So i'm looking to play a Rogue in my next campaign. But i'm having a lot of trouble pinning down the alignment. The core thought process I intend to use for him is "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" Having some trouble deciding if that is more of a Lawful Evil / Chaotic Neutral/ or Lawful Neutral type of character. i know it's some what personal, but like how "evil" does one have to be to really fit into that alignment? I don't want a murder hobo who enjoys killing, but I like the idea of this character being willing to do murder, if the situation calls for it.
Neutral Evil I think, this character feels Neutral Evil he wont stray from the law but he wont follow it either when the time comes and he will do what is necessary.
perhaps. I guess i just feel like "following the rules/laws" means something a little different to a good character/ a neutral character/ and an evil character.
That could honestly be just about any non-chaotic alignment. There's not really enough there to pin down what alignment the character is.
what would help pin it down? Like without going into mustache twirling levels of evil acts, how do you define an "evil" character from a good and/or neutral one?
I think providing some examples of what rules the PC is talking about that he thinks if "people" do not follow them then they need to be aided upon their spiritual journey, would help me in saying I think it should be this or that alignment.
But in general from the statement "not following rules = death" I would say LE (or L+EE double evil) or CE.
That could honestly be just about any non-chaotic alignment. There's not really enough there to pin down what alignment the character is.
what would help pin it down? Like without going into mustache twirling levels of evil acts, how do you define an "evil" character from a good and/or neutral one?
Tell me more about their personality. What motivates them? How do they think of other people who are close to them? What are their goals? Stuff like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
I think providing some examples of what rules the PC is talking about that he thinks if "people" do not follow them then they need to be aided upon their spiritual journey, would help me in saying I think it should be this or that alignment.
But in general from the statement "not following rules = death" I would say LE (or L+EE double evil) or CE.
Hope that helps
that was a bit helpful.
I guess toward those ends. It's the basic shit: children are off limits (unforseen collateral damage is excusable), Gross abuses of power towards the weak, helpless, and/or innocent, turning traitor/ betraying "the family/brotherhood/syndicate/etc", bringing in and/or selling certain illegal narcotics ( we are criminals darling, not... f***ing... scum!!). There aren't many rules, but that's why breaking them has such a hefty price.
For most other things it comes down to a matter of cost. For the right price anything and everything* can be yours.
With that additinal snipped, sounds a lot like neutral evil to me. Opportunistic, doesn't care for most others, has some strict codes, that are even for them off limits.
Might also play out as lawful evil. Because of the order of things aspect.
You could also start at lawful neutral and according how many "incidents" happen, the alignment shifts to lawful evil after some time.
Alignment per se is only important for a couple of magic items, so you could also just play the character as you see fit without specifying the alignment.
He has a personal code that he follows ("if X, then y).
As for the Good/Evil axis, that's a little harder to pin down. He seems to be a criminal and has no problem doing bad things that are profitable...but it has to be profitable.
For me (in D&D context), Good is someone who is willing to do the right thing, even if it requires sacrifice. Neutrals are willing to do good or evil...as long as the price is right. Evil don't require much persuading to do evil.
I'd say Lawful-Neutral with an evil bent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
"If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed"
but I like the idea of this character being willing to do murder, if the situation calls for it.
The first sentence says 'Lawful Neutral' to me.
The second says either Lawful Evil, if the 'murder' is officially sanctioned by the lawmakers he serves, i.e. like James Bond having his governments permission to assassinate a threat to the rule of law; (or perhaps by the order/church of his faith) ... OR an evil alignment that his not lawful if he makes the decision himself rather than following a set of edicts to decide that come from an external source of law. An example Lawful Evil character is the Operative in Firefly/Serenity. He knows his actions are evil but trusts their results will yield a greater good in accordance with the will of the lawmakers who utilize him.
It's important that you actually clarify your concept of 'murder' versus other forms of killing that can be 'justified' under the law. Simply killing is not enough to qualify as an act of evil (at least not under the older alignment systems that I use). A murder means the victim is innocent. If your man is killing specifically 'the guilty', the officially guilty, ie being an executioner etc. then, at least to their thinking, it would not even be murder in the first place. -hence neutral rather than evil: 'collateral damage' would be murder; so how easily is that accepted as a price of serving the law? Similarly, 'collateral damage', could be seen as an act of lawlessness, so it would again depend on official sanctioning or permission from an external source of authority to feel right to a lawfully aligned character.
