Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Freethink 04-19-07, 12:25 PM	I have asked advice on defining the alignment of this character concept from gaming friends and run some online alignment quiz/tests, getting contrasting results on whether it should be true neutral, CN with evil tendencies, or CE with neutral tendencies, so I'm seeking veteran advice from these boards. Extreme individualist, passionately despises any kind of external law or authority and actively and forcibly resists any attempt to such being enforced on him if he dislikes/disagrees (but may comply if it's just the most reasonable things to do), loyal, fair, benevolent, and honorable to friends, loved ones, causes and persons he respects, tries to keep his word, thinks Might Makes Right is the only true law and those made weak by choice or personal lack/defect have no rights whatsoever (but willing to show mercy/benevolence to those truly humbled by circumstances beyond their control), generally willing to help others if it implies no great sacrifice on his part (otherwise he expects due reward or an enlightened self-interest reason), willing to do pretty much anything to those he doesn't respect if he thinks it's convenient, including cold-blooded murder, poison, theft, exortion, lying, and cheating, using evil magic, consorting with evil beings. He would do no betrayal, harm or kill without a good (albeit selfish) reason, would use torture as an exceptional last resort to save himself or a loved one, will not do forceful/violent rape (charm spells and seductions are fine, force or outright domination for sex is vile), feels no remorse whatsoever unless his own moral code has been violated, thinks being loved is quite better than being feared but being feared is quite better than getting no due respect, will not harm children (except in the "kill extreme threat to the world" case), despises slavery unless it's temporary and the victim has been defeated in a fair contest or chose it, would rather prefer not to be responsible for others (including ruling them), admires self-sufficience in self and others, Thinks freedom, flexibility, and individuality are better deals and ideals than organization and structure, only you need to be able to defend your rights by yourself to deserve them.
PhantomTrain 04-19-07, 12:57 PM	What you have here is a mess of contradictory personal codes. Up front, you say you despise laws and only 'Might makes right', but you then go on to describe an army of personal ethics and codes of behavior that you will not break. Lawful alignment does not only apply to 'the law', it can also apply to personal ethics. However, every time you outlined a personal code, you also gave an escape clause for when he might violate it. Chaotic. As far as good vs bad, what you are describing is a bad person, more than willing to do anything and everything outside of the boundaries of his own personal taboos. He'd 'avoid' a 'violent rape' and 'prefers' not to harm children. That sounds like it clearly crosses the line from self-interested neutrality to the generally-agreed upon definition of evil. That he is willing to help someone for money and won't backstab a friend (without convenient, selfish reason) does not mitigate what he is willing to do. Evil. So I'd have to say, drawing a sum line under all that, you've got a Chaotic Evil character on your hands. He behaves in a mostly unpredictable fashion that actively defies the conventions of law and society, all the while manifesting a distinct willingness to harm others for little reason other than his own code of behavior. That he would 'avoid' rape means he would commit rape. That he 'prefers not to harm children' means he would harm children. He is willing to 'do pretty much anything to those he doesn't respect if the thinks it's convenient'. He's not CE with neutral tendancies. He's CE, straight up.
Puca 04-19-07, 01:02 PM	Extreme individualist, passionately despises any kind of external law or authority and actively and forcibly resists any attempt to such being enforced on him if he dislikes/disagrees (but may comply if it's just the most reasonable things to do), The fact that you occasionally comply with laws doesnt make you less Chaotic. It is sort of like, your compliance is incidental or coincidental. You are doing what you wanted to do anyway, and the fact that it happens to be legal isnt a factor. Is that a fair assessment? That seems pretty clear-cut Chaotic to me. loyal, fair, benevolent, and honorable to friends, loved ones, causes and persons he respects,Youre loyal to people you want to be loyal to. You respect people you want to respect. At least neutral. (Good is good to more than just friends.) Could still be evil. thinks Might Makes Right is the only true law and those made weak by choice or personal lack/defect have no rights whatsoever (but willing to show mercy/benevolence to those truly humbled by circumstances beyond their control),This conflicts with what you said before. It is Lawful Evil. (The fact that you are nice to those you dominate doesnt change the fact that they are dominated. Anyone can be nice to slaves that dont resist.) Look, you chafe at any type of authority right? So if I am stronger than you, are you OK with me ordering you around? Do you think I have the right to as long as I am more powerful? If you dont pick a side on this, you could call yourself neutral, having no overwhelming inclination either way, but Id go Lawful. Your only disagreement with the law is that you arent making it. In a perfect world (one where you are in charge that is) it would be Lawful, right? Then Id say that is your ethical inclination. generally willing to help others if it implies no great sacrifice on his part (otherwise he expects due reward or an enlightened self-interest reason),So if it involves effort, they have to pay? At least neutral. Leaning slowing to evil. willing to do pretty much anything to those he doesn't respect if he thinks it's convenient, including cold-blooded murder, poison, theft, exortion, lying, and cheating, using evil magic, consorting with evil beings.Evil. Clear as day. Consider your only qualification is “those he doesnt respect.” How easy is it to put someone in that category? I dont respect the guy who fails to use his turn signal. Poison him! He would do no betrayal, harm or kill without a good (albeit selfish) reason, would use torture as an exceptional last resort to save himself or a loved one,You would harm and/or kill for a selfish reason? Not much question on this. would avoid violent rape (charm spells and love potions are fine),Avoid violent rape? Wow. Just avoid? (Im trying to give it up. Sometimes I cant help it though.) And only “violent” rape. Manipulation is OK. I wouldnt threaten her, but a little GHB in her drink is fine. Wow. Capital E on that evil guy. feels no remorse whatsoever unless his own moral code has been violated,And that moral code is what? Seriously, when would he feel remorse? All he has to do is not like or respect the person and any moral obligation is severed. He can kill anyone he doesnt like or if he has a good reason, but obviously you are always going to be able to give some reason that is “good enough” or you wouldnt be trying to kill them in the first place. thinks being loved is quite better than being feared but being feared is quite better than getting no due respect, prefers not to harm children, Prefers not harming little kids. This is sort of like avoids rape. Listen, if you could dominate, you would. Youd do it nicely, but youre willing to use violence, even against children. If they dont love you, they damn well better fear you. Youre Lawful Evil dude.
Clawhound 04-19-07, 01:02 PM	This rings chaotic evil to me. Note that I approach evil in a limited sense. You don't have to be evil about all things in all ways. Evil is just firmly evil about something in some way. In another way, would this be a villainous character in a story who needs some sort of character altering moment to reach any sort of redemption? I think so.
Puca 04-19-07, 01:17 PM	Looks like others are leaning toward Chotic. Its all pretty subjective, and I dont want to fight about it (again) but isnt there in his description an implied desire to dominate? Chaotic Evil seems more inclined (in my opinion) to just destroy. His first couple of sentences made me think Chaos too, but the rest overwhelms that for me. And, I could reasonably say that what chafes him about "external law or authority" and makes him "actively and forcibly [resist] any attempt to such being enforced on him if he dislikes/disagrees" is that he wants to be in charge. At least of himself. The law dosent maybe bug him as much as the fact that you have the "might" to hold him to it.
Freethink 04-19-07, 01:21 PM	Bad language on two bits: would not harm children unless it's the "strangle Hitler/Stalin in crib" deal, would not do violent rape (yes, the qualifier is all important, using force or outright domination for sex is vile, charms and seductions are OK, if you have a barely decent chance to resist it is fair, in war or "love"), unless in extreme circumstances (hard to envision for this act, so likely he would never do it). Actually, it's the same kind of taboo as torture, or betrayal. So betrayal, harming children, torture, and forceful/violent rape are his near-absolute taboos. Would prefer not be responsible for others by ruling them on a permanent basis, would prefer always to deal others on a case-by-case basis. Thinks freedom, flexibility, and individuality are better deals and ideals than organization and structure, only you need to be able to defend your rights by yourself to deserve them.
wrecan 04-19-07, 01:27 PM	Straight-up CE. The fact that he has some taboos (no hurting children, no torture, no violent rape) doesn't alter the fact that he's willing to kill without qualms if its convenient, has little compassion for others, and is willing to perform heinous acts on innocent people for his own personal benefit. That's evil. He's willing to deceive, lie, cheat, extort, bribe. Pretty much he's willing to violate any culturally accepted norm to get what he wants. He has a vague code of conduct but one he's willing to violate if "necessary". He certainly isn't willing to sacrifice himself to adhere ot his personal rules. (I suspect is a gun were held to his head, he'd kick a child in the teeth to survive, for example.) That's chaotic. Chaotic Evil. Straight up.
Freethink 04-19-07, 01:51 PM	He certainly isn't willing to sacrifice himself to adhere ot his personal rules. (I suspect is a gun were held to his head, he'd kick a child in the teeth to survive, for example.) In the case he would be willing to sacrifice himself to adhere to his personal rules, would that signficantly affect his alignment ?? I'm quite satisfied with the character being chaotic (it was the sought result, after all). However, in the case I would wish the character to be a believable CN instead of CE (to make him comply with class or PrC prerequisites), how would you suggest to modify the moral code of the character, changing his overall attitude as little as possible ?
Clawhound 04-19-07, 02:06 PM	Let the character be open to persuasion. "He prefers doing X and Y, but can be persuaded, usually with little trouble. It's when he feels bullied that he digs his heels in." Also ask, "Why is this character in a group when he wasn't nothing to do with groups?" This is a conceit of D&D. He must have some reason, however shallow and thin, to participate in a group and to accept majority decisions. I would really describe the character as "chaotic spoiled brat." I want my way, and if I don't get it, I will go get my way. Nyaaa.
Puca 04-19-07, 02:17 PM	So betrayal, harming children, torture, and forceful/violent rape are his near-absolute taboos.But even in theory, they arent absolute. What I see from you is: If I have a good reason I would… But who decides if the reason is good enough? It is very clear that you and you alone do. Would prefer not be responsible for others by ruling them on a permanent basis,Not wanting the tedium of managing those you dominate isnt the same as not having the desire to do it. would prefer always to deal others on a case-by-case basis.Of course! Case by case. If I like you, I will respect you and not kill you. If I dont… Thinks freedom, flexibility, and individuality are better deals and ideals than organization and structure,This definitely sounds chaotic. But when you describe things, I dont see you giving a **** about any individuality or freedom but yours. That could still be Chaotic of course, but with everything else in context, it comes off as a platitude your character might say, but not actually do. Lawful can say this. only you need to be able to defend your rights by yourself to deserve them.Case in point. Who gets to have rights? Those who deserve them. Its rudimentary, but there is a hierarchy here: The people who have earned the right to be free, and the rest of you. See what I mean? If I were going to make this guy Chaotic, because it seems thats what you want, remove any might-makes-right thinking. Look at it this way: I have free will. So do you. If you choose to follow the law because otherwise youll go to prison or die, its still a choice. There are no restrictions on your free will. Only freely made choices. There is no deserving of rights or lack there of. As long as you have a will, you have a choice. And my choices are not restricted by anything except what I think is best for me right now at this moment. When I submit to someone because they are stronger, it was still my choice. I chose to live. He doesnt have any rights due to his might. His might is a line on my cost/benefit analysis. If you want to make him neutral, you draw the line: You are free to choose evil, but thats evil. You choose to place certain restrictions on yourself. You dont agree with torture, murder, etc. Dont qualify it with "unless there is a good reason." If it is only acceptable some extraordinary unforeseeable circumstance, like where torture is the only alternative, then it neednt be said: we know extraordinary circumstances happen. To suggest that you are open to it, especially when we know you decide good reasons from bad, makes it sound like you are hedging. If your only reason for trying to be neutral is to comply with the partys wish, then put CN on your character sheet, and try not to rape anyone.
