Something has been bothering me for over a week; maybe you guys and gals can help... While I don't think that I am emotionally vested in the question, the situation did irritate me; so, I will keep the description as short and impartial as possible.
I want to identify the alignment of a "concept". The basic premise for the character is that it will "attack and kill anything it precieves as an enemy" with no middle ground. What alignment would you label that as?
Is this for a Warforged? 
I'd call that concept a Lawful Neutral as a first guess-timation.
How does this character define "perceives as an enemy"? If "you are an enemy until you prove that you aren't", then shades towards Lawful Evil. (Because the presumption is 'guilt', and your default is an itchy trigger finger.)
OTOH, if "you are not an enemy unless you demonstrate that you are" then shades towards Lawful Good. (Because the presumption is innocence, and your default is to shoot second not shoot first.)
This might be easier to fit into AL if your character is explicitly a bodyguard to some NPC. Then "an enemy" can mean "anybody who harms, or tries to harm, or sets up a situation where harm will come to, my charge."
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
To expound, the character in question hasn't attacked anything in a town, at least not without cause. On the other hand, he has attacked everything outside of town. Luckily in the parties I've played in, this hasn't equated to attacking "good" NPCs; however, I'm not confident that he, as the player describes the character, wouldn't differentiate between any NPC outside of town. He won't attack another PC, but that is due the fact that the local AL DMs wouldn't tolerate that type of behavior. The player did state that the character will outright kill any opponent even if it is contrary to the mission at hand or the party's wishes.
abanathie wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Sounds like he could force people away from the table? 'Oh that Barbarian guy is playing? , Lets play on the other table'/
I have a guy thats stopped playing because ive got a 12 year old very hyperactive kid on my expeditions table. Hes mature age like me (mid 30's) and finds it extremely hard to have a conversation with an npc without the drow sorc just shooting the npc will spells or similar activities.
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The character is clearly sociopathic, psychotic and possibly homicidal. I would say he is CN at best. His actual alignment though is chaotic-douche
I would also consider that behavior to be disruptive. He clearly wants to play a Neutral Evil (or even Chaotic with restrictions ala AL) character.
Talk to him first and if he is not responsive or does not change what he has been doing I would have him removed. Acting contrary to the parties wishes by straight-up killing everything regardless of discussion is a good way to get yourself killed in any normal campaign.
Since you're just looking for peoples' opinions, I think he's Chaotic Evil. I'll state my reasons for believing so, but I want to emphasize the O in IMO. These are generalizations, and there was a recent thread ("When should a good character kill") with over 100 posts arguing multiple perspectives. Just presenting mine, not going to debate them.
On the G/E axis, Good and Neutral characters do not rely on killing as the first and most desirable option in all situations. A neutral character may prefer to kill an enemy in some circumstances, but he does not default to it.
On the L/C axis, Lawful characters will attempt to bring an enemy to justice. This might mean killing an enemy, but a Lawful character would prefer to let a person of authority do it. A neutral character defaults to Lawful when the lawful action is viable, and Chaotic when the lawful action is inconvenient. Taking prisoners is a viable option in many AL modules. The character in question sounds determined to ignore this option.
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote: