Post/Author/DateTime	Post
albinomonkeyking 10-06-07, 06:32 PM	This character hasn't been made yet so no worries about campaings breaking. So, the character was adopted into a mercenary organization. He served in it for ten years, the leader of it like a father to him, and he then he simply quit one day, leaving everyone behind and saying nothing. He did so on a whim because he was tired of it, he found it all too bland. He dislikes stupid people and makes sure they are aware of it. He voices his opinion to anyone with an opposing point of view and he hates authority or being controlled or told what to do. When he fights people he taunts them the entire battle and if he wins he tries to leave them dying or near death, taunting them more in the hopes that they will come back someday to fight him because he thinks it will provide entertainment. If he hears a sob story it won't move him unless he sees something in it for him, usually entertainment, money doesn't do much for him. However, if he was watching a fight or murder he might stop it just because he doesn't want to see it. Although he hates children and finds them annoying he thinks it's disgusting when anything is done to them - not to say he will help them all but if he is a witness he will probably stop it. Something about it seeming like bullying, he finds it unsettling. The key to many of his actions is that most of them are motivated only by selfishness. He will stop the murder of a child because he doesn't want to see it, not because he is thinking of the child. He might just as equally kill a rapist because he finds them crude and ignorant, not because he is seeking vengence He finds amusement in others discomfort. At first I thought CN, now I think maybe NE. Any opinions?
Habronicus 10-06-07, 06:40 PM	Any opinions? Neither. In my games, that character couldn't be anything other than CE :)
KillerGM 10-06-07, 06:49 PM	Neither. In my games, that character couldn't be anything other than CE :) Yup. With some "I can't stand stuff done to children" tacked on for some sense of "he's not all bad." But he's CE. He gets enjoyment out of others' pain, and bucks authority with zeal. He will go out of his way to hurt people.
Prator_the_Legendary 10-06-07, 08:16 PM	CE with a mild good side seems about right. He's clearly Id-motivated, and while he's not a total psycho, he's enough of one to justify evilness.
CaptainPicard 10-06-07, 08:31 PM	Depends on a couple of things. If he only fights people who make trouble with him, then he's probably CN. He doesn't really care about being good or evil, and being a jerk by laughing at other's discomfort isn't enough to net you an evil alignment. Leaving his enemies near death instead of finishing them off also doesn't push him into CE, since he isn't doing it to torture them, just because he loves fighting. To determine if he's CE, you need to think about whether or not he'd kill an innocent person for money or something like that. If he doesn't work that way, he's CN.
Naze 10-06-07, 08:31 PM	I'd say CE; he acts on his own feelings and whims most of the time, from the examples you've provided, and when he does do something remotely good, it's to sate his own comfort or discomfort, not another's.
adamb0nd 10-06-07, 08:32 PM	I also find it interesting that you say... while he doesn't like children, but he'll try and prevent a murder of one if he's there to witness it. Why? Because he doesn't want to see it. So Why not just walk away until they're out of eye/ear shot? Regardless, this guy definately heavily leans twards Chaotic. While he can be neutral, he leans twards evil. He however, does NOT, lean twards good, at all. That in my book makes him evil. Neutral woudl have some good tendencies. While some of these posters say he has a mild good side, you made it clear... he doest help others to do good, or to help. he does them out of his own lack of approval, not finding it to suit taste. CE, agreed.
albinomonkeyking 10-06-07, 08:45 PM	CE? Really? Hm. I'd always imagined it as more of a mass murderer or lunatic. I'll elaborate. He doesn't enjoy hurting people, in fact he thinks people who are have mental disability, he just finds it pointless and ignorant. He enjoys fighting because it provides him something to do (the injuring of his opponent or himself the cost of the fight, one he willingly pays), although he wouldn't fight someone who doesn't want to fight. He adventures for the same purpose. He would join an adventuring group to be entertained, probably not listening to any 'orders' but he may follow, but, he might just as easily leave at any time or watch as they did something. He is not financially motivated, he wouldn't steal, he would probably consider it juvenile and beneath him. He has never had a reason to hurt innocent people and so, as of yet, would have no will to do so. He sees people who aren't strong as boring. Sorry for the first post not explaining as much. Still CE? I dunno, he doesn't seem brutal enough.
Prator_the_Legendary 10-06-07, 08:50 PM	CE is defined as "Hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable." The fact that he doesn't go around killing completely random people for fun doesn't excuse him if he meets those criteria anyway. You have described a person who fights and kills for nothing more than pleasure, which is a hard thing to excuse, regardless of how restrained the person might be otherwise. Mass murderers and lunatics are given as the classic examples of CE types because they're HARDCORE CE. You're kind of a lightweight as far as chaotic evil people go, but you're in the same vein nonetheless.
