Ok, so, I'm wondering how to decide on a character's alignment. In this particular instance, the character in question is a Tabaxi Monk of the Way of Mercy with the Sage background. He's dedicated years of study to anatomy and medical practice, as well as the advancement of medicine and the non-magical healing arts. Now, as an adventurer, he wishes to dissect every corpse the party makes in the pursuit of knowledge. He is not averse to MAKING corpses, so long as he gets to study them afterwards. Would this be a CN or CG character?
Does it matter what alignment they are? You know their character traits and backstory, why does it matter what alignment he is?
If it does matter, to me he would be true neutral or, maybe, neutral good. To those he kills and dissects and their families, he would likely be considered neutral evil at best. To those who get to experience any healing techniques he learns from it, he may appear on the good end, and possibly even on the lawful end (as what he did could be seen as being for the good of society). It's all going to depend on your perspective.
There was a recent thread on alignment that went on for a couple hundred posts with folks disagreeing about what sorts of behaviors would equate to which alignment. In short, if you ask two people what chaotic good is, you'll get three different definitions. So really, the best advice is talk with your table and see what the expectations are for this particular campaign. Their opinion (and your DM's in particular) is going to matter much more than that of anyone here.
And, as Urth said, do you really need it? Alignment is a holdover from earlier editions that has less and less impact on the game. So long as you play your character consistently, and don't switch their personality to whatever is most convenient, that's really what matters -- not what label you want to hang on the behavior.
Ok, so, I'm wondering how to decide on a character's alignment. In this particular instance, the character in question is a Tabaxi Monk of the Way of Mercy with the Sage background. He's dedicated years of study to anatomy and medical practice, as well as the advancement of medicine and the non-magical healing arts. Now, as an adventurer, he wishes to dissect every corpse the party makes in the pursuit of knowledge. He is not averse to MAKING corpses, so long as he gets to study them afterwards. Would this be a CN or CG character?
Eh, it could be LE, nothing about that description tells me a lot about alignment, but I would just toss "Wishes to dissect every corpse the party makes in the pursuit of knowledge" into the Flaws section of the character and not worry about what alignment it is.
"...He's dedicated years of study to anatomy and medical practice, as well as the advancement of medicine and the non-magical healing arts..."
Why?
Where does this character draw their lines?
Would they steal/kill just to have something to study? Would they sacrifice their work for the "greater good"? Are they simply an opportunist driven by obsession?
Does it matter what alignment they are? You know their character traits and backstory, why does it matter what alignment he is?
That may hold some truth, but you can't answer someone like that. It's essentially the same as you asking which ice cream flavor you should get, and I tell you to get nothing because ice cream is unhealthy. Alignment doesn't restrict characters so there's no reason to just abandon it when specific game mechanics rely around it for magic items and such.
To answer OPs question, I would go with CN, because of what you said about creating corpses to study. More information is definitely needed to accurately choose, but just based on that I would put him in the CN area where he kinda just does what he wants without regard as for if it's considered good or bad.
Does it matter what alignment they are? You know their character traits and backstory, why does it matter what alignment he is?
That may hold some truth, but you can't answer someone like that. It's essentially the same as you asking which ice cream flavor you should get, and I tell you to get nothing because ice cream is unhealthy. Alignment doesn't restrict characters so there's no reason to just abandon it when specific game mechanics rely around it for magic items and such.
To answer OPs question, I would go with CN, because of what you said about creating corpses to study. More information is definitely needed to accurately choose, but just based on that I would put him in the CN area where he kinda just does what he wants without regard as for if it's considered good or bad.
You will notice I went on to give him answers to his question.
However, the question still stands: if you have defined how the character will behave, why does it matter what the alignment?
In addition, what is the OPs opinion of how the alignments are defined? What is the opinion of the DM of the game of how the alignments are defined? Are they the same? Are they the same as mine, or yours? Do they align closely enough for any answer given to be valid?
Some people just want an alignment to write on their character sheet, but it will have little to no bearing on most games when you have a real character concept. If that's the case, just write what feels right. If not, you need to have a talk with your DM to make sure your understanding of the alignments is the same as theirs, and work out from that what alignment your character represents. Asking on here will bring you is unlikely to help without information about the DMs options.
