My character is a Goliath warlord that is trying to conquer foreign lands so his people don't starve to death because they live in the mountains. I can't find an alignment that feels right for this character. I was thinking Chaotic neutral
Start with that as a guideline and then just see how it plays. I tend to make characters with a pretty vague sense of where they lie on the alignment grid. Then through adventures and the choices they are forced to make, their alignment starts to emerge naturally.
I like to think that each choice is tied to an alignment. The sum of these choices is your alignment. Sometimes your backstory has enough of these types of choices to firmly root your alignment, but sometimes it takes some adventuring for the character to figure out what they're really made of.
Talk with your DM. There is really very little agreement about what behaviors track to what alignments. You need agreement at your table more than you need the opinions of a bunch of us on the internet. So see how your table defines what you describe.
Then you can mostly write it down and forget about it, because it’s not likely to ever come up in game, but that’s a different discussion.
My character is a Goliath warlord that is trying to conquer foreign lands so his people don't starve to death because they live in the mountains. I can't find an alignment that feels right for this character. I was thinking Chaotic neutral
IMO, alignment only works all as a description of your character's behavior, so it doesn't matter in practice if you label yourself with the "wrong" alignment, but let's work this through:
The good-evil axis:
An aspiring conquerer doesn't really fit with most people's definition's of "good". Many think they're good, as they're doing it for what they see as the best reasons, but inasmuch as we have any objective morality scale, it's not. But with the right setup, you still could be plausibly good. (Are your people starving, or are they being starved? Are you bringing freedom to the neighboring peoples while also saving your own?)
The neutral/evil question comes down to the question of malice. Are you doing this because your people need it, or because the others don't deserve it? If you secure enough land for your people's safety, are you going to stop? Based on the description, I'd put you down tentatively as neutral, with plenty of opportunities to slide over into evil.
The law-chaos axis:
This one's harder, because it's so ill-defined. The invadees are certainly going to see you as a force of chaos, but are they right?
My personal preference for this scale is whether you prioritize society or the individual. By that reading, you may well be Lawful - you're doing this for your people.
Another interpretation is that lawful is about formalized hierarchies. In which case, you could be anything. "Warlord" could be the general of an organized, hierarchical, army, all the way to a "strength is the only law" leader of an undisciplined force of raiders and pillagers.
In conclusion, you sound Lawful Neutral to me, but Chaotic Evil is also entirely plausible. It's less about your stated goals, and more about how sincere you are about them, and how you choose to implement them.
My character is a Goliath warlord that is trying to conquer foreign lands so his people don't starve to death because they live in the mountains. I can't find an alignment that feels right for this character. I was thinking Chaotic neutral
What you've given so far isn't enough to determine his alignment. I'd tend toward neutral or evil, but there is scope for chaotic good. It could fit with lawful or chaotic. All I'd say is that he's almost certainly not lawful good. Other than that...it could be any.
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.
Depending on the scope of your campaign and what level you're coming in at, the idea of a tribal warlord capable of conquering foreign lands may be a bit ambitious in its own right. Assuming you're not running Rime of the Frostmaiden, you might look at the Reghed Nomad tribes in that module for some inspiration as they're basically all starving mountain-dwelling tribes. The tribal leaders there are true neutral, with the exception of the more violent tribes having neutral evil and chaotic evil leaders. But even those evil tribes are basically glorified bandits and raiders; not armies capable of waging war.
I would probably stay away from evil unless you're sure you can do it without alienating your character from the others. I would pick anything from Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Good. A case could be made for any of them.
Also alignment in 5e isn't rigid. There's nothing wrong with starting at Neutral, then perhaps tipping one way or the other based on the results of the interactions with the people of foreign lands. If they're able to find aid they might start leaning more toward Lawful as they see the benefit in working with other nations for mutual benefit. If they're met with denial and derision, they might start leaning toward Chaotic.
I'd go with whatever alignment you want, but what really matters in the end is reputation. The motivations mean nothing to the lone surviving Kobold when the adventuring party waltzed right on in and slaughtered the lot of them for standing in the way as the Kobolds were told to do.