IRememberCecil 10-06-07, 08:54 PM	He sounds Chaotic Evil, but with Neutral tendencies. The fact that he will not stand for harm being done to children is something instinctive to nearly all people: The desire to protect young. It's a respectable quality, but it isn't enough to change his alignment considering everything else. Like Riddick, he stands as an example of how not all Chaotic Evil people are "stupid poopyheads."
albinomonkeyking 10-06-07, 08:56 PM	Like Riddick, he stands as an example of how not all Chaotic Evil people are "stupid poopyheads." Riddick was CE? I thought he was just badass. So finding an action repugnant (such as killing children or women) does not excuse him from evil. He doesn't condone it, so what does exactly make him evil? His disregard for humans?
CaptainPicard 10-06-07, 08:58 PM	The OP said the character finds other people's suffering amusing. This does not contribute to him being Evil, however, unless he acts on it. If he does attack/kill people for his own amusement, then yes, he is CE, but being a jerk is not sufficient cause to gain an evil alignment. This character still seems to be an unpleasant and dislikeable CN, as opposed to CE.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-06-07, 09:44 PM	Riddick was CE? I thought he was just badass. So finding an action repugnant (such as killing children or women) does not excuse him from evil. He doesn't condone it, so what does exactly make him evil? His disregard for humans? You really sound like you reserve CE for nothing but insane, idiotic mass murderers that flip out and kill people all the time. That's not CE, that's just stupid. CE *can* be a lot more sophisticated then that, a ninth of humankind should be CE. Or so it seems to me. Does one in every nine kill people regularly?
albinomonkeyking 10-06-07, 09:59 PM	You really sound like you reserve CE for nothing but insane, idiotic mass murderers that flip out and kill people all the time. That's not CE, that's just stupid. CE *can* be a lot more sophisticated then that, a ninth of humankind should be CE. Or so it seems to me. Does one in every nine kill people regularly? I think that Chaotic Evil would sound kind of like this. A chaotic evil character does whatever greed, hatred, and lust for destruciton drive him to do. Being that this character has no greed, no hatred, and a lust for entertainment not destruction I thought perhaps he would be something else. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. Again, of the following he is: unpredictable. Which would, I think, be a nod towards chaotic. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. He is not out for whatever he can get, he is out only for entertainment. And to get it I do not think he is brutal, maybe cold, but not brutal. I never said this character wasn't CE, the thought hadn't crossed my mind that he was. If I see ample reason that he is, so be it, I just want opinions.
Habronicus 10-06-07, 10:04 PM	Still CE? I dunno, he doesn't seem brutal enough. CE doesn't have to be brutal. I find it strange that, some people, interpret Chaotic by its dictionary description, as "crazy", "lunatic", "has no rules", etc, when that's not what the alignment is at all. Same with Evil. It doesn't necessarily mean you're a "brutal", "devil-worshipping", "sadistic" person. Chaotic can have a LOT of rules, it's just that they have to be rules he personally agrees with. A warrior with a personal code of "not harming women and children" can be extremely free-spirited nonetheless - he does what he does because he wants to do it that way, not because there's a law that enforces it. Think Robin Hood as an example of Chaotic Good. Evil is "egocentric" by nature, but that's it. An Evil character may be too cowardly to attack or hurt anyone, but he may still insult, badmouth and, if given the chance, takes advantage of situations that interest him - sometimes, that may include helping out someone, not because they want to, but because the reward is worth it to them. That's how I interpret it, and use it in my games... I find it more realistic and avoids the exagerated "cookie-cutter" stereotypes, that seem to be common when players take alignment to their extreme meaning. So, in short, yes... still CE, in my book :)
Naze 10-06-07, 11:23 PM	Personally, I hate looking to hard at alignments in general, because they're so flexible. Chaotic, Lawful, Good, Evil; they all have loose definitions and are hard to pin to specific characters due to any number of traits. "So, the character was adopted into a mercenary organization. He served in it for ten years, the leader of it like a father to him, and he then he simply quit one day, leaving everyone behind and saying nothing. He did so on a whim because he was tired of it, he found it all too bland." He did this on a whim, and didn't give a notice as to why, and walked out someone who was a father to him, and people who might or might not have been depending on him on one thing or another. They weren't exciting enough. Strike One For Chaotic. "He dislikes stupid people and makes sure they are aware of it." The way he makes stupid people aware that they aren't as smart as others is important here. Personally, I find that inherantly cruel to do that to someone not as intelligent as you. He voices his opinion to anyone with an opposing point of view and he hates authority or being controlled or told what to do. Again, he follows his own whims and rejects authority: strike two for chaotic. "When he fights people he taunts them the entire battle and if he wins he tries to leave them dying or near death, taunting them more in the hopes that they will come back someday