Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Beamup 06-17-04, 10:36 AM	I've been developing a new character to play, and while I have his background and personality pretty much worked out, I am TOTALLY stumped as to what his alignment is. I can make what seem to me to be reasonable cases for all nine alignments! So I thought I'd see what other people thought. BTW, I haven't named him yet - the right name just hasn't come to me. I'll call him Ninja Boy or NB for now. Mechanically, he'll be a Human Rogue/Rokugan Ninja/Assassin (the entire group feels that if the flavor and mechanics of a PrC fit, arbitrary alignment restrictions can be ignored, so he doesn't have to be Evil). Emphasis on intrusion skills and TWF, principal combat technique is to make as many Sneak Attacks as possible while the target is still flat-footed. Background: Ninja Boy was born to a farming family, in a region governed under a feudal system. Many of the nobles in this area are corrupt, self-serving tyrants, including the Baron in whose domain his family lived. He had two brothers - one older, one younger - and a twin (obviously not identical) sister. The local Baron imposed crushing taxes on the family's farm to provide an excuse to take it for personal profit. When his father could not pay, the Baron sent soldiers to arrest the family and take the farm. NB, his brothers, and his father tried to stop them, but his father and older brother were killed. NB was knocked unconscious and left for dead. The surviving family members were enslaved. All of his family is now dead. NB's mother was worked to death in the fields. His younger brother was sent to work on dangerous jobs in the mines that needed someone who could crawl through narrow tunnels - he died in a cave-in. The twin sister was the most tragic - she was assigned to, shall we say, "service" the Baron and his personal guards, and was so abused and traumatized in the process that she killed herself. NB, meanwhile, fell in with a local vigilante working to halt the nobility's excesses (think Zorro). His mentor trained him in stealth and combat as an assistant. At one point, his mentor sent him to slip into that same Baron's manor house to obtain documents proving some of his crimes. These documents were to be sent to a higher-ranking honest noble, who would bring the Baron up on charges and have him stripped of his rank. During this job, NB happened to run across the Baron sleeping and chose to take more direct action - murder, to be perfectly blunt - both for vengeance and to get rid of the Baron in what he considered to be a more reliable way than the courts. NB's mentor strongly disapproved of this approach, both because it involved unnecessary killing, and since it resulted in the barony being inherited by the dead man's son, who was just as bad. When he tried to convince NB that his methods were inappropriate for this reason, NB's response was quite simple - "fine, then I'll kill the son too." They had a major falling-out over this and NB struck out on his own. Personality: - NB is a very dour person who rarely says much and never displays any sort of emotion. - He has made it his life's work to protect the innocent from any forces they can't oppose, particularly corrupt governments. - Whenever he has some goal he's working towards, he concentrates singlemindedly on that goal until it is achieved. All else is secondary to completing his mission. - His solutions to most problems tend to involve the application of large numbers of Sneak Attack dice. - He is not terribly concerned with inflicting collateral damage if it will help him accomplish his objectives. - He has no faith at all in organized government, believing that, at best, it won't interfere too much with people trying to live their lives, and usually will be used against the people. - He rejects making decisions based on general rules, i.e. doing things "by the book." Quotation: "Doing things by the book will get you killed when you run into something the people who wrote the book didn't think about, or when you run into somebody who's read the same book and isn't afraid to think for himself." - He also rejects making decisions based on instinct, emotion, or anything along those lines. - All decisions should be made by a logical analysis of the particular situation at hand and tailored to the precise circumstances of interest. - Honor and fair fights are totally incomprehensible concepts to him. In his view, unless you're insane, stupid, or suicidal, you take all the advantages you can find and then manufacture more. - In many ways, he borders on being a psychopath or a homicidal maniac. But, his lethality is always directed towards 'the greater good.' Examples of how he would approach problems: If presented with the classic "kill a child to save 1,000 people" dilemma, he wouldn't even hesistate to kill the child to serve the greater good. If there were an evil necromancer in town, secretly killing people to perform his diabolical experiments, some people would try to prove the necromancer was guilty and turn him in to the authorities. NB's solution would be to just go ahead and kill the necromancer. If said evil necromancer had guards who knew nothing of his activities, some people would go out of their way to avoid killing the guards. NB won't kill them if he can readily avoid it, but will do so in a heartbeat if it will help him accomplish his objective of killing the necromancer. So I can see him being Lawful, due to his strict logical approach to all decisions. I could also see him being Chaotic, due to rejection of organized government and "the book." I can see him being Good, since his objectives are almost always benevolent. I can see him being Evil, due to his tendency to solve all problems via SA. Any comments/feedback on the character? Opinions as to his alignment? Is he interesting? Any names that just seem perfect for him?
