Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Beamup 02-18-04, 10:17 PM	Interestingly, the WotC online alignment test scores my current PC's alignment something I can't see at all. He's a Rogue with the following major personality traits: - He's out for his own benefit. Getting rich and living a life of luxury is his goal. Wishes others well, but won't go out of his way to make sure they prosper. - He'll steal from others if he can get away with it (that's his whole career), though he generally doesn't steal from the poor, in part because they don't have enough to make it profitable, but in part from compassion - why take all a peasant has when you can get more gold rendering a rich merchant only well off? - He's not terribly inclined to put himself in harm's way unless he'll get something out of it. He'd fight to save people if he expected he could get some form of reward, but if he can help people without much effort/cost, he'll even do it for free. - He won't kill without good reason (primarily self-defense, though entirely willing to preemptively defend himself and in fact prefers to), though when he does it tends to be assassination-style. Sees no merit at all to a 'fair fight'... why would you NOT take any advantages you can find, then manufacture more? That's just stupid! - Has no use for government/law enforcement. Considers them at their best when they're ineffectual, since then the odds of getting caught stealing are lower. - Won't betray friends, since they won't cover his back if he doesn't cover theirs. Anyway, you don't do that sort of thing. Helping oneself to a bit of extra gold, on the other hand... Opinions?
RLWilde 02-18-04, 10:25 PM	I think it's a fairly straightforward Chaotic Neutral.
CyberCat 02-18-04, 10:39 PM	Yep. CN. What alignment do you think he should be?
Endless Dave 02-18-04, 10:57 PM	I'd peg him at True Neutral. Chaotic Neutral is tempting but for that last bit about the friends; that's about as decidedly non-chaotic as you can get. Still, I'd make him True Neutral, perhaps with leanings towards Chaotic and Evil.
CyberCat 02-18-04, 11:01 PM	Being choatic doesn't mean you will betray your friends. Being just neutral doesn't mean he wouldn't. It also seems like he doesn't want to betray them because its better for him if he watches out for them. That's a pretty self-centered way of looking at it. A very chaotic way.
Llewelynn 02-18-04, 11:02 PM	I'd go for True Neutral with chaotic tendencies. It's pretty clear that he doesn't care about a whole lot, besides himself, but he's not completely detached and self-centered. After all, he can have friends and show glimpses of compassion.
Dauntless 02-18-04, 11:31 PM	Depends on how evil you consider stealing.
Bopple 02-19-04, 12:16 AM	CN with slight tendency to evil, I'd say. (Had he no other means to get money, then no need for evil tendency, but it doesn't seem to be that kind of case) Generally, TN don't take thievery as a job.
Spongly 02-19-04, 04:27 AM	I'd say true neutral - he seems like the sort who's not overly concerned with morality at all, but is still a fairly decent guy.
Arakano 02-19-04, 07:22 AM	You don´t have to be crazy with egoism to be chaotic. I think keeping friends does not interfere with being C. So, CN it´d say.
Beamup 02-19-04, 10:33 AM	Well, I envisioned him as CN. The rest of the group says he's CN. The test says he's NE - and even if I redo the test, picking the next "nicer" answer to each question, it still says NE... which indicates to me that it thinks he's VERY NE. Makes me wonder a great deal about the test.
Phist 02-19-04, 10:55 AM	I'd call him LN. Many people misinterpite the meaning of lawful. Lawful isn't nessesarily to do with the government. In fact, I'm currently playing a terrorist campaign, and some of us are lawful. Lawful just means he lives by a set of rules that he won't violate without very good reason. Won't kill without reason, wont steal from the poor, won't betray friends... I think that's easily enough for lawful.
Revelation 02-19-04, 11:06 AM	:sad: I'm sorry Phist bit IMHO you are way off! If I live my life by the fixed code, never deviating, of slaughtering all innocent men women and children I come across, looting manors and flensing elves, but looking after my mercenary troupe to the extent that I'd go out of my way to help them. This is not lawful neutral, living by your own codes does not make you lawful, that's like saying doing what you consider good makes you good. I'd say the character in question is CN with evil tendencies
Beamup 02-19-04, 11:07 AM	He won't kill... unless he has a reason. He won't steal from the poor... usually. He won't betray friends... unless it's really worth his while. You're basically asserting that anyone with any moral compunctions at all is Lawful, with is a gross misinterpretation.
Bopple 02-19-04, 11:15 AM	Phist, I am sorry, but he can't be lawful. Thievery is quite chaotic/dishonorable and slightly evil behavior. You shall not steal others' property - that's social/mutual/self-conscientious obligation/promise/trust. If you break that, that's highly chaotic. And by stealing, you do deliberate harm to innocents. That's evil. Though not necessarily evil, if that's the only way to survive, and if you don't rob the poor. And Beamup, The problem of the alignment test is, it's not perfect at all. It doesn't include some important factors. Firstly, it simply adds everything, arithmetically, without any real value math. Secondly, the questions are a bit vague and can be misleading. Let's say, you don't betray your friends or your family. But at what cost? If you get trillions of dollars and high honor, you won't betray your country, family or friend, when you are bankrupt? If you don't betray in that situation, then you are highly lawful and probably good. But if you betray? Is it really evil or chaotic? It's hard to decide.
Hustler One 02-19-04, 11:17 AM	I'd fixate him as CG
meabolex 02-19-04, 11:27 AM	Originally posted by Beamup - Won't betray friends, since they won't cover his back if he doesn't cover theirs. Anyway, you don't do that sort of thing. Helping oneself to a bit of extra gold, on the other hand... Without this, chaotic neutral. With this, true neutral. from SRD: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. The character would rather have friends than not have them. . . someone to back you up in a time of need is much better than no one to back you up. Since the character realizes this, he's commited to maintaining meaningful relationships, which makes him less chaotic.