I would say whether the character is LN or LE depends on the issue of collateral damage moreso than the actual mark. Is he willing to kill the innocent alongside of the guilty - aka comit murder and hence be evil; or does he only hunt and kill his marks who have in fact caused disruption to law and order? I'd cite Javert from Les Miserables as an example, but I come to think I'm not really sure of his alignment myself. I think he tries to be Lawful Neutral, thinks that's being Lawful Good, but might actually be Lawful Evil, in that his actions did contribute to the deaths of Fantine, and Gabrosh. I think he eventually realized that he was evil in spite of himself and that's what ultimately causes his tradjedy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
What make you all say it's on the Lawful side? The original quote "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" doesn't say anything about the PC following the rules, only about the others. This seems to be just an opportunistic behaviour and i would put it somewhere TN/NE...
in 5e alignment has no mechanical meaning. It exists solely as a roleplay aide. As a DM, a player understanding how they want to play their character's motivations is much more important than making sure its Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral or whatever.
That said, mentioning laws / rules in your thought process immediately bring Lawful to mind. And since you are thinking of other and not just yourself, I don't think Evil fits. So I would say that "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" is Lawful Neutral.
in 5e alignment has no mechanical meaning. It exists solely as a roleplay aide. As a DM, a player understanding how they want to play their character's motivations is much more important than making sure its Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral or whatever.
That said, mentioning laws / rules in your thought process immediately bring Lawful to mind. And since you are thinking of other and not just yourself, I don't think Evil fits. So I would say that "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" is Lawful Neutral.
This. It's way more useful to get the character's personality sorted out than their alignment. Define their ideals/bonds/flaws if you can. Think about how they'd react to some hypothetical scenarios.
If this clarifies the alignment question, write it down, but that's not why you're doing it.
(It is even possible that your concept doesn't actually fit on your definition of the alignment grid. For all but the vaguest sets of definitions, that isn't even all that hard.)
Does the character enjoy murdering? If so, then Evil. Also, do they prefer inflicting a quick or slow death?
Does the character actually believe in the rules (yes=Lawful) or just thinks that they are good to follow to avoid getting arrested (neutral).
not usually. There is always the chance that certain things happen, and he takes a sense of joy in killing someone he believes needs to be killed. I suppose the best example would be the difference between "the boss told me to take out this guy, who's trying to bring "the family" down" VS. How he might deal with a person who is trafficking children. (doing your job vs. doing what you feel is right). The character isn't suppose to take pleasure in what he does, he's just suppose to be really good at doing his job. And his job, just so happens to often mean hurting or killing others.
I guess to give it a broader comparison. Think Kazuma Kiryu (Yakuza series) or John Wick. You don't go out of your way to harm people/pick fights, but if you have to fight, oh boy... someone's going to regret it. I also like using these two, because it highlights the idea that just because you are a bad guy; it doesn't have to mean that you are a "bad guy"
I think i've just had to many situations where a player has decided to run a (alignment) type of character, and everyone else can agree that no... no that is not what (alignment) would be. I.E. the "Lawful Good" paladin, who is on a crusade to rid the world of evil.... So they murder everything one/thing that even remotely conflicts with their beliefs... Little Timmy didn't thank the Lord of Light before evening meal? Disembowel him and leave his body for the elements to deal with. Or the "Evil" character, in the evil campaign, who has been extorting high ranking officials (who you later find out are super freaking corrupt) to build and run an orphanage; maybe even revitalize the city blocks around the orphanage, so the kids can grow up to be productive members of society.
So in a world where killing is ok saying your willing to kill doesn't make you evil. If that was the case every single party would be evil because let's be fair killing is a big part of the game.
I would say if you phrase the description a little differently it might help.
"I am willing to kill but, will only kill the minimum number of people who need to be killed to ensure people follow the rules"
that could be a lawful good character, or lawful neutral character.
If you break the rules and are hurting people then I will kill only as many of the bad guys as I need to to stop them hurting people. So if bad guys start running away, or throwing down weapons then I will stop killing. That isn't an evil character in any way. in time it might be your reputation is enough to stop the bad people breaking the rules.
he started out on a lawless planet and killed those who broke the laws (muggers, killers, etc) leaving very visible proof of his punishment, eventually his rule by fear meant no one ever broke the laws. You could argue that when he started out then, by the rules of the lawless planet he was on, he was effectively being a lawful Neutral/good character (i would push to call him good, but, many on the planet did see him that way). He probably tipped over the edge when, having left the planet, he returned to find it had gone backwards and so he destroyed the whole planet deciding no one was worthy of saving lol but his hearts where always in the right place :).
What make you all say it's on the Lawful side? The original quote "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" doesn't say anything about the PC following the rules, only about the others. This seems to be just an opportunistic behaviour and i would put it somewhere TN/NE...
