I'm pretty new to D&D, and I'm trying to create a new character who has a holier than thou mentality. He despises bad deeds and doesn't believe a person can be reformed. He picks up the trash that people let remain. He doesn't care that people try to become better. If they commit one 'sin' they deserve to be punished. He is not afraid to massacre towns and has even done so. People fear him rather than respect him. He takes it as respect. My mind was drawn to a fallen Aasmir as a possibility, but as I looked into the race, I became more confused as to what they are/do. Do all unfallen Aasmir's work this way? Would there be a better race to make my character? If I may also ask, what alignment would this be?
I’m not sure on the race question, when you first ask about fallen aasimar then ask if unfallen aasimar acts a certain way. Either way, the basic answer is going to be that it’s between you and your DM how you act. The guidelines in the books describe general traits. Adventurers often fall outside what is typical for their race, but it’s going to be for you and your DM to work out how far you can push the boundaries.
As for alignment, I’d go with probably a neutral evil, maybe a lawful evil. But alignment is tricky, and no two people will have the same ideas. Again, talk with your DM and work out what alignment means at your table.
And for a bit of extra advice, I’d say don’t play a character like you are describing. D&D is a group, team game. That character will be a giant pain for everyone else in your group.
Thank you very much! I will need to talk to my DM with my other characters, as they do stray a bit from the guidelines race-wise. I totally get the character being a huge pain and as I had some more time to think, I think this character would be more of a character from the past that haunts another of my characters. Seriously thank you so much!
I think I might have not described him the best... He doesn't kill for no reason: he only punishes those that have done a bad deed. Like a more extreme/religious Batman.
This character sounds extremely boring to play with. It's basically the murder hobo trope which has been done to death and it never brings anything interesting to the table. The choice of race doesn't really change things.
This character sounds extremely boring to play with. It's basically the murder hobo trope which has been done to death and it never brings anything interesting to the table. The choice of race doesn't really change things.
I think that depends a lot on how the character is played; there's nothing wrong with having a character with absolutist or extreme views, as moral conflict within the group can be fun, and provides a good opportunity for a character's attitude or even alignment to change over time.
The part I'd drop is the "massacres towns" bits, as that's far too extreme to be compatible with most groups; or at the very least it will push the DM towards having truly good orders be opposed to the character and group, regardless of what alignment they claim to be.
Regarding Aasimar as a race; an extreme "evil must be destroyed" viewpoint could easily work for Protector or Scourge Aasimar (and is in keeping with certain celestials), but Fallen Aasimar can also work if you expand the backstory to include some reason why they might be fallen; maybe their extreme attitude is driven by a desire to attone for terrible 'sin' (mistake?) they themselves committed? Expanding the backstory is definitely something to think about, as you'll eventually want a character to be more than just an absolutist, they should also have a reason for it; secret shame or revenge being the two of the most basic.
Otherwise, my advice is take care in how hard you play the character; instigating a bit of moral conflict within a group can be fun, especially if it puts your character as the lone voice for one particular plan of action, but you need to know when to back down, and don't do it too often. Sometimes it's easy to forget that adventurers usually unite to fight a common enemy, but it doens't meant they have the same goals, so friction and argument are very appropriate as long as you ultimately work together when you need to.
In one of the two main campaigns I'm currently playing I'm now playing a character that's technically neutral evil, but in the "apathetic pragmatist who helps for all the wrong reasons" sense, rather than "cackling maniac who wants to rule the world within an iron fist". And it makes for a fun contrast to my character in the other campaign who's stubbornly Lawful Good. One frequently has to try and reign in his party's (often wild) excesses, while the other will save someone under attack because he dislikes the attacker, rather than because he wants to help the victim, is constantly scheming about how to occasionally steer his party towards some diversion he needs for his own ends, and sometimes does things that shocks the others. You may be able to guess which is which 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This character sounds extremely boring to play with. It's basically the murder hobo trope which has been done to death and it never brings anything interesting to the table. The choice of race doesn't really change things.
I think that depends a lot on how the character is played; there's nothing wrong with having a character with absolutist or extreme views, as moral conflict within the group can be fun, and provides a good opportunity for a character's attitude or even alignment to change over time.
So to reiterate, the way it has been described that the character will be played sounds extremely boring, for previously mentioned reasons. Of course, if it's played differently then it has been described, then it would be a different matter. But I was going on the actual descirption given.
I think I might have not described him the best... He doesn't kill for no reason: he only punishes those that have done a bad deed. Like a more extreme/religious Batman.
With a murderous Moral compass like is being described... He'd be Lawful Evil. He'd have a strict moral code but the results of that moral code are not good and not forgiving. Even if he tells himself it's for the good of everything but bases everything on certain Laws/morals being followed with heavy prejudice. Do keep in mind that part of why I'm saying this that there are plenty of Bad People that think they are doing Good Things even while they are doing things like... persecuting people and commiting atrocities. It's one of the ways that "lawful good" people were often mis-played and found themselves in situations where their alignments were faltering and shifting away from that.
