authority is entitled to make demands of him. There is also an element of reliability and possibly trustworthiness involved, which assume that one has an obligation in dealing others the same as others have obligations dealing with them. These are inherently humble assumptions. Chaotic characters work by the assumption that one is not subject to the demands/authority of others. Arbitrary actions and irresponsibility are also considered flaws of chaotic alignment, based on the assumption that one is not bound by obligations. These are inherently arrogant assumptions. They also do what they "feel like" - so what they feel like doing is more important than the effects on others. Good assumes that others are entitled to the same dignity as oneself, and also implies making sacrifices for others. Again, these assumptions are based around some level of modesty. Evil implies lack of concern for others. Harming others if convenient or out of malice. This assumes that the lives and welfare of others are less important than oneself - an arrogant assumption. Humility is part of Law and Good and arrogance is part of Chaos and Evil. The Lawful Good Paladin who thinks himself better than anyone except the gods has to control his arrogance very tightly. Judging himself better than his superiors in the church and order is probably moving towards chaos (unless he keeps it to himself, not the arrogant man's choice). The paladin doesn't have the luxury of acting out of pride, no killing over an insult or for personal reasons, no deeming others unworthy of help. The paladin can believe him self superior or better, but he can't let it rule his actions. I have played a paladin who was both cruel and devious. That was less of a strain on the paladin code and alignment than arrogance.
LuckyLeprechaun 07-08-06, 08:09 PM	Not necessarily a strong alignment factor, but it can decide things that do decide alignment. Ok, well this is pretty much what I ment, the way you had it written the first time around, you said it "outright ruled out law/good." I feel that it is perfectly possible to have these qualities in a lawful good character. To "outright" remove the possibility is mostly what made me have to say against the idea. Of course they are deciding factors in alignment, but not nearly as big as most of the others with that character. Suppose it was just a misunderstanding. Cheers.
Inigo_Montoya 07-08-06, 08:11 PM	Neutral good would be my choice. I always liked that one.
Pyritefoolsgold 07-09-06, 02:53 AM	Chaotic Neutral, leaning a bit towards evil. He basically does what he wants. the answer to two situations will tell me if he is good or evil. First off, if someone offered him a large sum of money (it doesn't matter how large) to attack a specific merchant vessel where an innocent person was, and kill him specifically, though he had no weapon and did not fight him, would he do it? If he would, he is evil Second, if another pirate ship with a reputation for brutal murder, rape, and pillage were closing in on a defenseless port or colony, and you believed that you could stop them, would you risk your life and your men to do so? If so, he would be good.
Thubby 07-19-06, 11:03 PM	Chaotic Neutral, leaning a bit towards evil. He basically does what he wants. the answer to two situations will tell me if he is good or evil. First off, if someone offered him a large sum of money (it doesn't matter how large) to attack a specific merchant vessel where an innocent person was, and kill him specifically, though he had no weapon and did not fight him, would he do it? If he would, he is evil Second, if another pirate ship with a reputation for brutal murder, rape, and pillage were closing in on a defenseless port or colony, and you believed that you could stop them, would you risk your life and your men to do so? If so, he would be good. that is the problem, he wouldnt do either, he wouldnt attack innocent people for any ammount of money, he does what he does because he enjoys it, not for profit, and he doesnt enjoy killing, its just seeing what he's capable of that is fun. he probably wouldnt stop the pirates, unless 1 had a reputation as a powerful warrior (not the class) that he could fight. otherwise he'd skip town
Gedrin 07-20-06, 01:40 AM	respects no law or code but his own = Chaotic won't attack the innocent = Neutral won't defend the innocent against dire threats when he has the power (possibly gross disregard for the lives of others) = Neutral or Evil will use deadly combat agianst someone for no reason other than to prove his own powers as a warrior = Evil You have a Chaotic Neutral character who could well slip to evil, and probably will when he starts murdering innocent, but tallented, warriors.