I will further endorse the sentiment Xalthu summed up with getting three different answers about alignment from two people, but I guess I'll toss my opinion onto the pile. Again, as with others, I'll point out that there are various points requiring clarification to narrow it down to a tight answer.
If your character is "not averse to making corpses" specifically for the result of dissecting them "for science," then it would take me a lot of convincing to say he's any kind of good. Maybe if he only applied this thinking to creatures/people that were hostile to him or others, but as soon as you start saying "I'm going to kill that guy over there for science" is the first step to becoming a Dr Mengele type (if you're unfamiliar, Mengele was a notorious Nazi war criminal who conducted human experiments on prisoners in concentration camps during the Holocaust, "for science"). With the minimal description you've given I wouldn't agree with the letter G being anywhere in his alignment. Neutral, possibly, depending on limiting his diddection process to subjects that would have died without that motivation. But killing things, especially sentient beings, for the primary purpose of studying their corpses is borderline evil at best and even then only stays that way by very specifically selecting those targets from demographics that the world would be objectively better without (ie clearly defined "bad guys").
On the law/chaos aspect, scientifically focused individuals tend to have rather meticulous and orderly processes that they go by which is a lawful trait. Remember that "lawful" as an alignment does not mean "abides by the legal system in place wherever they happen to be" but rather that one has a well defined and consistent code of conduct, set of rules, and/or system of clearly values that they follow. Many "pure scientists" can be argued as lawful neutral because of their dedication to knowledge and their methodical pursuit thereof.
Your guy's "destroy to learn" approach, however, is at least a little chaotic in my opinion, so I'd put him at either true neutral or neutral evil, depending on how discerning he is about how specimen collecting.
My first question is why is he necessarily chaotic? The law/chaos side is always a little fuzzy to be fair, but I don't see anything immediately pointing either way here. In fact, the devotion to science/medicine points almost towards a Lawful (if illegal) code.
But beyond that, he's good if he's willing to help people without reward (given his gimmick, in a way that doesn't involve killing). He'd even avoid doing the dissection if it could help people, like if a family wants to bury the body.
He's neutral if he's not interested in helping if he doesn't get to make corpses, though he might execute evil people who deserve it without being asked. That last would qualify as lawful neutral, since it follows a strict code even if it's illegal.
And he's evil if he just likes to kill people to study their corpses, doesn't care who he kills, and really only avoids slaughtering innocents because it keeps him out of jail. Note that he can be evil as described while still believing he's helping the "greater good" of medicine, a bit like Thanos.
So really, the best advice is talk with your table and see what the expectations are for this particular campaign. Their opinion (and your DM's in particular) is going to matter much more than that of anyone here.
Alignment is a holdover from earlier editions that has less and less impact on the game.
Both of these statements are true... Alignment is based on the older editions of the game, and for some tables, it is not used much or maybe even at all. However, some DMs still like it and use it, and so you had better talk with your DM -- do not unilaterally decide that "Alignment is an out of date concept and I'm not going to use it" because your DM might be like me, and still use it and care about it a lot. I use it, for instance, because my cosmology uses it -- good, evil, order, and chaos are cosmic forces and matter in my universe. Gods have a definite alignment and will reject worshippers whose alignment does not fit.
Now, that is my game, not every game. But before the player goes deciding that alignment is out-dated and we "don't use it anymore," he/she had better find out from the GM first.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Monks are almost always Lawful, be they Good, Evil, or in between. The Way Of Mercy would typically be Good, so Lawful Good seems most likely. Neutral Good would be possible, but odd, and Chaotic Good would be extremely unlikely. To grow up as a Sage, an educated person, a dedicated researcher, and one who spent time cloistered away in a remote Monastery to become a Monk they would almost have to be Lawful. Their desire to help people with their knowledge and skill makes Good obvious.
Having become a Monk, they set out on the path of adventure. This can be a harsh transition. You can justify just about any Alignment at this point. It can be fun to play against expectations. I still can't see them as Evil, but that's just me.
In a fantasy world where the dead can come back, corpse disposal rules become a matter of life, death, and undeath. Keep this in mind. Once you have finished studying, burn the bodies to ashes and grind the bones to powder.