It's not really Lawful Neutral because they wouldn't care about good or bad deeds.
I think I might have not described him the best... He doesn't kill for no reason: he only punishes those that have done a bad deed. Like a more extreme/religious Batman.
With a murderous Moral compass like is being described... He'd be Lawful Evil. He'd have a strict moral code but the results of that moral code are not good and not forgiving. Even if he tells himself it's for the good of everything but bases everything on certain Laws/morals being followed with heavy prejudice. Do keep in mind that part of why I'm saying this that there are plenty of Bad People that think they are doing Good Things even while they are doing things like... persecuting people and commiting atrocities. It's one of the ways that "lawful good" people were often mis-played and found themselves in situations where their alignments were faltering and shifting away from that.
It's not really Lawful Neutral because they wouldn't care about good or bad deeds.
If you " massacre towns and has even done so" then you aren't lawful evil anymore. You are at best Neutral Evil but most likely chaotic evil.
I think I might have not described him the best... He doesn't kill for no reason: he only punishes those that have done a bad deed. Like a more extreme/religious Batman.
With a murderous Moral compass like is being described... He'd be Lawful Evil. He'd have a strict moral code but the results of that moral code are not good and not forgiving. Even if he tells himself it's for the good of everything but bases everything on certain Laws/morals being followed with heavy prejudice. Do keep in mind that part of why I'm saying this that there are plenty of Bad People that think they are doing Good Things even while they are doing things like... persecuting people and commiting atrocities. It's one of the ways that "lawful good" people were often mis-played and found themselves in situations where their alignments were faltering and shifting away from that.
It's not really Lawful Neutral because they wouldn't care about good or bad deeds.
If you " massacre towns and has even done so" then you aren't lawful evil anymore. You are at best Neutral Evil but most likely chaotic evil.
This is not necessarily true. There are lots of ways to Massacre towns within a approval of some rules/laws system and still be Lawful Evil. Also Lawful Evil is not necessarily against bending or even breaking rules occasionally for themselves even while rigidly supporting them. It's a matter in how often that it's done even if it does go to some extent against such a rules sytem. If it's something the character has done but not all that often, specially if they aren't caught or blamed for it. Then that is still Fully Lawful Evil.
The funny thing with morality in general, and in D&D specifically, is you can argue almost anything from nearly any moral standpoint as good and evil are not black and white, and in D&D they seem to be conflated with selfishness and selflessness. However context matters a lot.
For example, if a town has given over to demon worship, then even a "good" character could justify wiping it out "for the greater good". But it takes a particularly nasty type of "good" character to just go ahead and do it without issuing an ultimatum first, trying to change people's minds, trying to eliminate ring-leaders first, rescuing those who went along unwillingly etc., and IMO that's more the domain of chaotic good dragons who may well just raze a town if they believe the threat is severe enough that it has to be dealt with immediately.
For a humanoid to do it they'd certainly be considered evil by good creatures, even if they could technically argue it was for the best, they might have to force people to listen just to give their own side, and without evidence may still not be believed, whereas a chaotic good dragon likely doesn't care.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think I might have not described him the best... He doesn't kill for no reason: he only punishes those that have done a bad deed. Like a more extreme/religious Batman.
With a murderous Moral compass like is being described... He'd be Lawful Evil. He'd have a strict moral code but the results of that moral code are not good and not forgiving. Even if he tells himself it's for the good of everything but bases everything on certain Laws/morals being followed with heavy prejudice. Do keep in mind that part of why I'm saying this that there are plenty of Bad People that think they are doing Good Things even while they are doing things like... persecuting people and commiting atrocities. It's one of the ways that "lawful good" people were often mis-played and found themselves in situations where their alignments were faltering and shifting away from that.
It's not really Lawful Neutral because they wouldn't care about good or bad deeds.
If you " massacre towns and has even done so" then you aren't lawful evil anymore. You are at best Neutral Evil but most likely chaotic evil.
This is not necessarily true. There are lots of ways to Massacre towns within a approval of some rules/laws system and still be Lawful Evil. Also Lawful Evil is not necessarily against bending or even breaking rules occasionally for themselves even while rigidly supporting them. It's a matter in how often that it's done even if it does go to some extent against such a rules sytem. If it's something the character has done but not all that often, specially if they aren't caught or blamed for it. Then that is still Fully Lawful Evil.
Nice moving the goalpost, there's no such thing as "Fully Lawful Evil". Also, the way that the OP describes the actions of their character makes it clear that it isn't within the applicable legal system.
The bolded part is a perfect example of Neutral Evil.
The funny thing with morality in general, and in D&D specifically, is you can argue almost anything from nearly any moral standpoint as good and evil are not black and white, and in D&D they seem to be conflated with selfishness and selflessness. However context matters a lot.