to fight him because he thinks it will provide entertainment." A good person would not leave an enemy gasping and bleeding in dust in the off chance that they might return so they can fight them again for entertainment. You might say an evil person would kill them for the sake of never leaving a potential enemy behind, but that's pragmatism, not evil. Taunting isn't neccessarily evil, but taunting someone when they're dying, and fighting them with the expressed purpose of leaving them near death or dying so he can taunt them more is evil. Strike one for evil. "If he hears a sob story it won't move him unless he sees something in it for him, usually entertainment, money doesn't do much for him. However, if he was watching a fight or murder he might stop it just because he doesn't want to see it. Although he hates children and finds them annoying he thinks it's disgusting when anything is done to them - not to say he will help them all but if he is a witness he will probably stop it. Something about it seeming like bullying, he finds it unsettling." These things are all highly circumstatial, and depend on a lot. They can idicate chaotic tendancies, and neutrality of character. I wouldn't say these things are evil, but definately chaotic: strike three and four. "The key to many of his actions is that most of them are motivated only by selfishness. He will stop the murder of a child because he doesn't want to see it, not because he is thinking of the child. He might just as equally kill a rapist because he finds them crude and ignorant, not because he is seeking vengence" Self motivated, and his good deeds are brought about by selfish intent. In this case it isn't the action that matters, it's the intent. You can do all the good in the world, but if you're just doing for your own comfort, then that doesn't really make you a better person. He doesn't care about the child, he doesn't care about the rapist's victim, he cares about himself. "He finds amusement in others discomfort." Such as tormenting a dying adversary or making the less-intelligent suffer because of a percieved inferiority? That's cruel. Yes, its akin to children pulling the wings off of flies, but kids do that because they don't know better, and it teaches them about death, right and wrong. And there is a significant difference between torturing a fly and torturing a person. As an adult character, and with nothing to prove that he's mentally unstable, he should know that leaving a person dying in the dust and making fun of them is wrong, no matter how evil that person may be, or what they might have done. He's definately chaotic, but when it comes to neutral vs. evil, his more outstanding and defined attributes are evil in nature. He's subtly sadistic, and sadism isn't exactly defined as being neutral. Again, I'd say he's CE over CN or NE from the examples, but alignments can change and shift.
queenfange 10-06-07, 11:49 PM	As people above me have said, CE is not just for raving wizard lunatics or mass murderers. The PH definitions of AL are fairly extreme, but so many people fall into the gray area in between, and I don't like to think that anyone who isn't a heroic crusader or a mass murderer is neutral. At least in my campaign, alignment represents a trend over time. I think your character is CE, albeit a far more complex CE than is usually seen. He doesn't commit "good acts" without a fairly selfish motive, and he does do some things that are fairly cruel (make fun of the less intelligent, amused by the discomfort of others). A motive of entertainment can be what drives an evil character, just as much as hate, lust, revenge, love, error, greed, or madness could be.\ Evil can be subtle. If we assume, as I do and as Einvaldurinn_mikli seems to, that 1/3 of the population is evil, then it's clear not all evil people can be robbers, murderers, or even law-breakers. Society simply would not function. In fact, in the long run, restrained evil is far more profitable than rampant displays of it; occasional swindling or lying to get what you want, for example, without regards to the well-being of others, is going to get you more in the long run than getting caught trying to commit buglary. Some people have the talent needed to get away with extreme evil, but the average citizen doesn't. Just my two copper. I'd talk with your DM about how he sees AL in his campaign; some DMs are extremely flexible like I am, while others prefer a fairly black-and-white view with evil being reserved primarily for extreme examples and most people being either good or neutral.
StevenO 10-07-07, 12:10 AM	CN with definite evil tendencies. The Chaotic is certainly true but how far toward evil depends a little on the general mood of the campain.
albinomonkeyking 10-07-07, 12:16 AM	Hm. These are very interesting points. I had always played that the lawful/chaotic was more of an adjective to the core (evil, good, neutral)rather than a seperate altogether descriptor. Following my logic he would not seem chaotic evil because his evil actions would not seem chaotic, just his general personality. Therefore, if he has a blend of neutral actions, and a blend of evil, I would think he would be CN. However, if you look at it like Naze said, he is evil for his lack of humanity and the fact that he cares so little for others. He is chaotic by his way of life. Therefore, two and two together, he is CE. Hm, I wonder why my group always played differently. On a sidenote, just as one action doesn't make evil (often) one action shouldn't make good. So in this case, even this CE could have random actions which could be described as 'good' and he would still retain CE, right?