Generally, the best advice I've ever been given about alignment is to base it on your character's intentions and personality first, and their actions second.
If your character dissects corpses for the advancement of medical science, they're probably Good. Morbid, but good. [This may change based on why they want to advance medical science. If they just want to make a profit, they might be Neutral, or possibly even Evil if they want to hoard the knowledge to themselves.]
If a character makes a deal with the devil so that for every act of evil they do, the devil will do two acts of good, then they're probably Good because they are intentionally and actively forcing the devil to do good. Or they might be Evil, and just use the deal to justify their own actions. This one is extremely iffy, and comes down to whether they actually enjoy doing evil acts, and how important the deal is to the matter.
A character who dutifully serves the side of good because they derive joy from inflicting pain on others, and figure the best way to get away with it is to inflict pain on evil people, is probably Lawful Evil. The results are good, but the motivation is anything but. In this case, when I proposed this character to get a better understanding of this mindset, the person who gave me this advice put it like this:
Think of it this way: if the above character has to choose between inflicting pain on others and serving the forces of good, and can only choose one, what do they pick? that's your answer
Basically, the motivation behind the action is the best way to decide, because there are many times where a character may be forced to do evil actions for a good cause. (Case in point, Robin Hood: He's a thief, yet he's probably Lawful Good because he steals from rich, corrupt individuals to provide for those who lack the means to provide for themselves.)
Does it matter what alignment they are? You know their character traits and backstory, why does it matter what alignment he is?
That may hold some truth, but you can't answer someone like that. It's essentially the same as you asking which ice cream flavor you should get, and I tell you to get nothing because ice cream is unhealthy. Alignment doesn't restrict characters so there's no reason to just abandon it when specific game mechanics rely around it for magic items and such.
There are very few mechanics that care, and tbh, what matters at that point will be the alignment the DM thinks you're acting like, not what your character sheet says.
If a character makes a deal with the devil so that for every act of evil they do, the devil will do two acts of good, then they're probably Good because they are intentionally and actively forcing the devil to do good.
I don't think that statement could be any more wrong. Firstly, a character that knowingly and willfully commits premeditated acts of evil specifically for the sake of committing evil acts is evil, regardless of whatever mitigating factors they claim to justify their actions. Being good isn't a matter of assuaging one's own conscience. It's doing good and not enabling or willfully permitting evil to happen. Also, doing evil things "for the greater good" does not make one's acts anything other than evil and the person who did so is evil. In some cases a neutral person might commit some evil acts, but neutrality isn't synonymous with dispassionate amorality, either and is often used as an excuse for evil (an example is the scientists in the show The Expanse who have their emotion and compassion literally surgically removed so they can experiment on children "for the greater good" without feeling guilty). Second, as worded that devil's could be satisfied by the devil giving one copper each to a couple of beggars after the self-justified "good" person murdered a baby. Devils are, by definition, evil creatures to the core and would never willingly enter any deal that they knew would result in a "net positive" balance of good results coming from it.
In general, you can't justify robbing, killing, and pillaging with "I'm not evil, I gave an orphan a cookie yesterday!"
I actually think your character sounds Lawful Good.
I'm getting the more lawful vibe because when one thinks of the years of diligent study that goes into the Sage background, one thinks of an ordered mind, a well-organized regimen of study, and a respect for the physical laws which govern the body/science.
Unless you're specifically going for more of a slightly mad-doctor kind of vibe, then I'd say your tabaxi seems Lawful Good to me. Lawful Neutral if they're not actually interested in helping people and studying medicine for their own reasons.
I actually think your character sounds Lawful Good.
I'm getting the more lawful vibe because when one thinks of the years of diligent study that goes into the Sage background, one thinks of an ordered mind, a well-organized regimen of study, and a respect for the physical laws which govern the body/science.
Unless you're specifically going for more of a slightly mad-doctor kind of vibe, then I'd say your tabaxi seems Lawful Good to me. Lawful Neutral if they're not actually interested in helping people and studying medicine for their own reasons.