For example, if a town has given over to demon worship, then even a "good" character could justify wiping it out "for the greater good". But it takes a particularly nasty type of "good" character to just go ahead and do it without issuing an ultimatum first, trying to change people's minds, trying to eliminate ring-leaders first, rescuing those who went along unwillingly etc., and IMO that's more the domain of chaotic good dragons who may well just raze a town if they believe the threat is severe enough that it has to be dealt with immediately.
For a humanoid to do it they'd certainly be considered evil by good creatures, even if they could technically argue it was for the best, they might have to force people to listen just to give their own side, and without evidence may still not be believed, whereas a chaotic good dragon likely doesn't care.
What has any of this to to with the actual topic at hand?
What has any of this to to with the actual topic at hand?
It has to do with the morality of the character and what they can and cannot justify within an intended alignment; for the topic at hand almost nothing said here is relevant since Aasimar can have whatever alignment you like, so we went past "the topic at hand" immediately. And you realise your own post to ask is off topic, right?
The problem with alignment and "good" and "evil" characters is that some people treat these concepts as far less flexible than they really are, even in D&D's lore and mechanics; "evil" creatures are entirely capable of doing the "right" thing (though probably for the wrong reasons), and may even do a better job of it because they may be willing to go further than a "good" creature might, though conversely a "good" creature may do something terrible if they believe it's the right thing to do in the moment, and may even be able to live with it.
Depending upon how you, or your group, interpret it, a good character could just go around murdering anything that pings as evil with Divine Sense, Detect Evil and Good etc., and still be considered good, despite never once stopping to question whether a victim was truly evil or just a bit too selfish or amoral, or in need of a hug. Now whether or not that would make a fun character to play alongside in said group again depends upon the group and the DM, and the type of campaign you're playing; it's not an easy fit for classic D&D, but could work for something more grey.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
What has any of this to to with the actual topic at hand?
It has to do with the morality of the character and what they can and cannot justify within an intended alignment; for the topic at hand almost nothing said here is relevant since Aasimar can have whatever alignment you like, so we went past "the topic at hand" immediately. And you realise your own post to ask is off topic, right?
The problem with alignment and "good" and "evil" characters is that some people treat these concepts as far less flexible than they really are, even in D&D's lore and mechanics; "evil" creatures are entirely capable of doing the "right" thing (though probably for the wrong reasons), and may even do a better job of it because they may be willing to go further than a "good" creature might, though conversely a "good" creature may do something terrible if they believe it's the right thing to do in the moment, and may even be able to live with it.
Depending upon how you, or your group, interpret it, a good character could just go around murdering anything that pings as evil with Divine Sense, Detect Evil and Good etc., and still be considered good, despite never once stopping to question whether a victim was truly evil or just a bit too selfish or amoral, or in need of a hug. Now whether or not that would make a fun character to play alongside in said group again depends upon the group and the DM, and the type of campaign you're playing; it's not an easy fit for classic D&D, but could work for something more grey.
Except that a Character going around and killing people just based upon how a spell read without showing various forms of mercy and chance to change their ways, even if that person may lie or betray those acts later, is fully in the realm of "paving the way to hell" with good intentions so to speak. Being Good is far more than just "destroying evil" because Evil can do that just as easily and often does. A Hallmark of evil on real display, even in D&D, is that different forms of evil are often warring and willing to destroy each other both to prove their own evilness and to Promote their own schemes and goals over another. Many Evil Goals by these different factions often are mutually exclusive to each other.
And Lost. The Part of my Post that you bolded does not in any way move the Goal Post. That is details actually written into the Standard Given descriptions of Lawful Evil and Evil in General as well as the Morality system that D&D uses that the occasional act of another alignment while it can shift your alignment towards that new alignment does not necessarily change it. Lawful Evil is described as self serving within a moral or legal Structure while willing to selfishly abuse or ignore it without being perceived as actually doing so. Nothing that I said is shifting the goal post. A Fine example of this is all of the politicians that were caught doing "Rules for Thee but not for me" type of things during a recent Pandemic the real world recently had. Though Arguably they shouldn't have been caught doing such. That is an example of lawful evil.
The Way that they would Shift from this alignment is to do something Selfish and rule breaking a bit too often and getting caught doing it a bit too much. it's an easy slide to make when employing that selfishness and bending of the rules to feed that selfishness and would push them into Neutral Evil. if they got a bit too into impassionately holding to the rules and the rules mattering under all conditions and less into bending them for their own benefit and selfishness. Starting to rely more on those rules than abusing them for their gain then they would make a shift towards Lawful Neutral.
Lawful Evil is actually the evil alignment that most people should have an easy time maintaining because even though many people would never want to admit they might be "bad" the sentiment of it is the easiest to grasp. With the concept of "Rules for thee but not for me." and "It's not Breaking the Rules if I don't get Caught" and to some extent "the Rules are there for other people because they are too ignorant and incapable without them" Are over simplified but fairly easy standards for most people to understand.