Bertuccio 07-20-06, 01:55 AM	Seems entirely netural to me, maybe with chaotic tendencies, depending on how much he really "hates" authority, as opposed to just not wanting anything to do with it. will use deadly combat agianst someone for no reason other than to prove his own powers as a warrior = Evil How does this work out to be evil? He's taking just as much risk as the other guy (since he won't kill people weaker than him). So probably True Neutral, maybe Chaotic if he's really an anarcist
Gedrin 07-20-06, 02:24 AM	will use deadly combat agianst someone for no reason other than to prove his own powers as a warrior = Evil How does this work out to be evil? He's taking just as much risk as the other guy (since he won't kill people weaker than him).Being willing to kill, just to prove how awesome you are with a sword, seems to show grave disregard for life. Essentially, he will kill to elevate his own personal pride.
Rerecros 07-20-06, 02:41 AM	He's Lawful good, though he has a soft spot for the ladies and his code of conduct conflicts with local authority.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 02:46 AM	...And this thread demonstrates how the same character concept can get people to say *any* old thing about a character and try to justify it. The only one I haven't seen is Lawful and Neutral Evil. I mean, WTF? *Lawful Good* for the dashing heartbreaker who plays by no rules but his own and lives only for the fight? Pfah. I'm going to jump on the bandwagon. He's clearly Chaotic Neutral -- this kind of character is a Chaotic Neutral stereotype, in fact. Don't let anyone tell you any different.
Rerecros 07-20-06, 03:07 AM	Not all LG characters are aiming for paladin status. Suave just means high charisma, and being a lady magnet has nothing to do with his alignment or his personal code of conduct. And his quest for self-perfection through combat mirrors that of the disciplined monk. His code of conduct conflicting with local law enforcement is similar to historical samurai. When times changed, the violent code of bushido conflicted with the new laws in an era of peace.
Bertuccio 07-20-06, 08:18 PM	Being willing to kill, just to prove how awesome you are with a sword, seems to show grave disregard for life. Essentially, he will kill to elevate his own personal pride. But it's not the killing he is interested in (At least by my interpritation), it's the winning that's important - the killing just raises the stakes, if it was a duel where he was "holding back" it wouldn't be as satisfying. I agree he is prideful, but that doesn't make him evil. I guess this is an important question: If someone refues to fight him, will he cut them down anyway, or just think their weak and pitiful and move on?
Thubby 07-20-06, 09:47 PM	bert, option 2, like I said, he wants to see just how good he is, if it is clear he has won, and your still alive, he'd be just as happy to leave.
kelvinaw273 07-21-06, 05:52 AM	OK - two tests: 1) If he saw a stranger drowning in a lake, would he attempt a rescue? If Yes, he's Good. If Depends, he's Neutral If No, he's evil. 2) If he is on a mission and he meets a beautiful woman who asks him for a favour, would he suspend his mission just for a touch of romance? If Yes, he's Chaotic. If Depends, he's Neutral. If No, he's Lawful. These are not acid tests, but you get the flavour of the questions. A Good person does not quibble about helping someone in distress, a Lawful person does not do things on a whim. An evil person only does that which is in their interests, and a Chaotic only does what they feel like doing.
Wargamer 07-21-06, 08:12 AM	Prime example of why the Allignment system is flawed... this guy sounds a great character, but he doesn't fit. 1) No respect for authority = Chaotic. 2) Adheres to strict moral code = Lawful. Problem is that "Neutral" suggests a grey area... but there isn't. He is Black and White. I would personally call him Lawful Neutral, maybe even Lawful Good. im not sure what alignment to make a character he's a duelist, your standard issue swave s.o.b. who can steal your girl without trying, and will. Nothing here to affect allignment. Being swave, being a "ladykiller", and generally being a contemptable git have nothing to do with allignment, that's all personality. he only respects the law when it benefitss him, but stricly follows his own warriors code which is little more than: doesnt sneak attack always pays respect to equel warriors wont cheat wont use bad tactics (i.e. poisons, wounding weapons, etc.) and always fight on equal terms (wont kill sick or dying, and wont kill lessers unless they force him to"not worth the effort") Right, so he always fights fair... that "moral code" of his sounds almost Paladinic! I'd lean towards good here... Alright, he doesn't exactly like authority from the outside, but the fact is he will stick to the rules, even if they are only his own rules. Lawful so far. he lives for the fight, the clash of steal, :the true face of a man is seen on the field" ,he takes no joy in killing mind you, and wont make any effort to kill if the enemy is defeated. Well, a love of battle is by no means "Evil"... Paladins, Fighters and Barbarians all love hacking people apart, and they can be Good! However, it is the "no joy in killing" angle that leans me now towards Good. If not Good, then Neutral. he hates, and rarely respects, authority figures, and looks distanfuly on non fighting types like spell casters, along with barbarians who have "no class". Once again, these don't determine allignment. Rogues don't like people without stealth, but that doesn't make them Evil. Alright, he "Hates" authority figures... but how far would he go in this? Depending on whether it's just a case of grumbling over a pint in the bar, or kicking down the Burgermeister's door and slitting his throat, then he could be any allignment you want. However, as I said, Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral.
