I'm having a bit of trouble here; I seem to be spinning my wheels mulling over the same points again and again.

So I'm putting together a character for a new campaign that my group is starting on. I've already get race, class, and a concept of a backstory that will become more fleshed out as I have time to confer with the DM in order to expand upon some ideas and work out a way to introduce the character based on the concept.

Since some information is required, here's a basic run-down:

Kobold Ranger follower of Gaknulak.

He, as most of his kind tend to be, is a natural born follower and views strength above all else. However, he fixates. He will choose one creature that he perceives to be "strong" and choose to follow that creature, going so far as to justify to himself why that person is still "strong" even should something happen that would point to the contrary unless a true and undeniable upset were to occur.

My ultimate goal for introducing the character - being it's a new campaign everyone will be starting fresh - is going to be, DM willing, to have him "fixate" upon one of the other members of the party, choosing that character as "the strongest" and, ultimately, following that character's instructions, though perhaps not always completely without question or sideways glance.

He is not adverse to performing evil acts. He is not, himself, benevolent. If he is instructed to do something that would be considered evil - with some exceptions (ie. he won't kill a defenseless child) - he will do so. If he is instructed to give food or money to the needy he will question the instruction, or even remark negatively about it, but will do so.

I am, however, having trouble justifying certain alignments. Our DM is adverse to evil player characters, so I'm trying to justify a non-evil alignment. None of the Good alignments make any sense.

Lawful Neutral could work since he will strictly follow his own set of morals and will perform good or evil acts based on what he's instructed to do. My brain is trying to reason it out as "Lawful Neutral leaning towards Evil."

Chaotic Neutral could also work since it could be reasoned that he acts upon his whims and does what he sees as in his own best interest. It just so happens that being subservient to a powerful being offers a certain level of personal protection, so it ends up being a win-win.

Were it up to me, though, based on my visions of the character he would be Lawful Evil. He follows a strict set of morals but has no issue doing evil deeds while looking down upon benevolence and charity, even while he may end up having to be a "good" person from time to time.

I'm curious to know what folks think? I will likely talk with my DM as my understanding is that he doesn't want players backstabbing or stealing from players because "it's what muh character would do", and I'm completely fine with that. That sort of thing is not what the image I have in my head of this character is. Even if he would tend towards evil, the final say goes to whomever he chose as his leader. The tendency towards evil is meant more for role-play flavour and not-so "Good guy" interactions (by this I don't mean edgy "shock factor" things, either.)

Quote from Lyxen >>

From what I'm reading, this is probably the most appropriate, but I would be careful with the evil tendency because that is clearly going against your DM's wishes. I think that this will depend a lot on the character you fxate on. To make things interesting, I would choose a good character, who could chastise the kobold when the natural cruel tendencies of the little b....d lea out. That was, you will have some interesting character conflict and not lean too much towards evil and piss off your DM. 

I completely agree, I think wanting to work within my DM's comfort area is the reason I'm having so much trouble with it. I'm probably gonna keep this character on the back-burner since we're switching from 2e to 5e and I don't think my DM will be entirely comfortable dealing with the potential for inter-party conflict that this kind of decision might bring while also learning to run a game using the new rules/systems.

For me it's less in line with your description and not very koboldy as an attitude, as you point out at tht start.

Once again, I totally agree. It's definitely the weakest of the three options to try and justify.

I agree, Interestingly, I have something of the kind in my Descent into Avernus campaign, although the initial character is a neutral lizarfolk, he has attached himself to a lawful evil priest of Tiamat and is leaning towards LE himself. But this is only OK because as a DM, LE is the only evil alignement that I allowed, and then only for that campaign.

Yeah, Evil characters don't lend themselves well to a Good-aligned party. It sounds like Avernus is the campaign we're going to be going with, ironically enough. 

It's indeed better to discuss with your DM, just consider attaching yourself to a good character as I think it would be the best way forward IMHO.

Absolutely. I already know one of the players is planning on playing a Paladin so I was kinda edging towards that being "the one", haha. But I'll probably let this concept stew a while longer while we settle in to 5e and stick with something a bit more in-line with the rest of the party.

Many thanks for the great feedback.

Definitely sounds Lawful Evil to me. Evil in itself doesn't necessarily indicate an enjoyment of evil acts—that's more Chaotic Evil—it indicates a willingness to do them. So your analysis is right on.

If the character he fixates on is Good or Neutral, however, that shouldn't really be a problem. Talk it over with your DM if you really want to play it, otherwise, pull it out in the next campaign!