PDA

View Full Version : Give this guy an alignment



Maryring
2010-10-09, 07:24 PM
Hi there. Some of you may remember my old Queen character who I had problems giving an alignment, and who ended up as everything from LE to CG (only alignment she wasn't put down for was CE).

Now I have another similar character.

The guy is a wererat warrior, with great emphasis on the wererat part (the players have yet to see his non-rat form, and probably never will).

On one hand, he is a very violent person. He enjoys fighting and combat. He loves to test his wits, even against "unfair odds", evened by the fact that, as a wererat, and a very high-leveled one at that, most things can't hurt him. He loves the challenge, but he'll fight even if the fight ends up one sided, eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights.

The reason for this is that so far, every human, elf, etc, has betrayed him in pretty much every way possible. He's survived more metaphorical and actual daggers to the back than what a level 2 rogue has delivered thus far. There are very few places he can go without (foolish) adventurers trying to kill him. Now this would not change his alignment from the CE described above. Just give an explanation for why, and a hope for redemption. The trouble comes in his... quirks.

He will not harm ill, pregnant, elderly, youths etc. Especially children. He has risked his life during many different circumstances to save the lives of children. Though he ain't counting, he has saved about as many lives as he's gleefully ended. And while he isn't above using tricks, traps and poison, he does not lie. If he gives a promise, he will keep it. If someone begs for mercy, he will usually give it, the cause unrelated to how much he likes the person, and he will not strike someone who cannot fight back, nor someone whom detects as good. (He's got a magic item that allows him to cast "Detect Alignment" at will)

So.... I'm curious. What is the alignment of my poor, confused yet dangerously violent wererat?

Dresil
2010-10-09, 07:28 PM
Sounds like a straight Chaotic Neutral to me.

Urpriest
2010-10-09, 07:29 PM
The core lycanthropes have an Always alignment. I've forgotten what that of wererats is, but he's that. No matter how he acts or what his motivations.

Kallisti
2010-10-09, 07:29 PM
I'd say LE or NE--he's not CE because he has too strict a code of honor, in my view, to be chaotic, but despite the fact that he does have some standards, he sounds evil. I suppose it'd be up to you whether he's Lawful or Neutral.

Just how much of a psychopath is he? A love of combat is one thing--even purposefully starting fights for the pleasure of it would be Neutral, or so I think--but murdering people for the joy of killing is evil.

EDIT: Urpriest is right, though. RAW he's whatever Wererats are.

mootoall
2010-10-09, 07:29 PM
I'd say Chaotic Neutral: Screw the rules, I have power + Look out for number one + Selective murder seems fairly CN to me.

Maryring
2010-10-09, 07:31 PM
The core lycanthropes have an Always alignment. I've forgotten what that of wererats is, but he's that. No matter how he acts or what his motivations.
Only inflicted. Natural lycans are free to choose their own alignment.

And even if it wasn't, I, as DM, did away with it.

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 07:33 PM
The core lycanthropes have an Always alignment. I've forgotten what that of wererats is, but he's that. No matter how he acts or what his motivations.

Ok that really makes absolutely no sense.

Anyways, I'd say you could justify any of CN, LE, LN, TN

Dr.Epic
2010-10-09, 07:33 PM
Sounds like a straight Chaotic Neutral to me.

Yeah, gotta agree with the CN alignment (although maybe Lawful Evil).

Maryring
2010-10-09, 07:33 PM
But he isn't "screwing the rules". He has some rules he just won't break. In many ways, he's much more reliable and trustworthy than even some LG types.

Dormammu
2010-10-09, 07:35 PM
Sounds LE to me. Keeps his word, sticks to a code but likes to kill for killing's sake.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-09, 07:35 PM
Ok that really makes absolutely no sense.
I think the point is that lycanthropy forces avoidance of certain actions and outlooks. It's a curse, after all.


reliable and trustworthy than even some LG types.
Reliability and trust don't make up for murder. Nor do they make an otherwise free spirit Lawful.

mootoall
2010-10-09, 07:39 PM
But he isn't "screwing the rules". He has some rules he just won't break. In many ways, he's much more reliable and trustworthy than even some LG types.

Ah, sorry. I meant Screw other peoples' rules. Which he does, according to your description.

Urpriest
2010-10-09, 08:52 PM
Likes killing but has some rules feels Neutral Evil to me. For one, Neutral Evil is a pretty good Unseelie alignment, and reading his code this guy feels like a classic Unseelie.

SmartAlec
2010-10-09, 09:03 PM
I'd agree with Neutral Evil. He's mostly out to fulfil his own wants. And though he has his quirks about not killing certain people, it feels as if he hasn't really thought about why. He's not refraining out of any noble impulse or because he holds some things sacred; he's just doing it because it's part of whatever game he's playing with himself.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-09, 09:03 PM
Loves fighting and killing, has no qualms against murder for the sake of it as long as it doesn't go against his code, but at the same time his code is unflinching? Typical LE if you ask me.

Blue Ghost
2010-10-09, 09:06 PM
Another vote for LE. No new reasoning to contribute.

Zeofar
2010-10-09, 09:07 PM
Straight up Chaotic Evil. He might, just might, get Chaotic Neutral on a very good day, but it seems doubtful.

Edit: Okay, I reread the first post, and I'm pretty much evenly split between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil.

Ilmryn
2010-10-09, 09:20 PM
The core lycanthropes have an Always alignment. I've forgotten what that of wererats is, but he's that. No matter how he acts or what his motivations.

Well, according to Savage Species, even always alignments have exceptions. Whereupon follows a CN succubus PC, but that's another story...

Anyways, the character seems to have alignment factors in all kind of directions. According to the alignment section of the DMG, a character that is undecided, wishy-wasy, or changes alignments all the time is TN. From the description, the character does as much good as evil, and is as chaotic as he is lawful. TN is not just a character in the middle, it can also be a character with extreme tendencies in opposite directions.

Zeofar
2010-10-09, 09:27 PM
Anyways, the character seems to have alignment factors in all kind of directions. According to the alignment section of the DMG, a character that is undecided, wishy-wasy, or changes alignments all the time is TN. From the description, the character does as much good as evil, and is as chaotic as he is lawful. TN is not just a character in the middle, it can also be a character with extreme tendencies in opposite directions.

From the description though, he obviously isn't wishy-washy. He acts in a specific manner. He doesn't change alignment all the time either; he acts a certain way consistently. He doesn't, for a month, act Chaotic Good, but then, when faced with despair after recognizing the depravity of mankind, switch to Lawful Evil, only to switch back later.

The best argument for True Neutral would be that he is undecided, but that is a little unclear, so clarification would probably be helpful.

Grynning
2010-10-09, 09:29 PM
I think the character is probably TN or CN. Liking to fight and kill isn't really an evil trait in D&D, especially with the restrictions against killing the good and innocent. It's a game about kicking in the doors of the homes of monsters who are otherwise minding their own business, murdering them, and taking their stuff for cryin' out loud. And the party Paladin is usually in the front.

Kiren
2010-10-09, 09:31 PM
This depends on whom he violently kills. The morality of how he kills his victims, as long as it isn't torture, doesn't matter. He will not kill weak, elderly, sick, pregnant, young Ecetera. Combined with he does still protects those who cannot fight back, and hes various codes, the character is neutral.

Lawful Neutral with Chaotic tendencies. Or Chaotic Neutral with lawful tendencies.

Zeofar
2010-10-09, 09:33 PM
I think the character is probably TN or CN. Liking to fight and kill isn't really and evil trait in D&D, especially with the restrictions against killing the good and innocent. It's a game about kicking in the doors of the homes of monsters who are otherwise minding their own business, murdering them, and taking their stuff for cryin' out loud. And the party Paladin is usually in the front.

That really comes from bad meta influences on roleplay, though. Killing for the sake of killing is very different from killing with the intent of preventing evil or rendering justice. A paladin shouldn't be killing a monster who is doing no evil or could no be believed to ever do evil; demons and devils are often an exception to this, but that has more to do with religious affiliation than anything else.

Grynning
2010-10-09, 10:03 PM
You didn't detect even the slightest hint of sarcasm there, huh? :smallconfused:

Regardless, D&D does tend to exist in a world inherently more tolerant of violence than our own, and even good characters commit acts of violence, including killing their enemies, quite regularly. Several of the good gods (Kord, Bahamut, Heironeous) are warrior deities, and they don't just advocate some kind of passive, self-defense type philosophy, they're pretty fired up about seeking out and destroying evil.

D&D is a game about heroic combat as much as it is about heroic roleplaying. Saying that a character who likes to fight and kill in such a setting is evil is about like saying that every player who enjoys the combat is evil.

CockroachTeaParty
2010-10-09, 10:04 PM
This wererat sounds kind of nutty. Reveling in slaughter is typically an evil trait... even if he spares certain kinds of people, he might kill those same folk's loved ones who fall into his 'fair game' category. He sounds like a spreader of misery and woe, and I don't get the sense that there's much thought behind his behavior, or much internal struggling. Sure, he's been betrayed, but he's not attempting to alter his behavior to avoid future betrayal; he's lashing out, and seems to be somewhat confused.

I'd peg him as a NE or CE. I typically associate Lawfulness with discipline and ethics that apply not just to the self, but something on the outside as well, whether that be a cause, organization, patron, etc. He's too self-centered sounding for that. If he only killed in self defense, when people try to kill him for being a wererat, I might lose the Evil and bump him to Neutral.

Grynning
2010-10-09, 10:09 PM
Again, killing opponents in fair fights is NOT evil in D&D. Many examples are given throughout the game text of characters of good or neutral alignment who enjoy combat. Hell, the entire description of the Warmage class is about a large group of spellcasters who love making their enemies explode. Why is a were-rat who likes to scrap and take fools down in alley fights more "evil" than a wizard who likes to rain down fire on orcs? Because he eats them after? He's a gorram were-rat, it's in his nature to take a nibble on whatever is available.

Also, crazy =/= to evil, or even chaotic. Insanity can be role-played many ways that don't necessary involve being an axe-crazy, and from the OP's description that's not really what he's going for. He's violent, yes. He's a little anti-social. But he doesn't go around killing people at random; he just doesn't hold back when he fights and gets a thrill from the death of his enemies. He knows what is best in life. To crush his enemies. To see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.

That's not "evil" by the game's definition. It's not "good," either. It's neutral.

Urpriest
2010-10-09, 10:25 PM
Hmm...I hadn't read the description as thoroughly as I thought...

Nothing in this guy's description says why he fights people. Yes, he enjoys fighting. He also apparently has rules about who he's allowed to fight. He fights when it's one-sided, he fights when it's two-sided. He kills and eats. Fine.

What are his motivations? These are the key thing here. If he fights random passers-by in alleys with the intent of killing them for fun and food, he's evil. If he fights people who are out to hunt him down (as described in the post) then he's neutral, maybe even good given his focus on protecting children. So what are the positive reasons that motivate him to pick one particular fight over another? Without that information all discussion here is idle speculation.

Lhurgyof
2010-10-09, 10:30 PM
The core lycanthropes have an Always alignment. I've forgotten what that of wererats is, but he's that. No matter how he acts or what his motivations.

Edit: Always LE

WarKitty
2010-10-09, 10:32 PM
They're always CE afaik.

So... CE. No backdoors about it. If he willingly turns into his were-for, then he is CE.

DM says he houseruled that away.

SmartAlec
2010-10-09, 10:32 PM
Again, killing opponents in fair fights is NOT evil in D&D. Many examples are given throughout the game text of characters of good or neutral alignment who enjoy combat. Hell, the entire description of the Warmage class is about a large group of spellcasters who love making their enemies explode. Why is a were-rat who likes to scrap and take fools down in alley fights more "evil" than a wizard who likes to rain down fire on orcs? Because he eats them after? He's a gorram were-rat, it's in his nature to take a nibble on whatever is available.

This isn't about classes or races, but alignment. Let's look at the Warmage here. You've described the hypothetical Warmage as a spellcaster who loves to make foes explode and who rains down fire on Orcs, and you haven't given a reason why the Warmage is attacking those Orcs beyond 'likes making foes explode'. Presumably, this character has gone out, picked a fight with a bunch of Orcs and is now bombarding them with fire. He's not helping anyone by it; he's not making his life any easier by doing it; he's just doing it because he loves to kill.

Would a good Warmage act this way? No.
Would a neutral Warmage act this way? No.
Would an evil Warmage act this way? Yes.

So, you have described an evil character who is a Warmage. Yes, he's killed Orcs; but he's done it needlessly and without a shred of empathy. Evil characters that kill evil beings don't become good simply by doing so. There has to be some good intention behind it for that to be the case.

To applying that to this were-rat; he picks fights. Sometimes he'll fight people stronger than him; sometimes he'll fight people weaker than him. He wants a challenge, but he'll kill who he fights, unless they beg him for mercy. He has a list of targets he won't go after, but it's not explained why he won't go after them; without further explanation, it's hard to see if there's a genuine good intention behind those restrictions or if he's just acting that way because it makes him feel superior, or whatever.

As described, then, I would say this were-rat is evil. He's not serving some greater cause or acting in defence of anyone; he's not even enriching himself. He's just fighting because he likes to fight and kill, and outside of his guidelines, anyone is fair game to him. I don't think that fits good or neutral at all.

Lhurgyof
2010-10-09, 10:34 PM
DM says he houseruled that away.

Oh... Well, I'd say he's True Neutral, with a splash of Evil.

true_shinken
2010-10-09, 10:38 PM
You could go for either Lawful Evil and Chaotic Neutral, as people suggested here. Depends on his other quirks - does he respect or ressent authority, for example?

lsfreak
2010-10-09, 10:39 PM
As given, I'd say Lawful Evil, almost Lawful Neutral, and with Neutral (on the Law-Chaos scale) tendencies. He has strict things that he does and doesn't do. He doesn't fight those who ask for mercy, he doesn't fight those who are helpless (including those disabled in combat, and the elderly/young), nor those who are good. At the same time, he employs trickery without lying. He enjoys combat far too much be to Good, and there's the whole cannibalism thing, but the 'not killing good' does a decent amount of pulling him away from the solidly Evil he'd otherwise get.

EDIT:

To applying that to this were-rat; he picks fights. Sometimes he'll fight people stronger than him; sometimes he'll fight people weaker than him. He wants a challenge, but he'll kill who he fights, unless they beg him for mercy. He has a list of targets he won't go after, but it's not explained why he won't go after them; without further explanation, it's hard to see if there's a genuine good intention behind those restrictions or if he's just acting that way because it makes him feel superior, or whatever.
I didn't get that at all from the description given. It got that he doesn't pick fights, but that a lot of people pick fights with him. No, he doesn't try to stop them, but he's not the one instigating the violence... he just enjoys it more than is healthy once some dumb bastard picks a fight without knowing what they're getting into. And he stops if they ask for mercy.

Grynning
2010-10-09, 10:49 PM
This isn't about classes or races, but alignment. Let's look at the Warmage here. You've described the hypothetical Warmage as a spellcaster who loves to make foes explode and who rains down fire on Orcs, and you haven't given a reason why the Warmage is attacking those Orcs beyond 'likes making foes explode'. Presumably, this character has gone out, picked a fight with a bunch of Orcs and is now bombarding them with fire. He's not helping anyone by it; he's not making his life any easier by doing it; he's just doing it because he loves to kill.

