PDA

View Full Version : What D&D alignment would you say this character is based on the description given?



jimmylomez
2013-Jun-01, 04:09 AM
"Character Description"
: He does not really trust anyone or anything at all because they all tend to oppress his freedom to do whatever he wants to do which is what he longs for and really only cares about despite seeming like he doesn't. He also can be really lazy when it comes to everything and anything. He also believes that good and bad are subjective as what one person views as good another will view as bad etc. For example: he slept with his good friend who was with a partner at the moment
, however he offered to do it when this person brought it up in a conversation one night and then his heart changed while doing it so he stopped due to him changing his mind. he was enjoying it until he stopped and since then he has been upset with him. So
because he sensed that he was gonna kill the enjoyment for him somehow, afterwards and still is irritated that it stopped. He has also gone and sold an offering after being told not to for money, because there was a craving for corn that was popped in a bag at the time. He also for the longest time made it out to look like He forgave his elder but really the character went over to her and her current lovers place to eat so she can't say that this character don't respect the elder at all. He will always respect her for bringing him into this world but cannot in good faith trust her.

He also believes that people should be free to do whatever they want in whatever planes they live in, however whatever they end up doing with that freedom is on them to deal with not him

He also will not use violence but he doesn't consider himself a pacifist because if he could find a way to use it with his lack of upper body strength violence would ensue.

He also isn't a fan of being told no but tends to swallow his feelings about the issue and pretend like said character does like being told "no".

You can answer it like you were to place him in a D&D environment or otherwise.

HenrikOlsen
2013-Jun-01, 08:31 AM
I though Chaotic Neutral when I read the title, and that hasn't changed after reading the description.

Solfe
2013-Jun-01, 03:26 PM
I would think Chaotic Neutral also. He seems to be waffling on the good to evil, so he seems like he is developing a personal code as opposed to already having one. Add some rum and you have Captain Jack Sparrow.

Noclevername
2013-Jun-01, 03:44 PM
I'd say Chaotic.

As for Good vs. Evil, keep in mind that in most recent editions of D&D, those defintions have to do with altruism versus selfishness, not morals in the usual sense.

Wikipedia on Chaotic Evil:
Characters of this alignment tend to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in groups, as they resent being given orders, and usually behave themselves only out of fear of punishment.
This character seems very much about himself and his own needs, so I'd class him as Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Neutral with Evil tendencies, depending on which edition you consult.

He might be used in-game as a Thief/Rogue, though working with a party might be an issue. Maybe as an NPC he'd be a foil for a Paladin or Cleric, or follower of a charismatic Chaotic rebel.

Moose
2013-Jun-01, 04:42 PM
Evil isn't just about selfishness, but also somewhat about acting out on that selfishness. A person who opts for the second latte rather than finding a homeless person to feed has not performed an evil act, even though the latte is only satisfying a non-essential selfish need.

The OP's character is straight up chaotic neutral. He's not motivated into act by any sense of altruism or selfishness, but is motivated to act to preserve his sense of liberty. ("Don't tell me what to do.")

Strange
2013-Jun-01, 05:05 PM
He's not motivated into act by any sense of altruism or selfishness, but is motivated to act to preserve his sense of liberty. ("Don't tell me what to do.")

That is a very culturally "loaded" assessment. In some cultures, an emphasis on personal liberty would be considered selfishness.

Noclevername
2013-Jun-01, 05:33 PM
Evil isn't just about selfishness, but also somewhat about acting out on that selfishness. A person who opts for the second latte rather than finding a homeless person to feed has not performed an evil act, even though the latte is only satisfying a non-essential selfish need.

The OP's character is straight up chaotic neutral. He's not motivated into act by any sense of altruism or selfishness, but is motivated to act to preserve his sense of liberty. ("Don't tell me what to do.")

That's why I clarified that I'm using the game's defintions, not the real-world ones.

Moose
2013-Jun-01, 07:27 PM
That is a very culturally "loaded" assessment. In some cultures, an emphasis on personal liberty would be considered selfishness.

I'm not talking about some cultures, Strange. I'm talking about D&D alignments.


That's why I clarified that I'm using the game's defintions, not the real-world ones.

I'm not talking about the real world, Noclevername. I'm talking about D&D alignments.

Compare (from the wiki entry on D&D alignment):

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with their own at the moment. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.


Chaotic Evil is referred to as the "Destroyer" or "Demonic" alignment. Characters of this alignment tend to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in groups, as they resent being given orders, and usually behave themselves only out of fear of punishment.

The difference is in the degree to which they'll be motivated to act out a selfishness when harm to others is possible or likely.

Noclevername
2013-Jun-01, 07:35 PM
jimmylomez asked for our opinions, and I gave mine.

The character might also be a Barbarian instead of a Thief or, if using Psionics, a Wilder.