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 12:34 AM	I'd add my voice to the minority opinion here - CN. The trick here is that the character you've described has Good moments, and often. When he fights people ... he tries to leave them dying or near deathMercy. It would be far more selfish for him to kill his foes. Intentionally trying to avoid killing his enemies, even at personal risk, is Good. if he was watching a fight or murder he might stop it just because he doesn't want to see itTo protect innocents is a core trait of Good, regardless of motivation. Although he hates children and finds them annoying he thinks it's disgusting when anything is done to them - not to say he will help them all but if he is a witness he will probably stop it.Ditto. The central theme of Good is fighting Evil and protecting the innocent, which he does, even if in an anti-Hero style. Evil is about the capacity to murder, which this character (from what you've said) avoids. But, because he's only Good in certain situations, and because selfishness is key to his personality, the mixed-bag makes him Neutral. If you have any doubts about him being Evil, ask yourself this: do you see him as a villain? A murderer? A monster? If yes, then go CE.
Horseshoe_Hermit 10-07-07, 12:54 AM	This character hasn't been made yet so no worries about campaings breaking. So, the character was adopted into a mercenary organization. He served in it for ten years, the leader of it like a father to him, and he then he simply quit one day, leaving everyone behind and saying nothing. He did so on a whim because he was tired of it, he found it all too bland. He dislikes stupid people and makes sure they are aware of it. He voices his opinion to anyone with an opposing point of view and he hates authority or being controlled or told what to do. When he fights people he taunts them the entire battle and if he wins he tries to leave them dying or near death, taunting them more in the hopes that they will come back someday to fight him because he thinks it will provide entertainment. If he hears a sob story it won't move him unless he sees something in it for him, usually entertainment, money doesn't do much for him. However, if he was watching a fight or murder he might stop it just because he doesn't want to see it. Although he hates children and finds them annoying he thinks it's disgusting when anything is done to them - not to say he will help them all but if he is a witness he will probably stop it. Something about it seeming like bullying, he finds it unsettling. The key to many of his actions is that most of them are motivated only by selfishness. He will stop the murder of a child because he doesn't want to see it, not because he is thinking of the child. He might just as equally kill a rapist because he finds them crude and ignorant, not because he is seeking vengence He finds amusement in others discomfort. At first I thought CN, now I think maybe NE. Any opinions? Imagine if we removed this part: "When he fights people he taunts them the entire battle and if he wins he tries to leave them dying or near death, taunting them more in the hopes that they will come back someday to fight him because he thinks it will provide entertainment." ... now he just sounds like a very bitter, bored individualist. If he thinks you're stupid, he tells you. If something doesn't line up with the way he feels about a situation, he has to trust himself. He is generally emotionally detached but not necessarily cruel. He has a compulsion to stop things he finds "disgusting." ... seems kind of elitist, too. He is certainly chaotic. I want to call attention to the idea that, when we stop some thing we believe to be evil, it is because, psychologically, that evil is felt as a "disgusting" impression on our minds. Our minds bother us about these things. We like to call this our conscience and say we are choosing good, but what's the difference between us and this guy? So... now, if we add in what was removed, the character seems inconsistent. On the first reading, I simply felt that this attribute was out of place. Yes, that's right, I'm saying that the character concept you created... seems wrong. Hoping that someone will come back to fight him one day... honestly? How can he be that desperate for a way to pass the time? If he's an adventurer, you'd think he could scrounge up enemies that way... you know... beat up one guy then find someone else. Now, if you made a *slight* change to his modus operandi... instead of necessarily, specifically, beating someone to wihin an inch of their life and then waiting for them to come back for you; what if, he simply liked breeding hatred in others? He finds that combat with someone who has a vengeance against him, is a better fight. So in any of varying ways, he tries to make people seek a vengeance against him. That seems to fit with the other traits, but I'm not sure how yet.