Shifting Master 06-17-04, 11:01 AM	On the law-chaos axis, he is definitely lawful. He disagrees with society, but still has his own code of laws that he follows to the letter. He definitely isn't good, but he could be either evil or neutral. A lot of evil people do things for the "greater good" (see "Hitler", pp. 510231 1/2). I personally believe that alignment isn't who you think you are; it is how you act and how you are perceived by others. Your character may slay someone for the greater good, but the action is evil and people around him perceive it as evil. Your character is most likely LE or LN, using my assessment, but my opinions on alignment are generally oddball, so you should probably get some other judgement on this.
ehrin 06-17-04, 11:12 AM	this is tough. parts of me want to say chaotic, but others say "lawful". Some of what NB is are hard to categorize, I wonder which traits are stronger, for example. If I had to shove him somewhere right now, I would say Lawful Neutral with evil tendencies. He is a judge. He makes decisions about people's lives, their innocence and guilt, based on his own evidence and codes. Although he hates governments and prefers vigilantism, it isn't so much from a Robin Hood/Chaotic POV as much as a "they don't have the same code I do" POV (ie, they don't meet up to his standards). And I say "evil tendencies" because anyone who uses the "greater good" arguement to justify doing something wrong is rarely good. A good person would hesitate to kill the baby to save the thousand (and may not even then kill it), a good person IS concerned about collateral damage, a good person would likely allow emotional concepts like mercy to creep into his decisions.
Naeron 06-17-04, 11:45 AM	Using Sneak attack is perfectly compatible with being Good. Alignment enters into the equation when you consider who you sneak attack. Killing the Baron was a Good act in D&D terms. Punishing the guilty and evil for harming the innocent is "Good". Undertaking to do the same to the Baron's son, although only if he continues his father's way is also Good. So lets look at his personality. - NB is a very dour person who rarely says much and never displays any sort of emotion. Any alignment - He has made it his life's work to protect the innocent from any forces they can't oppose, particularly corrupt governments. Definitely Good - Whenever he has some goal he's working towards, he concentrates singlemindedly on that goal until it is achieved. All else is secondary to completing his mission. Definitely Lawful - His solutions to most problems tend to involve the application of large numbers of Sneak Attack dice. SA has no alignment, he takes the route of violence readily but that does not preclude being good if his violence is not expressed towards the innocent. - He is not terribly concerned with inflicting collateral damage if it will help him accomplish his objectives. If he is uncaring of who he hurts this is leads towards neutrality or evil. If he prefers not hurting the innocent but will do so in extreme circumstance probably neutral, otherwise Evil. - He has no faith at all in organized government, believing that, at best, it won't interfere too much with people trying to live their lives, and usually will be used against the people. He has a strong internal code so Lawful. He seems to be opposed to governments he has lived under (oppresive ones) which is Good. The main indicator would be how he feels about a government that only beneifts its people and is not used against them. - He rejects making decisions based on general rules, i.e. doing things "by the book." Quotation: "Doing things by the book will get you killed when you run into something the people who wrote the book didn't think about, or when you run into somebody who's read the same book and isn't afraid to think for himself." So he has his own book and does things that way. Lawful. - He also rejects making decisions based on instinct, emotion, or anything along those lines. Definitely Lawful. - All decisions should be made by a logical analysis of the particular situation at hand and tailored to the precise circumstances of interest. Definitely Lawful. - Honor and fair fights are totally incomprehensible concepts to him. In his view, unless you're insane, stupid, or suicidal, you take all the advantages you can find and then manufacture more. As long as his beleif is that if some deserves killing you should use the every advantage you have there is no alignment indication. Who he kills defines this. - In many ways, he borders on being a psychopath or a homicidal maniac. But, his lethality is always directed towards 'the greater good.' Define psycopath and homicidal maniac. Does he kill innocents for pleasure or personal gain or does he kill without qualm if the person has committed evil acts. If the former he is evil, if the latter he is good or neutral. This character is Lawful Neutral with good tendencies. A LN character can perform all the activities you suggest and, apart from killing 1 to save 1000 (and if it has to be one or the other it is still a Good act) the others are Good acts.
Thorak 06-17-04, 01:57 PM	Either plain-jane Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral. As others have noted; he has high ideals but is willing to do horrible things to accomplish them, which pretty firmly sets him into Neutral, since he's balancing his goals against his methods. As for law/chaos, I see what others have said about the personal code, but his personal code doesn't seem strict. In fact, it seems entirely un-strict. He decides what must be done on the seat of his pants, through logical analysis. That he's logical doesn't matter, he doesn't have any strict personal code, he doesn't make complicated plans, and refuses either as being potentially dangerous. That's classically chaotic; that he uses logic to determine courses of action just means he's not overly impulsive and has the brains to take the time to do what makes sense. Either Chaotic, or balanced between the two.