Thaden 02-19-04, 12:29 PM	Originally posted by Dauntless Depends on how evil you consider stealing. Aye, Id peg him at CE myself... but, that would depend alot on details.
satyrgrrrrl 02-19-04, 01:47 PM	I'd peg him a NE as well. The character is extremely selfish. In D&D, selfish (as in, harming others or doing/not doing things soley for your personal gain) = Evil, not Neutral. From the PHB, pg 106: Neutral Evil, "Malefactor": A neutral evil villain does whatever she thinks she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love for order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villian has. The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil. (Emphasis mine) That's the basis of the result that you got, and I agree with it. :angel:
meabolex 02-19-04, 01:50 PM	Originally posted by Beamup - Wishes others well, but won't go out of his way to make sure they prosper. - though he generally doesn't steal from the poor, in part because they don't have enough to make it profitable, but in part from compassion - but if he can help people without much effort/cost, he'll even do it for free. - Won't betray friends, since they won't cover his back if he doesn't cover theirs. These feelings are NOT those of an evil character. They're representative of a good character. I'd say there's enough of them to make him considered neutral.
Glak 02-19-04, 04:23 PM	Neutral Evil. Anyone who doesn't think that he is evil needs to read the 3.0 or 3.5 section on alignment. Where the character is on the Law/Chaos axis isn't 100% clear from the example, so we can assume Neutral. The character is most definently evil, though of a more mild sort. Not super evil, but still evil.
Bacon and Eggs 02-19-04, 04:38 PM	Originally posted by Beamup Interestingly, the WotC online alignment test scores my current PC's alignment something I can't see at all. He's a Rogue with the following major personality traits: - He's out for his own benefit. Getting rich and living a life of luxury is his goal. Wishes others well, but won't go out of his way to make sure they prosper. - He'll steal from others if he can get away with it (that's his whole career), though he generally doesn't steal from the poor, in part because they don't have enough to make it profitable, but in part from compassion - why take all a peasant has when you can get more gold rendering a rich merchant only well off? - He's not terribly inclined to put himself in harm's way unless he'll get something out of it. He'd fight to save people if he expected he could get some form of reward, but if he can help people without much effort/cost, he'll even do it for free. - He won't kill without good reason (primarily self-defense, though entirely willing to preemptively defend himself and in fact prefers to), though when he does it tends to be assassination-style. Sees no merit at all to a 'fair fight'... why would you NOT take any advantages you can find, then manufacture more? That's just stupid! - Has no use for government/law enforcement. Considers them at their best when they're ineffectual, since then the odds of getting caught stealing are lower. - Won't betray friends, since they won't cover his back if he doesn't cover theirs. Anyway, you don't do that sort of thing. Helping oneself to a bit of extra gold, on the other hand... Opinions? Neutral Good. Sounds like everybody I know.
Beamup 02-19-04, 04:42 PM	A question for all those claiming he's Evil: In that case, what would constitute Neutral at all? IMO and in the PHB, the defining characteristic of Evil is not caring if you kill others to advance your own interests - or even enjoying it. Stealing in and of itself isn't anywhere near enough to call someone Evil. - Kills only in self-defense or very rare situations - Helps others if he can do so conveniently - Doesn't betray friends All absolute hallmarks of Goodness - though a truly Good person would have to be willing to go out of their way to help others, which he's not. Whereas the ONLY thing you can point to in order to make any claim that he's Evil is that he's a thief. So does being a thief, in and of itself, automatically make somebody evil? IMO you're crazy and really need to read about what Evil is in the PHB if you think so.
Dauntless 02-19-04, 05:33 PM	Originally posted by Beamup Stealing in and of itself isn't anywhere near enough to call someone Evil. Stealing money or property that rightfully belongs to someone else (usually an innocent) is an evil act. Period. CN with evil tendencies perhaps, but there is no way a pickpocket or catburglar is 'good'.
satyrgrrrrl 02-19-04, 05:37 PM	It's not that he's a thief. It's that you claim that he's "out for his own benefit." His underlying motivations for everything is selfishness... Kills only in self-defense or very rare situations But he does kill when he (feels he) has to, and then makes it very much an assassination... "pre-emptive strikes" and assassinations are not in self-defense. Helps others if he can do so conveniently Convenience is different from what you described in your first post, which would be personal gain and/or extreme safety. Doesn't betray friends Stealing gold from friends is, in itself, an act of betrayal. They trust you not to take more than your fair share (depending on the party). Also, the motivation you gave was because they wouldn't watch your back if you betrayed them. Expanding this logic, if you didn't need them to watch your back, then your character would feel no compunction not to betray them. I don't think anything you described are hallmarks of goodness. Hallmarks of goodness would be: Doesn't kill, except in self-defense or in defense of another. Helps others, regardless of convenience or personal gain or danger. Doesn't betray friends, and that includes the trust of friends. I wouldn't say he's a BBEG, just a petty and selfish character, which is evil.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 02-19-04, 05:54 PM	Unfortunately there is no alignment listed for lazy, and apathetic. I'd say this character is true neutral in this sence. He's got a live and let live attitude. A little wealth redistribution, in his favor, though not lawful, doesn't make him vile. Take a look at the movie glorification of jewel thieves as opposed to say bankers who reposses dirt farmer's homes. The first is illegal, the second legal. Who do we like better? This guy is no Robinhood, but he's not an Enron Exec bilking his employees out of their retirement funds. In American law there is no duty to put oneself at risk to save another person from danger. You are not required to jump in the river to save a drowning person, even if you are a good swimmer. Any good person's jaw is in the general visinity of their ankles after reading this. Good people would consider letting a person drown when you have the power to save them as evil. It's not. It's lazy, apathetic, survivalist, and neutral. Like this character.
danielinthewolvesden 02-19-04, 06:15 PM	Originally posted by Beamup - Won't betray friends, since they won't cover his back if he doesn't cover theirs. Anyway, you don't do that sort of thing. Helping oneself to a bit of extra gold, on the other hand... Opinions? Note that last line....Stealing from your companions is a mark of being a Sociopath, which is an extreme form of CE. Stealing only when you need to, or from those that flaunt it- is only CN, or maybe even N. If you then "give to the poor" that's CG. Stealing as a way of life is Evil.
