I'm a Shadow Monk who wishes to destroy the Gods and rebuild the pantheon with me at its head, as I believe they treat my world as a plaything. The Gods of Evil cause needless violence and death whilst the Gods of Good refuse to destroy them. Once I rule the pantheon, I'll restructure the world to remove all unnecessary evil from it, bringing about a lasting peace.
I also protect my younger brother (whose unaware of my existence after I left him with Nobles) from the shadows. This was due to our cultist parents trying to sacrifice him as a babe before I stole him away.
I am willing to perform almost anything to achieve my goal of tearing down the Gods but I have a few rules I follow. These include:
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
All betrayals must be severely punished. Those who betray me must suffer for their trespasse.
However, before my adventure begins, I must plant a flag for my Alignment, but I'm not sure where I stand.
What Alignment am I?
I think I might be Lawful Evil (cause my goals are evil and I'm willing to perform evil acts but I follow a code, just not society's) or Lawful Good (cause my intentions are good and I follow a code).
How much order are you trying to impose on the world? That's going to determine whether you're Lawful or Chaotic, but I can say right off the bat that you're definitely not Good.
I'm a Shadow Monk who wishes to destroy the Gods and rebuild the pantheon with me at its head, as I believe they treat my world as a plaything. The Gods of Evil cause needless violence and death whilst the Gods of Good refuse to destroy them. Once I rule the pantheon, I'll restructure the world to remove all unnecessary evil from it, bringing about a lasting peace.
I also protect my younger brother (whose unaware of my existence after I left him with Nobles) from the shadows. This was due to our cultist parents trying to sacrifice him as a babe before I stole him away.
I am willing to perform almost anything to achieve my goal of tearing down the Gods but I have a few rules I follow. These include:
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
All betrayals must be severely punished. Those who betray me must suffer for their impasse.
However, before my adventure begins, I must plant a flag for my Alignment, but I'm not sure where I stand.
What Alignment am I?
I think I might be Lawful Evil (cause my goals are evil and I'm willing to perform evil acts but I follow a code, just not society's) or Lawful Good (cause my intentions are good and I follow a code).
You aren't Lawful.
The whole point of Lawful alignments is just that, you follow the laws. You start by wanting to destroy the current source of law and explicitly state you are willing to do anything. Having a specific set of tenets and believes is all well and good, but that doesn't make all Paladins lawful either. You're Chaotic because you follow your own tenets and beliefs and choose not too beholden yourself to the overarching idea of law.
You aren't Evil(yet).
You state that you want evil to be destroyed in all its forms. The problem your character would face(by a good DM) is having your character push the boundaries. What happens if you go into a city that has worshiped an evil deity, the citizens worship that deity, but they all follow the laws. Belief is a construct, and just because someone believes in a certain God doesn't make that person inherently evil, but if you go into that city and start laying waste to it, you then are an inherently evil person. No good person kills innocents just because they worship an evil God. The thought of oppression to your character is another beings idea of normal life.
I'd honestly say Chaotic Neutral with your choices in your game heavily changing the neutral line, but the idea of alignment is kind of outdated these days. I think its good to have an idea of what your character does and doesn't do but in the end it's your character and you are going to make the choices they make. Sometimes good characters make evil choices, and vice versa. That doesn't change their alignment instantly, it means they decided to make a choice outside of their wheelhouse for decisions that hopefully make sense from a roleplay perspective.
What I mean by this is in 3.5, I had a Priest of Lathander I was playing from 1-13. At 13, we end up finding out that Arioch, who is an Archdevil who serves Dispater who was the ruler of the 2nd layer of Hell. We find out he had corrupted a high priest of Lathander in a church close to Cormyr, and my character being of Lathander wouldn't let it stand. We teleport over there, fight some minor demons and get into the temple and find out there are summoning runes inscribed all along the temple and its going to be used as a focus to open a portal to the 2nd layer directly and cause an invasion. This temple houses hundreds of acolytes, and works as a hospital for the surrounding areas. Theres over 2,000 people in this place. The ritual is damn near complete when we get there and we have very minimal time. We aren't going to be able to defeat an Archdevil so our bard, sorcerer, wizard and me as the cleric all upcast Shatter to level 7 at opposing points of the main circle which causes a reaction causing the temple to explode, killing every single person inside. I grab the fighter and barbarian, my wizard friend grabs the sorcerer and bard as I word of recall and he teleports.
My character participated in the destruction of over 2,000 lives. An inherently evil act. He helped destroy a main temple of his deity. The ultimate form of desecration of his faith. The end result? He stopped a planar invasion of demons from overtaking Cormyr and beyond. I retired the character at that point because it made sense, he was going to spend the rest of his life atoning for the loss of life and repenting to Lathander for what he perceived to be unforgivable, but at the end of the day what he did wasn't evil. He had to make a choice and it was to not let the demons overtake his temple and potentially run rampant over Faerun.
I'm a Shadow Monk who wishes to destroy the Gods and rebuild the pantheon with me at its head, as I believe they treat my world as a plaything. The Gods of Evil cause needless violence and death whilst the Gods of Good refuse to destroy them. Once I rule the pantheon, I'll restructure the world to remove all unnecessary evil from it, bringing about a lasting peace.
I also protect my younger brother (whose unaware of my existence after I left him with Nobles) from the shadows. This was due to our cultist parents trying to sacrifice him as a babe before I stole him away.
I am willing to perform almost anything to achieve my goal of tearing down the Gods but I have a few rules I follow. These include:
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
All betrayals must be severely punished. Those who betray me must suffer for their impasse.
However, before my adventure begins, I must plant a flag for my Alignment, but I'm not sure where I stand.
What Alignment am I?
I think I might be Lawful Evil (cause my goals are evil and I'm willing to perform evil acts but I follow a code, just not society's) or Lawful Good (cause my intentions are good and I follow a code).
You aren't Lawful.
The whole point of Lawful alignments is just that, you follow the laws. You start by wanting to destroy the current source of law and explicitly state you are willing to do anything. Having a specific set of tenets and believes is all well and good, but that doesn't make all Paladins lawful either. You're Chaotic because you follow your own tenets and beliefs and choose not too beholden yourself to the overarching idea of law.
You aren't Evil(yet).
You state that you want evil to be destroyed in all its forms. The problem your character would face(by a good DM) is having your character push the boundaries. What happens if you go into a city that has worshiped an evil deity, the citizens worship that deity, but they all follow the laws. Belief is a construct, and just because someone believes in a certain God doesn't make that person inherently evil, but if you go into that city and start laying waste to it, you then are an inherently evil person. No good person kills innocents just because they worship an evil God. The thought of oppression to your character is another beings idea of normal life.
I'd honestly say Chaotic Neutral with your choices in your game heavily changing the neutral line, but the idea of alignment is kind of outdated these days. I think its good to have an idea of what your character does and doesn't do but in the end it's your character and you are going to make the choices they make. Sometimes good characters make evil choices, and vice versa. That doesn't change their alignment instantly, it means they decided to make a choice outside of their wheelhouse for decisions that hopefully make sense from a roleplay perspective.
What I mean by this is in 3.5, I had a Priest of Lathander I was playing from 1-13. At 13, we end up finding out that Arioch, who is an Archdevil who serves Dispater who was the ruler of the 2nd layer of Hell. We find out he had corrupted a high priest of Lathander in a church close to Cormyr, and my character being of Lathander wouldn't let it stand. We teleport over there, fight some minor demons and get into the temple and find out there are summoning runes inscribed all along the temple and its going to be used as a focus to open a portal to the 2nd layer directly and cause an invasion. This temple houses hundreds of acolytes, and works as a hospital for the surrounding areas. Theres over 2,000 people in this place. The ritual is damn near complete when we get there and we have very minimal time. We aren't going to be able to defeat an Archdevil so our bard, sorcerer, wizard and me as the cleric all upcast Shatter to level 7 at opposing points of the main circle which causes a reaction causing the temple to explode, killing every single person inside. I grab the fighter and barbarian, my wizard friend grabs the sorcerer and bard as I word of recall and he teleports.