Habronicus 10-07-07, 07:32 AM	Hm, I wonder why my group always played differently. Because most people are different, hence they play differently. However, you asked for some outside opinions, so here they are :) On a sidenote, just as one action doesn't make evil (often) one action shouldn't make good. So in this case, even this CE could have random actions which could be described as 'good' and he would still retain CE, right? That would be my interpretation, yes. However, if the character behavior, as a whole, shifts to something different over a certain period of time, then you can consider an alignment shift. Now, for another poster who, is fully entitled to his opinion but, has raised some arguments I can't help addressing: Mercy. It would be far more selfish for him to kill his foes. Intentionally trying to avoid killing his enemies, even at personal risk, is Good. What would you say to a Paladin who does a "mercy killing"? Evil? What about the pompous half-demon who just wants to prove he can beat you again and again? Good? To protect innocents is a core trait of Good, regardless of motivation. If motivation is not important, does that mean I can take the dragon's egg, help it hatch, raise and protect the baby, and then use it as an adult to wreck havoc in the land and force everyone to be my slave... and still be considered good? The central theme of Good is fighting Evil and protecting the innocent, which he does, even if in an anti-Hero style. Actually, in my view, there are two wrong assumptions right there. Good doesn't have to fight at all, it just has to be itself. Fighting occurs only when the interests of one side are at odds with the other, but both can live together without fighting. Second, anti-heroes are usually Chaotic, in the sense that they do their own thing without regard for being socially accepted, which the OPs character seems to fit just nicely. However, anti-heroes are still "heroes" nonetheless, and that implies being on the side of Good. The above character description shows no sign of this, at all... only that, he doesn't like cowards, so he will stop any sign of bullying if he sees it. A tyrant king may have the head of his General if he catches him bullying an underling, just for the sake of punishing the cowardly act. Evil is about the capacity to murder, which this character (from what you've said) avoids. A Paladin commits murder all the time, he just happens to choose his victims in advance, according to a third-party moral standard. Also, you didn't read the whole post. At the bottom, you see this: "He might just as equally kill a rapist because he finds them crude and ignorant, not because he is seeking vengence" That tells me he's pretty much capable of murder, and for no good reason other than he didn't like their manners, to boot! Again, this is just my interpretation... as I said above, to the OP, different people play it differently... do what makes the most sense (the above quotes just didn't make any sense to me!), and take these opinions with a grain of salt :)
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 08:45 AM	Mercy. It would be far more selfish for him to kill his foes. Intentionally trying to avoid killing his enemies, even at personal risk, is Good.What would you say to a Paladin who does a "mercy killing"? Evil? What about the pompous half-demon who just wants to prove he can beat you again and again? Good? Well, your asking a question, so who am I not to answer? :) What I was trying to show was that if you separate all of the selfish motivations and look at what the character actually does, most of what the OP is describing is Good. Not killing, when to kill would be easier. Stopping murderers and rapists. Protecting children. Remember that killing is very different from murder. Killing murderers and rapists is actually a very Paladin-like thing to do. Besides, if killing was murder, then every adventuring party would be Evil-aligned. Still, while this character seems to be doing Good deeds, he does sound like a mixed bag. Doing both Good and Evil is exactly what Neutral is made to cover. I’d stress again that if the OP thinks that “villain”, “monster”, or “murderer” describes this character, then CE all the way. But, from what we’ve heard so far, I think CN. Probably with a really low CHA mod. ;)
Naze 10-07-07, 11:55 AM	Intentions are everything. A good act is a good act, yes, but that does not make the person who performed the good act a good person. If you go about killing all the pedophiles in the world just because you find the majority of them distasteful to be around, then you're not doing this for the benefit of the victims, you're doing it for yourself. Every point listed shows that the character follows his own whims (chaotic), and yes, some good comes out as a byproduct of his feelings. For example: He kills a serial killer because he finds the man distasteful. He kills a store manager because he finds the man distasteful. The intent in both cases is the same. He's not killing the serial killer out of a want to make the world a better place. That said, many of his whims (taunting a near-dead enemy and leaving them alive; making fun of less-intelligent people) are more than selfishly inclined: they have cruel direct products. He MEANS to taunt the near dead enemy, and to make an unintelligent person realize they're not as smart as he is. He kills the serial killer because he finds them distasteful. The good that comes from his actions is a byproduct, and not really enough to redeem someone; his evil actions are premeditated, though admittedly they're only subtly evil. As a final example (let's use the serial killer): A serial killer targets his next victim, kills him, and learns that the man was a child rapist. In killing the man, the serial killer saved a young girl from being raped and killed. The serial killer leaves and goes about finding his next victim. Does that make him good? Nah.
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 12:18 PM	A good act is a good act, yes, but that does not make the person who performed the good act a good person. I agree. Okay, let me put it this way. If you kill a pedophile because you find pedophilia disgusting, you're Good. If you kill a pedophile because you don't like the competition, you're Evil. What the OP described seems to describe the former, imho. But, since situation to situation his morality seem to have a lot of flux, I see an overall Neutral character. In the end, it's up to him and how he wants the character to play.