Nom 02-19-04, 10:28 PM	Originally posted by Phist I'd call him LN. Many people misinterpite the meaning of lawful. Lawful isn't nessesarily to do with the government. In fact, I'm currently playing a terrorist campaign, and some of us are lawful. Lawful just means he lives by a set of rules that he won't violate without very good reason. Won't kill without reason, wont steal from the poor, won't betray friends... I think that's easily enough for lawful.No. Proper Lawful is having a set of laws or moral code that he believes he won't / shouldn't violate. This doesn't mean a Lawful person won't violate their code, just that they'll see it as a significant failure if they do. Once you start talking "usually keeps", without seeing failure to keep them as failure, you're moving into Neutral territory. Once the rules become "useful set of guidelines, but who needs them, really?" you're moving into Chaotic. For my money, this char is either N or CN, though with Evil tendencies. He's clearly not lawful; he doesn't like governments in principle because they get in his way. He's willing to do good, but only if it doesn't inconvenience him; that's not Good, that's an excuse to salve his conscience. Self-interested, would rather not hurt people (though mainly out of pragmatism), and with a bias against any sort of organised law-keeping? N or CN.
RLWilde 02-19-04, 11:36 PM	Originally posted by Llewelynn It's pretty clear that he doesn't care about a whole lot, besides himself, but he's not completely detached and self-centered. After all, he can have friends and show glimpses of compassion. The impression I get is that the "friends" are kept out of his own convenience (it's useful to have people willing to guard your back). But when two character traits clash, how can the result be anything but Chaotic? <g> Wishes others well, but won't go out of his way to make sure they prosper. - He'll steal from others if he can get away with it "You know, that gold looks like it's really heavy... let me help you there, for your own benefit." ;)
Nick Soapdish 02-20-04, 12:51 AM	Originally posted by Beamup A question for all those claiming he's Evil: In that case, what would constitute Neutral at all? IMO and in the PHB, the defining characteristic of Evil is not caring if you kill others to advance your own interests - or even enjoying it. Stealing in and of itself isn't anywhere near enough to call someone Evil. - Kills only in self-defense or very rare situations - Helps others if he can do so conveniently - Doesn't betray friends All absolute hallmarks of Goodness - though a truly Good person would have to be willing to go out of their way to help others, which he's not. Whereas the ONLY thing you can point to in order to make any claim that he's Evil is that he's a thief. So does being a thief, in and of itself, automatically make somebody evil? IMO you're crazy and really need to read about what Evil is in the PHB if you think so. It's not the being a thief, although thievery does tend towards evil. As a general rule of thumb ... A good person helps others even at a cost to him or herself. They do not better themselves at a cost to others. (Obviously, if taken strictly, this means that they can't move for fear of stepping on an ant so you've gotta give a little slack.) A neutral person helps others only if at no cost to himself. They do not advance themselves at the expense of others. An evil person only helps others if he or she also gains. They willingly advance themselves at the expense of others. Nobody always fits perfectly into these categories. Even a total homicidal maniac may have that quirky soft spot for kittens. I'd peg him as chaotic neutral if you're going by the semi-rule of thumb that CN is for evil characters that aren't allowed to be evil. Otherwise, I'd be torn between CE and NE. The only thing that really pushes me towards CE is his attitude towards the law and even that's weak. It's not that he doesn't like the law. It's just that it inconveniences him. But almost all of it is clearly leaning towards evil. 1- Out for himself - could be neutral or evil. 2 - Steals from others ... if he can get away with it. 3 - Doesn't steal from the poor ... because they don't have enough to make it worth the while. 4 - Doesn't help others unless under minimal risk or maximum reward - could be either again 5 - Pre-emptive defense / assassination style killings 6 - Loyal to the party ... because he needs them to watch his back Yeah, he's all heart. What's swinging it more towards evil in my mind, rather than neutrality is the reasoning given for his choices. But the general tone is that he'd do worse, but figures it's not worth the effort and/or risk. To be evil, you don't have to be a baby-killing monster intent on ruling the world. Evil isn't normally monolithic. There's lots of less dramatic ways to be evil.
Nick Soapdish 02-20-04, 12:58 AM	Originally posted by The Master Weaver Is Warped In American law there is no duty to put oneself at risk to save another person from danger. You are not required to jump in the river to save a drowning person, even if you are a good swimmer. Any good person's jaw is in the general visinity of their ankles after reading this. Good people would consider letting a person drown when you have the power to save them as evil. It's not. It's lazy, apathetic, survivalist, and neutral. Like this character. It's not that this guy isn't jumping into the river to save the guy. It's that he's on the shore, breaking into his car and taking the stereo. Sure, he didn't actually push him into the river, but he's taking advantage of their misfortune to enrich his pockets. *Obviously, I'm extrapolating quite a bit here since I haven't actually seen the character in play, but that's the way the description sounded to me.
Tenzhi 02-20-04, 03:09 AM	I'd say true Neutral, or Neutral with Evil tendencies. Basically, to me this character is straddling the fence between Evil and Neutral. I can see how some might see the character as chaotic, but its inclinations aren't strong enough in my eyes to warrant the alignment.