My character participated in the destruction of over 2,000 lives. An inherently evil act. He helped destroy a main temple of his deity. The ultimate form of desecration of his faith. The end result? He stopped a planar invasion of demons from overtaking Cormyr and beyond. I retired the character at that point because it made sense, he was going to spend the rest of his life atoning for the loss of life and repenting to Lathander for what he perceived to be unforgivable, but at the end of the day what he did wasn't evil. He had to make a choice and it was to not let the demons overtake his temple and potentially run rampant over Faerun.
sorry but i do disagree with your first lines, being lawful has nothing to do with following laws, being lawful means you follow your own code or traditions, it says nothing about following the law of a kingdom or area, a bit from being lawful evil from the players handbook: Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
You’re lawful evil. Certainly there’s an argument to be entertained for “lawful good villain,” but D&D morality traditionally comes down pretty firmly on the side of “the ends justify the means is evil, even if the ends are good.”
While "Law" can certainly mean subscribing to a higher law or a common law that benefits others, I don't think Law in this case can be applied to a Megalomaniac (regardless of anything triggering it). The only structure you are following is the one that makes you the most powerful being and then you will force everyone to worship you. That is not Lawful (though it certainly will be Law-Filled). There also seems to be no balance as you are willing to do whatever it takes, AND to make certain that unequivocally your enemies cannot rise again to thwart you or your plan. I only see Chaos and Evil remaining... which in my book means you aren't a Monk (but that may be old school ways of thinking about Monks... I may have to go read back up on that... brb...)
Basically you're planning a revolution to free "mortals" from oppression by evil and good deities.
The only god of revolution I know is Pathfinder's "Milani", and she is chaotic good.
So I'd say the chaotic part is pretty much a given. You can't destroy the rules while confirming to them.
Whether you're evil or good depends on how you play it. The oath would fit a good aligned paladin ("destroy evil", "protect innocents") as well as an evil megalomaniac ("my enemies must be utterly destroyed").
I'd even say it tends stronger to the good side. Replace "extraplanar influence" with "demons", "undead", "devils" or something like that and you're pretty much the archetype of a holy knight.
No one thinks they are Evil. Example: The Season 1 finale of Stargirl where the bad guys are discovered to be planning are willing to kill 1/4 of the population in order to stop Global Warming, etc. etc. They thought they were good because of their goals, ignoring their methods.
The problem with you asking people on line what your alignment is that some of the people here will be EVIL but think they are good, etc. etc. So they will mis-judge you. That said, I will analyze your individual rules.
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
This is deceptive, it depends on how you define "innocent". Adolf Hitler thought that he never harmed the innocent, just a bunch of homosexuals, gypsies, communists, jews, etc. The core idea here is LAWFUL with a deceptive coating that looks like Good. Unless you give a better definition of innocent, this is Lawful Neutral.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Looks like Lawful, but is really Evil. You are judging people not on what they do, but on their species/birth place. Also known as Prejudice/Racism.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Totally Evil. The word Suffer here is key, but the words 'unnecessary' is a big hint. Desiring suffering is evil, even if they deserve it. And thinking that some evil is necessary is clearly evil.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
Shatter my enemies is another evil idea, Foes never being able to attack again is verging on lawful.
No one thinks they are Evil. Example: The Season 1 finale of Stargirl where the bad guys are discovered to be planning are willing to kill 1/4 of the population in order to stop Global Warming, etc. etc. They thought they were good because of their goals, ignoring their methods.
The problem with you asking people on line what your alignment is that some of the people here will be EVIL but think they are good, etc. etc. So they will mis-judge you. That said, I will analyze your individual rules.
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
This is deceptive, it depends on how you define "innocent". Adolf Hitler thought that he never harmed the innocent, just a bunch of homosexuals, gypsies, communists, jews, etc. The core idea here is LAWFUL with a deceptive coating that looks like Good. Unless you give a better definition of innocent, this is Lawful Neutral.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Looks like Lawful, but is really Evil. You are judging people not on what they do, but on their species/birth place. Also known as Prejudice/Racism.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Totally Evil. The word Suffer here is key, but the words 'unnecessary' is a big hint. Desiring suffering is evil, even if they deserve it. And thinking that some evil is necessary is clearly evil.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
Shatter my enemies is another evil idea, Foes never being able to attack again is verging on lawful.
All betrayals must be severely punished.
Lawful. Words "All" and "punished" are give away.
You are Lawful Evil.
Fortunately D&D lore offers an actual fixed system for alignment.
Lawful creatures attempt to uphold the existing rules. Like modrons.
Chaotic creatures try to destroy the existing rules. Like demons.
Good creatures care about others (like angels).
Evil creatures care only about themselves (like devils / demons).
On the lawful - chaotic axis the character is 100% objectively chaotic. He strives to destroy the existing order.
On the good - evil axis the character is 100% good, he strives to protect the innocents (aka others).
In the alignment chart the character is chaotic good. That doesn't mean he won't do terrible things, though. God also sent the ten plagues to egypt and killed every first-born in a generation, but is nevertheless the definition of "good".
Btw. low-key implying that everyone who disagrees with your opinion is "evil" is not exactly a nice thing. We're talking about fantasy worlds and concepts, the real world is not as simple as D&D.
On the chaotic vs lawful axis - you're basically making up the rules as you go, you're aiming to destroy the gods and their laws, and though you have a moral code, it's a very flexible one.
On the good vs evil axis - neither the goals nor the methods you mentioned seem conclusive to me. "Destroy the gods" - well, depends on the cosmology, but there's both good and evil gods so just destroying them all might not be straightforward either good or evil. "Protect innocents" and "Destroy evil" is good, but the caveat about "unnecessary evil" and "wanting them to suffer" is on the evil side.
I think this is also an example where actually playing the character might give more insight. I could totally see a chaotic evil villain self-describing themselves in this way - if they end up with even a bit of "The ends justify the means", if you convince yourself that destroying the gods is so Good that it's worth a heck of a lot of suffering, you'll be a classic evil destroy-the-gods-and-the-world villain.
On the other hand, if the "protect the innocent" and "Destroy evil" come out front and center throughout the character's play, and you end up following a "Code" pretty rigidly, you could well end up as a Lawful Good paladin (who has a long-term goal of destroying gods).
No one thinks they are Evil. Example: The Season 1 finale of Stargirl where the bad guys are discovered to be planning are willing to kill 1/4 of the population in order to stop Global Warming, etc. etc. They thought they were good because of their goals, ignoring their methods.
The problem with you asking people on line what your alignment is that some of the people here will be EVIL but think they are good, etc. etc. So they will mis-judge you. That said, I will analyze your individual rules.
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
This is deceptive, it depends on how you define "innocent". Adolf Hitler thought that he never harmed the innocent, just a bunch of homosexuals, gypsies, communists, jews, etc. The core idea here is LAWFUL with a deceptive coating that looks like Good. Unless you give a better definition of innocent, this is Lawful Neutral.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Looks like Lawful, but is really Evil. You are judging people not on what they do, but on their species/birth place. Also known as Prejudice/Racism.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Totally Evil. The word Suffer here is key, but the words 'unnecessary' is a big hint. Desiring suffering is evil, even if they deserve it. And thinking that some evil is necessary is clearly evil.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
Shatter my enemies is another evil idea, Foes never being able to attack again is verging on lawful.
All betrayals must be severely punished.
Lawful. Words "All" and "punished" are give away.
You are Lawful Evil.
Fortunately D&D lore offers an actual fixed system for alignment.
Lawful creatures attempt to uphold the existing rules. Like modrons.
Chaotic creatures try to destroy the existing rules. Like demons.
Good creatures care about others (like angels).
Evil creatures care only about themselves (like devils / demons).
On the lawful - chaotic axis the character is 100% objectively chaotic. He strives to destroy the existing order.
On the good - evil axis the character is 100% good, he strives to protect the innocents (aka others).
In the alignment chart the character is chaotic good. That doesn't mean he won't do terrible things, though. God also sent the ten plagues to egypt and killed every first-born in a generation, but is nevertheless the definition of "good".
Btw. low-key implying that everyone who disagrees with your opinion is "evil" is not exactly a nice thing. We're talking about fantasy worlds and concepts, the real world is not as simple as D&D.
No. Simplifying things is itself an evil act. The evil guys love to simplify things and when you claim that is OK, you are yourself assuming the bad guys are right. Good and Evil is not as simple as that - not in any game that is not run by a LE person.
Please quote a page and book where you think it defines the alignments the way you wrote it. I think the definitions you used was clearly written by a NE person. They support the Status Quo, not Lawfulness and they assume that caring about ANYONE - even if you only care about your own children - makes you good. Evil people can and do care about their own kids but no one else.
The fact that you think the Biblical God of the Jews is the definition of Good is fairly.... telling. Yes, some people believe that, but not all. Using it in an argument with a Hindu makes you look rather prejudiced. Quite a few Christians and Muslims claim that Jesus / Muhammad came in part because the Old Testament God is clearly NOT good. Way too many examples of him being a huge dick even ignoring the killing of the first born (sacrifice your child as a test? Turning someone to salt for looking back?) Basically you just did exactly what I warned about - you allowed people with a rather strange definition of good vs evil to define it for you.
I did not imply that people that disagree with my opinion are evil. I stated that evil people do not think they are evil. You assumed I am good, and that therefore people that disagree with me must be evil. Thank you for the compliment, but I make no such claim.
Hi.
I'm a Shadow Monk who wishes to destroy the Gods and rebuild the pantheon with me at its head, as I believe they treat my world as a plaything. The Gods of Evil cause needless violence and death whilst the Gods of Good refuse to destroy them. Once I rule the pantheon, I'll restructure the world to remove all unnecessary evil from it, bringing about a lasting peace.
I also protect my younger brother (whose unaware of my existence after I left him with Nobles) from the shadows. This was due to our cultist parents trying to sacrifice him as a babe before I stole him away.
I am willing to perform almost anything to achieve my goal of tearing down the Gods but I have a few rules I follow. These include:
However, before my adventure begins, I must plant a flag for my Alignment, but I'm not sure where I stand.
What Alignment am I?
I think I might be Lawful Evil (cause my goals are evil and I'm willing to perform evil acts but I follow a code, just not society's) or Lawful Good (cause my intentions are good and I follow a code).
How much order are you trying to impose on the world? That's going to determine whether you're Lawful or Chaotic, but I can say right off the bat that you're definitely not Good.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You aren't Lawful.
The whole point of Lawful alignments is just that, you follow the laws. You start by wanting to destroy the current source of law and explicitly state you are willing to do anything. Having a specific set of tenets and believes is all well and good, but that doesn't make all Paladins lawful either. You're Chaotic because you follow your own tenets and beliefs and choose not too beholden yourself to the overarching idea of law.
You aren't Evil(yet).
You state that you want evil to be destroyed in all its forms. The problem your character would face(by a good DM) is having your character push the boundaries. What happens if you go into a city that has worshiped an evil deity, the citizens worship that deity, but they all follow the laws. Belief is a construct, and just because someone believes in a certain God doesn't make that person inherently evil, but if you go into that city and start laying waste to it, you then are an inherently evil person. No good person kills innocents just because they worship an evil God. The thought of oppression to your character is another beings idea of normal life.
I'd honestly say Chaotic Neutral with your choices in your game heavily changing the neutral line, but the idea of alignment is kind of outdated these days. I think its good to have an idea of what your character does and doesn't do but in the end it's your character and you are going to make the choices they make. Sometimes good characters make evil choices, and vice versa. That doesn't change their alignment instantly, it means they decided to make a choice outside of their wheelhouse for decisions that hopefully make sense from a roleplay perspective.