Well the definition of everyone includes the self. That's why we have the term "everyone else" to indicate when we don't include ourselves.
All of this makes more sense to me if I view each choice or action through the lens of alignment, and then the character becomes the sum of those actions. I think the best way to create a character is to give them goals/motivations/bonds/flaws/etc and just see where they shake out. Some of my most interesting characters were those that turned out differently than I expected them to upon creation.
So i'm looking to play a Rogue in my next campaign. But i'm having a lot of trouble pinning down the alignment. The core thought process I intend to use for him is "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" Having some trouble deciding if that is more of a Lawful Evil / Chaotic Neutral/ or Lawful Neutral type of character. i know it's some what personal, but like how "evil" does one have to be to really fit into that alignment? I don't want a murder hobo who enjoys killing, but I like the idea of this character being willing to do murder, if the situation calls for it.
Neutral Evil I think, this character feels Neutral Evil he wont stray from the law but he wont follow it either when the time comes and he will do what is necessary.
perhaps. I guess i just feel like "following the rules/laws" means something a little different to a good character/ a neutral character/ and an evil character.
That could honestly be just about any non-chaotic alignment. There's not really enough there to pin down what alignment the character is.
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.
what would help pin it down? Like without going into mustache twirling levels of evil acts, how do you define an "evil" character from a good and/or neutral one?
I think providing some examples of what rules the PC is talking about that he thinks if "people" do not follow them then they need to be aided upon their spiritual journey, would help me in saying I think it should be this or that alignment.
But in general from the statement "not following rules = death" I would say LE (or L+EE double evil) or CE.
Hope that helps
Tell me more about their personality. What motivates them? How do they think of other people who are close to them? What are their goals? Stuff like that.
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.
that was a bit helpful.
I guess toward those ends. It's the basic shit: children are off limits (unforseen collateral damage is excusable), Gross abuses of power towards the weak, helpless, and/or innocent, turning traitor/ betraying "the family/brotherhood/syndicate/etc", bringing in and/or selling certain illegal narcotics ( we are criminals darling, not... f***ing... scum!!). There aren't many rules, but that's why breaking them has such a hefty price.
For most other things it comes down to a matter of cost. For the right price anything and everything* can be yours.
With that additinal snipped, sounds a lot like neutral evil to me. Opportunistic, doesn't care for most others, has some strict codes, that are even for them off limits.
Might also play out as lawful evil. Because of the order of things aspect.
You could also start at lawful neutral and according how many "incidents" happen, the alignment shifts to lawful evil after some time.
Alignment per se is only important for a couple of magic items, so you could also just play the character as you see fit without specifying the alignment.
Also, this awesome article could help
https://mykindofmeeple.com/dungeons-dragons-alignments-with-examples/
He has a personal code that he follows ("if X, then y).
As for the Good/Evil axis, that's a little harder to pin down. He seems to be a criminal and has no problem doing bad things that are profitable...but it has to be profitable.
For me (in D&D context), Good is someone who is willing to do the right thing, even if it requires sacrifice. Neutrals are willing to do good or evil...as long as the price is right. Evil don't require much persuading to do evil.
I'd say Lawful-Neutral with an evil bent.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The first sentence says 'Lawful Neutral' to me.
The second says either Lawful Evil, if the 'murder' is officially sanctioned by the lawmakers he serves, i.e. like James Bond having his governments permission to assassinate a threat to the rule of law; (or perhaps by the order/church of his faith) ... OR an evil alignment that his not lawful if he makes the decision himself rather than following a set of edicts to decide that come from an external source of law. An example Lawful Evil character is the Operative in Firefly/Serenity. He knows his actions are evil but trusts their results will yield a greater good in accordance with the will of the lawmakers who utilize him.
It's important that you actually clarify your concept of 'murder' versus other forms of killing that can be 'justified' under the law. Simply killing is not enough to qualify as an act of evil (at least not under the older alignment systems that I use). A murder means the victim is innocent. If your man is killing specifically 'the guilty', the officially guilty, ie being an executioner etc. then, at least to their thinking, it would not even be murder in the first place. -hence neutral rather than evil: 'collateral damage' would be murder; so how easily is that accepted as a price of serving the law? Similarly, 'collateral damage', could be seen as an act of lawlessness, so it would again depend on official sanctioning or permission from an external source of authority to feel right to a lawfully aligned character.