Beamup 02-20-04, 11:44 AM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish 1- Out for himself - could be neutral or evil. 2 - Steals from others ... if he can get away with it. 3 - Doesn't steal from the poor ... because they don't have enough to make it worth the while. 4 - Doesn't help others unless under minimal risk or maximum reward - could be either again 5 - Pre-emptive defense / assassination style killings 6 - Loyal to the party ... because he needs them to watch his back You're missing that there are dual rationales for most of these things. 3 - also doesn't want to render them totally penniless (out of compassion, as I said above) 4 - I'd say this is clear Neutral... all else being equal, he'll help. But he certainly won't go out of his way to do so, and thus not good. 5 - pragmatism, and in self-defense (people who are going to try to kill him) almost exclusively. 6 - and because "you just don't do that" (betray friends) What I had in mind, and maybe didn't communicate terribly well, is somebody with Good tendencies deep down, but who really doesn't want to admit it to himself... so he only acts Good if he can rationalize it. But he does steal freely, and enjoys doing it (especially the part about making other people look stupid!)
olshanski_home 02-20-04, 02:31 PM	He's out for his own benefit. Wishes others well, but won't go out of his way to make sure they prosper. (NOT GOOD) (wishing well means absolutely nothing. Actions define alignment, not intentions)... a person who commits genocide for "the greater good" is evil, regardless of what they wish. - He'll steal from others if he can get away with it: (NOT LAWFUL -- ASSUMING ROBBERY IS ILLEGAL) though he generally doesn't steal from the poor, in part because they don't have enough to make it profitable, but in part from compassion - why take all a peasant has when you can get more gold rendering a rich merchant only well off? (BLAH BLAH BLAH, DOESN'T MATTER... this is neutral) - He's not terribly inclined to put himself in harm's way unless he'll get something out of it. He'd fight to save people if he expected he could get some form of reward, but if he can help people without much effort/cost, he'll even do it for free. (DOESN'T MATTER... this is neutral) - He won't kill without good reason (primarily self-defense, though entirely willing to preemptively defend himself and in fact prefers to), though when he does it tends to be assassination-style. Sees no merit at all to a 'fair fight'... why would you NOT take any advantages you can find, then manufacture more? That's just stupid! (NO FAIR FIGHT = DISHONORABLE = SLIGHTLY NON LAWFUL) - Has no use for government/law enforcement. Considers them at their best when they're ineffectual, since then the odds of getting caught stealing are lower. (AS WRITTEN: DOESN'T MATTER) - Won't betray friends, since they won't cover his back if he doesn't cover theirs. Anyway, you don't do that sort of thing. Helping oneself to a bit of extra gold, on the other hand... (DOESN"T BETRAY FRIENDS = NON CHAOTIC) Net result: Not Good = 1 Not Lawful = 1.5 Not Chaotic = 1 On the good/Evil axis, there is nothing to indicate any goodness, therefore EVIL. (the fact that he might do something good if it didn't cost him much is not "good"... an evil person also might do the same as long as it bolstered his reputation or gave him an opportunity to collect on a debt at a later time).... although by definition a good deed is one that you do with no hope of personal gain, other than the satisfaction of doing what is right) On the Lawful Chaotic, he has tendencies toward both... therefore NEUTRAL. (with chaotic tendancies). The whole "believes he is good deep down" is exactly how most of my arch-villians think of themselves. You've heard of the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". That means that even if you want to do good, even if you intend to go good... it doesn't matter. you must ACTIVELY and selflessly DO GOOD to be good. Your character is most certainly on the road to hell. The fact that he wouldn't totally leave a poor person peniless because he is compassionate is about the biggest load of BS I've heard in a long time. If he GAVE AWAY 50% of his treasure to the poor, then he is doing a good deed. Look at this statement by a torturer: "Sure, I may have chopped of a few limbs now and again, or branded people or whantot as required by my superiors.. but I would NEVER kill their loved ones in front of them... because I am compassionate". You know what... sure he doesn't kill thier loved ones in front of them... sure he thinks he is compassionate... still he is EVIL!!!!
The Master Weaver Is Warped 02-20-04, 04:23 PM	Originally posted by olshanski_home - He won't kill without good reason (primarily self-defense, though entirely willing to preemptively defend himself and in fact prefers to), though when he does it tends to be assassination-style. Sees no merit at all to a 'fair fight'... why would you NOT take any advantages you can find, then manufacture more? That's just stupid! (NO FAIR FIGHT = DISHONORABLE = SLIGHTLY NON LAWFUL)or practical. As a rogue, dishonorable is better than dead, which is what he'd be in a fair fight with a fighter. Net result: Not Good = 1 Not Lawful = 1.5 Not Chaotic = 1 On the good/Evil axis, there is nothing to indicate any goodness, therefore EVIL.Woops, your argument fell apart here. Lack of goodness is not automaticly evil, it is simply lack of goodness. Therefore, neutral. We are back to the question of where on the scale between good and evil is apathy located. There sits this character, on his lazy butt. The smarter you are, the lazier you can be and still succeed in the eyes of society. There's a great example of this in the book Time Enough For Love. This character isn't truly smart, because he thinks stealing will get him ahead faster, and that he won't get caught. He will probably get caught, eventually. Stupid lazy people aren't evil, just annoying to everyone else who is working. Being evil requires some effort, which generally this character seems disinclined to put out. I wouldn't like him, and wouldn't want him as a friend, but I also wouldn't go out of my way to get him removed from society, as I might a truly evil person. He'd have to cross me some how for me to get off my own lazy butt, and deal with him.
Phist 02-20-04, 07:33 PM	I say that the mere fact that we are arguing about it would make him neutral. (although I'm still leaning toward LN). Keep in mind that the lawful-chaotic axis isn't nessasarily to do with government.
Beamup 02-20-04, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by Phist Keep in mind that the lawful-chaotic axis isn't nessasarily to do with government. Yup, it also has to do with personal codes. So somebody who dislikes having governments around AND has no real personal code of conduct beyond expediency and some general moral scruples... is about as Chaotic as it gets.
Bopple 02-20-04, 07:47 PM	There is no 'Good' component in his character. There are bunch of 'Neutral' components. There are a couple of 'Evil' component in his character - thievery(which is his career) and preemptive killing(which is vague and not totally defined). There are a couple of 'Lawful' components in his character. There are bunch of 'Neutral' components in his character. There are some 'Chaotic' components in his character. So arithmetically, he is TN with evil tendency or, NE with neutral tendency. That's why the program labeled him as NE. But in reality, he is around the margin of TN-CN-NE-CE, because we cannot label one's morality rigidly.
Beamup 02-20-04, 07:52 PM	Originally posted by Bopple preemptive killing(which is vague and not totally defined). Here's a total definition for you: If he knows that somebody, were they to see him, would attack, and he can't ready evade them, he will try to kill them before they see him. Usually through stealth and several Sneak Attacks before the other guy can move.
Nick Soapdish 02-21-04, 12:36 AM	Originally posted by Beamup You're missing that there are dual rationales for most of these things. 3 - also doesn't want to render them totally penniless (out of compassion, as I said above) 4 - I'd say this is clear Neutral... all else being equal, he'll help. But he certainly won't go out of his way to do so, and thus not good. 5 - pragmatism, and in self-defense (people who are going to try to kill him) almost exclusively. 6 - and because "you just don't do that" (betray friends) What I had in mind, and maybe didn't communicate terribly well, is somebody with Good tendencies deep down, but who really doesn't want to admit it to himself... so he only acts Good if he can rationalize it. But he does steal freely, and enjoys doing it (especially the part about making other people look stupid!) 3 - You said compassion, but the example you cited is that he'd get more from skimming a rich guy than rendering completely bankrupting a poorer person so what was the point of the latter? Compassion sounded like a distant third in his thinking at best. 4 - What? Because evil people would be adverse to helping somebody at a potential profit to themselves out of general principles of being evil? Again the scenario could either be neutral or evil. 5 - Killing somebody else because they're probably going to kill you later isn't really considered neutral in my book. And it's not self defense. I suppose you could try to call it "proactive self defense" or something. I'm sure that lots of those drive by shootings are justified by the shooters in that very manner. "They woulda done it to me, if they could." 6 - Again, you emphasized the former more (at least to me, by saying it first). I also thought that the stealing from the party part was very telling. Does he ever value their companionship enough to actually stick his neck out for them? 'Sides, that sounds more like lawful tendencies to me. He's got some sort of code of honor. The reason wasn't that he doesn't betray his party because they're his friends or because it's "wrong". It's because "it just isn't done". And it's kind of tough to believe that he thinks they're his friends if he's robbing them. All of the good or neutral arguments that you could make about his character seemed to be an afterthought. I know that I'm doing a lot of speculation about this character, but it seems that you're doing the same. I'm not saying that this guy doesn't have a germ of goodness of him. Like I said before, I think that almost everyone (certain outsiders notwithstanding) has some goodness in them. But just because they do 5 good things for every 95 evil, I'm not going to label them "neutral". Take Artemis Enteri. *groans ensue* As written by Salvatore, he's clearly evil and probably more so than your rogue since he actually goes out and looks for people to kill. But he's also got a good side (beyond his twisted sense of honor which doesn't really count). And I don't think it's just apathy. Or rather, he is very apathetic to the rest of the human race (and other races, I guess). If it was just apathy, he wouldn't be stealing ... particularly from the party. (I don't really see how this guy can be compared favorably to an Enron exec. Sure, they're no angels either, but all they did was steal from a lucrative and easy target - just like this guy seems to do. It's just that peasants aren't usually that target in his case.) In short, I wouldn't throw this guy into the deepest, darkest level of hell. But he's at least straddling the line between neutral and evil. In thinking about it more, I don't think he's chaotic, although he definitely leans further that way.
Nick Soapdish 02-21-04, 12:37 AM	Originally posted by Beamup Here's a total definition for you: If he knows that somebody, were they to see him, would attack, and he can't ready evade them, he will try to kill them before they see him. Usually through stealth and several Sneak Attacks before the other guy can move. Out of curiosity, how does he know that they'd kill him if they saw him and why would they do so?
The Master Weaver Is Warped 02-21-04, 07:44 AM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish (I don't really see how this guy can be compared favorably to an Enron exec. Sure, they're no angels either, but all they did was steal from a lucrative and easy target - just like this guy seems to do. It's just that peasants aren't usually that target in his case.)That lucrative, easy target was their employees pension fund, and every other small investor. Talk about stealing from your friends, that's it. People who work for you and others who trusted you enough to buy into your business.
Beamup 02-21-04, 11:15 AM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Out of curiosity, how does he know that they'd kill him if they saw him and why would they do so? Typically because they're guards whose job is to kill people trying to get into some place that he's trying to get into.
Nick Soapdish 02-22-04, 02:07 AM	Originally posted by The Master Weaver Is Warped That lucrative, easy target was their employees pension fund, and every other small investor. Talk about stealing from your friends, that's it. People who work for you and others who trusted you enough to buy into your business. Huh? So the Enron guy that steals from his friends is evil, but the rogue that steals from his friends is neutral? I'm not following you there. I think it's probably easier from a moral standpoint to do the kind of crimes the Enron guys did. Sure, they stole from people and ruined lives. But they never even saw the people that they stole from, the people never saw them, and they didn't even know that they had been robbed until way after the fact. It allows them a certain detachment from the crime. They've done psychological studies on this with subjects that were supposed to administer electric shocks on another person for every wrong answer. After every missed answer, the shock increased. They were not able to see the other person, but in half of the experiments, they could "hear" their reaction to the shock. (Nobody was actually electrocuted during the course of the experiment.) Almost all of the subjects that couldn't hear the other person were willing to amp it up all of the way. The subjects that could hear them showed more mercy, although many still administered the shocks even in the face of the other person begging for mercy or the ominous silence afterwards. The study was actually conducted to test people's willingness to go along with authority, although it also demonstrated the "value" of detachment. And no, I don't know why that matters in this circumstance. I'm arguing that the rogue is evil, not that the Enron guys aren't. I think they're both evil. Originally posted by Nick Soapdish Out of curiosity, how does he know that they'd kill him if they saw him and why would they do so? Originally posted by Beamup Typically because they're guards whose job is to kill people trying to get into some place that he's trying to get into. So we're talking security guard types here, not members of rival gangs or other assassins? Or in other words, avoidable fights. I'm not saying that all avoidable fights should be avoided. Evil triumphs when the good do nothing and all that. After all, if you're raiding an evil cult's headquarters to free the damsel in distress, you may need to bust some heads to get her out. (But this guy is just doing it for the reward anyway.) Or it could be that they're the guards to that rich merchant's place that he's going to reduce to moderately wealthy (which would seem more likely since the party presumably would be aiding in the offing of the cultists). Is he killing these guys to further himself ... either through direct profit by robbery or more indirectly, in hopes of reward? Or is he doing it to save the figurative fair damsel in distress?
bitnine 02-22-04, 03:06 AM	Eh, this character seems to be primarily motivated be self-interest. Apparently that means that he must be evil.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 02-22-04, 08:21 AM	Originally posted by bitnine Eh, this character seems to be primarily motivated be self-interest. Apparently that means that he must be evil. Is self interest inherently evil?
Turrens 02-22-04, 09:11 AM	Originally posted by Beamup Typically because they're guards whose job is to kill people trying to get into some place that he's trying to get into. Ok. Guys. This ends the argument. If he steals from someone or trys to break into someones house and the gaurds tell him to stop so he kills them then he is evil.... evil.... evil.... evil....
Beamup 02-22-04, 10:30 AM	Originally posted by Turrens Ok. Guys. This ends the argument. If he steals from someone or trys to break into someones house and the gaurds tell him to stop so he kills them then he is evil.... evil.... evil.... evil.... Jumping to conclusions alert! Almost always when he kills guards, they're evil. In 'casual' thievery, he won't kill (there's no need to - plenty of unguarded targets - and he'll go for unguarded targets so he doesn't have to kill). Killing guards generally takes place in dungeons - and he DOES prefer to evade them if possible. But sometimes it isn't possible, especially when he's in a group (i.e. he could get by, but the others couldn't), so he kills.
D_Martin 02-22-04, 10:55 AM	I have read through most of the arguments(except I skimmed the more lengthy ones). My opinion of you PC is he is Neutral Evil, Based on what you have mentioned and some of your follow-up responses. He is very self-centered, willing to steal a few coins from party if he can get away with it, will kill rather than knock-out guards protecting a home, take-out someone who he knows is there to see him. These are all evil acts. But if you cannot be "evil" in the campaign, he is Neutral, because he does have a ounce of Neutral tendencies.
Nick Soapdish 02-22-04, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Beamup Jumping to conclusions alert! Almost always when he kills guards, they're evil. In 'casual' thievery, he won't kill (there's no need to - plenty of unguarded targets - and he'll go for unguarded targets so he doesn't have to kill). Killing guards generally takes place in dungeons - and he DOES prefer to evade them if possible. But sometimes it isn't possible, especially when he's in a group (i.e. he could get by, but the others couldn't), so he kills. OK. Then when you might want to try actually giving those details. Telling us that he's a thief and that he kills people that are trying to keep him from where he wants to go, what sort of conclusions do you expect people to "jump" to? Anyway, he's still killing these guards for money (the reward, right?) or am I jumping to conclusions again? For whatever it's worth, I'd say that any robbery that requires enough effort to actually kill the guards doesn't sound like "casual" thievery anyway. And killing evil people doesn't make him good. Otherwise, demons and devils would be good because they're trying to kill each other. IMO, I'm still just seeing stuff that's almost unquestionably evil and stuff that may be evil and may be neutral. The only thing that weighs on the other side is that he occasionally helps people if it doesn't put him out at all - hardly a ringing endorsement to the contrary. That's just neutral to me. If you've got examples to the contrary, spit them out (if you actually care about convincing me which I probably wouldn't in your case since it's just my opinion here). Originally posted by The Master Weaver Is Warped Is self interest inherently evil? It depends on how many people you're willing to step on in that self interest. If it's just a matter of not wanting to jump into the river to save the drowning baby, no. If you're going out and robbing people (including your "friends") and killing people, I'd say so.
The_Epic_Paladin 02-22-04, 04:36 PM	I am going to have to agree with the argument that he is evil. It seems to me that his main interest is himself and has lack of caring for others. Things that your character does are motivated by self. This is the trait of all the evil alignments, to care only ones self. Being selfish doesn't mean that you automatically have an evil alignment but certainly means you are not good. But neutral people still have a moral compass. They do a lot of things to benefit them self but they will not harm others to get what they want. Stealing is harming others for personal gain. Unless your character has been pushed so he has no options but stealing he is evil. Not stealing from poor doesn't mean you’re not evil. Evil people some times have soft spots for things. Like for example some villains will never fight an opponent that is hurt because the fight isn't fair. That doesn't mean they are neutral because they are still killing people personal gain only. Your character is only concern is personal gain he has no thought of others. That is evil. I'm going to have to say he is either NE or CE
Beamup 02-22-04, 06:26 PM	Originally posted by Nick Soapdish If you've got examples to the contrary, spit them out (if you actually care about convincing me which I probably wouldn't in your case since it's just my opinion here). Oh, I care very little. I found out what I wanted to find out. I'm actually quite surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has!
Nick Soapdish 02-23-04, 01:51 PM	Originally posted by Beamup Oh, I care very little. I found out what I wanted to find out. I'm actually quite surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has! I'm not really. D&D players seem to be quite adept at beating a dead horse well after it's pulp (myself included of course since I'm still here). But yeah, IMO this is probably as far as it's usefully going to go as far as you and I are concerned.
satyrgrrrrl 02-23-04, 01:56 PM	Originally posted by Beamup Oh, I care very little. I found out what I wanted to find out. I'm actually quite surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has! I was waiting for the "I don't really care" response. It usually follows when the original poster is contradicted by a number of people with valid points that he can't counter. Glad to see I wasn't disappointed. Well, I am, but I wasn't surprised. Have fun with your character. :angel:
Beamup 02-23-04, 01:59 PM	Originally posted by satyrgrrrrl I was waiting for the "I don't really care" response. It usually follows when the original poster is contradicted by a number of people with valid points that he can't counter. Glad to see I wasn't disappointed. Well, I am, but I wasn't surprised. Have fun with your character. :angel: You misunderstand what I don't care about. I wanted to know how many people think he's CN/NE/whatever. I found that out (and there are good arguments on both sides). What I don't care about is convincing anyone to take a different view than they already do.
satyrgrrrrl 02-23-04, 02:01 PM	Originally posted by Beamup You misunderstand what I don't care about. I wanted to know how many people think he's CN/NE/whatever. I found that out (and there are good arguments on both sides). What I don't care about is convincing anyone to take a different view than they already do. Roger. ;)
Krelios 02-23-04, 02:11 PM	If I live my life by the fixed code, never deviating, of slaughtering all innocent men women and children I come across, looting manors and flensing elves, but looking after my mercenary troupe to the extent that I'd go out of my way to help them. This is not lawful neutral, living by your own codes does not make you lawful, that's like saying doing what you consider good makes you good. Nope, in your example, you'd be Lawful... Just Lawful Evil. The people who think Lawful means you have to follow the law of the land are implying Lawful Good. A character who lives by any code that s/he will not break (except under extreme circumstances) is Lawful. Good and evil is absolute by one standard in D&D, Lawful/Chaotic have nothing to do with benevolence.
jack haas 02-23-04, 02:24 PM	Originally posted by The Master Weaver Is Warped In American law there is no duty to put oneself at risk to save another person from danger. You are not required to jump in the river to save a drowning person, even if you are a good swimmer. Any good person's jaw is in the general visinity of their ankles after reading this. Good people would consider letting a person drown when you have the power to save them as evil. It's not. It's lazy, apathetic, survivalist, and neutral. Like this character. actually, several states have a good samaritan law where, if you are witnessed as leaving someone in distress, you can be charged for not helping them. i'm not certain of the specifics, whether it is a criminal offense or a misdemeanor but don't you guys remember the seinfeld where they were in massachusetts or some such and got hasseld cuz they didn't help the little old lady who was being mugged on the street corner? that is the good samaritan law :angel: anyhow, i put my vote in for lawful neutral....the character seems to have a code of conduct that he is reluctant to break but is generally self serving.
TheGogmagog 02-23-04, 02:37 PM	To the original poster, I would say true neutral. Not in the defender of balance sort of way, but the lack of any conviction sort of way. I don't see anything evil with theft, I think it weight completely on the social norms - Law/Chaos scale. He balances that with reliablity to his companions. It teeterd towards chaos in my mind, but not far enough. Theft from gandmother's retirement fund, or driving a wealthy person to ruin, goes beyond the issue of theft, but deals more with the issue of good/evil. Theft, the chaotic part was the method, but the ends of financial ruin was evil. Say the thief hit an exceptional score of diamonds, then found out the next day that the Red Wizards of Thay were going to snuff his victim for being short changed in some deal. He would help the poor sod out in some way, if not by returning the loot. I would put him as nuetral since he's not out to ruin victims, just to help himself. Un-lawful, but not Evil. There are two ways of looking at lawful. Social norms (laws), and moral code. You may consider it one way, but the other viewpoint is no less valid. Does a paladin who enters a new land with diferent laws, like slavery suddenly become chaotic since he is working to thwart the social norm and laws of the land?
The Master Weaver Is Warped 02-23-04, 02:58 PM	Originally posted by jack haas actually, several states have a good samaritan law where, if you are witnessed as leaving someone in distress, you can be charged for not helping them. i'm not certain of the specifics, whether it is a criminal offense or a misdemeanor but don't you guys remember the seinfeld where they were in massachusetts or some such and got hasseld cuz they didn't help the little old lady who was being mugged on the street corner? that is the good samaritan law :angel: Sorry, just had a test on this today. Good Samaritan laws are to protect people who do help, and in the process of helping cause and injury. The helper can not be sued for causing the the injury. I repeat there is no duty to put yourself in harms way to help another, in American common law. However, if by your negligent actions, you put someone at risk, and a good Samaritan is injured trying to rescue that someone, you would be libel for the good Samaritan's injuries, as well as the person the good samaritan was trying to rescue. And, I certainly hope you don't use Seinfeld as a basis for legal advice.
