Which alignment would suit my character?
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.beamdog.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
The user and all related content has been deleted.
- Which alignment would suit my character?61 votes
- Lawful Good1.64%
- Neutral Good3.28%
- Chaotic Good11.48%
- Lawful Neutral3.28%
- True Neutral14.75%
- Chaotic Neutral54.10%
- Lawful Evil0.00%
- Neutral Evil3.28%
- Chaotic Evil8.20%
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
1
Comments
I'd say probably true neutral.
Chaotic neutral characters are whimsical and funny. I see the OP as thinking through his actions more than a true chaotic neutral character would. Unlike a true neutral character, he is not concerned about balance between opposites, harmony among powers in the world, or anything like that.
His refusal to kill innocent people under any circumstances makes him clearly of good alignment. IMO, the very definition of "evil" is "kills innocent people without a second thought".
His desire to prove himself to those who did not believe in him just makes him a sentient entity, and has nothing to do with alignment. Every self-aware entity wants to be accepted and respected and loved. When this Maslowian top-tier desire gets thwarted, sometimes that turns into obsessive compulsion for revenge. Then, the poor subject would be evil, like Irenicus. I don't think the OP is anywhere near that.
I think he's chaotic good, a bit like Robin Hood. He will do what he must to survive, and he will steal from or rob people whom he sees as working against the common good, and he cares a lot about his reputation as a defender of the innocent.
Since he cares so much about the negative attention he got from the monks of Candlekeep, I would say he also has some hefty self-esteem issues. But that would not make him good or evil until he chooses actions that start him down one of those two paths.
The one thing that is certain is that he is not lawful in alignment. He couldn't care less about rules, discipline, or order. That's probably why his teachers, the monks, didn't like him. So now his whole life is fated by his own disposition against discipline, and only his inborn Wisdom aptitude will determine just how much he lets himself be controlled by his past of being a "class clown" or whether he comes around to a successful philosophy of life.
EDIT, and BTW: welcome to the forums, @Shandyr. I'm glad to see another thoughtful person here, who takes his gaming seriously as a kind of psychological expression of himself into a fantasy reality. Me too, my friend, me too.
Sorry
Neutral - He won't help anyone but his closest friends unless some sort of reward is promised (either fortune or glory).
"When somebody asks for help, he will most likey answer that call, but
only for a reward and most importantly, not because he feels the need of doing good,
but to show everybody that he is capable of solving a problem of any kind,
because he never again wants to be considered a weakling."
The above is the pertinent statement. I don't think that it makes any alignment-related issue clear at all. For me, the phrases that stick out are "...somebody asks for help...most likely answer that call" and "show everybody that he is capable of solving a problem of any kind."
For you, I think you are fixating on the phrase "...only for a reward..." and "...not because he feels the need of doing good..."
In the BG world, *everybody* offers a reward if they need help. I can't think of a single request for help, i.e., quest, where the petitioner is so destitute that they can offer nothing.
Everyone has to make a living, and although I myself would not refuse to help an innocent if they could not pay me, I don't see from his statements that the OP would either. He is motivated by the pay, but so is everybody in life. We all have to make a living.
And he would hardly earn the respect and, be it even grudging, admission from his old teachers who didn't believe in him that he could "amount to something", if he went around refusing to help people because they couldn't pay him.
His motivations just make him human, (or dwarven or elven or gnomish or halfling or half-orc), and have little to do with his alignment.
If I'm wrong, and the OP would actually tell someone in need in the FR world to get lost if they offered him a job or asked him for help, I invite him or her to say so.
Even a rewardless quest would still offer experience and the chance to gain treasure from the wrongdoer or monster.
I would say that someone who would turn down an adventuring request because the giver couldn't promise a reward is just short in the Wisdom department.
"Such a character thinks of good as better than
evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers
than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding
good in any abstract or universal way."