Alignment is more for your benefit to remind you of a general mindset for your character, but it is never an excuse to disrupt the game with "It's what my character would do." Absolutely no backstory is an excuse for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Goliaths are typically lawful, at least in the old lore, and this doesn't seem to break with that in a major way, so I'd just go with that. His motives are good but his methods are evil -- the only way to judge his good/evil placement is to know how he resolves this incongruence.
If he endeavors to find a different solution, then he's good. If he doesn't care about the harm he's doing, then he's evil. I'm not sure there's a neutral path really.
He can change of course. He might start out evil and become good, or, in a much rarer, grim, Game of Thrones type of game, he might even go from good to evil.
Really, conquest for resources leans towards "Evil" unless we're talking a wasteland scenario where the instigator truly has no other means of getting a life or death resource, and even then full-on conquest is still enough of a "you have it, I'm knocking you over the head and taking it" that you can't really go past "Neutral". Regarding Lawful vs Chaotic, I'd say that comes down to how the chieftain runs their people. Establishing a body of laws and a governing structure is Lawful, making personal judgements case by case is Chaotic, and Neutral is if you want a lose set of traditions/codes but still a lot of room for personal whims.
Military discipline, and feeling an obligation towards one's people, taking responsibility for their future well-being, making plans for attack and driving a campaign - all of those are Lawful qualities. Helping those in need is certainly viewed as Good, although the 'ends-justify-the-means' mindset is more ambiguous. It would help if all other options had been exhausted, and peaceful negotiation had failed.
However, attacking innocents without provocation is certainly viewed as Evil, and propably Chaotic too.
If this were my character - and having weighed all the conflicting aspects - I think I'd land on LN. Lawful being the most important - the need to plan, the obligation to the people, the willingness to lead. While Neutral would at least be open to a conquest of necessity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's a bit like Thanos in the Infinity War movie. Yes, you're responding to a legitimate problem (at least in-universe), but why are you going straight to violence as the solution?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My character is a Goliath warlord that is trying to conquer foreign lands so his people don't starve to death because they live in the mountains. I can't find an alignment that feels right for this character. I was thinking Chaotic neutral
Start with that as a guideline and then just see how it plays. I tend to make characters with a pretty vague sense of where they lie on the alignment grid. Then through adventures and the choices they are forced to make, their alignment starts to emerge naturally.
I like to think that each choice is tied to an alignment. The sum of these choices is your alignment. Sometimes your backstory has enough of these types of choices to firmly root your alignment, but sometimes it takes some adventuring for the character to figure out what they're really made of.
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
Talk with your DM. There is really very little agreement about what behaviors track to what alignments. You need agreement at your table more than you need the opinions of a bunch of us on the internet. So see how your table defines what you describe.
Then you can mostly write it down and forget about it, because it’s not likely to ever come up in game, but that’s a different discussion.
IMO, alignment only works all as a description of your character's behavior, so it doesn't matter in practice if you label yourself with the "wrong" alignment, but let's work this through:
The good-evil axis:
An aspiring conquerer doesn't really fit with most people's definition's of "good". Many think they're good, as they're doing it for what they see as the best reasons, but inasmuch as we have any objective morality scale, it's not. But with the right setup, you still could be plausibly good. (Are your people starving, or are they being starved? Are you bringing freedom to the neighboring peoples while also saving your own?)
The neutral/evil question comes down to the question of malice. Are you doing this because your people need it, or because the others don't deserve it? If you secure enough land for your people's safety, are you going to stop? Based on the description, I'd put you down tentatively as neutral, with plenty of opportunities to slide over into evil.
The law-chaos axis:
This one's harder, because it's so ill-defined. The invadees are certainly going to see you as a force of chaos, but are they right?
My personal preference for this scale is whether you prioritize society or the individual. By that reading, you may well be Lawful - you're doing this for your people.