Traevanon 07-21-06, 08:50 AM	CG or NG or probably CN I dont understand these yaks that think that to be Good aligned you have to be a powderpuff. I know the quote it comes from in the PHB but I dont believe it. If overall this guy is on the good side, then he's good. Would he find himself equally uncomfortable in the company of Devils as Angels? Does he feel guilt? Have a conscience? I know he wouldnt attack a woman or a child, but would he stand by and watch one being attacked? Even if the opponent was clearly superior to him? Lets say that this guy is put into a position of authority. Would he still disrespect his superiors even while expecting respect from those he is in charge of? Would he look favorably upon those who respect his authority or those who resist it? These are things you want to think about, but not too closely. Depending on your game it might not ever come up. Still, its good that you want to give your character some depth.
TheOrcishHorde 07-21-06, 09:32 AM	either Chaotic Good or CNeutral, he kinda sounds to me like a flashy pirate who looks for the booty :P.If he steals things, make him CN if he doesnt steal things, Question is, alignment doesnt have to always show exactly how your going to react, i mean he can be CN but still only work with the side of good and doesnt have to think only of himself, hes just a Renegade thats all.
Pyritefoolsgold 07-21-06, 05:55 PM	I have to say that I'm really getting sick of this "If he has a personal code, he's lawful" crap. That was just something they threw in to make paladin's actually neutral good and work anyway. Lawful doesn't mean you abide by a code, it means you respect authority, and believe in things like duty and responsibility. The town guard is lawful because he believes that listening to authority, following all the rules, and doing your duty is right. The town rapscallion who'se always making mischief is chaotic because he believes that no one elses rules should apply to him, and that he should do whatever he feels justified in doing. Earlier someone gave the example of Bushido, and the thing is, those guys arn't lawful because they follow Bushido, but because they support authoritarianism, only not under the current leaders. They want to erect a lawful government that fits with their own morals and traditions.
Stormbrand 07-21-06, 08:54 PM	Forgive me, I have to. I would personally call him Lawful Neutral, maybe even Lawful Good. He's Lawful good, though he has a soft spot for the ladies and his code of conduct conflicts with local authority :rofl: Trying to attatch a lawful or a good alignment to someone who quite clearly doesn't deserve it is ludicrous. And doesn't give enough credit to the characters who do behave in a lawful good fashion. And his code of conduct does NOT conflict with the local authority. He just goes against it anyway. Adheres to strict moral code = Lawful. This would be a point to debate if the character in question adhered to a strict moral code. He doesn't. He fights by a set of rules. There is a difference. Not all LG characters are aiming for paladin status. Suave just means high charisma, and being a lady magnet has nothing to do with his alignment or his personal code of conduct. And his quest for self-perfection through combat mirrors that of the disciplined monk. Not all chaotic evil characters are aiming for blackguard status, what is your point? The character is described as "can steal your girl without trying, and will" (emphisis mine). Callously damaging other peoples romantic relationships is not nice behaviour - the disregard for the sanctity of a presumed monogomous relationship is chaotic at best and the willingness to randomly be the cause of a broken heart is very close to evil. Also no one has so much as hinted that all LG characters are aiming for paladin status, we are suggesting that LG characters behave in a manner both lawful and good. Why is that so hard to understand? Right, so he always fights fair... that "moral code" of his sounds almost Paladinic! I'd lean towards good here... Alright, he doesn't exactly like authority from the outside, but the fact is he will stick to the rules, even if they are only his own rules. Lawful so far. 1) That is not a moral code, it is a set of rules of engagement. More the knight's code than the paladin's. A paladin cares more about making sure his sword harms only the guilty than he is in giving the guilty an improved chance of victory and being able to harm others. 