And here is the entire "Chaotic Neutral" entry:
"Chaotic Neutral, “Free Spirit”: A chaotic neutral character
follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his
own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids
authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic
neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part
of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated
either by good (and a desire to
liberate others) or evil (and a
desire to make those different
from himself suffer). A
chaotic neutral character may
be unpredictable, but his
behavior is not totally
random. He is not as
likely to jump off a
bridge as to cross it.
Gimble, a bard who
wanders the land living
by his wits, is chaotic
neutral.
Chaotic neutral is the
best alignment you can be because
it represents true freedom from
both society’s restrictions and a dogooder’s
zeal."
Caring about what others think of you strikes me as a "good" trait.
It makes him human (etc). It does not make him good. Who can survive alone? For purely selfish reasons, it makes sense to care what others think of you.
As for your earlier post, no one is saying that getting paid or wanting to be socially accepted is evil. But if those are your motivations for doing good deeds and not the actual improvements you are bringing to other people's lives, then you can't say you're dedicated to the cause of good.
Even your point about the loot, experience, and respect that come from completing even "rewardless" quests answers why someone who isn't motivated by good would take them. The fact that you have to be unwise, as you say, to turn down quests means that your willingness to take them on says nothing of your alignment. Only your motivation matters.
I believe that "neutrality" is either "self-preservation first", or else the philosophical version of believing in balance between opposites. If you're only the philosophical version of "neutrality" then you're already pretty much "neutral good".
I would define "evil" as "delighting in the suffering and defeat of others, taking joy in domination and control of resources and people, and enjoying the inflicting of pain."
As the wise Master Yoda says, "Anger, fear, hatred. The Darkside are they. Once you start down the Dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume you it will!"
I think that in real life, we all struggle in constant tension and drift between neutrality and goodness. Very few of us actually delight in the suffering of others, and thus are evil, although those people are around, and we know who they all are as soon as we get to middle school and high school. Thank god that those people rarely succeed in accruing actual power in our world.
As far as "law" and "chaos", these are a little bit easier to pigeonhole. Either you value discipline, order, and good manners, or you value roguishness, individualism, and non-restraint.
I don't think that anybody is disputing that the OP is definitely "chaotic" in his or her outlook. The debate is between "good" and "neutrality".
And based on how many votes neutral is getting, your argument doesn't seem to be holding water.
I would make him "Chaotic Neutral".
@Xorcon While he is neutral, he's definitely not LN, as he states that he dislikes any kind of laws he has to abide to only the weak follow laws, because theyre not strong enough to break them.
'Evil' because of the more selfish motives. Doing the 'good thing' purely because of public perception, caring only of immediate friends and family alongside not wanting to help outsiders/strangers plus the overriding motivation being ego. If it wasn't for the disregard for laws I would be leaning towards LE as a result of the above points especially when you factor in a limited code of conduct/honour (not killing innocents) which is very reminiscent of the LE description.
However there are definite chaotic trends and with the disregard for laws and emphasis on strength and proving superiority I did consider CE .. however the conformity to public perception of correct behaviour offset this for me and in the end felt the CHAR was more variable than that hence Neutral rather than Chaotic.
At it's simplest good and evil in AD&D is more about how selfish or altruistic you are alongside how much does that person confirm with the rule of law or perceived norms. It only gets to EVILLLLLL as an absolute when you're dealing with high level priests of an evil deity or an evil outsider. The merchant obsessed with profit and clawing his way up the ladder over his competitors but publicly conforming to the laws of the land isn't exactly a Devil .. but has the same alignment as one in the game which is why the lines blur easily.
The character is "selfish", "abides by laws only as long as it is convenient for them" and merciless without needlessly killing but there's always utility involved (like not letting Tranzig escape) .. hence my arriving at NE.
Well done on putting together an interesting concept - I hope you'll consider the above when picking the NPC's to accompany you. It's a fine line between Kivan's untamed quest for vengeance and Montaron's 'expedient' take on things
"They all laughed at me and thought I was a weakling! Well now through the mysteries of science I've given myself the strength of a gorilla with the strength of ten gorillas and I'm gonna go rip them all apart! Then no one will ever think that I'm weak again!"
The above clearly indicates that this person cares about what people think. Good?