Beamup 06-17-04, 02:04 PM	Thanks to everyone who's replied so far. This sort of thing is why I :love: these threads - everyone has different interesting viewpoints. Thorak's argument seems most convincing to me, though that's probably because it mirrors my own preliminary thinking. Keep the opinions coming - not just about alignment, but also what people think about the character overall.
meabolex 06-17-04, 02:10 PM	Yes Thorak, I've played a character rather similar. Chaotic Neutral he is. BTW, this comment: originally by Shifting Master On the law-chaos axis, he is definitely lawful. He disagrees with society, but still has his own code of laws that he follows to the letter. Isn't that the definition of chaos? He follows no external code -- he closely follows his own ideals while disregarding others -- which make him extremely chaotic. Remember, lawful characters are bound to external concepts. Chaotic characters are bound to themselves -- hence the free spirit attitude.
ehrin 06-17-04, 02:22 PM	i admit to being torn between the lawful and chaotic aspects here. Thorak makes good points about him following his own path, and that path is not well defined. I could easily switch to CN if I understood more of what his "internal code" was, and if it indeed bounced and changed as events unfolded.
Beamup 06-17-04, 02:24 PM	Originally posted by ehrin i admit to being torn between the lawful and chaotic aspects here. Thorak makes good points about him following his own path, and that path is not well defined. I could easily switch to CN if I understood more of what his "internal code" was, and if it indeed bounced and changed as events unfolded. Very much so. His "internal code" is primarily expediency and pragmatism.
hekker 06-17-04, 02:36 PM	I'd say treu neutral. Take this peace: - He has no faith at all in organized government, believing that, at best, it won't interfere too much with people trying to live their lives, and usually will be used against the people. - He rejects making decisions based on general rules, i.e. doing things "by the book." Quotation: "Doing things by the book will get you killed when you run into something the people who wrote the book didn't think about, or when you run into somebody who's read the same book and isn't afraid to think for himself." - He also rejects making decisions based on instinct, emotion, or anything along those lines. The first two point to rejection of law, so chaos, the latter points to rejection of just being a 'free spirit'. It points to law. Also that he could easily sued the baron, but instead chose to kill him point to chaos (lawfull would follow the laws and sue the baron). This indiciciveness (sp? I mean unable to decide) points to N on the Law vs Chaos axis. Also on the G-E axis i'd consider him neutral. As previous posters where kind to point out, he has hints of evil and good. indiciciveness (sp again?) indicates neutrality.
MrkGrismer 06-17-04, 03:15 PM	Chaotic Neutral. This character seems to care for nothing other then individualism, and most importantly his own individualism. Classic CN.
danielinthewolvesden 06-17-04, 04:38 PM	Assasins are Evil. Period. Killing folks for cash is Evil. I understand your "houserules" but there are lots of non-evil killer types. Other than that, I'd say he was Cn/Ng. That is he wants to do good, but isn't- and he has a code but it isn't very restrictive. I'd play him as CN striving for Good. Note that CN's should be very loyal to their companions and family, but not the Establishment. But still- Assassins are Evil, WotC & the PrC aside. The question is: "would he kill an innocent baby if the price was right?" If the answer is Yes, he's an evil assassin. If the answer is no- then he's not an assassin . Really- pick another class, like "Slayer of Domiel" or many others, some of which do say "any non-good" which is fine by me.
Sir Neil 06-17-04, 08:49 PM	Originally posted by Beamup ...if the flavor and mechanics of a PrC fit, arbitrary alignment restrictions can be ignored... Any comments/feedback on the character? The Assassin's alignment restriction isn't arbitrary, it's inextricably linked to the class's flavor text. Regardless, NB seems to be LN with evil tendencies, but I'd write those letters in pencil, if you know what I mean.
Beamup 06-18-04, 09:16 AM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Assasins are Evil. Period. Killing folks for cash is Evil. I understand your "houserules" but there are lots of non-evil killer types. Hey, who said he killed people for money? I never did, and he doesn't. He kills for a cause - the Greater Good. Originally posted by Sir Neil The Assassin's alignment restriction isn't arbitrary, it's inextricably linked to the class's flavor text. I'd buy that if the flavor text had anything in it other than being feared killers. Which is not necessarily Evil.
allenchan 06-18-04, 01:16 PM	Assassins are evil. They have to be. Your character has to be to take the class, no two ways about that. If you're doing it for "good" then you're a Slayer of Domiel (BoED) and LG. So, you cant be neutral. Murder for money isnt neutral.
Beamup 06-18-04, 01:33 PM	Originally posted by allenchan Assassins are evil. They have to be. Your character has to be to take the class, no two ways about that. If you're doing it for "good" then you're a Slayer of Domiel (BoED) and LG. So, you cant be neutral. Murder for money isnt neutral. Read my initial post more carefully - alignment requirements are routinely ignored in my group if flavor and mechanics warrant it. Note that the SoD is totally inappropriate because NB could never be considered Exalted by ANY stretch of the imagination, and last time I checked, SoD had to be Exalted (which is one thing we won't ignore).
allenchan 06-18-04, 01:58 PM	Well if your ignoring alignments, why does it matter to begin with that alignment you're going to be? :rolleyes: But seriously, alignment restrictions are put on classes not as flavor, but to limit possibly unequalizing mechanics. If this is the case then you should just play a barbarian/monk to take full advantage of this Rule 0.
Beamup 06-18-04, 02:21 PM	Originally posted by allenchan Well if your ignoring alignments, why does it matter to begin with that alignment you're going to be? :rolleyes: Oh, say, detect X, protection from X, holy word, and a slew of other things. Alignment is a very important factor in any number of things. But seriously, alignment restrictions are put on classes not as flavor, but to limit possibly unequalizing mechanics. If this is the case then you should just play a barbarian/monk to take full advantage of this Rule 0. Care to present any evidence that there's anything unbalanced about it? Or why somebody shouldn't be allowed to play a barbarian/monk if they come up with a character that is best modelled that way?
danielinthewolvesden 06-18-04, 03:22 PM	Originally posted by Beamup Hey, who said he killed people for money? I never did, and he doesn't. He kills for a cause - the Greater Good. I'd buy that if the flavor text had anything in it other than being feared killers. Which is not necessarily Evil. Then you're not an assassin. Fighters are also "feared killers'. But they are not "assassins". If you are an "assassin" then you kill anyone if the price is right or you have been ordered to.
Incensius 06-18-04, 03:40 PM	"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them." - 3.5 ed SRD I will now present two alignment descriptions that i think fit best: Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil. Lawful Neutral, “Judge”: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
Mousse 06-19-04, 02:16 AM	He's playing a variant PrC identical to the Assassin PrC except the class is based off the ability to kill quickly and silently as a mission, not a paying job. Think government Snipers or Hit Teams or somethin. Specially trained to simply do away with threats. Arguement ended. Whee.
Beamup 06-19-04, 09:44 AM	Originally posted by danielinthewolvesden Then you're not an assassin. Fighters are also "feared killers'. But they are not "assassins". If you are an "assassin" then you kill anyone if the price is right or you have been ordered to. That's neither in the Assassin PrC (it's one of the examples of how an assassin might work, but "agents of vengeance" is another one) or in the dictionary definition of assassin: as*sas*sin [i]n.[i/] 1. One who murders by surprise attack, esp. one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person. Really quite a perfect match. But, if you prefer, Mousse's explanation is perfectly appropriate too.
Lady Mia 06-19-04, 04:59 PM	- He rejects authorities - He rejects any outside standard by which others live - He makes his decisions on the spot with whatever is most expedient. All extremely Chaotic ways of handling situations. Remember logic is NOT law. Also dedication to a goal is NOT nessessarily Lawfull either. everyone has goals (or should). Its the methods and reasoning in persuing his goals that matter. This character is Extremely Chaotic in alignment. Looking inward for his own answers, at the moment of decision. From what I have read he is also Evil. Why? Because he has NO qualms whatsoever of killing or harming inocents himself if it helps him kill the bad guy or save other inocents. His heart is cold and dark, filled with violence and vengence. He is Evil hunting other Evil... a classic example of evil vs evil. He kills without mercy or remorse and is motivated by vengence against evildoers. Vengence is an evil motive. He justifies it all to himself by saying its for the greater good. But by being willing to harm other inocents himself he is clearly only motivated by vengence not protectiveness. As a GM I would give him a CE alignment
Ghorticus 06-21-04, 01:40 PM	I'd have to say that the closest alignment would be Chaotic Good . According to the Chaotic Neutral description (which I originally thought was the best fit), "(a Chaotic Neutral Character) doesn't strive to protect others' freedom." and "A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). For example, from the Chaotic Good description: "Sovellis, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is Chaotic Good." Waylaying tax collectors sounds Evil, doesn't it, assuming that these tax collectors aren't inherently evil, but just doing their jobs. Exactly the same thing as NB would be doing by killing the evil mayor's guards, even though they were innocent. Murder is a Chaotic act that can be used for Good and for Evil, and in NB's case, it is definitely an act of Good.