2) What does fighting a foe on equal terms have to do with alignment? Back to your comparison with paladins, a paladin follows the rules in battle but unless a formal challenge is issued he is not downright stupid enough to think there are any. 3) He does what he and only he wants. That is the definition of chaotic. His own set of rules are his own business, but the fact remains that he has a complete disregard for the values of others. generally being a contemptable git have nothing to do with allignment Yes it does. Contemptable is either defined on the grounds of society (being contemptable from that angle is chaotic) or on moral grounds (= evil). There are exceptions, this isn't one. Well, a love of battle is by no means "Evil"... Paladins, Fighters and Barbarians all love hacking people apart, and they can be Good! However, it is the "no joy in killing" angle that leans me now towards Good. If not Good, then Neutral. In context, I understand your first point. However, I must point out that paladins do not go around randomly murdering innocents merely because they love hacking people apart. Enjoying combat and being willing to inflict violence for personal pleasure are entirely different things. In this case, we are discussing someone who will injure, maim, or kill just to prove that he can. No joy in killing does not mean good. It just means less likely to be evil. Thank you. I have enjoyed my rant. Have a nice day.
Incognito2me 07-22-06, 10:05 PM	I put my vote to 'Chaotic Neutral'. Almost evil. He has total disregard for anyone weaker than him 'not worth his time'. He would be evil if he didn't believe in a fair fight.
DeciusNero 07-22-06, 10:58 PM	Chaotic Neutral. He's not willing to kill someone weaker than him because he finds it distatesful for a level 10 fighter to kill a measely militia member (3rd level warrior or whatever) who's hounding him. His 'not worth my time' means more "Im not fighting you b/c I'll win", not "I despise you because you're lesser than me". He might even fit true neutral - he respects law, but dislikes authority figures. Not quite lawful, not quite chaotic. He's not willing to risk himself to save random people, but not in the frame of mind to kill for his pleasures.
Gedrin 07-23-06, 05:45 PM	But it's not the killing he is interested in (At least by my interpritation), it's the winning that's important - the killing just raises the stakes, if it was a duel where he was "holding back" it wouldn't be as satisfying. I agree he is prideful, but that doesn't make him evil. I guess this is an important question: If someone refues to fight him, will he cut them down anyway, or just think their weak and pitiful and move on?He may not be explicitly interested in killing, but he's willing to kill. He's willing to kill for pride. Being willing to kill, for no better reason than to make yourself feel like you're "the awsomest", is an evil trait. To put it another way, it is the winning that's important to him, but he doesn't have any qualms about killing someone to get that winning feeling. In essence, he's willing to kill people to make himself feel good. I mean...seriously, how many people have to die at the end of this guys sword, just to satisfy his pride, before it's evil?
cynnder 07-23-06, 06:02 PM	Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Neutral is the cop-out alignment. Don't get me wrong, I like playing CN characters. My current character is also CN. It doesn't mean that she's always going to reject authority, or do what ever she feels like with total disregard to other's feeling or welfare. It just means she's always going to look out for herself. Does she do good things? Sure, she'd rather take prisoners, than kill them outright(hey she might just get a reward). She helps people in need when she comes across them. She just doesn't actively seek people in need. Does she do bad things? Sure, she's been known to kill creatures because they were part of a group that attacked her previously. She's also pretty through when it comes to killing. If they all die, better them than her. She enjoys killing her enemies, but she doesn't kill randomly. If an innocent gets caught up in the fight and happens to die...she might feel slight remorse, but she chalks it up to that's like...people live and die. That innocent was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. She also has no problem stealing what ever she wants (finders keepers mentality). She probably has a touch of vigilanteness in her. She always willing to do something if the reward is high. She generally will walk away if there isn't a reward. The reward doesn't have to be money of treasure either. It could be for any number of things. The important thing it that she is going to get a reward. CN Is the perfect alignment to pick if you're really not sure how your character is going to develop. Just my :twocents:
Bertuccio 07-24-06, 12:43 AM	He may not be explicitly interested in killing, but he's willing to kill. He's willing to kill for pride. Being willing to kill, for no better reason than to make yourself feel like you're "the awsomest", is an evil trait. To put it another way, it is the winning that's important to him, but he doesn't have any qualms about killing someone to get that winning feeling. In essence, he's willing to kill people to make himself feel good. I mean...seriously, how many people have to die at the end of this guys sword, just to satisfy his pride, before it's evil? I disagree. A willingness to live and die by the sword dosen't speak one way or another about his alignment. He isn't evil, because he won't kill anyone who isn't willing to be killed, indicated by their participation in a fight. He is certainly merciless, but that can apply to any alignment.
pyropetey9 07-24-06, 01:59 AM	this character sounds unquestionably chaotic. disregard for law and authority figures is a hallmark of chaotic alignments, and adherence to a personal code of ethics doesn't make one lawful unless those ethics correspond to the codified law in your region. as far as the good/evil bent is concerned, this character doesn't qualify for good. killing to prove your own abilities is an evil act, regardless of the skill of your opponent. refusing to combat a weaker opponent could be arrogance as easily as it could be charity, and while arrogance doesn't make one evil, it certainly does not make one good. i'll admit that after a while i started simply scanning the responses here, but i would have to say chaotic neutral or chaotic evil.
Al2902 07-24-06, 04:49 AM	I agree with Chaotic Neutral. Firstly, having a code or rules to live by does not make one Lawful. Robin Hood, the quintessentially Chaotic Good hero, had a set of moral norms which he obeyed. The treatment of Chaotic as synonymous with "wholly arbitrary" should have died a death in 2e. Nearly every Chaotic character has some guiding principles or aspirations. Even the insane CE berserker who kills people for fun follows this as a primary pursuit. The old CN, who would alternate between helping old ladies and burning orphanages, was an absurd characterisation. Chaos is broader than that, and should encompass this character. Chaos is better characterised as "individualism" in the truest sense: if a person has no respect for authorities, laws, traditions or conventions then he is clearly Chaotic. I cannot countenance this person as Good, but he falls short of being Evil. He is not Good since his primary motivator seems to be his own ego. He cavalierly disregards the needs of those he judges inferior to him, as Stormbrand has eloquently argued. The fact that he does not kill the weak, infirm and helpless does not make him Good, but merely prevent him from becoming Evil. The reference point must be the premise that most humans are Neutral. To be Good, a character must therefore be "more" Good than most humans. He is not. However, I'd draw the line at Evil as well. He takes no pleasure in the suffering of others, deliberately fetters his actions to avoid inflicting gratuitous harm and follows some moral principles.
Gedrin 07-24-06, 01:04 PM	I disagree. A willingness to live and die by the sword dosen't speak one way or another about his alignment. He isn't evil, because he won't kill anyone who isn't willing to be killed, indicated by their participation in a fight. He is certainly merciless, but that can apply to any alignment.Sounds like we've just got a different view on the matter. Personally, I think seeking people out, and being willing to kill them, only to satisfy one's pride, is evil.
Barnwellknight 07-24-06, 08:48 PM	Sometimes a character can have tendencies of another alignment. For example, I once played a character that was lawful good, but have several chaotic good characteristics (didn't like laws that were harmful or were unfair, got into a lot of mischief when he was a kid, he liked elves, and he didn't like arrogant morons who thought sorcerers and wizards were evil and he even sucker punched a sheriff for trying to arrest my party's wizard for just being a wizard). Here's the real shocker: he was a follower of St. Cuthbert!
Thubby 07-25-06, 07:17 PM	Sometimes a character can have tendencies of another alignment. For example, I once played a character that was lawful good, but have several chaotic good characteristics (didn't like laws that were harmful or were unfair, got into a lot of mischief when he was a kid, he liked elves, and he didn't like arrogant morons who thought sorcerers and wizards were evil and he even sucker punched a sheriff for trying to arrest my party's wizard for just being a wizard). Here's the real shocker: he was a follower of St. Cuthbert! that character sounds more neutral good, which is "supports laws only so long as they are to the benefit of people"
King_Bulba 07-26-06, 05:22 AM	that character sounds more neutral good, which is "supports laws only so long as they are to the benefit of people" Which is what a paladin should be, paladins can't be that stupid... OHH SNAP I SAID IT LOL. If I ruled a country I would have a policy no paladins can enter hehe. I don't want people with great power with an int of 8 or less in my country... BACK ON TOPIC My opinion is that the dudes chaotic evil. He kills to make himself feel better. It doesn't matter if he has a set of rules of who he does and doesn't kill. Might as well be I will not kill people who wear blue. Most good people kill not because they want to but because it is in the way of good. He may save the damsel in distress but that is because it makes him feel better and not because it is the right thing to do. No need for me to explain why he is chaotic.