I'm sure Josef Mengele saw himself as "lawful good" in his pursuit of science and what he called the greater good. Try looking him up sometime. A lot of horribly evil people think they're shining beacons of good, decency, and self sacrifice.
There's also the fact that magical healing exists in D&D, as does the medicine skill for mundane and scientifically basedtreatment, so unless your game lacks those things or they are somehow severely limited any of these dissections are of dubious value to begin with.
Ok, so, I'm wondering how to decide on a character's alignment. In this particular instance, the character in question is a Tabaxi Monk of the Way of Mercy with the Sage background. He's dedicated years of study to anatomy and medical practice, as well as the advancement of medicine and the non-magical healing arts. Now, as an adventurer, he wishes to dissect every corpse the party makes in the pursuit of knowledge. He is not averse to MAKING corpses, so long as he gets to study them afterwards. Would this be a CN or CG character?
Barring additional information, this is Neutral Evil, NE. There's no basis in your post for concluding you care about a code of conduct vs evaluating situations on their own merits, which is L-C, but for G-E, you said you're fine with making corpses so you have corpses to study, with no moral caveats. That's evil in the same way Hannibal Lecter and Ted Bundy were evil.
You can pretty much justify any Alignment. Given the Way Of Mercy path, Good would seem to be indicated. Knowing why they were Evil would be interesting.
I actually think your character sounds Lawful Good.
I'm getting the more lawful vibe because when one thinks of the years of diligent study that goes into the Sage background, one thinks of an ordered mind, a well-organized regimen of study, and a respect for the physical laws which govern the body/science.
Unless you're specifically going for more of a slightly mad-doctor kind of vibe, then I'd say your tabaxi seems Lawful Good to me. Lawful Neutral if they're not actually interested in helping people and studying medicine for their own reasons.
I'm sure Josef Mengele saw himself as "lawful good" in his pursuit of science and what he called the greater good. Try looking him up sometime. A lot of horribly evil people think they're shining beacons of good, decency, and self sacrifice.
There's also the fact that magical healing exists in D&D, as does the medicine skill for mundane and scientifically basedtreatment, so unless your game lacks those things or they are somehow severely limited any of these dissections are of dubious value to begin with.
Joseph Mengele did a little more than just autopsies, he murdered and tortured people by the hundreds of thousands. Nothing in the character description indicated that the character had anything other than beneficial motivations for their studies. Mengele is a bit of a leap from what's described in the OP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, so, I'm wondering how to decide on a character's alignment. In this particular instance, the character in question is a Tabaxi Monk of the Way of Mercy with the Sage background. He's dedicated years of study to anatomy and medical practice, as well as the advancement of medicine and the non-magical healing arts. Now, as an adventurer, he wishes to dissect every corpse the party makes in the pursuit of knowledge. He is not averse to MAKING corpses, so long as he gets to study them afterwards. Would this be a CN or CG character?
Does it matter what alignment they are? You know their character traits and backstory, why does it matter what alignment he is?
If it does matter, to me he would be true neutral or, maybe, neutral good. To those he kills and dissects and their families, he would likely be considered neutral evil at best. To those who get to experience any healing techniques he learns from it, he may appear on the good end, and possibly even on the lawful end (as what he did could be seen as being for the good of society). It's all going to depend on your perspective.
There was a recent thread on alignment that went on for a couple hundred posts with folks disagreeing about what sorts of behaviors would equate to which alignment. In short, if you ask two people what chaotic good is, you'll get three different definitions. So really, the best advice is talk with your table and see what the expectations are for this particular campaign. Their opinion (and your DM's in particular) is going to matter much more than that of anyone here.
And, as Urth said, do you really need it? Alignment is a holdover from earlier editions that has less and less impact on the game. So long as you play your character consistently, and don't switch their personality to whatever is most convenient, that's really what matters -- not what label you want to hang on the behavior.
Eh, it could be LE, nothing about that description tells me a lot about alignment, but I would just toss "Wishes to dissect every corpse the party makes in the pursuit of knowledge" into the Flaws section of the character and not worry about what alignment it is.
Why?
Where does this character draw their lines?
Would they steal/kill just to have something to study?
Would they sacrifice their work for the "greater good"?
Are they simply an opportunist driven by obsession?