Another interpretation is that lawful is about formalized hierarchies. In which case, you could be anything. "Warlord" could be the general of an organized, hierarchical, army, all the way to a "strength is the only law" leader of an undisciplined force of raiders and pillagers.
In conclusion, you sound Lawful Neutral to me, but Chaotic Evil is also entirely plausible. It's less about your stated goals, and more about how sincere you are about them, and how you choose to implement them.
What you've given so far isn't enough to determine his alignment. I'd tend toward neutral or evil, but there is scope for chaotic good. It could fit with lawful or chaotic. All I'd say is that he's almost certainly not lawful good. Other than that...it could be any.
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.
Depending on the scope of your campaign and what level you're coming in at, the idea of a tribal warlord capable of conquering foreign lands may be a bit ambitious in its own right. Assuming you're not running Rime of the Frostmaiden, you might look at the Reghed Nomad tribes in that module for some inspiration as they're basically all starving mountain-dwelling tribes. The tribal leaders there are true neutral, with the exception of the more violent tribes having neutral evil and chaotic evil leaders. But even those evil tribes are basically glorified bandits and raiders; not armies capable of waging war.
I would probably stay away from evil unless you're sure you can do it without alienating your character from the others. I would pick anything from Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Good. A case could be made for any of them.
Also alignment in 5e isn't rigid. There's nothing wrong with starting at Neutral, then perhaps tipping one way or the other based on the results of the interactions with the people of foreign lands. If they're able to find aid they might start leaning more toward Lawful as they see the benefit in working with other nations for mutual benefit. If they're met with denial and derision, they might start leaning toward Chaotic.
I'd go with whatever alignment you want, but what really matters in the end is reputation. The motivations mean nothing to the lone surviving Kobold when the adventuring party waltzed right on in and slaughtered the lot of them for standing in the way as the Kobolds were told to do.
Alignment is more for your benefit to remind you of a general mindset for your character, but it is never an excuse to disrupt the game with "It's what my character would do." Absolutely no backstory is an excuse for that.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
First ask your DM if it matters.
In my campaigns I could care less what you declare for an alignment. However, I do expect those of certain classes to have certain behavior traits.
However, your warlord sounds like he is Good. What he is doing for his people is something a good leader would do.
Goliaths are typically lawful, at least in the old lore, and this doesn't seem to break with that in a major way, so I'd just go with that. His motives are good but his methods are evil -- the only way to judge his good/evil placement is to know how he resolves this incongruence.
If he endeavors to find a different solution, then he's good. If he doesn't care about the harm he's doing, then he's evil. I'm not sure there's a neutral path really.
He can change of course. He might start out evil and become good, or, in a much rarer, grim, Game of Thrones type of game, he might even go from good to evil.
Really, conquest for resources leans towards "Evil" unless we're talking a wasteland scenario where the instigator truly has no other means of getting a life or death resource, and even then full-on conquest is still enough of a "you have it, I'm knocking you over the head and taking it" that you can't really go past "Neutral". Regarding Lawful vs Chaotic, I'd say that comes down to how the chieftain runs their people. Establishing a body of laws and a governing structure is Lawful, making personal judgements case by case is Chaotic, and Neutral is if you want a lose set of traditions/codes but still a lot of room for personal whims.
It's interesting.
Military discipline, and feeling an obligation towards one's people, taking responsibility for their future well-being, making plans for attack and driving a campaign - all of those are Lawful qualities. Helping those in need is certainly viewed as Good, although the 'ends-justify-the-means' mindset is more ambiguous. It would help if all other options had been exhausted, and peaceful negotiation had failed.
However, attacking innocents without provocation is certainly viewed as Evil, and propably Chaotic too.
If this were my character - and having weighed all the conflicting aspects - I think I'd land on LN. Lawful being the most important - the need to plan, the obligation to the people, the willingness to lead. While Neutral would at least be open to a conquest of necessity.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It's a bit like Thanos in the Infinity War movie. Yes, you're responding to a legitimate problem (at least in-universe), but why are you going straight to violence as the solution?