Stormbrand 08-06-06, 02:32 PM	Thinking about it some more, Chaotic Evil. Totally selfish, complete disregard for the lives of others. Recently ran into someone with no wish to hurt anyone, but she was completely untrustworthy, when I asked her what was said regarding a problem we were having, she attempted to pass the blame on someone else. Not out of any malice towards the someone else, but just because she was not woman enough to take responsibility for her actions. She was happy to make things difficult between me and that other person to avoid answering to her own behaviour. Not deliberately cruel, but still neglectfully harmful and no less excusable. This charactrer seems like the same.
LCD2YOU 08-06-06, 02:53 PM	I agree with Stormbrand and Gedrin. This guy is CN with definite evil overtones. He has no respect for the law, ony his own personal code = chaotic He wants to win and it is winning that is important = Neutral In addendum but he wants to win even if it means killing the other person = evil In no way he's good and for the people who think he has paladin like qualities, Anti-Paladin only. His is the soul that would end up in Pandemonium.
Stev Beren 08-07-06, 07:56 AM	SO, once KIng Richard returned, RObin hood abruptly became lawful good even though his view on matters didn't change? Lawful does not have to mean obeying specifically the laws of the country you are in. Someone who does that is lawful, quite possibly, but it does not follow that someone who does not is not. Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. THey respect proper authority, not all authority. If a lawful good character found himself in a truly despicable Lawful evil counntry, he could still oppose that country and break its laws without being Chaotic good - he could be opposed to that country's ruler's authority without an alignment change.
LCD2YOU 08-07-06, 09:40 AM	SO, once KIng Richard returned, RObin hood abruptly became lawful good even though his view on matters didn't change? Lawful does not have to mean obeying specifically the laws of the country you are in. Someone who does that is lawful, quite possibly, but it does not follow that someone who does not is not. THey respect proper authority, not all authority. If a lawful good character found himself in a truly despicable Lawful evil counntry, he could still oppose that country and break its laws without being Chaotic good - he could be opposed to that country's ruler's authority without an alignment change.I wouldn't dispute that either. It just seems the character proposed by thr OP doesn't even fit that bill.
jagggar 08-07-06, 10:31 PM	always fight on equal terms (wont kill sick or dying, and wont kill lessers unless they force him to"not worth the effort") he lives for the fight, the clash of steal, :the true face of a man is seen on the field" ,he takes no joy in killing mind you, and wont make any effort to kill if the enemy is defeated. Because CE characters always fight fair. . . I would say he's Neutral Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. Nothing strikes me as particularly evil or particularly good, and while he has major issues with authority (chaotic), he does seem to be pretty dedicated to fighting fair (lawful).
Stormbrand 08-11-06, 07:53 PM	Partially a rant, but valid questions anyway. So please answer. Because CE characters always fight fair. . . I would say he's Neutral Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. Nothing strikes me as particularly evil or particularly good, and while he has major issues with authority (chaotic), he does seem to be pretty dedicated to fighting fair (lawful). Will someone please explain what fighting fair has to do with alignment? I remember that 2e death knights always faught fair, or at least according to their own rules based on their pride (exactly like this guy) and were still CE. Also the guy breaks hearts with complete disregard for others, kills just to boost his own ego, and quite happily abandons people to die. Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Please highlight the passage in this quote which mentions fighting fair. Another point, not all assassins take pleasure in ending a life. Maybe they enjoy the challenge of getting to the target and catching the target off-guard. How is that any different to this guy fighting to prove he's best and quite prepared to kill in the process? If a paladin is obligated to do something about the guy without there being outside factors, he's evil.