I love this description! Brilliant :)
That may hold some truth, but you can't answer someone like that. It's essentially the same as you asking which ice cream flavor you should get, and I tell you to get nothing because ice cream is unhealthy. Alignment doesn't restrict characters so there's no reason to just abandon it when specific game mechanics rely around it for magic items and such.
To answer OPs question, I would go with CN, because of what you said about creating corpses to study. More information is definitely needed to accurately choose, but just based on that I would put him in the CN area where he kinda just does what he wants without regard as for if it's considered good or bad.
You will notice I went on to give him answers to his question.
However, the question still stands: if you have defined how the character will behave, why does it matter what the alignment?
In addition, what is the OPs opinion of how the alignments are defined? What is the opinion of the DM of the game of how the alignments are defined? Are they the same? Are they the same as mine, or yours? Do they align closely enough for any answer given to be valid?
Some people just want an alignment to write on their character sheet, but it will have little to no bearing on most games when you have a real character concept. If that's the case, just write what feels right. If not, you need to have a talk with your DM to make sure your understanding of the alignments is the same as theirs, and work out from that what alignment your character represents. Asking on here will bring you is unlikely to help without information about the DMs options.
I will further endorse the sentiment Xalthu summed up with getting three different answers about alignment from two people, but I guess I'll toss my opinion onto the pile. Again, as with others, I'll point out that there are various points requiring clarification to narrow it down to a tight answer.
If your character is "not averse to making corpses" specifically for the result of dissecting them "for science," then it would take me a lot of convincing to say he's any kind of good. Maybe if he only applied this thinking to creatures/people that were hostile to him or others, but as soon as you start saying "I'm going to kill that guy over there for science" is the first step to becoming a Dr Mengele type (if you're unfamiliar, Mengele was a notorious Nazi war criminal who conducted human experiments on prisoners in concentration camps during the Holocaust, "for science"). With the minimal description you've given I wouldn't agree with the letter G being anywhere in his alignment. Neutral, possibly, depending on limiting his diddection process to subjects that would have died without that motivation. But killing things, especially sentient beings, for the primary purpose of studying their corpses is borderline evil at best and even then only stays that way by very specifically selecting those targets from demographics that the world would be objectively better without (ie clearly defined "bad guys").
On the law/chaos aspect, scientifically focused individuals tend to have rather meticulous and orderly processes that they go by which is a lawful trait. Remember that "lawful" as an alignment does not mean "abides by the legal system in place wherever they happen to be" but rather that one has a well defined and consistent code of conduct, set of rules, and/or system of clearly values that they follow. Many "pure scientists" can be argued as lawful neutral because of their dedication to knowledge and their methodical pursuit thereof.
Your guy's "destroy to learn" approach, however, is at least a little chaotic in my opinion, so I'd put him at either true neutral or neutral evil, depending on how discerning he is about how specimen collecting.
My first question is why is he necessarily chaotic? The law/chaos side is always a little fuzzy to be fair, but I don't see anything immediately pointing either way here. In fact, the devotion to science/medicine points almost towards a Lawful (if illegal) code.
But beyond that, he's good if he's willing to help people without reward (given his gimmick, in a way that doesn't involve killing). He'd even avoid doing the dissection if it could help people, like if a family wants to bury the body.
He's neutral if he's not interested in helping if he doesn't get to make corpses, though he might execute evil people who deserve it without being asked. That last would qualify as lawful neutral, since it follows a strict code even if it's illegal.
And he's evil if he just likes to kill people to study their corpses, doesn't care who he kills, and really only avoids slaughtering innocents because it keeps him out of jail. Note that he can be evil as described while still believing he's helping the "greater good" of medicine, a bit like Thanos.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Both of these statements are true... Alignment is based on the older editions of the game, and for some tables, it is not used much or maybe even at all. However, some DMs still like it and use it, and so you had better talk with your DM -- do not unilaterally decide that "Alignment is an out of date concept and I'm not going to use it" because your DM might be like me, and still use it and care about it a lot. I use it, for instance, because my cosmology uses it -- good, evil, order, and chaos are cosmic forces and matter in my universe. Gods have a definite alignment and will reject worshippers whose alignment does not fit.