I would say whether the character is LN or LE depends on the issue of collateral damage moreso than the actual mark. Is he willing to kill the innocent alongside of the guilty - aka comit murder and hence be evil; or does he only hunt and kill his marks who have in fact caused disruption to law and order? I'd cite Javert from Les Miserables as an example, but I come to think I'm not really sure of his alignment myself. I think he tries to be Lawful Neutral, thinks that's being Lawful Good, but might actually be Lawful Evil, in that his actions did contribute to the deaths of Fantine, and Gabrosh. I think he eventually realized that he was evil in spite of himself and that's what ultimately causes his tradjedy.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
What make you all say it's on the Lawful side? The original quote "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" doesn't say anything about the PC following the rules, only about the others. This seems to be just an opportunistic behaviour and i would put it somewhere TN/NE...
Does the character enjoy murdering? If so, then Evil. Also, do they prefer inflicting a quick or slow death?
Does the character actually believe in the rules (yes=Lawful) or just thinks that they are good to follow to avoid getting arrested (neutral).
in 5e alignment has no mechanical meaning. It exists solely as a roleplay aide. As a DM, a player understanding how they want to play their character's motivations is much more important than making sure its Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral or whatever.
That said, mentioning laws / rules in your thought process immediately bring Lawful to mind. And since you are thinking of other and not just yourself, I don't think Evil fits. So I would say that "If everyone follows the rules, the least number of people that need to be killed... will be killed" is Lawful Neutral.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
This. It's way more useful to get the character's personality sorted out than their alignment. Define their ideals/bonds/flaws if you can. Think about how they'd react to some hypothetical scenarios.
If this clarifies the alignment question, write it down, but that's not why you're doing it.
(It is even possible that your concept doesn't actually fit on your definition of the alignment grid. For all but the vaguest sets of definitions, that isn't even all that hard.)
not usually. There is always the chance that certain things happen, and he takes a sense of joy in killing someone he believes needs to be killed. I suppose the best example would be the difference between "the boss told me to take out this guy, who's trying to bring "the family" down" VS. How he might deal with a person who is trafficking children. (doing your job vs. doing what you feel is right). The character isn't suppose to take pleasure in what he does, he's just suppose to be really good at doing his job. And his job, just so happens to often mean hurting or killing others.
I guess to give it a broader comparison. Think Kazuma Kiryu (Yakuza series) or John Wick. You don't go out of your way to harm people/pick fights, but if you have to fight, oh boy... someone's going to regret it. I also like using these two, because it highlights the idea that just because you are a bad guy; it doesn't have to mean that you are a "bad guy"
I think i've just had to many situations where a player has decided to run a (alignment) type of character, and everyone else can agree that no... no that is not what (alignment) would be. I.E. the "Lawful Good" paladin, who is on a crusade to rid the world of evil.... So they murder everything one/thing that even remotely conflicts with their beliefs... Little Timmy didn't thank the Lord of Light before evening meal? Disembowel him and leave his body for the elements to deal with. Or the "Evil" character, in the evil campaign, who has been extorting high ranking officials (who you later find out are super freaking corrupt) to build and run an orphanage; maybe even revitalize the city blocks around the orphanage, so the kids can grow up to be productive members of society.
So in a world where killing is ok saying your willing to kill doesn't make you evil. If that was the case every single party would be evil because let's be fair killing is a big part of the game.
I would say if you phrase the description a little differently it might help.
"I am willing to kill but, will only kill the minimum number of people who need to be killed to ensure people follow the rules"
that could be a lawful good character, or lawful neutral character.
If you break the rules and are hurting people then I will kill only as many of the bad guys as I need to to stop them hurting people. So if bad guys start running away, or throwing down weapons then I will stop killing. That isn't an evil character in any way. in time it might be your reputation is enough to stop the bad people breaking the rules.
A good character from fiction to look at the story of that your description got me thinking of is Konrad Kurze from 40K, https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Konrad_Curze
he started out on a lawless planet and killed those who broke the laws (muggers, killers, etc) leaving very visible proof of his punishment, eventually his rule by fear meant no one ever broke the laws. You could argue that when he started out then, by the rules of the lawless planet he was on, he was effectively being a lawful Neutral/good character (i would push to call him good, but, many on the planet did see him that way). He probably tipped over the edge when, having left the planet, he returned to find it had gone backwards and so he destroyed the whole planet deciding no one was worthy of saving lol but his hearts where always in the right place :).
Well the definition of everyone includes the self. That's why we have the term "everyone else" to indicate when we don't include ourselves.
All of this makes more sense to me if I view each choice or action through the lens of alignment, and then the character becomes the sum of those actions. I think the best way to create a character is to give them goals/motivations/bonds/flaws/etc and just see where they shake out. Some of my most interesting characters were those that turned out differently than I expected them to upon creation.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm