So I'm playing the pre-gen halfling in "Lost Mines". My background is below. In short someone tried to kill me and I want revenge.
I told my DM that as a rogue that weighs about 30 pounds, I'd sneak around and try to take out any of the criminals who may have done me wrong.
My DM noted that I am neutral and suggested that a carefully coordinated plan involving multiple assassinations / murders might be in violation of my alignment. I countered with the old "how many modules end with all the bad guys going to jail" - but remain... neutrally ambivalent regarding the best course of action.
So... how do Neutrals get their revenge?
Background <spoiler>
Personal Goal: Get Your Revenge. Someone in the Redbrands
nearly got you killed, and you sure would like to know who it was. And
then you’d like to take your revenge—on that person, on Glasstaff,
maybe on all the Redbrands. And you just got a tip that might help you:
someone named Halia Thornton also has it out for the Redbrands. She
lives in Phandalin, which means showing your face to the Redbrands
who still want you dead.
Alignment: Neutral. You tend to do whatever seems best at the
time. Sure, you’ve done some things you’re not proud of, and you’re
not personally committed to making the world a better place. But you
have no interest in causing suffering or making things worse than they
already are
</spoiler>
I am of the opinion that neutrality on a particular alignment scale does not represent a lack of any leaning towards either end of the spectrum (constant balance at every moment and choice), but rather represents an overall approach of moderation (balance as the total sum of all moments and choices).
In that way, I see the neutral view of "revenge" as being much like that Captain Reynolds motivator - give them what they gave you in equal measure.
Napolean_Warlord wrote:
Jordan175 wrote:
Planned assassinations are definitely an Evil act, however. If you're driven by whatever makes things the easiest for you personally at the time? That's definitely leaning Evil. So, I agree with the GM in this case. Beating them up? Breaking their hands so they can't ever hurt you personally? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? Ruin their lives? That's something that'd be harsh, but understandable. Disproportionate revenge that involves mass murder of helpless targets? I put that squarely in the Evil category.
What I would say, though? "Okay, my alignment shifts, and I do it anyways." Alignment means nothing in the game. Its not a roleplaying box to put your character in and never leave. If you want to kill, then kill them. Do what makes sense for your character, and don't pay mind to an arbitrary morality stat that has no bearing on the real world and is entirely subjective to the GM's interpretation. If you feel that your character would be comfortable with the idea of killing people outside of the heat of combat or outside of defense, that's your call to make.
Alignment reflects how the world sees your character - at worst, you'll have angels not like you, and the occasional devil be more willing to strike a deal with you than the group idealist. Maybe some respect from darker quarters of the cities as word of what you do spreads.
Mephi1234 wrote:
More so, I would say that there are two kinds of Neutral characters: there's the "True Neutral" character who is actively trying to balance out his or her good actions with evil ones, lawful ones with chaotic ones (and I would posit this often comes out a bit more like Chaotic Evil in the long run); and then there's the "Unaligned Neutral" character, who cares about him or herself, his or her family and friends, and a few other things that are of value to that character (job, life interests, etc), and if you mess with those, they'll probably react in some way, but otherwise, it's live and let live; don't bother me and I won't bother you. This was a very popular alignment during 4e's run, and I expect this to be a much more common portrayal of "Neutral" in 5e (albeit, the Unaligned trait has been moved to creatures who can't make moral judgements, meaning that you're intrinsically aligned somehow by having a conscience).
Mephi1234 wrote:
Leugren wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Jordan175 wrote:
Best advice I ever received regarding this:
Alignment is a DESCRIPTION, not a PRESCRIPTION.
Only time I ever had a DM bring up my alignment was if I was constantly and grossly going against it.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Leugren wrote:
The way I interpret the DM comments and with my knowledge of the adventure it would seem that killing the most likely guilty with stealth is evil but a full frontal assault killing everyone is not. How the stealth approach and the possible extra sparing of lives is "evil" rather than "what seems best at the time" is beyond me.
Revenge: The state of being alive to piss on the other sods grave.
Mephi1234 wrote:
An Ocean's Eleven scenario could end without a pile of corpses... or Layer Cake.
Admittedly they'd require a lot of work to set up, but it might be worth it if you really want to avoid bloodshed or keep the character's alignment as it is.
I'd question why you're still clinging to the game mechanic that is alignment.
Now if you're character has a certain code of behaviour, that's a different matter. But unless you're Deadpool, your character breaking the fourth wall and trying to remain neutral ala a roleplay games rules seems...well, really Deadpool-ish.