Freethink 04-19-07, 02:36 PM	Let the character be open to persuasion. "He prefers doing X and Y, but can be persuaded, usually with little trouble. It's when he feels bullied that he digs his heels in." I see no difficulty with this. Actually, it was implied in the original concept "but may comply if it's just the most reasonable things to do". Ok, make it "will comply" if it's just the reasonable thing to do. It's when someone tries to pull rank/law/tradition/authority on him that he's going to react badly. Also ask, "Why is this character in a group when he wasn't nothing to do with groups?" This is a conceit of D&D. He must have some reason, however shallow and thin, to participate in a group and to accept majority decisions. His adventuring companions are within his "circle of respect", people he has tested and grew to like and respect, and freely chose to bond with. He is "loyal, fair, benevolent, and honorable to friends, loved ones, causes and persons he respects", and that would surely extend to his adventuring companions (otherwise, he wouldn't hang out with them). It's just that he doesn't feel bound to extend a blanket check of respect/loyalty/fairness/compassion/kindness to untried and unknown random strangers, just because they are people. You have to show up somewhat "deserving" in his radar. And if you definitely show up as "wanting" (e.g. cowards), you are cattle.
PhantomTrain 04-19-07, 03:08 PM	If you want this character to be CN instead of CE, here's my suggestions on what can stay and what can go. First comes your definiton of 'worthy' and 'unworthy', as they are key to the triggers of his behavior. To be less evil, you have to be judgemental of less people. Maybe he won't hurt children because children are beneath his judgement. If one proves to be a threat, then he is judged just like an adult. Next would be to accomodate more than one kind of 'might'. The mother that fights fiercely to defend her children might be 'strong' in his estimation, and therefore worthy of respect. The runt schoolboy who stands up to the bully, so on and so forth. By respecting not just power but bravery and strength you open yourself up to a little Neutrality and even a little Good, casting your alignment in shades of gray rather than pure evil. Next, there are some things you simply have to let go. Anyone who rapes anyone, no matter how violently or gently, is evil. Simple as that. I don't know what kind of game your GM runs, but rape is an evil act that only an evil person is capable of. It is not about sexuality; rape is not another word for 'rough sex'. If your character is willing to rape someone, and that includes drugging them and raping them gently, then he is evil. Think about it yourself. What if someone drugged you, stripped you, and then gently violated you? How would you feel about that guy? Would you say 'Sure, I'm bleeding from one of my holes, but at least he was nice enough to pull my undies back up when he was done.'? Nope. Rape=evil, and if your character is willing to, then he is evil. Slavery is evil by modern standards, and is pretty much universally bad, but if your character comes from a culture where slavery occures, then he might get away with believing that slavery as a result of a legitimate challenge is ok. Slavery, by its definition, cannot be consentual, so your last point on that subject doesn't mean anything. It's perfectly within the realm of possible for a good character to believe that following 'the law' is a sign of weakness (your stereotypical barbarian is the best example of that). No problems there. Just don't go raping people to death if they pay taxes. Not only is that ridiculous, it's evil. To be less evil-flavored overall, emphasize the things you have already said are core to the character: loyalty to those in his circle, personal freedom, and the value of worthiness. Tone down your reaction to those who your character sees as 'unworthy', reserving the bad stuff for the 'unworthy' who cross you. Remember, it's very different greeting the town sheriff with a sneer and murdering his family because he's part of the system. Sniveling little barkeep strikes you as weak? Insult his ale, but don't trouble yourself too much with him, because he's a weakling. Sniveling little barkeep tells the assassin which room you're sleeping in? Cut off one of his hands. See the difference?