Nor is how that he wrote his description of what he does against that. He actually Wrote a heavy reliance on rules into his description and the way he described everything he is doing about punishing others. This leans heavily into Law. If he is Fanatically following his devotion and punishment because rules are broken. That is still heavily in the lawful evil Realm despite destroying a few villages and even being willing to do so under the right circumstances being colored as lawful evil or Chaotic evil. They end up balanced out and and back into the lawful camp by doing so. But your ignoring that and cutting that all out, as well as deciding that Killing a village and having done so before cannot be anything but either Neutral Evil, or from the sounds of the way your talking as a Chaotic evil act that can't be counter balanced. however even in actual history there have been lawful reasons for doing exactly these kinds of things. Such as the Witch Hunts in certain European Countries where they did do things like Wipe out half a village because it was legally possible to do so because of the Authorities (and Law) that was being enacted to do so through manipulation and selfish want.
The Salem Witch Trials are another fine example of killing many people in a village through abusive applications of law and personal self interest manipulating those Laws that is a fine example of both Willingness to destroy a village through Lawful means and massive self interest and corruption being the driving force behind doing so. Creating a Group of Supposedly good and Moral people that are actually doing evil and being evil and selfish despite their good intentions and abusing the law while doing so and there were some in the Salem witch trials that acted like they were above the law in some sense. Most Particularly the Moral and Legal Judges of the Community that were holding the trials that justified even Murders (and quite a number of them) through legal and what they considered a morally good lens.
What has any of this to to with the actual topic at hand?
It has to do with the morality of the character and what they can and cannot justify within an intended alignment;
So, nothing at all? Thanks!
for the topic at hand almost nothing said here is relevant since Aasimar can have whatever alignment you like, so we went past "the topic at hand" immediately. And you realise your own post to ask is off topic, right?
You do realize that the topic isn't "what alignment can an aasimar be?" but about the "massacre whole villages" bit? Just checking to see that we are on the same page.
The problem with alignment and "good" and "evil" characters is that some people treat these concepts as far less flexible than they really are, even in D&D's lore and mechanics; "evil" creatures are entirely capable of doing the "right" thing (though probably for the wrong reasons), and may even do a better job of it because they may be willing to go further than a "good" creature might, though conversely a "good" creature may do something terrible if they believe it's the right thing to do in the moment, and may even be able to live with it.
Depending upon how you, or your group, interpret it, a good character could just go around murdering anything that pings as evil with Divine Sense, Detect Evil and Good etc., and still be considered good, despite never once stopping to question whether a victim was truly evil or just a bit too selfish or amoral, or in need of a hug. Now whether or not that would make a fun character to play alongside in said group again depends upon the group and the DM, and the type of campaign you're playing; it's not an easy fit for classic D&D, but could work for something more grey.
Mhm, Cool. Not sure why you are telling us all of this, this is all common knowledge.
Being Good is far more than just "destroying evil"
Nowhere in the player's handbook really makes clear what Wizards of the Coast actually means by good and evil; both terms are highly subjective as they are dependent upon which moral framework you subscribe to, and some of the descriptions in the books sometimes make it feel like WotC don't mean "good" or "evil" at all, but rather selfless and selfish. It is very much left up to the players, group and the DM to decide for sure (though I find the forgotten realms fandom alignment descriptions more useful than the PHB if you just want something clear and (relatively) simple, but even that is interpretation); this is why I said "depending upon your group".
Even in the D&D lore there are plenty of examples of "good" characters and deities doing terrible things; the elven Seldarine basically made the drow evil*, and drove out even the good-aligned drow deities like Eilistraee because of a completely uncompromising view of right and wrong, to the point of actually being wrong themselves. *Before someone jumps on this, I know it's a massive over simplification, but the Seldarine are very much to blame for what happened to the drow, and why an entire sub-race of elves ultimately became near universally evil.
I also highlighted Detect Evil and Good/Divine Sense as it's that weird case where mechanically you can be identified absolutely; but for a Cleric or Paladin you can also think of this as a feature through which their god is telling them who to trust and who to target, so they are absolutely justified in acting on that information without question as that may well be their moral code (to do as their god commands). If their god is considered good aligned then doing so must also be good, right? (again, the answer to this is subjective, as you can absolutely argue that blind faith can become evil no matter who you follow, but it's not cut and dry at all).
The Salem Witch Trials are another fine example of killing many people in a village through abusive applications of law and personal self interest manipulating those Laws that is a fine example of both Willingness to destroy a village through Lawful means and massive self interest and corruption being the driving force behind doing so. Creating a Group of Supposedly good and Moral people that are actually doing evil and being evil and selfish despite their good intentions and abusing the law while doing so and there were some in the Salem witch trials that acted like they were above the law in some sense. Most Particularly the Moral and Legal Judges of the Community that were holding the trials that justified even Murders (and quite a number of them) through legal and what they considered a morally good lens.