Naze 10-07-07, 12:31 PM	Personally, I hate looking to hard at alignments in general, because they're so flexible. Chaotic, Lawful, Good, Evil; they all have loose definitions and are hard to pin to specific characters due to any number of traits. And that's why I hate questioning alignment unless it's something highly obvious, like a character being Lawful Evil while saying he's actually Neutral Good. In a case like this, it IS a lot of flip flopping, and it'd really be up to him what his character's alignment: CN, CE?
Cifer 10-07-07, 12:58 PM	To protect innocents is a core trait of Good, regardless of motivation. I vehemently disagree. To judge acts apart from their motivations will ultimatively result only in all Demons and Devils becoming angels because of destroying other Evil Outsiders during the Blood War. The character sounds thoroughly CE to me. A somewhat intelligent, partly sociopathic kind of CE with some CN tendencies, but CE nonetheless.
Ultima0071 10-07-07, 01:23 PM	It depends. If he was a mercanary, he oviously has a tough skin. Serving for 10 years, killing people, it would surely harden me ;). I would say he was CN (leaning evil) or CE (leaning neutral).
Mejdrich 10-07-07, 01:46 PM	I vehemently disagree.Well, it happens. We are talking about alignment, after all. My point about motivation is that D&D tries to separate actions from motivations. I can't remember where, but I specifically remember reading that you can't use Good "ends" to justify Evil "means" in D&D. But anyway, in the case of this character, he doesn't like to see murder, hates seeing children abused, finds rapists crude and ignorant, and even is unsettled by bullying. Those are signs of a Good or Neutral character, not Evil. Thus, I vehemently say, "CN!". ;)
ravenshrike 10-07-07, 01:53 PM	You really sound like you reserve CE for nothing but insane, idiotic mass murderers that flip out and kill people all the time. That's not CE, that's just stupid. CE *can* be a lot more sophisticated then that, a ninth of humankind should be CE. Or so it seems to me. Does one in every nine kill people regularly? You have to be evil. Riddick was, so far as I can tell, not truly evil at all. For the most part amoral, yes, but not evil. There is a difference. He never went around killing people just because he could. Never, not even before the events of Pitch Black(even in the game his targets were all part of a notoriously corrupt prison system) Now, he had/has very little respect for life, and if you tried to harm him(and for all intents and purposes attempting to restrain him counts as harm) then he would have no real problem killing you with the minimal amount of effort to stop you from doing so. If that qualifies as truly evil in your book then you need a new dictionary. Definitely CN, for both Riddick and the above character.
albinomonkeyking 10-07-07, 01:55 PM	Despite what has been said, and kudos on all the good points, I still believe he sounds more CN. He worked as a mercenary for ten years but was never ordered to do anything 'evil'. Slay a monster, protect someone, fight in a war; these were his usual duties. Now there is no doubt he is chaotic by nature, so is he Neutral, or is he Evil? He does everything for himself - that sounds neutral, and this seems to sum him up extremely well, He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He views it as his right to insult someone. If they don't like it they can ignore him or they can walk away, he believes people have the ability to stand up for themselves, if they choose not to that is not his problem. As for the battles. He doesn't like hurting, he doesn't particularly like being hurt, but he likes the exhiliration of battle, it makes him feel alive when he knows it is all at risk. He leaves his opponents alive because (as was suggested) revenge is a strong motivation. If his opponent is a disgusting individual (in his view), he will more likely kill him than leave him alive, seeing no reason to keep such filth around. He can be cruel, mostly because he is a jerk by nature. But being a jerk does not make him evil, it simply makes him callous. He doesn't torture and he has no desire for power or control. All he seeks is personal amusement. At the cost of anothers pride? So be it. At their lives? Not as likely, but if they understand the risks (someone willingly fighting him) then he has no remorse whatsoever. I think he has evil tendencies, all strongly emphasized by his lack of care for his fellow man. But evil does not dictate his actions, personal interest does. That sounds, to me, as if he would be neutral.
Yadot 10-07-07, 03:12 PM	You have to be evil. Riddick was, so far as I can tell, not truly evil at all. For the most part amoral, yes, but not evil. There is a difference. He never went around killing people just because he could. Never, not even before the events of Pitch Black(even in the game his targets were all part of a notoriously corrupt prison system) Now, he had/has very little respect for life, and if you tried to harm him(and for all intents and purposes attempting to restrain him counts as harm) then he would have no real problem killing you with the minimal amount of effort to stop you from doing so. If that qualifies as truly evil in your book then you need a new dictionary. Definitely CN, for both Riddick and the above character. Good and Evil are not some binary equations with Neutral occupying all the points between them. They are sliding scales of morality. The disregard for the sanctity of life is not Neutral, but Evil. The image of a frenzied madman as Chaotic Evil is a powerful image, yet not the only one. Riddick is an intelligent Evil. He doesn't kill for fun or for the heck of it, but to get what he wants. A Psychotic Evil person asks themselves, "Why should I not kill this guy?" A Chaotic Evil one asks, "What will killing this person get me?" Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer" A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. You have a warped view of Evil if killing is someone's predominate solution to conflicts, they don't care if civilization is being wiped out until it personally affects them, and both they and some all-knowing narrator call them evil... and you don't consider them Evil.