Nom 02-24-04, 12:35 AM	I still don't get these "Lawful" comments. The guy is dislikes the very concept of organised government, because it gets in the of "doing whatever I want". You might swing that as LE, if he also had a very strict moral, ethical and behavioural code. There's none of that, just a couple of weak "principles" to sooth his conscience. He's not "radical Chaotic" - "I do whatever I want, and damn the consequences", nor is he "radically evil" - "takes pleasure from inflicting pain", but he is certainly gives nothing more than a passing nod to concepts of Law or Good. As for looking after companions? That's as much an issue of convenience rather than principle. Only an idiot (or a Chaotic Stupid) insults the king and then asks for a favour. Likewise, only an idiot provokes needlessly the people that tomorrow will cover his butt. Looking after your friends merely says you've an ounce of common sense; it's how you interact with everyone else that says something about your character. Yes, I know some people don't look after their friends, and they're almost uniformly hated, reviled and end up with no friends. This shouldn't be a surprise.
LordHell 02-24-04, 02:15 AM	Definately CN He dislikes governments and forms of social organisation. Being Lawful means you believe in social orders, i.e. governments. Without governments society breaks down leading to anarchy or chaos. Terrorists can still be Lawful, as replacing one form of government with another might be their goal. Chaotic Characters can definately have friends and watch out for them. Chaotic means they believe the individual is greater than the society, it doesn't mean they are isolastionists. Many Chaotic people live in Lawful societies but do not break the law out of fear, usually. Lawful people will live in a society and not break the laws (generally) out of respect for the law. They may not nessesarily agree with them in which case they may try to overthrow the government and form their own, or leave, depending on their alignment. Chaotic people generally believe there should be NO government at all, society should be left to do what it wants without guides, laws, or any such things, which really has nothing to do with watching their friends backs.
Henchcritter 02-24-04, 11:12 AM	Beamup: Yup, it also has to do with personal codes. So somebody who dislikes having governments around AND has no real personal code of conduct beyond expediency and some general moral scruples... is about as Chaotic as it gets.It doesn't have to do with codes. A code that would require you "To let nothing impede your freedom, flexibility and adaptability" is a valid code but clearly makes you chaotic. Chaotics don't have to dislike governments, they just dislike contributing to them. A fair government is the lesser evil to overlords that boss you around. Besides, lawful characters may dislike a very liberal or weak governmentsBopple: There are a couple of 'Evil' component in his character - thievery(which is his career) and preemptive killing(which is vague and not totally defined).According to the PHB, page 104, thievery is not mentioned in the evil description. And as long as you don't cause people to starve it shouldn't be. Remember Robin Hood?The Master Weaver Is Warped: Is self interest inherently evil?No, it is not in the evil description on page 104 DMG. It makes you non-good, but that doesn't mean evil. Look at this non-D&D quote:Adam Smith: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages. To the original poster: I suggest you talk with your GM about it, he's the referee on alignments. My take: -Self interest would put him into the non-good corner. -The stealing would make him non-lawful. If he shoots guards on site, it would make him evil. If he uses a sap against them, it wouldn't matter. -Getting out of harms way: -non good. If he's not motivated by honour or reliability at all, he's also non-lawful. -Dislike of government, minor non-lawful. -Non betrayal of friends. Your character seems trustworthy, this is a non chaotic triad. Unless he sometimes cuts corners, in which case I would rule it minor non-chaotic. Even chaotic character work together if it really benefits them, although they will cut corners and don’t like it. If I ad it together, I would rule him TN or C. I find little reason to judge him evil. I would ask yourself if he cuts corners in the group. If the answer is no, I would judge him TN, if he does CN.
Beamup 02-24-04, 11:32 AM	Originally posted by Henchcritter To the original poster: I suggest you talk with your GM about it, he's the referee on alignments. My GM thinks he's as clear an example of CN as it's possible to get. I was just wondering how many people agree with my GM and me, and how many people agree with the test.
angry_keebler 02-24-04, 02:16 PM	Well, if i see the situation correctly, the character does the following. Steals from those that have valuables worth taking if he's sure to get away with it. Takes extra shares of loot because he is greedy and wants more money. Only kills when he needs to. Keeps friends around because it makes his life easier. If you're playing Beer and Pretzles DnD, wherein bad guys are evil BECAUSE they do bad things, and good guys are good because they aren't evil, then this character is CN. If you're playing a more realistic game, this guy is NE. He doesn't go around fufilling evil demonic prophesies, but that doesn't matter. Think of other, contempoary characters. In real life, he sounds comparable to Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, or other romantic western villans. All evil guys. All people I'd be glad to have watching my back if I was knee deep in danger every day. Fictional villans also come to mind. Dr. Moriarty, Captain Jack Sparrow, Ocean's Eleven, the list is long. These characters are all NE. They have organizations, loyal crews, and groups of clever friends. They wouldn't betray their commrades. They wouldn't steal from the destitute. They would, however, steal the Popes diamond encrusted pope mobile(assuming they could fence it) as soon as they would steal gold bars from nazi germany. They aren't good people, but they are likeable, and trustworthy. That doesn't make them Chaotic. It makes them either Lawful or Neutral. They don't do good acts. They don't steal out of necessity(neutral acts). No, they steal for personal gain. They are Neutral and Evil. That doesn't mean that they can't be heroic, even generous to their friends and allies. It does mean that this discussion is at an end. There is no evidence, based on the account of the character in question, that can prove any alignment other than N E.
Beamup 02-24-04, 02:26 PM	What I find interesting is that claiming CE isn't more common. The Neutral-or-Chaotic decision seems to be highly linked to the Neutral-or-Evil decision (very few people are placing him outside those four). But really, it shouldn't be.
CaptMeathead 02-25-04, 01:58 AM	Genral opinion is correct, I'd say this sounds like a Chaotic Neutral character.