The salem witch trials are an interesting example, as in a similar situation you could argue the judges were just applying the law and tackling witchcraft in the best way that they knew how (as they were taught/told to), and that it was the people (jealous neighbours, spurned lovers etc.) who took advantage and abused the hysteria and inflexibility of the laws to accuse people they didn't like, so in that case the judges could be neutral or even good, and the people lying were the evil ones. Of course that whole thing was f'ed up since clearly nobody was actually a witch, and I don't think anybody came out of there with a good alignment (judges included, or even most of all), I'm just thinking hypothetically.
In D&D things obviously aren't quite the same since there can be definitive proof of magic use, pacts with demons etc., that a good character might use as ample justification for the actions they need to take.
To be clear, I'm not arguing in favour of massacring towns or villages; even one of my current characters who is neutral evil wouldn't do that without a very good reason, but my point is that with a sufficiently strong justification you can justify it even for a good character. Again for example, if a town/village were dominated by demon worship, say with a purpose of summoning an army of demons into the world, then no good character should be willing to stand by and watch that happen (most neutral and evil characters shouldn't either). But there is a balance between greater good (ending the threat) and doing what is right even if doing so is doomed to fail; if you take the time to determine who can be saved, then you risk failing to stop the summoning at all. Again, a chaotic good dragon would very likely just torch the town/village to be sure the threat is ended no matter what, even if it means massive collateral damage; neutral or lawful good characters should at least try to determine who is actually guilty or not, and rescue the innocent, but if there's no time then they may not have that luxury, and may have to make the hard choice.
That's the thing with morality; often it's not the action itself that it's moral or immoral, unless you're a subscriber to Kant's moral imperative (whereby an action must be either moral or immoral in and of itself), because most moral frameworks judge whether an action was right or wrong by either the outcome, or the intention behind it. Under Kant's philosophy you might want to declare killing as immoral, but what if you are doing it to save more people? The kind of absolutism where killing is always wrong and therefore must never be done regardless of circumstances could be just as dangerous as the person who doesn't care about colateral damage in the moment.
That's part of the fun of morality in roleplaying; sometimes you have to test what your character is willing to do to achieve their goals, even if their goal is to save lives, as sometimes the deaths of dozens or hundreds is the price of saving millions.
My main concern re: the OP's character was whether having that as a defining feature of the character is any good for the group; at the very least it would have needed a lot more detail to make it work as part of a character backstory. For example, why did they feel they had no choice but to do it? Do they question or regret it? Would it be harder for them to do it again? Does it haunt them, or does word of it follow them wherever they go (i.e- is anyone aware that they did it)? And so-on, as it's answering those questions that makes it interesting. It may be a moot point anyway since it sounds like the OP was leaning towards making the extremist character part of another's backstory instead, but these are still questions that may need to be considered/answered to flesh it out properly, plus it's fun to discuss.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thank you very much! I will need to talk to my DM with my other characters, as they do stray a bit from the guidelines race-wise. I totally get the character being a huge pain and as I had some more time to think, I think this character would be more of a character from the past that haunts another of my characters. Seriously thank you so much!
Perfect, so he's like a villain then. That can totally work.
To your original question, it would be easy to understand why an aasimar, of all humanoid races, might be driven to this kind of behavior, sure. They're not usually like that, but they're described as sometimes having an angelic guide as like a voice in their head or something. And angels can be pretty harsh.
Remember, everyone: most real people are neutrally aligned. You and I are most likely neutral. Good aligned creatures can be scary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm pretty new to D&D, and I'm trying to create a new character who has a holier than thou mentality. He despises bad deeds and doesn't believe a person can be reformed. He picks up the trash that people let remain. He doesn't care that people try to become better. If they commit one 'sin' they deserve to be punished. He is not afraid to massacre towns and has even done so. People fear him rather than respect him. He takes it as respect. My mind was drawn to a fallen Aasmir as a possibility, but as I looked into the race, I became more confused as to what they are/do. Do all unfallen Aasmir's work this way? Would there be a better race to make my character? If I may also ask, what alignment would this be?
Thank you so much in advance!
holier-than-thou: characterized by an attitude of moral superiority.
What you describe sounds like a homicidal psychopath.
I’m not sure on the race question, when you first ask about fallen aasimar then ask if unfallen aasimar acts a certain way. Either way, the basic answer is going to be that it’s between you and your DM how you act. The guidelines in the books describe general traits. Adventurers often fall outside what is typical for their race, but it’s going to be for you and your DM to work out how far you can push the boundaries.
As for alignment, I’d go with probably a neutral evil, maybe a lawful evil. But alignment is tricky, and no two people will have the same ideas. Again, talk with your DM and work out what alignment means at your table.