Astron the Wizard 10-07-07, 04:16 PM	I'd say he's CN, but reeeeeaaly stretching it. He's walking the line.
Astron the Wizard 10-07-07, 04:20 PM	I'd say he's CN, but reeeeeaaly stretching it. He's walking the line (often in little squiggly or zig-zag patterns).
Cifer 10-07-07, 04:28 PM	Well, it happens. We are talking about alignment, after all. My point about motivation is that D&D tries to separate actions from motivations. I can't remember where, but I specifically remember reading that you can't use Good "ends" to justify Evil "means" in D&D. Oh, I agree with you there - one of my favorite villains whom I'd classify as Evil without a doubt happens to be the Operative from Serenity. However, I'd also claim that Good means don't make Evil ends much better. But anyway, in the case of this character, he doesn't like to see murder, hates seeing children abused, finds rapists crude and ignorant, and even is unsettled by bullying. Those are signs of a Good or Neutral character, not Evil. Thus, I vehemently say, "CN!". See, if all that was the case, I'd say that too, but we were given the ideas, the ideology behind these views. He doesn't like murder, rape and so on because it's unsettling to him, not because of any compassion for the victim. To me, being evil often means a lack of empathy and concern for the wellbeing of others, which is a trait this character thoroughly shows. To continue with the analogy, this is someone who kills pedophiles because the screams of their victims is getting on his nerves and killing every pedophile is probably easier than killing every potential victim.
IRememberCecil 10-07-07, 07:30 PM	I vehemently disagree. To judge acts apart from their motivations will ultimatively result only in all Demons and Devils becoming angels because of destroying other Evil Outsiders during the Blood War. I disagree. The Blood War plays no direct part in protecting innocent life. The only purpose it serves is to keep the fiends from completely overrunning the planes, and the fiends know it, but they know that if one side stops, the other one will destroy it. It's a vicious cycle of hatred. Sure they kill each other, but doing so only brings them a step closer to getting their way, not being exalted to celestialhood. The character sounds thoroughly CE to me. A somewhat intelligent, partly sociopathic kind of CE with some CN tendencies, but CE nonetheless. Yup, like I said, though it sounds like you think Chaotic Evil means "stupid poopyhead," given the wording of your post. You have to be evil. Riddick was, so far as I can tell, not truly evil at all. For the most part amoral, yes, but not evil. Oh, he was. He never went around killing people just because he could. Actually, he's a convicted mass murderer and whether the people he killed were innocent or not, it was clearly without good reason. Never, not even before the events of Pitch Black(even in the game his targets were all part of a notoriously corrupt prison system) He's still a mass murderer and the prison guards were still just men trying to keep him off the proverbial streets. Now, he had/has very little respect for life, and if you tried to harm him(and for all intents and purposes attempting to restrain him counts as harm) then he would have no real problem killing you with the minimal amount of effort to stop you from doing so. That would be Evil because of the simple fact that he's incredibly dangerous and the people are just trying to keep everyone else safe. If that qualifies as truly evil in your book then you need a new dictionary. Definitely CN, for both Riddick and the above character. Nope, Chaotic Evil.
Khadmus 10-07-07, 07:58 PM	Imagine if we removed this part: "When he fights people he taunts them the entire battle and if he wins he tries to leave them dying or near death, taunting them more in the hopes that they will come back someday to fight him because he thinks it will provide entertainment." ... now he just sounds like a very bitter, bored individualist. If he thinks you're stupid, he tells you. If something doesn't line up with the way he feels about a situation, he has to trust himself. He is generally emotionally detached but not necessarily cruel. He has a compulsion to stop things he finds "disgusting." ... seems kind of elitist, too. He is certainly chaotic. I want to call attention to the idea that, when we stop some thing we believe to be evil, it is because, psychologically, that evil is felt as a "disgusting" impression on our minds. Our minds bother us about these things. We like to call this our conscience and say we are choosing good, but what's the difference between us and this guy? So... now, if we add in what was removed, the character seems inconsistent. On the first reading, I simply felt that this attribute was out of place. Yes, that's right, I'm saying that the character concept you created... seems wrong. Hoping that someone will come back to fight him one day... honestly? How can he be that desperate for a way to pass the time? If he's an adventurer, you'd think he could scrounge up enemies that way... you know... beat up one guy then find someone else. Now, if you made a *slight* change to his modus operandi... instead of necessarily, specifically, beating someone to wihin an inch of their life and then waiting for them to come back for you; what if, he simply liked breeding hatred in others? He finds that combat with someone who has a vengeance against him, is a better fight. So in any of varying ways, he tries to make people seek a vengeance against him. That seems to fit with the other traits, but I'm not sure how yet. Hello? I would wish for somebody who disagrees to comment on this.