Freethink 04-19-07, 03:14 PM	But even in theory, they arent absolute. What I see from you is: If I have a good reason I would… But who decides if the reason is good enough? It is very clear that you and you alone do. That seems very chaotic to me. Not wanting the tedium of managing those you dominate isnt the same as not having the desire to do it. Having the desire to actively seek domination on others and cause them to heed my will is rather different from feeling that I am free to do anything I wish, provided I accept the consequences and I am strong/clever/good enough to do it, and so is anyone else. Even if the end results may be similar, the reasons and the attitude (and likely some of the means) is rather different. Of course! Case by case. If I like you, I will respect you and not kill you. If I dont… If I feel respect for you (e.g. because you seem able to pull your own weight, I respect what you are or can do, or follow a moral code similar to mine, I like you on a personal basis), and I have no outstanding reasons to clash with you, I will leave you alone and likely be pleasant. If I despise you (e.g. because you are a weak, coward, or moron that can't defend oneself, you can't be trusted, you really bother me with "law" or "authority" I didn't consent to), I feel entitled to heap you whatever I feel like to. People that I haven't tried and found either way are a grey zone, and I might go either way according to circumstances. This definitely sounds chaotic. But when you describe things, I dont see you giving a **** about any individuality or freedom but yours. Oh, I do. But individuality and freedom that you aren't able/willing to defend isn't. I definitely do mine. Look at it this way: I have free will. So do you. If you choose to follow the law because otherwise youll go to prison or die, its still a choice. There are no restrictions on your free will. Only freely made choices. There is no deserving of rights or lack there of. As long as you have a will, you have a choice. And my choices are not restricted by anything except what I think is best for me right now at this moment. When I submit to someone because they are stronger, it was still my choice. I chose to live. He doesnt have any rights due to his might. His might is a line on my cost/benefit analysis. That seems like a very good exposition of the moral code that I'm trying to implement. I would just add that "if you choose to submit to me, I'm not going to otherwise restrict my choices out of concern for your well-being, except for some acts I feel unpleasant to do on a personal basis. On a general note, I am typically more likely to show sympathy to you (and therefore show some concern for you) if you still made a decent effort to exert your free will, but ultimately submitted, than if you were unable/unwilling to do it".
wrecan 04-19-07, 03:34 PM	In the case he would be willing to sacrifice himself to adhere to his personal rules, would that signficantly affect his alignment ?? Well, it would make him more lawful, which I don't think is what you're going for. :) I would wish the character to be a believable CN instead of CE (to make him comply with class or PrC prerequisites), how would you suggest to modify the moral code of the character, changing his overall attitude as little as possible ? Instead of being indifferent to the suffering of others, having him actively prefer not to harm others. He won't risk his neck to save them, but he won't go out of his way to help them. Yes, he'll steal, but he won't steal so much the other person is going to starve. He might charm someone into liking him, but he won't intentionally use that to rape someone or do something that would leave them dead, permanently maimed, or emotionally broken. Here's my rewrite of your character descriptions. An extreme individualist, he passionately despises any kind of external law or authority. He actively and forcibly resists any attempt to such being enforced on him if he dislikes/disagrees, although he'll compromise his principles if coerced into doing so, nder threat of physical harm or torture of himself or any of his close friends. (Threats against innocents will not phase him, however.) He is loyal, fair, benevolent, and honorable, but only to those he befriends, loves, or respects. To them alone does he try to keep his word. He understands that those with the power dictates the rules, but he thinks that individuals have more power than any tyrant. He looks down on those who don't rise up against oppression, thinking them weak by choice or personal lack/defect. While he pities their state, he will not lift a finger to help them (unless they make it worth his while). He will show mercy, however, to those who have been truly humbled by circumstances beyond their control. In this category he will always place children as well. Any others hell help only if it implies no great sacrifice on his part. Otherwise he expects due reward, or an appeal to his enlightened self-interest. In pursuit of selfish gain, he is willing to do pretty much anything to those he doesn't respect, unless it would result in their death, torture, rape or emotional or psychological breakdown. Otherwise the sky's the limit, including the use of poison, theft, exortion, lying, and cheating, using evil magic, and consorting with evil beings. He'll even charm them and dominate them into doing his will. although he wouldn't rape them or cause them to commit suicide. He feels no remorse whatsoever unless his own moral code has been violated, thinks being loved is quite better than being feared but being feared is quite better than getting no due respect. He despises slavery unless it's temporary and the victim has been defeated in a fair contest or chose it, but despite detesting the institution, and refusing to own slaves himself, he doesn't do anything to end it. He admires self-sufficience in self and others. He thinks freedom, flexibility, and individuality are better deals and ideals than organization and structure. He believes that you need to be able to defend your rights by yourself to deserve them, such that he looks down on people who don't know how to defend themelves.
Puca 04-19-07, 04:02 PM	That seems very chaotic to me.The ethics axis is the gray one. My opinion, and I should have said I know it is a minority one, is that the world is filled with competing and outright contradictory laws, mores and traditions. No one can respect or follow them all in that case. On some level, even Lawfulls pick and choose and they have to do so on some basis. LGs basis is selfless. LEs is selfish. Selflessness is pretty fixed, but selfishness changes. What is in your interests now, might not be later. What makes me think of you as Lawful is not that you pick and choose, that is just as true of chaotics, but the language you use to describe such choices. So betrayal, harming children, torture, and forceful/violent rape are his near-absolute taboos. A taboo is a cultural rule. You see these as wrong because they are considered “bad” by the group. Even if it is a group of one, it is still wrong as a rule. Such language would never enter a Chaotics thinking. A CE wouldnt care, and a CG would have Good reasons not to do them. If I despise you (e.g. because you are a weak, coward, or moron that can't defend oneself, you can't be trusted, you really bother me with "law" or "authority" I didn't consent to), I feel entitled to heap you whatever I feel like to.Entitlement is another word that Law uses and Chaos doesnt. CE doesnt need “entitlement” to do it. CG wouldnt care if he was “entitled” he would still not attack you. He doesnt have to trust you, or anything. Oh, I do. But individuality and freedom that you aren't able/willing to defend isn't. I definitely do mine.That is true, but that doesnt mean that they are less free does it? To say that one person deserves freedom and another doesnt is a type of rule, or standard. A chaotic wouldnt, I think, make any kind of stipulation here. That seems like a very good exposition of the moral code that I'm trying to implement.Thanks. I would just add that "if you choose to submit to me, I'm not going to otherwise restrict my choices out of concern for your well-being, except for some acts I feel unpleasant to do on a personal basis.Cleaning toilets is “unpleasant.” Torture and the like are a bit beyond that. On a general note, I am typically more likely to show sympathy to you (and therefore show some concern for you) if you still made a decent effort to exert your free will, but ultimately submitted, than if you were unable/unwilling to do it".I think a true Chaotic, good or evil, would feel a great deal of contempt for those who go through life thinking they were “forced” to do stuff. Like I work with a lot of young people who routinely tell me they are “forced to be here.” They arent forced. The doors aint locked. The fact that you chose to show up and stay to avoid mommy telling at you (or going to jail, I have a few of those) doesnt mean it was not a choice. Free will baby. To me, alignment is about world-view, and how you really see the world is revealed as much by the words you use as situation you are trying to describe. For example, if we just met, and at some point I say, “I dont ever get into a fight unless I have to,” I think you can be pretty confident in thinking that I do get into fights. At the very least, Im willing to. A person who truly doesnt get into fights and is truly unwilling to wouldnt add “unless I have to.” Anyone would get into a fight if the "had" to. Gandhi would fight if he had to.
Freethink 04-19-07, 04:22 PM	If you want this character to be CN instead of CE, here's my suggestions on what can stay and what can go. They are quite interesting and useful, but maybe some of them I already implied in the concept, but maybe failed to adequately express. First comes your definiton of 'worthy' and 'unworthy', as they are key to the triggers of his behavior. To be less evil, you have to be judgemental of less people. Maybe he won't hurt children because children are beneath his judgement. If one proves to be a threat, then he is judged just like an adult. Next would be to accomodate more than one kind of 'might'. The mother that fights fiercely to defend her children might be 'strong' in his estimation, and therefore worthy of respect. The runt schoolboy who stands up to the bully, so on and so forth. By respecting not just power but bravery and strength you open yourself up to a little Neutrality and even a little Good, casting your alignment in shades of gray rather than pure evil. Well, he feels quite sympathetic to anyone that shows bravery, potential, and personal strength of any type, even if circumstances prevent to turn them into sheer power/might. He would very likely be nice/benevolent to the lioness mother and the stand-up schoolboy, and would restrain from harming them and quite probably even help or care for them if that would entail no grevious sacrifice on his part (meaning that if it were the choice between his or friend's life, and the mother's or boy's, they would sadly have to go, but if he could help them without no really severe lasting harm to himself, he could, out of the "kindness" of his heart; any greater risk would ask for a reward). However, the meek and the sniveling deserve nothing and are cattle in his eyes. He won't do out of his way to harm them without a good reason, but otherwise... Children are a special case: they are the future, a bundle of potential, and he feels they deserve a blanket check of trust, just in case (well with reasonable exceptions, such as a greviously defective newborn: he would require something like a strong omen to spare). Next, there are some things you simply have to let go. Anyone who rapes anyone, no matter how violently or gently, is evil. Simple as that. I don't know what kind of game your GM runs, but rape is an evil act that only an evil person is capable of. It is not about sexuality; rape is not another word for 'rough sex'. If your character is willing to rape someone, and that includes drugging them and raping them gently, then he is evil. Think about it yourself. What if someone drugged you, stripped you, and then gently violated you? How would you feel about that guy? Would you say 'Sure, I'm bleeding from one of my holes, but at least he was nice enough to pull my undies back up when he was done.'? Nope. Rape=evil, and if your character is willing to, then he is evil. Sorry, this is a case of giving the character my own personal foibles. For heartily felt personal conviction, I'm adamant about restricting the definition of rape, with all the overwhelming moral (and legal) baggage it carries, strictly only to causing someone to have sex by force, violence, or threat thereof, or causing the subject to completely lose any free will by means that weren't (unwisely) consented by the subject. That's what I deem "rape", and deem absolute taboo in RP and RL. Using any degree of influence that doesn't completely abolish free will or exploiting the (unwise) free choices of someone may or may not be morally or legally questionable, according to circumstances, but I refuse to call the R thing, and I feel no special qualm to RP, if it's appropriate. And I would happily apply the standard to myself. Me being straight, if someone brings me to do a solid all-nighter of non-harmful gay sex by exceptional charisma, promishing me whatever, or myself drinking me to stupor, I would blame myself and myself alone, no matter how much I may dislike it. I would take quite an outrage to the bleeding, though. Bodily Harm is bodily harm. Translating this standard to fantasy terms, swordpoint or a dominate spell are the R thing. Charm spells or having Cha 30 or Blu/Dipl 50 isn't. Slavery is evil by modern standards, and is pretty much universally bad, but if your character comes from a culture where slavery occures, then he might get away with believing that slavery as a result of a legitimate challenge is ok. Slavery, by its definition, cannot be consentual, so your last point on that subject doesn't mean anything. I was thinking of the cases where temporary slavery is the result of being a prisoner of war, or the outcome of a mutually-agreed challenge. The act that gets you into slavery may be consentual, so it would be. To prevent a slippery slope, however, I would apply a reasonable time limit (say, an year for a human). It's perfectly within the realm of possible for a good character to believe that following 'the law' is a sign of weakness (your stereotypical barbarian is the best example of that). No problems there. Just don't go raping people to death if they pay taxes. You mean, like thinking that it's somehow more OK to cheat (not to utter financial ruin) a law-abiding undescript merchant than a dashing clever smuggler ? To be less evil-flavored overall, emphasize the things you have already said are core to the character: loyalty to those in his circle, personal freedom, and the value of worthiness. Tone down your reaction to those who your character sees as 'unworthy', reserving the bad stuff for the 'unworthy' who cross you. Remember, it's very different greeting the town sheriff with a sneer and murdering his family because he's part of the system. Sniveling little barkeep strikes you as weak? Insult his ale, but don't trouble yourself too much with him, because he's a weakling. Sniveling little barkeep tells the assassin which room you're sleeping in? Cut off one of his hands. See the difference? These also, I had implied as part of the original character concept (reasonable revenge for being crossed is empowering and uplifting, going out of one's way to make arbitrary atrocities is demeaning; strength is also strength of character, including reasonable self-restraint). Town sheriff would definitely get a sneer, but would left alone. If he would doggedly harass the character for trifles like cheating the merchant or giving the no-good barkeep his one-handed due (but he would need some kind of extenuating circumstance to spare his life; say he wasn't a willing accomplice of the assassin), notwithstanding warnings, gods of law help him. I definitely relish the opportunity for this character to kill some paladins, though, along with the usual monster fare. I hate paladins. :cool:
kelvinaw273 04-19-07, 04:36 PM	Sounds like a messy form of Chaotic Neutral to me, could swing good or evil.
Freethink 04-19-07, 05:39 PM	Heartfelt thanks for your full rewrite, wrecan, it's quite inspirational and useful. It only leaves me somewhat puzzled on how to qualify the willingness of the character to kill in terms of your writeup. Trying to follow your guidelines, and my original concept, generally speaking, he will gladly kill in combat, spare enemies he respects if he thinks it's safe, pursue bloodly revenge if severely insulted, significantly harmed or wronged, but won't harm uninvolved innocents (due compensation may placate him), will kill people in cold blood if they are putting a clear danger to him or friends or people he chose/agreed to protect and/or can't be persuaded to stop harassing any other way. He enjoys the experience of combat and victory, but gets no special pleasure from killing (except in revenge), or feels any remorse for taking a life, unless it's in violation of his own moral code.
wrecan 04-19-07, 06:57 PM	That sounds perfectly Chaotic Neutral to me!
Freethink 04-19-07, 07:57 PM	Yep, thanks, you have been quite helpful, just a nitpick, of course the writeup is going to keep the "done by force/threat/domination" qualifier for the rape taboo, I'm going to give him a Conan-esque morality compass about sex, (magical) aids to seduction are good as long as no true cohercion or permanent harm is done (all is fair in love and war...), rape by swordpoint is vile (and if done to people he cares/respects will earn a summary execution). No way I'm going to RP modern Political Correctness hairsplitting about consensus to sex (or anything else) I downright despise even in RL. If this makes the character evil in some people's eyes, too bad, it means the player is evil, too.
Freethink 04-19-07, 08:42 PM	So, here's the modified writeup of the CN version of the character: An extreme individualist, he passionately despises any kind of external law or authority. He actively and forcibly resists any attempt to such being enforced on him if he dislikes/disagrees, although he'll compromise his principles if coerced into doing so, under threat of physical harm or torture of himself or any of his close friends. (Threats against innocents will not phase him, however.) He is loyal, fair, benevolent, and honorable, but only to those he befriends, loves, or respects. To them alone does he try to keep his word. He understands that those with the power dictates the rules, but he thinks that individuals have more power than any tyrant. He looks down on those who don't rise up against oppression, thinking them weak by choice or personal lack/defect. While he pities their state, he will not lift a finger to help them (unless they make it worth his while). He will show mercy, however, to those who have been truly humbled by circumstances beyond their control. In this category he will always place children as well. Any others hell help only if it implies no great sacrifice on his part. Otherwise he expects due reward, or an appeal to his enlightened self-interest. In pursuit of selfish gain, he is willing to do pretty much anything to those he doesn't respect, unless it would result in their wrongful death, torture, rape or emotional or psychological breakdown. Otherwise the sky's the limit, including the use of poison, theft, exortion, lying, and cheating, using evil magic, and consorting with evil beings. He'll even charm them and dominate them into doing his will. Although he wouldn't rape them or cause them to commit suicide. He defines rape as cohercing someone to sex by means of violence, threats, or outright magical domination. Charming someone or using magic or mundane influence to augment his charisma for seduction is fine as long as no significant long-term harm is done. He is willing to kill in combat (but may spare enemies he respects if he thinks it's safe), to avenge severe insults or significant harms or wrongs, or stop a clear danger to self, friends, or people he chose to protect. Given fair warning, he will kill to stop people from harassing him or his friends if they can't be effectively dealt with any other way. He will try to avoid harming uninvolved innocents, and due compensation may placate him from seeking revenge. He feels no remorse whatsoever unless his own moral code has been violated, thinks being loved is quite better than being feared but being feared is quite better than getting no due respect. He despises slavery unless it's temporary and the victim has been defeated in a fair contest or chose it, but despite detesting the institution, and refusing to own slaves himself, he doesn't do anything to end it. He admires self-sufficience in self and others. He thinks freedom, flexibility, and individuality are better deals and ideals than organization and structure. He believes that you need to be able to defend your rights by yourself to deserve them, such that he looks down on people who don't know how to defend themelves.