And for a bit of extra advice, I’d say don’t play a character like you are describing. D&D is a group, team game. That character will be a giant pain for everyone else in your group.
Thank you very much! I will need to talk to my DM with my other characters, as they do stray a bit from the guidelines race-wise. I totally get the character being a huge pain and as I had some more time to think, I think this character would be more of a character from the past that haunts another of my characters. Seriously thank you so much!
I think I might have not described him the best... He doesn't kill for no reason: he only punishes those that have done a bad deed. Like a more extreme/religious Batman.
This character sounds extremely boring to play with. It's basically the murder hobo trope which has been done to death and it never brings anything interesting to the table. The choice of race doesn't really change things.
I think that depends a lot on how the character is played; there's nothing wrong with having a character with absolutist or extreme views, as moral conflict within the group can be fun, and provides a good opportunity for a character's attitude or even alignment to change over time.
The part I'd drop is the "massacres towns" bits, as that's far too extreme to be compatible with most groups; or at the very least it will push the DM towards having truly good orders be opposed to the character and group, regardless of what alignment they claim to be.
Regarding Aasimar as a race; an extreme "evil must be destroyed" viewpoint could easily work for Protector or Scourge Aasimar (and is in keeping with certain celestials), but Fallen Aasimar can also work if you expand the backstory to include some reason why they might be fallen; maybe their extreme attitude is driven by a desire to attone for terrible 'sin' (mistake?) they themselves committed? Expanding the backstory is definitely something to think about, as you'll eventually want a character to be more than just an absolutist, they should also have a reason for it; secret shame or revenge being the two of the most basic.
Otherwise, my advice is take care in how hard you play the character; instigating a bit of moral conflict within a group can be fun, especially if it puts your character as the lone voice for one particular plan of action, but you need to know when to back down, and don't do it too often. Sometimes it's easy to forget that adventurers usually unite to fight a common enemy, but it doens't meant they have the same goals, so friction and argument are very appropriate as long as you ultimately work together when you need to.
In one of the two main campaigns I'm currently playing I'm now playing a character that's technically neutral evil, but in the "apathetic pragmatist who helps for all the wrong reasons" sense, rather than "cackling maniac who wants to rule the world within an iron fist". And it makes for a fun contrast to my character in the other campaign who's stubbornly Lawful Good. One frequently has to try and reign in his party's (often wild) excesses, while the other will save someone under attack because he dislikes the attacker, rather than because he wants to help the victim, is constantly scheming about how to occasionally steer his party towards some diversion he needs for his own ends, and sometimes does things that shocks the others. You may be able to guess which is which 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So to reiterate, the way it has been described that the character will be played sounds extremely boring, for previously mentioned reasons. Of course, if it's played differently then it has been described, then it would be a different matter. But I was going on the actual descirption given.
With a murderous Moral compass like is being described... He'd be Lawful Evil. He'd have a strict moral code but the results of that moral code are not good and not forgiving. Even if he tells himself it's for the good of everything but bases everything on certain Laws/morals being followed with heavy prejudice. Do keep in mind that part of why I'm saying this that there are plenty of Bad People that think they are doing Good Things even while they are doing things like... persecuting people and commiting atrocities. It's one of the ways that "lawful good" people were often mis-played and found themselves in situations where their alignments were faltering and shifting away from that.
It's not really Lawful Neutral because they wouldn't care about good or bad deeds.
If you " massacre towns and has even done so" then you aren't lawful evil anymore. You are at best Neutral Evil but most likely chaotic evil.
This is not necessarily true. There are lots of ways to Massacre towns within a approval of some rules/laws system and still be Lawful Evil. Also Lawful Evil is not necessarily against bending or even breaking rules occasionally for themselves even while rigidly supporting them. It's a matter in how often that it's done even if it does go to some extent against such a rules sytem. If it's something the character has done but not all that often, specially if they aren't caught or blamed for it. Then that is still Fully Lawful Evil.
The funny thing with morality in general, and in D&D specifically, is you can argue almost anything from nearly any moral standpoint as good and evil are not black and white, and in D&D they seem to be conflated with selfishness and selflessness. However context matters a lot.
For example, if a town has given over to demon worship, then even a "good" character could justify wiping it out "for the greater good". But it takes a particularly nasty type of "good" character to just go ahead and do it without issuing an ultimatum first, trying to change people's minds, trying to eliminate ring-leaders first, rescuing those who went along unwillingly etc., and IMO that's more the domain of chaotic good dragons who may well just raze a town if they believe the threat is severe enough that it has to be dealt with immediately.
For a humanoid to do it they'd certainly be considered evil by good creatures, even if they could technically argue it was for the best, they might have to force people to listen just to give their own side, and without evidence may still not be believed, whereas a chaotic good dragon likely doesn't care.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Nice moving the goalpost, there's no such thing as "Fully Lawful Evil". Also, the way that the OP describes the actions of their character makes it clear that it isn't within the applicable legal system.