ravenshrike 10-07-07, 11:12 PM	Good and Evil are not some binary equations with Neutral occupying all the points between them. They are sliding scales of morality. The disregard for the sanctity of life is not Neutral, but Evil. The image of a frenzied madman as Chaotic Evil is a powerful image, yet not the only one. Riddick is an intelligent Evil. He doesn't kill for fun or for the heck of it, but to get what he wants. A Psychotic Evil person asks themselves, "Why should I not kill this guy?" A Chaotic Evil one asks, "What will killing this person get me?" Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer" A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. You have a warped view of Evil if killing is someone's predominate solution to conflicts, they don't care if civilization is being wiped out until it personally affects them, and both they and some all-knowing narrator call them evil... and you don't consider them Evil. Did you read your own quote? Everything about Riddick(and it really should be noted that EfBB cannot be considered canon) suggests that he doesn't have a major drive for destruction(or rather, doesn't give into it without major provocation) he never does things for the money, apart from basic funds to survive(although he will steal your ride if you try to capture him.) and his hatred is only for those who deserve it(for a given value of deserve). Not to mention that outside of a fight he is in fact very even tempered and far from arbitrary. What bit of violence has he ever committed(except to save others) that wasn't carefully thought out and executed meticulously? How many berserkers do you know that could plan to kill someone with a teacup? At the end of the day, he does not fit chaotic evil.
Habronicus 10-08-07, 06:52 AM	The thread has derailed into a Riddick discussion, but before it goes back on-topic, I'd just like to point out that in the second movie (EfBB), there was a character (can't remember her name) who was some sort of sage and clearly stated "in order to defeat evil, you need a bigger evil". I'm paraphrasing, though, so may not be the exact quote, but she was referring to Riddick. I now take the opportunity to bring back the thread to its original topic, but I already said my piece and have seen no solid argument to convince me that the character would be considered Neutral by common society standards. That said... it really depends on what society the character in question is living in... it may be the case that the campaign the OP is going to play in is actually quite harsh and prone to violence and anti-social behavior, and thus, some of his behavior may not seem so bad (hence, Neutral). By the standards of my campaigns, however, the described behaviour is well into the realm of Evil, there's not even a hint of a question there :)
Mejdrich 10-08-07, 07:57 AM	I now take the opportunity to bring back the thread to its original topic, but I already said my piece and have seen no solid argument to convince me that the character would be considered Neutral by common society standards. Well, this thread was made to help the OP decide if the character should be NE or CN. It's been done, he's decided CN. I would say this thread is over, but the question still remains: if Riddick hijacked a thread, what would his alignment be!? As a suffering innocent, I say NE evil. ;)
Cifer 10-08-07, 08:44 AM	I disagree. The Blood War plays no direct part in protecting innocent life. Actually, it does. As you already said, if one side of the Blood War withdrawed, the other side would eliminate it and the rest of the multiverse. Further, many people consider it a Good act to destroy Evil Outsiders. According to that logic, a fiend engaged in the Blood War is committing Good acts on a regular base. Since this of course cannot be the right way to view it, we'll have to take their motivation into account, which isn't Good at all. Yup, like I said, though it sounds like you think Chaotic Evil means "stupid poopyhead," given the wording of your post. Actually, I don't. It's just that "stupid poopyhead" represents one of the most prominent subsets of CE.
IRememberCecil 10-08-07, 11:20 AM	Actually, it does. As you already said, if one side of the Blood War withdrawed, the other side would eliminate it and the rest of the multiverse. Further, many people consider it a Good act to destroy Evil Outsiders. According to that logic, a fiend engaged in the Blood War is committing Good acts on a regular base. Since this of course cannot be the right way to view it, we'll have to take their motivation into account, which isn't Good at all. Umm... no. A fiend fighting in the Blood War may be trying to beat down the opposition, but all that does is get him and his kind closer to power. Beating down an Evil opposition is meaningless if you are as bad as they are. Actually, I don't. It's just that "stupid poopyhead" represents one of the most prominent subsets of CE. Okay.