What I mean by this is in 3.5, I had a Priest of Lathander I was playing from 1-13. At 13, we end up finding out that Arioch, who is an Archdevil who serves Dispater who was the ruler of the 2nd layer of Hell. We find out he had corrupted a high priest of Lathander in a church close to Cormyr, and my character being of Lathander wouldn't let it stand. We teleport over there, fight some minor demons and get into the temple and find out there are summoning runes inscribed all along the temple and its going to be used as a focus to open a portal to the 2nd layer directly and cause an invasion. This temple houses hundreds of acolytes, and works as a hospital for the surrounding areas. Theres over 2,000 people in this place. The ritual is damn near complete when we get there and we have very minimal time. We aren't going to be able to defeat an Archdevil so our bard, sorcerer, wizard and me as the cleric all upcast Shatter to level 7 at opposing points of the main circle which causes a reaction causing the temple to explode, killing every single person inside. I grab the fighter and barbarian, my wizard friend grabs the sorcerer and bard as I word of recall and he teleports.
My character participated in the destruction of over 2,000 lives. An inherently evil act. He helped destroy a main temple of his deity. The ultimate form of desecration of his faith. The end result? He stopped a planar invasion of demons from overtaking Cormyr and beyond. I retired the character at that point because it made sense, he was going to spend the rest of his life atoning for the loss of life and repenting to Lathander for what he perceived to be unforgivable, but at the end of the day what he did wasn't evil. He had to make a choice and it was to not let the demons overtake his temple and potentially run rampant over Faerun.
sorry but i do disagree with your first lines, being lawful has nothing to do with following laws, being lawful means you follow your own code or traditions, it says nothing about following the law of a kingdom or area, a bit from being lawful evil from the players handbook: Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
You’re lawful evil. Certainly there’s an argument to be entertained for “lawful good villain,” but D&D morality traditionally comes down pretty firmly on the side of “the ends justify the means is evil, even if the ends are good.”
While "Law" can certainly mean subscribing to a higher law or a common law that benefits others, I don't think Law in this case can be applied to a Megalomaniac (regardless of anything triggering it). The only structure you are following is the one that makes you the most powerful being and then you will force everyone to worship you. That is not Lawful (though it certainly will be Law-Filled). There also seems to be no balance as you are willing to do whatever it takes, AND to make certain that unequivocally your enemies cannot rise again to thwart you or your plan. I only see Chaos and Evil remaining... which in my book means you aren't a Monk (but that may be old school ways of thinking about Monks... I may have to go read back up on that... brb...)
Basically you're planning a revolution to free "mortals" from oppression by evil and good deities.
The only god of revolution I know is Pathfinder's "Milani", and she is chaotic good.
So I'd say the chaotic part is pretty much a given. You can't destroy the rules while confirming to them.
Whether you're evil or good depends on how you play it. The oath would fit a good aligned paladin ("destroy evil", "protect innocents") as well as an evil megalomaniac ("my enemies must be utterly destroyed").
I'd even say it tends stronger to the good side. Replace "extraplanar influence" with "demons", "undead", "devils" or something like that and you're pretty much the archetype of a holy knight.
Wow.
I was expecting a more solid answer. People here are usually pretty good with that.
Just for reference, I've been using the TV Tropes pages of alignment as a baseline of what each alignment encapsulates. I'm not sure what others use.
So I guess I'm Lawful Evil, followed by some sort of Chaotic. Those seem to be the most consistent votes.
I'd say True Neutral as while you commit evil you hope for good as well
(With a side of evil)
There's an old saying:
No one thinks they are Evil. Example: The Season 1 finale of Stargirl where the bad guys are discovered to be planning are willing to kill 1/4 of the population in order to stop Global Warming, etc. etc. They thought they were good because of their goals, ignoring their methods.
The problem with you asking people on line what your alignment is that some of the people here will be EVIL but think they are good, etc. etc. So they will mis-judge you. That said, I will analyze your individual rules.
Never harm the innocent. They have done nothing wrong. It is for them that I must rise.
This is deceptive, it depends on how you define "innocent". Adolf Hitler thought that he never harmed the innocent, just a bunch of homosexuals, gypsies, communists, jews, etc. The core idea here is LAWFUL with a deceptive coating that looks like Good. Unless you give a better definition of innocent, this is Lawful Neutral.
Rid the world of outside influence. Many extra-planar warlords influence my home. They must be stopped for my world to know true peace.
Looks like Lawful, but is really Evil. You are judging people not on what they do, but on their species/birth place. Also known as Prejudice/Racism.
Destroy unnecessary evil. There are many who commit evil deeds only to further their own powers. They must suffer.
Totally Evil. The word Suffer here is key, but the words 'unnecessary' is a big hint. Desiring suffering is evil, even if they deserve it. And thinking that some evil is necessary is clearly evil.
Shatter my enemies, in body and mind. My foes must never be able to raise their arms against me again.
Shatter my enemies is another evil idea, Foes never being able to attack again is verging on lawful.
All betrayals must be severely punished.
Lawful. Words "All" and "punished" are give away.
You are Lawful Evil.
Well since the OP reads like a footnote to The Evil Overlord’s List ...
Fortunately D&D lore offers an actual fixed system for alignment.
Lawful creatures attempt to uphold the existing rules. Like modrons.
Chaotic creatures try to destroy the existing rules. Like demons.
Good creatures care about others (like angels).
Evil creatures care only about themselves (like devils / demons).
On the lawful - chaotic axis the character is 100% objectively chaotic. He strives to destroy the existing order.
On the good - evil axis the character is 100% good, he strives to protect the innocents (aka others).
In the alignment chart the character is chaotic good. That doesn't mean he won't do terrible things, though. God also sent the ten plagues to egypt and killed every first-born in a generation, but is nevertheless the definition of "good".
Btw. low-key implying that everyone who disagrees with your opinion is "evil" is not exactly a nice thing. We're talking about fantasy worlds and concepts, the real world is not as simple as D&D.
If you have to ask, you are probably chaotic evil.
:-)
I went with chaotic neutral.
On the chaotic vs lawful axis - you're basically making up the rules as you go, you're aiming to destroy the gods and their laws, and though you have a moral code, it's a very flexible one.
On the good vs evil axis - neither the goals nor the methods you mentioned seem conclusive to me. "Destroy the gods" - well, depends on the cosmology, but there's both good and evil gods so just destroying them all might not be straightforward either good or evil. "Protect innocents" and "Destroy evil" is good, but the caveat about "unnecessary evil" and "wanting them to suffer" is on the evil side.
I think this is also an example where actually playing the character might give more insight. I could totally see a chaotic evil villain self-describing themselves in this way - if they end up with even a bit of "The ends justify the means", if you convince yourself that destroying the gods is so Good that it's worth a heck of a lot of suffering, you'll be a classic evil destroy-the-gods-and-the-world villain.
On the other hand, if the "protect the innocent" and "Destroy evil" come out front and center throughout the character's play, and you end up following a "Code" pretty rigidly, you could well end up as a Lawful Good paladin (who has a long-term goal of destroying gods).
No. Simplifying things is itself an evil act. The evil guys love to simplify things and when you claim that is OK, you are yourself assuming the bad guys are right. Good and Evil is not as simple as that - not in any game that is not run by a LE person.
Please quote a page and book where you think it defines the alignments the way you wrote it. I think the definitions you used was clearly written by a NE person. They support the Status Quo, not Lawfulness and they assume that caring about ANYONE - even if you only care about your own children - makes you good. Evil people can and do care about their own kids but no one else.
The fact that you think the Biblical God of the Jews is the definition of Good is fairly.... telling. Yes, some people believe that, but not all. Using it in an argument with a Hindu makes you look rather prejudiced. Quite a few Christians and Muslims claim that Jesus / Muhammad came in part because the Old Testament God is clearly NOT good. Way too many examples of him being a huge dick even ignoring the killing of the first born (sacrifice your child as a test? Turning someone to salt for looking back?) Basically you just did exactly what I warned about - you allowed people with a rather strange definition of good vs evil to define it for you.
I did not imply that people that disagree with my opinion are evil. I stated that evil people do not think they are evil. You assumed I am good, and that therefore people that disagree with me must be evil. Thank you for the compliment, but I make no such claim.
It's very unlikely to prove beneficial to discuss real-world religions with regards to D&D alignment.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.