The bolded part is a perfect example of Neutral Evil.
What has any of this to to with the actual topic at hand?
It has to do with the morality of the character and what they can and cannot justify within an intended alignment; for the topic at hand almost nothing said here is relevant since Aasimar can have whatever alignment you like, so we went past "the topic at hand" immediately. And you realise your own post to ask is off topic, right?
The problem with alignment and "good" and "evil" characters is that some people treat these concepts as far less flexible than they really are, even in D&D's lore and mechanics; "evil" creatures are entirely capable of doing the "right" thing (though probably for the wrong reasons), and may even do a better job of it because they may be willing to go further than a "good" creature might, though conversely a "good" creature may do something terrible if they believe it's the right thing to do in the moment, and may even be able to live with it.
Depending upon how you, or your group, interpret it, a good character could just go around murdering anything that pings as evil with Divine Sense, Detect Evil and Good etc., and still be considered good, despite never once stopping to question whether a victim was truly evil or just a bit too selfish or amoral, or in need of a hug. Now whether or not that would make a fun character to play alongside in said group again depends upon the group and the DM, and the type of campaign you're playing; it's not an easy fit for classic D&D, but could work for something more grey.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Except that a Character going around and killing people just based upon how a spell read without showing various forms of mercy and chance to change their ways, even if that person may lie or betray those acts later, is fully in the realm of "paving the way to hell" with good intentions so to speak. Being Good is far more than just "destroying evil" because Evil can do that just as easily and often does. A Hallmark of evil on real display, even in D&D, is that different forms of evil are often warring and willing to destroy each other both to prove their own evilness and to Promote their own schemes and goals over another. Many Evil Goals by these different factions often are mutually exclusive to each other.
And Lost. The Part of my Post that you bolded does not in any way move the Goal Post. That is details actually written into the Standard Given descriptions of Lawful Evil and Evil in General as well as the Morality system that D&D uses that the occasional act of another alignment while it can shift your alignment towards that new alignment does not necessarily change it. Lawful Evil is described as self serving within a moral or legal Structure while willing to selfishly abuse or ignore it without being perceived as actually doing so. Nothing that I said is shifting the goal post. A Fine example of this is all of the politicians that were caught doing "Rules for Thee but not for me" type of things during a recent Pandemic the real world recently had. Though Arguably they shouldn't have been caught doing such. That is an example of lawful evil.
The Way that they would Shift from this alignment is to do something Selfish and rule breaking a bit too often and getting caught doing it a bit too much. it's an easy slide to make when employing that selfishness and bending of the rules to feed that selfishness and would push them into Neutral Evil. if they got a bit too into impassionately holding to the rules and the rules mattering under all conditions and less into bending them for their own benefit and selfishness. Starting to rely more on those rules than abusing them for their gain then they would make a shift towards Lawful Neutral.
Lawful Evil is actually the evil alignment that most people should have an easy time maintaining because even though many people would never want to admit they might be "bad" the sentiment of it is the easiest to grasp. With the concept of "Rules for thee but not for me." and "It's not Breaking the Rules if I don't get Caught" and to some extent "the Rules are there for other people because they are too ignorant and incapable without them" Are over simplified but fairly easy standards for most people to understand.
Nor is how that he wrote his description of what he does against that. He actually Wrote a heavy reliance on rules into his description and the way he described everything he is doing about punishing others. This leans heavily into Law. If he is Fanatically following his devotion and punishment because rules are broken. That is still heavily in the lawful evil Realm despite destroying a few villages and even being willing to do so under the right circumstances being colored as lawful evil or Chaotic evil. They end up balanced out and and back into the lawful camp by doing so. But your ignoring that and cutting that all out, as well as deciding that Killing a village and having done so before cannot be anything but either Neutral Evil, or from the sounds of the way your talking as a Chaotic evil act that can't be counter balanced. however even in actual history there have been lawful reasons for doing exactly these kinds of things. Such as the Witch Hunts in certain European Countries where they did do things like Wipe out half a village because it was legally possible to do so because of the Authorities (and Law) that was being enacted to do so through manipulation and selfish want.
The Salem Witch Trials are another fine example of killing many people in a village through abusive applications of law and personal self interest manipulating those Laws that is a fine example of both Willingness to destroy a village through Lawful means and massive self interest and corruption being the driving force behind doing so. Creating a Group of Supposedly good and Moral people that are actually doing evil and being evil and selfish despite their good intentions and abusing the law while doing so and there were some in the Salem witch trials that acted like they were above the law in some sense. Most Particularly the Moral and Legal Judges of the Community that were holding the trials that justified even Murders (and quite a number of them) through legal and what they considered a morally good lens.
So, nothing at all? Thanks!
You do realize that the topic isn't "what alignment can an aasimar be?" but about the "massacre whole villages" bit? Just checking to see that we are on the same page.
Mhm, Cool. Not sure why you are telling us all of this, this is all common knowledge.
Never said that it did [REDACTED]
Nowhere in the player's handbook really makes clear what Wizards of the Coast actually means by good and evil; both terms are highly subjective as they are dependent upon which moral framework you subscribe to, and some of the descriptions in the books sometimes make it feel like WotC don't mean "good" or "evil" at all, but rather selfless and selfish. It is very much left up to the players, group and the DM to decide for sure (though I find the forgotten realms fandom alignment descriptions more useful than the PHB if you just want something clear and (relatively) simple, but even that is interpretation); this is why I said "depending upon your group".
Even in the D&D lore there are plenty of examples of "good" characters and deities doing terrible things; the elven Seldarine basically made the drow evil*, and drove out even the good-aligned drow deities like Eilistraee because of a completely uncompromising view of right and wrong, to the point of actually being wrong themselves. *Before someone jumps on this, I know it's a massive over simplification, but the Seldarine are very much to blame for what happened to the drow, and why an entire sub-race of elves ultimately became near universally evil.
I also highlighted Detect Evil and Good/Divine Sense as it's that weird case where mechanically you can be identified absolutely; but for a Cleric or Paladin you can also think of this as a feature through which their god is telling them who to trust and who to target, so they are absolutely justified in acting on that information without question as that may well be their moral code (to do as their god commands). If their god is considered good aligned then doing so must also be good, right? (again, the answer to this is subjective, as you can absolutely argue that blind faith can become evil no matter who you follow, but it's not cut and dry at all).
The salem witch trials are an interesting example, as in a similar situation you could argue the judges were just applying the law and tackling witchcraft in the best way that they knew how (as they were taught/told to), and that it was the people (jealous neighbours, spurned lovers etc.) who took advantage and abused the hysteria and inflexibility of the laws to accuse people they didn't like, so in that case the judges could be neutral or even good, and the people lying were the evil ones. Of course that whole thing was f'ed up since clearly nobody was actually a witch, and I don't think anybody came out of there with a good alignment (judges included, or even most of all), I'm just thinking hypothetically.
In D&D things obviously aren't quite the same since there can be definitive proof of magic use, pacts with demons etc., that a good character might use as ample justification for the actions they need to take.
To be clear, I'm not arguing in favour of massacring towns or villages; even one of my current characters who is neutral evil wouldn't do that without a very good reason, but my point is that with a sufficiently strong justification you can justify it even for a good character. Again for example, if a town/village were dominated by demon worship, say with a purpose of summoning an army of demons into the world, then no good character should be willing to stand by and watch that happen (most neutral and evil characters shouldn't either). But there is a balance between greater good (ending the threat) and doing what is right even if doing so is doomed to fail; if you take the time to determine who can be saved, then you risk failing to stop the summoning at all. Again, a chaotic good dragon would very likely just torch the town/village to be sure the threat is ended no matter what, even if it means massive collateral damage; neutral or lawful good characters should at least try to determine who is actually guilty or not, and rescue the innocent, but if there's no time then they may not have that luxury, and may have to make the hard choice.
That's the thing with morality; often it's not the action itself that it's moral or immoral, unless you're a subscriber to Kant's moral imperative (whereby an action must be either moral or immoral in and of itself), because most moral frameworks judge whether an action was right or wrong by either the outcome, or the intention behind it. Under Kant's philosophy you might want to declare killing as immoral, but what if you are doing it to save more people? The kind of absolutism where killing is always wrong and therefore must never be done regardless of circumstances could be just as dangerous as the person who doesn't care about colateral damage in the moment.
That's part of the fun of morality in roleplaying; sometimes you have to test what your character is willing to do to achieve their goals, even if their goal is to save lives, as sometimes the deaths of dozens or hundreds is the price of saving millions.
My main concern re: the OP's character was whether having that as a defining feature of the character is any good for the group; at the very least it would have needed a lot more detail to make it work as part of a character backstory. For example, why did they feel they had no choice but to do it? Do they question or regret it? Would it be harder for them to do it again? Does it haunt them, or does word of it follow them wherever they go (i.e- is anyone aware that they did it)? And so-on, as it's answering those questions that makes it interesting. It may be a moot point anyway since it sounds like the OP was leaning towards making the extremist character part of another's backstory instead, but these are still questions that may need to be considered/answered to flesh it out properly, plus it's fun to discuss.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I never said it did. I said that:
Perfect, so he's like a villain then. That can totally work.
To your original question, it would be easy to understand why an aasimar, of all humanoid races, might be driven to this kind of behavior, sure. They're not usually like that, but they're described as sometimes having an angelic guide as like a voice in their head or something. And angels can be pretty harsh.
Remember, everyone: most real people are neutrally aligned. You and I are most likely neutral. Good aligned creatures can be scary.