Now, that is my game, not every game. But before the player goes deciding that alignment is out-dated and we "don't use it anymore," he/she had better find out from the GM first.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Monks are almost always Lawful, be they Good, Evil, or in between. The Way Of Mercy would typically be Good, so Lawful Good seems most likely. Neutral Good would be possible, but odd, and Chaotic Good would be extremely unlikely. To grow up as a Sage, an educated person, a dedicated researcher, and one who spent time cloistered away in a remote Monastery to become a Monk they would almost have to be Lawful. Their desire to help people with their knowledge and skill makes Good obvious.
Having become a Monk, they set out on the path of adventure. This can be a harsh transition. You can justify just about any Alignment at this point. It can be fun to play against expectations. I still can't see them as Evil, but that's just me.
In a fantasy world where the dead can come back, corpse disposal rules become a matter of life, death, and undeath. Keep this in mind. Once you have finished studying, burn the bodies to ashes and grind the bones to powder.
<Insert clever signature here>
Generally, the best advice I've ever been given about alignment is to base it on your character's intentions and personality first, and their actions second.
Basically, the motivation behind the action is the best way to decide, because there are many times where a character may be forced to do evil actions for a good cause. (Case in point, Robin Hood: He's a thief, yet he's probably Lawful Good because he steals from rich, corrupt individuals to provide for those who lack the means to provide for themselves.)
There are very few mechanics that care, and tbh, what matters at that point will be the alignment the DM thinks you're acting like, not what your character sheet says.
I don't think that statement could be any more wrong. Firstly, a character that knowingly and willfully commits premeditated acts of evil specifically for the sake of committing evil acts is evil, regardless of whatever mitigating factors they claim to justify their actions. Being good isn't a matter of assuaging one's own conscience. It's doing good and not enabling or willfully permitting evil to happen. Also, doing evil things "for the greater good" does not make one's acts anything other than evil and the person who did so is evil. In some cases a neutral person might commit some evil acts, but neutrality isn't synonymous with dispassionate amorality, either and is often used as an excuse for evil (an example is the scientists in the show The Expanse who have their emotion and compassion literally surgically removed so they can experiment on children "for the greater good" without feeling guilty). Second, as worded that devil's could be satisfied by the devil giving one copper each to a couple of beggars after the self-justified "good" person murdered a baby. Devils are, by definition, evil creatures to the core and would never willingly enter any deal that they knew would result in a "net positive" balance of good results coming from it.
In general, you can't justify robbing, killing, and pillaging with "I'm not evil, I gave an orphan a cookie yesterday!"
I actually think your character sounds Lawful Good.
I'm getting the more lawful vibe because when one thinks of the years of diligent study that goes into the Sage background, one thinks of an ordered mind, a well-organized regimen of study, and a respect for the physical laws which govern the body/science.
Unless you're specifically going for more of a slightly mad-doctor kind of vibe, then I'd say your tabaxi seems Lawful Good to me. Lawful Neutral if they're not actually interested in helping people and studying medicine for their own reasons.
I'm sure Josef Mengele saw himself as "lawful good" in his pursuit of science and what he called the greater good. Try looking him up sometime. A lot of horribly evil people think they're shining beacons of good, decency, and self sacrifice.
There's also the fact that magical healing exists in D&D, as does the medicine skill for mundane and scientifically basedtreatment, so unless your game lacks those things or they are somehow severely limited any of these dissections are of dubious value to begin with.
Barring additional information, this is Neutral Evil, NE. There's no basis in your post for concluding you care about a code of conduct vs evaluating situations on their own merits, which is L-C, but for G-E, you said you're fine with making corpses so you have corpses to study, with no moral caveats. That's evil in the same way Hannibal Lecter and Ted Bundy were evil.
You can pretty much justify any Alignment. Given the Way Of Mercy path, Good would seem to be indicated. Knowing why they were Evil would be interesting.
<Insert clever signature here>
Joseph Mengele did a little more than just autopsies, he murdered and tortured people by the hundreds of thousands. Nothing in the character description indicated that the character had anything other than beneficial motivations for their studies. Mengele is a bit of a leap from what's described in the OP.