Moose
2013-Jun-01, 07:37 PM
jimmylomez asked for our opinions, and I gave mine.

Um, yes, and that's fine. Opine away.

Infinity Watcher
2013-Jun-01, 10:52 PM
Personally, it feels CN to me as well, and if I was running the game and your character as described wasn't CN, I'd want a good explanation as to why, that said the longer I go the less useful I find alignment is as a concept, at least the way D&D handles it except as a tagging system for abilities so I tend to ignore it provided it's somewhere in the right vicinity of a player's actions. Have a word with your DM if you're unsure, after all his/her opinion will mean more that random messsage board strangers also bear in mind in D&D subjective morals doesn't work very well in a lot of the "standard" settings thanks to the Detect Alignment abilities and abilities that run off of an alignment tag.

jimmylomez
2013-Jun-01, 11:33 PM
Personally, it feels CN to me as well, and if I was running the game and your character as described wasn't CN, I'd want a good explanation as to why, that said the longer I go the less useful I find alignment is as a concept, at least the way D&D handles it except as a tagging system for abilities so I tend to ignore it provided it's somewhere in the right vicinity of a player's actions. Have a word with your DM if you're unsure, after all his/her opinion will mean more that random message board strangers also bear in mind in D&D subjective morals doesn't work very well in a lot of the "standard" settings thanks to the Detect Alignment abilities and abilities that run off of an alignment tag.

Interesting.

Noclevername
2013-Jun-02, 12:14 AM
Do you know what sort of campaign the character might be used in? For example, how he'd act in a standard treasure-hunting dungeon crawl would be quite different from an intrigue-oriented cloak-and dagger adventure.

jimmylomez
2013-Jun-02, 12:44 AM
@Noclevername I'd like to think this type of character would be used in any type of campaign. Because he's one i think could adapt to whatever setting he happens to be in, so yes he would carry himself quite differently in a standard treasure-hunting dungeon crawl as opposed to an intrigue-oriented cloak-and dagger adventure.

Solfe
2013-Jun-02, 04:58 AM
Personally, I think the whole law vs chaos and good vs evil chart is skewed by the alignment definitions. I also think that each time the game is updated, they try desperately to fix it.

In 2.0 (or AD&D) no one wanted to be lawful good unless they were a paladin. Because lawful good was defined foolishly. Some days, chaotic evil was cool or completely avoided by players because they wanted to be smart and safe. I would play lawful good characters as bird-brained or numb-skulls, on the concept that I couldn't be called on alignment because my character was good, but also a not the most intelligent or wise person. My chaotic evil characters behaved like really bad con men. No, he won't beat you up but you'd want to guard your stuff around him. One guy I knew played druids simply because many druid spells could secure areas and items against my character. :)

In 3 to 3.5, they fixed lawful good characters by defining them with a low capacity for garbage, which is a game changer. It is almost as if lawful good characters believe in karma. That makes life much easier. Chaotic evil still has all of the associated problem of being nearly ax-crazy, but slightly less so.

The new game breaker is neutral evil. That alignment is actually defined as being self aware, basically "What do other people think of my actions." It is the only alignment defined like that. You could have someone who is evil who is perceived as good for excellent reasons. A neutral evil character could be in charge of the alms for the poor and account for every copper, while still having some crazy money making scheme that is undetectable, wildly illegal and morally wrong. They could also be a hardened criminal who doesn't give a hoot about the law, but also doesn't want to have the guy next door to see enough to turn him in. All of my formally chaotic type characters are NE in 3.5.

I think the problem which was avoided in basic D&D (pre-3.x and now 4.0 I think) was that law and chaos make sense all on their own, while adding good and evil requires an understanding of "why" is so-and-so doing something. That isn't possible without either a history of results, or actually playing such a character. The oldest and newest versions avoid good and evil.

Noclevername
2013-Jun-02, 11:46 AM
I tend to agree, Solfe. The few times I DMed I made a set of house rules about alignments, treating them as an aid to roleplaying rather than a straightjacket for behavior; the aligned spells and artifacts either reacted to your emotions at the time, or were specifically for affecting only supernatural beings from aligned planes and blessed/cursed objects, depending on the specifics of the spell.

As you might guess I tend towards the "Real Roleplayer" category of the list.

Moose
2013-Jun-02, 11:54 AM
That's exactly what they were intended to be, aides to roleplay. Not straightjackets. The "what does neutral really mean" debate raged from the moment they put pen to paper, with many upon many DMs working out fixes of their own. [Edit to add: As a bit of archaeology, you can find whitepapers, some decades old, strewn about the internet. It's fun to dig some out sometimes. I miss tabletop.]

/ My earliest group refused to pick alignments that weren't lawful good (with the occasional neutral good, which was considered daring.)