Would a good Warmage act this way? No.
Would a neutral Warmage act this way? No.
Would an evil Warmage act this way? Yes.
...stuff

See, I disagree on the "neutral" part. If the Warmage knew the orcs were generally bad dudes, and wanted to gain a reputation as a fearsome mage and gain some experience (both mechanically and fluff-wise), it'd still basically just be a neutral act. Only if he was killing the orcs for pure sadistic joy, or killing orc women and children would that be an evil act.

The were-rat is similar. He has many reasons to dislike and distrust most people; basically, in his book, they're all bad guys, except those that he is able to magically verify are "good." He is good at fighting, and enjoys challenge, so he fights people he views as deserving a good kicking and worthy of his skills. He doesn't attack innocent people, doesn't commit senseless murder, and helps people when it suits him. He's acting out of self-interest, and his motivations, while misguided, aren't those of someone who's fully evil. Therefore, he lands in the neutral part of that spectrum.

Remember, alignment in D&D isn't just the moral judgment of us, the players, on a character's actions. It's a tangible, in-universe force. It has mystical and metaphysical consequences. There are magical alignment detect-o-meters. So while the character's actions certainly aren't right by our modern societal standards, they're not D&D evil. That's my whole point.

Also, what's with everyone acting like LE is morally superior to NE or CE? Evil is evil. A lawful evil character is just as "evil" as the other two, just in a more organized manner. Look at the Devils of the Nine Hells. If this character was lawful evil, his code would probably some kind of justification to kill good characters too, and would probably use his combat skills to try and put himself in some kind of position of power over others.

true_shinken
2010-10-09, 10:54 PM
See, I disagree on the "neutral" part. If the Warmage knew the orcs were generally bad dudes, and wanted to gain a reputation as a fearsome mage and gain some experience (both mechanically and fluff-wise), it'd still basically just be a neutral act.
No, it wouldn't. Putting a petty hunger for fame above a sentient being life is an evil act.
This is even covered in both BoED and BoVD.

Grynning
2010-10-09, 10:59 PM
No, it wouldn't. Putting a petty hunger for fame above a sentient being life is an evil act.
This is even covered in both BoED and BoVD.

By that logic, the actions of the vast majority of adventures are essentially evil. *Tons* of players make characters who basically just want to get rich and famous and so go adventuring. That's even listed as an example motivation in the DMG and other guides to running the game. So if the character's overall goal is just to get rich and famous, choosing a career that involves killing lots of sentient beings would be *very* evil by that standard.

Again, applying RL morality to D&D alignment just doesn't work. And the BoED and BoVD, while having some very cool mechanics, are horribly written books from a fluff standpoint.

Edit: I'll use an example that I think will make sense. In OotS, Miko starts out as the worst kind of Lawful Stupid, Detect Evil SMITE machine paladin you could imagine. As readers, we could all recognize the flaws in her reasoning, the terrible immorality of many of her actions, and her general bent towards neutrality/evil. But not until she actually killed a person who didn't deserve it did the gods strike her down and take her pally power; and she was acting with essentially a "good" motivation. In other words, it didn't matter that she was basically a bad person, as long as she was acting within certain boundaries, she was still LG. Even when she committed murder, she didn't truly become evil; I'm pretty sure it was stated that she just fell to LN at that point.

The were-rat is kinda like this. He's not really a good guy, but he's not killing anyone who can't fight back, or who is completely innocent. From the OP's description and definition of the character's code, he's only fighting combat-trained NPC's who are neutral or evil in alignment. Sure, the reason he's fighting them isn't motivated by a desire to be good, but it's not motivated by evil either. Also, going out of his way to help children and others, showing mercy, and consciously avoiding attacking "Good" characters are "Good" acts, which *does* literally act as a balancing factor in terms of D&D alignment. So regardless of the various minor evil acts the character may commit, he's not of an "Evil" alignment. If he ever did kill an innocent person, or someone who was defenseless, or attacked good characters just because he though it'd be fun, then yeah, he'd "fall" and become evil.

SmartAlec
2010-10-09, 11:27 PM
He doesn't attack innocent people, doesn't commit senseless murder, and helps people when it suits him. He's acting out of self-interest, and his motivations, while misguided, aren't those of someone who's fully evil. Therefore, he lands in the neutral part of that spectrum.

This strikes me as odd, for two reasons.

One, as described, he DOES attack innocent people and he DOES commit senseless murder. You can be innocent and yet not be Good. Anyone who is not Good and who is capable of defending themselves are at risk from this guy if they happen to cross his path, from the most vicious cutpurse to the blackest of black knights to the directionless traveller to the weary street-watchman. He'll fight and kill them all unless they can beat him or if they plead with him not to.

Secondly, I don't get this idea of not being 'fully evil'. This character is a persistent, apparently unrepentant murderer. The fact that he occasionally refrains from attacking, or helps people according to his own whims, doesn't move him up some sort of graph as if he was earning points. It means he might have some redeeming features, but he's still evil. To have a chance at becoming neutral, he'd have to stop being consistently and unrepentantly violent.

Yes, Evil and Good are external forces, but there's a reason the Good-Evil axis is called 'the axis of morality' - it's because the concepts therein are based on morals, or their absence. As described, this guy has no real morals; he has a few lines he won't cross, but there doesn't seem to be any actual morality behind his choices.


See, I disagree on the "neutral" part. If the Warmage knew the orcs were generally bad dudes, and wanted to gain a reputation as a fearsome mage and gain some experience (both mechanically and fluff-wise), it'd still basically just be a neutral act. Only if he was killing the orcs for pure sadistic joy, or killing orc women and children would that be an evil act.


By that logic, the actions of the vast majority of adventures are essentially evil. *Tons* of players make characters who basically just want to get rich and famous and so go adventuring. That's even listed as an example motivation in the DMG and other guides to running the game. So if the character's overall goal is just to get rich and famous, choosing a career that involves killing lots of sentient beings would be *very* evil by that standard.

You're essentially right here. The key is in the intention.

Generally speaking, Neutral adventurers intend to become heroes in order to become rich and famous, not to kill a bunch of things in order to become rich and famous. Yes, it often comes to that, but that's not the intention. If this neutral adventurer starts turning towards just fighting and killing for the sake of it, or if he became an adventurer to get into killing, then yes, he's turning towards a more evil outlook.

Here, this were-rat has already passed that point.

Urpriest
2010-10-09, 11:31 PM
Here, this were-rat has already passed that point.

While I agree with most of your points, I see little evidence of this. The OP describes the were-rat as being a merciless fighter. He also describes him as being beset by enemies. It is perfectly consistent with the OP to think that this guy enjoys combat and fights because the world is after him, not merely out of opportunity. Until the OP clarifies this point we can't say one way or the other.

SmartAlec
2010-10-09, 11:36 PM
While I agree with most of your points, I see little evidence of this. The OP describes the were-rat as being a merciless fighter. He also describes him as being beset by enemies. It is perfectly consistent with the OP to think that this guy enjoys combat and fights because the world is after him, not merely out of opportunity. Until the OP clarifies this point we can't say one way or the other.

I'm not sure I agree. The OP is very clear that his primary motivation for fighting other people is because of his love of fighting and of finding challenges for himself. The next paragraph offers the belief that the world is after him is given as a 'reason', but given that it's already been established that his love of challenge and violence is what drives him to fight, it really seems like more of an 'excuse'. I think that as written, this character would attack people without that belief.

Jayabalard
2010-10-10, 10:18 AM
No, it wouldn't. Putting a petty hunger for fame above a sentient being life is an evil act.Lots of people value their fame more than the life of, say, a mosquito (which is a sentient being) and I wouldn't agree that those people are evil.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-10, 10:24 AM
Now would be a bad time to mention that one of my favorite characters was a tiefling wererat paladin, eh?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-10, 10:38 AM
This strikes me as odd, for two reasons.

One, as described, he DOES attack innocent people and he DOES commit senseless murder. You can be innocent and yet not be Good.


No, you can't. You can't be innocent and evil.

Urpriest
2010-10-10, 10:45 AM
No, you can't. You can't be innocent and evil.

Reread the post. The person you quoted is saying that a potential target of this guy might be innocent of wrongdoing and yet not detect as good with Detect Good. For example, if they're neutral.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-10, 10:51 AM
Reread the post. The person you quoted is saying that a potential target of this guy might be innocent of wrongdoing and yet not detect as good with Detect Good. For example, if they're neutral.

Or just undeteactable alignnment: Smite them again, you can't trust magic. :smallbiggrin:

Galsiah
2010-10-10, 11:04 AM
I'm going to put in another vote for LE. He enjoys killing just for the sake of killing, so that definitely puts him on the evil side of the G-E axis. His "quirks" definitely put him on the lawful side of the L-C axis, because he has a strict code he will not break.

Sandman
2010-10-10, 11:58 AM
...eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights.


It's above me how anyone can claim that this character is anything but evil.
It doesn't really matter what really made him think as he does... as long as his actions are evil, he is Evil, and from what i get from OP's post he actually kinda likes what he is doing.
Having a personal code that he keeps makes him Lawfull... not Good. Overall he seems to fit in the LE alignment very well.

Evil characters in DnD can be way more than someone, that is killing whoever he sees/wants to take over the world/goes BUHAHAHA. I ve seen many evil characters being more sympathetic than good ones.

Valameer
2010-10-10, 01:26 PM
Let's break it right down.



On one hand, he is a very violent person. He enjoys fighting and combat. He loves to test his wits, even against "unfair odds", evened by the fact that, as a wererat, and a very high-leveled one at that, most things can't hurt him.

None of this is indictative of alignment.



He loves the challenge, but he'll fight even if the fight ends up one sided, eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights.

Ok, when you say "one sided" do you mean for him or against him? If he enjoys demolishing innocent passerby, that is quite a bit different than provoking a well armed paladin into a fight. Also do you mean to say he eats live opponents/victims? Or do you mean he doesn't always kill who he fights? It's very unclear.

If he provokes or starts random fights, that is chaotic.

If he fights people he knows are much weaker than himself simply for the thrill of the kill, that is evil. If he eats parts of live people to torture them, that is evil.

If he enjoys it when people start a fight with him, that says nothing (neutral?). If he enjoys being the underdog in his fights, that says very little as well.

If he skips killing some foes after he's won (without torturing them), that is probably non-evil.



The reason for this is that so far, every human, elf, etc, has betrayed him in pretty much every way possible. He's survived more metaphorical and actual daggers to the back than what a level 2 rogue has delivered thus far. There are very few places he can go without (foolish) adventurers trying to kill him. Now this would not change his alignment from the CE described above. Just give an explanation for why, and a hope for redemption.

Most of this doesn't make a difference. Any alignment could be prosecuted. It is a cause that could produce various effects. You said the above example made him seem CE, though, so it looks like he does attack innocents on sight, fight people much weaker than him and eat live victims? Ok, chaotic (random fights, unpredictable, self-guided) evil (evil stuff)... so far.



The trouble comes in his... quirks.

He will not harm ill, pregnant, elderly, youths etc. Especially children. He has risked his life during many different circumstances to save the lives of children. Though he ain't counting, he has saved about as many lives as he's gleefully ended. And while he isn't above using tricks, traps and poison, he does not lie. If he gives a promise, he will keep it.

This is a code of honor that even a chaotic evil person could uphold. Quirky, yes, but it doesn't change his alignment, just makes him cooler, and more defined. CE characters could have as much distaste for watching children suffer as LG. Chaotic characters can keep promises as much as lawful, if that sort of honour is personally very important to them.


If someone begs for mercy, he will usually give it, the cause unrelated to how much he likes the person, and he will not strike someone who cannot fight back, nor someone whom detects as good. (He's got a magic item that allows him to cast "Detect Alignment" at will)

This is significant. Mercy is a good act. Not harming innocents or the undefended is neutral. Actively protecting them is good. There is hope for this violent soul, yet! :smallsmile:


So.... I'm curious. What is the alignment of my poor, confused yet dangerously violent wererat?

Ok, I hope my breakdown helped center in on the important bits. His random fighting and violence comes off as very chaotic. The code of honor doesn't make him lawful, as law is more about a community-over-self standpoint, and this character is very individualistic. He may even believe that children haven't gotten a chance to make mistakes yet, so, as individuals, they deserve the right to mercy and protection more than others. Chaotic.

His violence might end him up in the evil end of things, except that he grants mercy to those that ask it, and won't wantonly attack unarmed or innocent individuals. There is hope for this character, even though he is so oppressed, it hasn't completely overwhelmed him. Neutral. His most evil act is definitely torturing (eating live victims), and his gererousity to children doesn't exactly balance this out, but I'd say he's neutral on the good-evil spectrum.

So, in a more elaborate echo of many others here, I rule chaotic neutral. Hope that helped.

kalkyrie
2010-10-10, 01:55 PM
Just as a quick note, good doesn't have a monopoly on innocence (well, at least the more general meaning of it).
The majority of most populations are going to detect as neutral.
As written, he could be wandering into towns and slowly murdering off the farmers, blacksmiths, and anyone else who is foolish enough to carry something vaguely weapon like.

In effect, a D&D Predator (from the film of the same name).


Or he could be waiting till someone attacks him, then enjoying the self-defense and revenge *far* too much. Which one it is, would change the alignment.

randomhero00
2010-10-10, 02:09 PM
I'd vote CN as well. He's looking out for himself and doesn't care much for rules but he won't cross the evil line.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-10, 02:10 PM
I vote CN but leaning heavily evil.

Scow2
2010-10-10, 02:40 PM
When you start risking your own life to protect a stranger, it kinda blows the "This guy is evil" argument apart.

What I got from this guy was CN as well. The "Detects as Good" gives non-innocent but good people (Like Paladins) a pass, while those that can't fight back against him (anyone under a certain level threshold, from what I got) get spared from him as well.

I dunno what that person saying BoVD and BoED were horrible on fluff and good on mechanics, when it seems to be the exact opposite concerning those books. (Nobody can say BoED has good mechanics, but its Fluff goes a long way in defining what is truly "Good" by D&D's absolute morality.)

And, I think his backstory does somewhat alleviate his alignment: To him, he sees the "Good" races as (rightfully) no better than Goblins, though they seem to treat their own somewhat well. Good doesn't have to be monolithic.

TechnOkami
2010-10-10, 03:26 PM
Well, I'm a little bit late on the discussion, but hear me out.

I think he should be Chaotic Good.

He enjoys battle, hence the chaos, but has an unshakable good side to him. But he's also rejected by society, which kind of fits with the whole being a rebel in the world, its that he's so much of a rebel in his nature and actions that society treats him as a monster for being... well... himself.

Good luck on your decision.

Kallisti
2010-10-10, 03:31 PM
When you start risking your own life to protect a stranger, it kinda blows the "This guy is evil" argument apart.


Not necessarily. Evil does not necessarily mean "entirely without virtue." An Evil character can perform Good acts and remain Evil, assuming he's still Evil enough that his good acts aren't enough to redeem him.

It's a matter of judgement, really--do his Good acts redeem him (enough to be Neutral) or not?

I still say that what it largely comes down to is what exactly the OP means by "a very violent person." Does he attack anyone who so much as picks up a sharp rock, with no warning? Does he just go out of his way to start fights? If someone won't rise to the bait will he kill them anyway?

Shademan
2010-10-10, 03:32 PM
I'm going to put in another vote for LE. He enjoys killing just for the sake of killing, so that definitely puts him on the evil side of the G-E axis. His "quirks" definitely put him on the lawful side of the L-C axis, because he has a strict code he will not break.

it isnt evil to enjoy murder in D&D as long as you focus it towards good goals.
or neutral.

hamishspence
2010-10-10, 04:06 PM
BoVD and FC2 suggest "murder" is evil- but not all killings count as murder.

Enjoying killing, is a different thing from enjoying murder.

And murder committed purely for the enjoying gotten from it (where enjoyment is motive, rather than a side effect) is as evil as it gets- a 7 point Corrupt act in FC2.


Not necessarily. Evil does not necessarily mean "entirely without virtue." An Evil character can perform Good acts and remain Evil, assuming he's still Evil enough that his good acts aren't enough to redeem him.

This. Champions of Ruin, in particular, puts the weight on acts- if a person regularly commits evil acts, they may be evil even if their motivation is Good- and even if they routinely do Good acts as well.

Heroes of Horror does suggest minor evil acts combined with strongly Good intentions (such as animating the dead in the case of a dread necromancer) are compatible with a Neutral alignment though.

Thajocoth
2010-10-10, 04:44 PM
I'd say he's Lawful rather than Chaotic. He enjoys battle, and has rules about who he'll fight. Battle implies the enemy isn't tied up or asleep first, but actively engaged in combat. So he's got his own little code there.

I don't view eating people as Evil, so I wouldn't count that against him. I assume though, since you haven't said otherwise, that he doesn't only fight Evil people, and may fight good people... Which IS Evil. He's got some limitations on it though that lean him towards Good a little.

I say Lawful Evil leaning towards Lawful Neutral.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-10, 05:03 PM
It seems incredibly far-fetched to imagine this guy as not evil. Murderous glee, overall disposition to kill and eat (or eat alive) anything that comes at him. His motives for it are bitter, born of grudges and mistrust.
This is an easy evil as the OP himself said.

He also has a strong personal code. he doesn't lie and generally he spares those that are inoffensive in his eyes.

Sounds like the classical LE villain. Deluding himself in thinking that because he has standards to hold himself to, he's better than other evils.

As far as the concept of alignments care, it's easier being evil than good. If mr crystal dragon jesus is a saint in everyone's eyes, but at night he feeds on everyone's life to keep his CDJ face, he's evil.
He can even be a true hero, and be evil. Evil heroes are everywhere. Just think Punisher.

tl;dr: Being noble and not harming the harmless doesn't keep Mr murder-and-eats-people-alive-feet-first from being evil.
tl;dr;ps: "hero" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive.

hamishspence
2010-10-10, 05:07 PM
If the character's Detect Alignment item is being used to ensure he does not kill Good people who attack him, but only Neutral or Evil people who attack him, this is more justifiable than, say, using it to identify anyone evil or neutral, and attacking them without provocation.

Killing beings in self defense generally isn't evil under most circumstances.

Protecting the innocent is not impossible for evil characters (if they relish torturing the "not innocent") but it is a bit unusual.

If his delight in eating live enemies crosses the line into outright sadism, he could be evil even without ever harming "the innocent"- but otherwise, he does seem close to the Evil/Neutral borderline.

He shows mercy to those who ask for it- and doesn't attack the helpless- which raises the question of how he eats his enemies alive in the first place. Is it a case of simply using his bite attack a lot until the enemy either dies or surrenders, then eats them? If so, killing his enemy with bites, may be no more "torture" than killing the enemy with any other melee weapon would be.

Raging Gene Ray
2010-10-10, 05:12 PM
If someone begs for mercy, he will usually give it, the cause unrelated to how much he likes the person, and he will not strike someone who cannot fight back, nor someone whom detects as good. (He's got a magic item that allows him to cast "Detect Alignment" at will)

The fact that he actually cares about ending the lives of Good people and wants there to be more of them in the world, the fact that he actually listens when people ask for mercy...as long as the fighting described in the first paragraph is all in self-defense (as implied by the fact that he can't go anywhere without Adventurers attacking), I'd say he counts as Good...or Neutral with Good leanings.

As for the Lawful-Chaos access...that one's a headache. I'd say Lawful.

EDIT: Of course, I interpreted the first paragraph as meaning he enjoys the thrill of battle, like the warriors of Asgard (which is CG aligned in D&D). If it's sadism, then yes...I'd put him much closer to Neutral.

The fact that he was betrayed means he was capable of trust at one point...does this simply keep him from trusting anyone else easily, or is he actively seeking Adventurers to kill because they remind him of those who betrayed him? If it's the latter, I'd say LN bordering on Evil.

Maryring
2010-10-11, 09:01 AM
Oi. Arguments for every single alignment huh? This beats even the Immortal Queen... I should make more of these threads. They're fun. Anyway.

He enjoys the kill as the natural conclusion to a difficult battle, or as karmic punishment for a perceived wrong. We are talking disproportionate retribution in some instances though. Sell out your country? Die! Trick a guy with false promises? Also die! Betrayals of any kind make him see red.


If the character's Detect Alignment item is being used to ensure he does not kill Good people who attack him, but only Neutral or Evil people who attack him, this is more justifiable than, say, using it to identify anyone evil or neutral, and attacking them without provocation.

It's this. He won't enter a community and kill of every guy who happens to be a weaponsmith or town guard. There's no fight in that. Just murder. However he WILL enter a community and look for muggers and the like. Because if you can fight someone unarmed, you can fight him. Similarly, if he is attacked, he reasons that people who pings as Good must have been tricked into it somehow, and leave them alive as a prisoner until he is promised that he won't be attacked again, all the while he'll gleefully eat those who didn't ping as Good.


Does he attack anyone who so much as picks up a sharp rock, with no warning? Does he just go out of his way to start fights? If someone won't rise to the bait will he kill them anyway?

No. No. No. He'll be careful of you, but won't attack until violent intent is displayed. When bored, he will seek out someone who appears strong and challenge him or her to a fight. If someone outright refuses, he will accept that and leave him be. He won't threathen a loved one to force acceptance. He will offer to handicap himself, or fight until one side throws in the towel though, and if he enters a fight on those premises, as long as his opponent keeps her promise, he'll keep his. But see above. If his opponent lies or breaks his trust, it is no mercy.

Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 09:35 AM
Murderous glee towards what he sees as acceptable targets!

Xiander
2010-10-11, 09:38 AM
The more you elaborate the more lawful he seems to me.

Good and evil are hard for me to pin down, but lawful seems sure.

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 09:51 AM
LN then. I'd definitely peg him as neutral on the good-evil axis. He's clearly doing what he perceives is good and right, but he enjoys killing and dishing out pain a little more than is entirely healthy.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 09:56 AM
Just dropping in to remind everyone about the Alignment Definitions written in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#). As usual, I've applied them to the information given and cited language when applicable.

So far, I'd peg him as Neutral Evil. I'm fairly certain on the G/E side of things, but I lack information on L/E; since none has been provided, I figure it isn't an important part of the wererat's life, so he's probably Neutral in that regard.

Not Good, Probably Evil.

On one hand, he is a very violent person. He enjoys fighting and combat. He loves to test his wits, even against "unfair odds", evened by the fact that, as a wererat, and a very high-leveled one at that, most things can't hurt him. He loves the challenge, but he'll fight even if the fight ends up one sided, eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights.
A love of combat doesn't tell me anything.

A love of killing is certainly not-Good.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

And, if I read this right, a penchant for eating alive opponents? Yeah, that's Evil.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.


He will not harm ill, pregnant, elderly, youths etc. Especially children. He has risked his life during many different circumstances to save the lives of children. Though he ain't counting, he has saved about as many lives as he's gleefully ended.
Alignment is not a balancing act. It's nice that he has people he doesn't kill out of preference, but without a respect for life or for Innocents (n.b. not just "innocents" he selects) this isn't changing anything.

L/C = Unknown; needs more information

If he gives a promise, he will keep it. If someone begs for mercy, he will usually give it, the cause unrelated to how much he likes the person, and he will not strike someone who cannot fight back, nor someone whom detects as good. (He's got a magic item that allows him to cast "Detect Alignment" at will)
N.B. "Good" is not always "Innocent."

Although he has a lot of Lawful traits, the OP doesn't say anything about how the wererat interacts with authority figures. Does he "respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties" or "resent being told what to do [and] favor new ideas over tradition." If the answer is "meh" the he's likely Neutral - obviously the character doesn't consider this an important area of concern :smalltongue:

Remember that merely having your own code does not a Lawful make: both Lawfuls and Chaotics have some system of rules they follow - for Lawfuls it is usually "law" or "tradition" while Chaotics tend to follow their "conscience."

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 09:59 AM
Not Good, Probably Evil.

A love of combat doesn't tell me anything.

A love of killing is certainly not-Good.


And, if I read this right, a penchant for eating alive opponents? Yeah, that's Evil.



Alignment is not a balancing act. It's nice that he has people he doesn't kill out of preference, but without a respect for life or for Innocents (n.b. not just "innocents" he selects) this isn't changing anything.


If you read the update on the second page he's specifically picking out non-innocent targets - looking for thugs to pick a fight with. He accepts and respects surrender on condition of good behavior. He's still showing an unhealthy penchant for killing, but he isn't harming innocents.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 10:04 AM
If you read the update on the second page he's specifically picking out non-innocent targets - looking for thugs to pick a fight with. He accepts and respects surrender on condition of good behavior. He's still showing an unhealthy penchant for killing, but he isn't harming innocents.
Again, look at the text I cited.

He shows a hearty disrepsect for life (so, not-Good) and his habit of eating folks alive is definitely over the Evil Line. Even if that is merely a misreading on my part, his glee in killing is probably enough to fall into the "kills for fun or profit" category.

Merely not-killing Innocents isn't going to move you on the G/E scale - although specifically protecting them or killing them (almost always) will.

Also, the wererat shows no particular interest in the Innocence of the people he kills or protects; he judges by Alignment-irrelevant factors (e.g. age, gender, medical condition). And, if you look at how he selects his victims, it is by potential fighting ability, not culpability in any moral or legal sense.

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 10:08 AM
Again, look at the text I cited.

He shows a hearty disrepsect for life (so, not-Good) and his habit of eating folks alive is definitely over the Evil Line. Even if that is merely a misreading on my part, his glee in killing is probably enough to fall into the "kills for fun or profit" category.

Also, the wererat shows no particular interest in the Innocence of the people he kills or protects; he judges by Alignment-irrelevant factors (e.g. age, gender, medical condition). And, if you look at how he selects his victims, it is by potential fighting ability, not culpability in any moral or legal sense.



He enjoys the kill as the natural conclusion to a difficult battle, or as karmic punishment for a perceived wrong. We are talking disproportionate retribution in some instances though. Sell out your country? Die! Trick a guy with false promises? Also die! Betrayals of any kind make him see red.



It's this. He won't enter a community and kill of every guy who happens to be a weaponsmith or town guard. There's no fight in that. Just murder. However he WILL enter a community and look for muggers and the like. Because if you can fight someone unarmed, you can fight him. Similarly, if he is attacked, he reasons that people who pings as Good must have been tricked into it somehow, and leave them alive as a prisoner until he is promised that he won't be attacked again, all the while he'll gleefully eat those who didn't ping as Good.



No. No. No. He'll be careful of you, but won't attack until violent intent is displayed. When bored, he will seek out someone who appears strong and challenge him or her to a fight. If someone outright refuses, he will accept that and leave him be. He won't threathen a loved one to force acceptance. He will offer to handicap himself, or fight until one side throws in the towel though, and if he enters a fight on those premises, as long as his opponent keeps her promise, he'll keep his. But see above. If his opponent lies or breaks his trust, it is no mercy.

Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel.

He is showing an interest in innocence. The OP updated the information in a later post.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 10:09 AM
If you read the update on the second page he's specifically picking out non-innocent targets - looking for thugs to pick a fight with. He accepts and respects surrender on condition of good behavior. He's still showing an unhealthy penchant for killing, but he isn't harming innocents.

Right.
Let's see if I find the right quote somewhere.

We just stopped a group of bandits that were preying on a small town. Does that mean we've done one of those "Good deeds through multiple acts of violent murde (http://www.errantstory.com/2005-08-05/397)r" things that adventurers always do in books?
Doing evil unto those that deserve it doesn't make it less evil...it just makes it more acceptable. I find it is easier to interpret an alignment by the lowest common denominator. "How evil can you be? If the answer leads to Evil, then you are Evil."

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 10:10 AM
And, if I read this right, a penchant for eating alive opponents? Yeah, that's Evil.

Really? I thought your golden rule was something along the lines of:

"Anyone who will not harm "Innocents" is not evil, no matter how vile the things they do to "non-Innocents" are, from torture, to murder."

I seem to recall an insistance from somebody that characters who murder and torture the "non-Innocent" (Dexter, The Punisher) cannot be Evil if they aren't willing to harm the Innocent as well- "lack of respect for life" not being enough to make for an evil alignment.

I tend to disagree with this- but so far, I haven't seen evidence that this wererat character actually tortures people. Or murders- for that matter- going by the description, he only kills people who are attacking him- and even then, spares them if they ask for mercy, or are rendered unable to fight back, or are good-aligned. Using his teeth in battle is not exactly "torture":


If someone begs for mercy, he will usually give it, the cause unrelated to how much he likes the person, and he will not strike someone who cannot fight back, nor someone whom detects as good. (He's got a magic item that allows him to cast "Detect Alignment" at will)

Even by my definition- which allows for those who torture and murder the "non-Innocent" but not the "Innocent" to cross the line into evil alignment, evidence for this sort of behaviour from the wererat, seems limited.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 10:13 AM
He is showing an interest in innocence. The OP updated the information in a later post.
I've already read it and it says no such thing.

Some highlighting.

He enjoys the kill as the natural conclusion to a difficult battle, or as karmic punishment for a perceived wrong. We are talking disproportionate retribution in some instances though. Sell out your country? Die! Trick a guy with false promises? Also die! Betrayals of any kind make him see red.
He's not doing this to right-wrongs or Protect Innocents - he's picking his victims off of a personal criteria which has nothing at all to do with that.


It's this. He won't enter a community and kill of every guy who happens to be a weaponsmith or town guard. There's no fight in that. Just murder. However he WILL enter a community and look for muggers and the like. Because if you can fight someone unarmed, you can fight him.
He's looking for a good fight, not picking out "bad guys."


No. No. No. He'll be careful of you, but won't attack until violent intent is displayed. When bored, he will seek out someone who appears strong and challenge him or her to a fight. If someone outright refuses, he will accept that and leave him be. He won't threathen a loved one to force acceptance. He will offer to handicap himself, or fight until one side throws in the towel though, and if he enters a fight on those premises, as long as his opponent keeps her promise, he'll keep his. But see above. If his opponent lies or breaks his trust, it is no mercy.
Entirely irrelevant. At most, this is a L/C point but not one which weighs heavily.

Also:

Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel.
That's not Good - that's Evil.

@Hamishspence: Ah, I knew you'd be here :smalltongue:

That definition of Good has never been - nor will it ever be - the correct definition of Good. It flatly contradicts language in the SRD ("respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings") and if you can find a single one of my posts that says as much I will be most surprised.

N.B. eating sentient beings alive is super-Not-Good because of the lack of concern it shows them. Aside from the pain, the indignity of being devoured like a hamburger cannot be denied :smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 10:16 AM
But since the victim is "non-Innocent"- is it enough for an evil alignment?

My personal view was "yes"- torturing the Non-Innocent and taking pleasure in it can lead to Evil Alignment.

I seem to recall you saying only people who will harm the Innocent are Evil- no matter how sadistic the person who won't, is to the Non-Innocent.

Have you changed your mind on that?

Scow2
2010-10-11, 10:19 AM
Again, look at the text I cited.

He shows a hearty disrepsect for life (so, not-Good) and his habit of eating folks alive is definitely over the Evil Line. Even if that is merely a misreading on my part, his glee in killing is probably enough to fall into the "kills for fun or profit" category.
Are you saying even good players don't Kill those Who Deserve It for fun and profit? And he seems to have a strong respect for life, just not the lives of *******s.

A love of battle is a Chaotic Good trait, not evil. (The CG plane of Ysgard is all about senseless eternal glorious battle)

His reasons for not Killing people are not a Code of Honor, they are the core of his Respect for Life. He is not Lawful. That "I do not Kill, and will Protect these people" is through moral compunction and empathy, not ethics. Having been betrayed too many times, he is zealous in preventing it from happening to others.


Merely not-killing Innocents isn't going to move you on the G/E scale - although specifically protecting them or killing them (almost always) will. It's already been said he protects and risks his life for those who deserve it.


Also, the wererat shows no particular interest in the Innocence of the people he kills or protects; he judges by Alignment-irrelevant factors (e.g. age, gender, medical condition). And, if you look at how he selects his victims, it is by potential fighting ability, not culpability in any moral or legal sense.
The previous post by the OP indicates otherwise. He targets muggers, traitors, and scum, not Town Guards and militia. Also, the Elderly are likely far tougher than everyone else, being levels 4-6 instead of 1-3.

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 10:19 AM
Having a personal interest in a cause does not make that cause any less good. Heck, I can't imagine a good character that doesn't have some sort of personal interest unless we're doing some sort of pure-logic spock type (which I'd consider LN). Similarly, enjoying fighting is not evil in D&D, nor is killing. Nor is looking for what are essentially sparring matches, or looking for evildoers that need to be removed. Otherwise every paladin ever would be evil, as would every solider or champion of a country. Eating humanoids is a natural behavior for a lycanthrope, which mitigates it somewhat.

Sorry, I'm of the school that evil characters are depraved monsters. This guy is clearly not a monster.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 10:24 AM
That definition of Good has never been - nor will it ever be - the correct definition of Good. It flatly contradicts language in the SRD ("respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings") and if you can find a single one of my posts that says as much I will be most surprised.

I'm not talking about Good, I'm talking about Non-Evil- this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161040

where we argue, and you keep saying that those who do not harm the Innocent are non-Evil- even if they torture the non-Innocent- which makes them non-Good as well.

My view is that "will not harm the Innocent" does not absolutely guarantee a Non-Evil alignment- not if the person has other serious evil traits.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 10:25 AM
But since the victim is "non-Innocent"- is it enough for an evil alignment?

My personal view was "yes"- torturing the Non-Innocent and taking pleasure in it can lead to Evil Alignment.

I seem to recall you saying only people who will harm the Innocent are Evil- no matter how sadistic the person who won't, is to the Non-Innocent.

Have you changed your mind on that?
In short - you got me wrong again.

It is Necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_condition) that an individual be willing to kill the Innocent for him to be Evil.

In this case, the sheer disregard that the wererat shows towards the Innocence of his victims (e.g. he might devour alive a Neutral adult who welshed on a debt) indicates that he would be willing to kill an Innocent trustbreaker.

I posited that a living character who gleefully tortures the not-Innocent would have to also have the same state of mind of an Evil person; that is to say he has such a disrespect for life in general that he would be willing to do the same to an Innocent. The idea of someone who is otherwise Good (i.e. protects the Innocent) who also sadistically tortures non-Innocents to death just doesn't make sense in general, and particularly within the context of the Heroic Fantasy setting of D&D.

EDIT:
My doctors tell me that extensive Alignment debate is bad for my heart, so I'm not about to get into this one. I only posted in the vain hope that the OP had an interest in resolving the Alignment of his character. I took the SRD, applied it to the information given, and gave a provable result.

If anyone (aside from hamishspense - we've had all the debates before) takes issue with my analysis and can find SRD text to support their contention, I'll gladly debate the point. Otherwise, unless the OP has a specific question about my findings (grounded in SRD text or not) I likely won't be posting any further responses.

If you're interested in my analysis of the Nine Alignments System, search these here forums for any threats with "Alignment" "Good" or "Evil" in their title in which myself and Hamishspense do a lot of posting :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 10:27 AM
See according to my interpretation said adult would not qualify as an "innocent." Maybe not as guilty as the wererat considers him to be, but definitely not innocent.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 10:27 AM
The idea of someone who is otherwise Good (i.e. protects the Innocent) who also sadistically tortures non-Innocents to death just doesn't make sense in general, and particularly within the context of the Heroic Fantasy setting of D&D.

It's pretty common in fiction though. Sometimes the non-Innocents are a particular enemy- sometimes they are people caught having committed an exceptionally vile crime.

In Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, the Mord-Sith, after going over to the side of "good" are still willing to do this. But then, Terry Goodkind had a different view on torture to the various D&D splatbooks- in his books, sometimes it's portrayed as a "just punishment".

Scow2
2010-10-11, 10:29 AM
I'm not talking about Good, I'm talking about Non-Evil- this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161040

where we argue, and you keep saying that those who do not harm the Innocent are non-Evil- even if they torture the non-Innocent- which makes them non-Good as well.

My view is that "will not harm the Innocent" does not absolutely guarantee a Non-Evil alignment- not if the person has other serious evil traits.

I don't see any indication of torture. He fights the evil, and eats them because they don't need their body in w/e world they come from, and it's best not having them risk coming back to life.

Where is the mention of torture coming from?

Also, humans have a tendency to eat non-sentients, yet hold a strong respect for the lives of said animals. Don't waste the corpse and all that.

He may be given to disproportionate retribution, but it's still retribution.

Most player charcters enjoy fighting and Killing. The Chaotic Good plane of Ysgard is all about senseless fighting and killing.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 10:31 AM
Where is the mention of torture coming from?

Here:


Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel.

Though it's not clear if this is only "in battle" and he wouldn't do this to a helpless enemy, or not.

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 10:32 AM
He's not doing this to right-wrongs or Protect Innocents - he's picking his victims off of a personal criteria which has nothing at all to do with that.It looks like a personal criteria of wrongs, which he rights by killing people. It's on the insane side, but it's silly to say that he's not doing this (at least in some cases) to right-wrongs.


He's looking for a good fight, not picking out "bad guys."He goes into a town and specifically goes after the people who prey on the unarmed (muggers)... how is that not picking out the "bad guys"?


Entirely irrelevant. At most, this is a L/C point but not one which weighs heavily.It seems quite relevant to me in context.



Does he just go out of his way to start fights? If someone won't rise to the bait will he kill them anyway?

No. No. No. He'll be careful of you, but won't attack until violent intent is displayed. When bored, he will seek out someone who appears strong and challenge him or her to a fight. If someone outright refuses, he will accept that and leave him be. He won't threathen a loved one to force acceptance. He will offer to handicap himself, or fight until one side throws in the towel though, and if he enters a fight on those premises, as long as his opponent keeps her promise, he'll keep his. But see above. If his opponent lies or breaks his trust, it is no mercy.

So, he doesn't go out of his way to start fights. He won't coerce people into fighting by threatening innocents. A refusal to inflict collateral damage is indeed relevant when you're talking about whether he has an interest in innocents or not.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 10:35 AM
Most player charcters enjoy fighting and Killing. The Chaotic Good plane of Ysgard is all about senseless fighting and killing.
A quibble - while I am not as up on Outer Planes cosmology as I could be, Ysgard is about the glory of heroic, individual struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ysgard) not senseless fighting and killing. It's RL counterpart, Asgard, is often flanderized into a place of eternal yet glorious battle; mostly this is in reference to the Einherjar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einherjar) who train and party in wait for the glorious Final Battle against all that is Evil.

It's hardly senseless, and it isn't just for the sake of killing.

EDIT:
@Milskidasith - it's always heartening to find folks who understand the Nine Alignments System on the Internet. +1, good sir :smallsmile:

On L/C, I went with N since the OP doesn't seem interested in how the character relates to society - aside from the fact that he somehow frames his actions along those lines. But I too would like more info.

Milskidasith
2010-10-11, 10:35 AM
I don't see any indication of torture. He fights the evil, and eats them because they don't need their body in w/e world they come from, and it's best not having them risk coming back to life.

Where is the mention of torture coming from?

Also, humans have a tendency to eat non-sentients, yet hold a strong respect for the lives of said animals. Don't waste the corpse and all that.

He may be given to disproportionate retribution, but it's still retribution.

Most player charcters enjoy fighting and Killing. The Chaotic Good plane of Ysgard is all about senseless fighting and killing.

The torture is the fact he eats them alive.

How are people not getting that? He's eating people alive with very little concern for their guilt (since any wrongdoing is death, there's no argument he's doing it to protect the innocent or uphold justice).

I can see him as any evil, depending on whether his code is random (as it seems to be; it basically says "if you're what society deems good or not capable of harming, you live! If not, I'm going to kill you for anything remotely bad!"), sort of random (If he doesn't kill those people due to legitimate objections, but still has no real reasoning behind his targets), or not random at all (for some reason he sees all crimes as deserving of death due to some twisted morality rather than a reason to seek out targets society is slightly more accepting of).

So... he's anything on the L-C axis, but a guy who gleefully murders anybody with disproportionate retribution (and note: Just because it's retribution doesn't mean it is non-evil) while eating some foes alive is in no way anything but evil.


It looks like a personal criteria of wrongs, which he rights by killing people. It's on the insane side, but it's silly to say that he's not doing this (at least in some cases) to right-wrongs.

Two wrongs don't make a right, or even an "err...maybe?"


He goes into a town and specifically goes after the people who prey on the unarmed (muggers)... how is that not picking out the "bad guys"?

Because from the description he'd just as gleefully murder a man who defaulted on his loans because a tornado destroyed his property as he would Omnikill the Doombringer, slayer of children.


So, he doesn't go out of his way to start fights. He won't coerce people into fighting by threatening innocents. A refusal to inflict collateral damage is indeed relevant when you're talking about whether he has an interest in innocents or not.

That's only when he's picking a fight... he'll gleefully eat alive people who were unable to keep a promise due to no fault of their own, because it's "wrong."

At best, I can see arguing he's an utterly insane LE knight templar, but there's no way he's anything but evil.

Kish
2010-10-11, 10:39 AM
Most definitely evil.

I'd probably call him Neutral Evil myself, but the Law/Chaos axis is far less important.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 10:48 AM
That's only when he's picking a fight... he'll gleefully eat alive people who were unable to keep a promise due to no fault of their own, because it's "wrong."

The phrasing was "who break his trust"- does this require that it be an outright betrayal, or not?

If a promise is not kept through no fault of the promiser, does this really count as "breaking his trust"?

Also- it did mention he will not attack someone who cannot defend themselves, or who ask for mercy. If this includes people who have broken his trust or threatened the innocent- then it may mean that he only "eats alive" an enemy in a fight- taking bites out of them while they hit at him.

I still think he's probably Evil though.

Milskidasith
2010-10-11, 10:58 AM
The phrasing was "who break his trust"- does this require that it be an outright betrayal, or not?

If a promise is not kept through no fault of the promiser, does this really count as "breaking his trust"?

Also- it did mention he will not attack someone who cannot defend themselves, or who ask for mercy. If this includes people who have broken his trust or threatened the innocent- then it may mean that he only "eats alive" an enemy in a fight- taking bites out of them while they hit at him.

I still think he's probably Evil though.

If all the conditions are minimalized (biting in combat, only killing those who outright betray him, letting people who he attacks for moral reasons go [which isn't really indicated])... I'd still say he's evil. He's an unrepetent murderer who is just looking for an excuse, and saying that showing "mercy" after almost killing somebody for lying is a Good act is like saying it's a Good act that the mob didn't kill you after breaking into your house and beating you up for money.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 11:00 AM
Eating someone alive in Combat is not an Evil act nor torture. Even Good Dragons use the Swallow Whole ability against their foes. A loss of chunks of body is a loss of chunks of body, regardless of whether they just fall on the floor or down a rat's throat.

It's not Cannibalism if they aren't your species!

And he does have concern for their guilt... but he sees betrayal as a particularly heinous form of evil.

He does go out looking for fights, but when he can't find someone like a baby-eater or mugger to kill, he'll negotiate to ensure anyone who agrees to spar with him isn't killed or hurt worse than they're willing to risk.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 11:04 AM
Eating someone alive in Combat is not an Evil act nor torture. Even Good Dragons use the Swallow Whole ability against their foes. A loss of chunks of body is a loss of chunks of body, regardless of whether they just fall on the floor or down a rat's throat.
Swallow Whole is a viable combat tactic - it limits the ability of a dangerous opponent to inflict damage while causing them damage in turn.

A wererat cannot make the same tactical claim when fighting most opponents. Here, eating someone alive cannot reasonably be done while they are still fighting (save for the "eating" done with bite attacks) and is an unnecessarialy painful way to kill someone once they are incapacitated.

If the OP is just talking about snacking-while-fighting then that doesn't fall under G/E; if it is a method of killing (as is implied) then it does - as Evil.

N.B. Cannibalism has nothing to do with this particular argument. It's the eating of sentient beings that is the issue.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 11:10 AM
Considering how vehement the OP responds to most ways we dig him up being evil, I'm really starting to think the character isn't. If it weren't for his tendency to overreact to certain people who deserve his wrath and love of going OMNOMNOM in Combat, he'd be Good. Therefore, this guy is Neutral.

Or he's Lawful Evil, as many have mentioned... and a case study and great demonstration of why all WereRats are Lawful Evil.

The #1 way to identify if someone's evil: Hit them with a Smite Evil.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 11:15 AM
Considering how vehement the OP responds to most ways we dig him up being evil, I'm really starting to think the character isn't. If it weren't for his tendency to overreact to certain people who deserve his wrath and love of going OMNOMNOM in Combat, he'd be Good. Therefore, this guy is Neutral.
It could just be that the OP doesn't want to play a character with an Evil Alignment - but he does want to play an Evil character.

I haven't seen his last "undefinable" character but I suspect it may be much the same; the sorts of information he's given about the wererat sounds like an attempt to apply a "balancing test" approach to Alignment: by having as many "good" traits as Evil ones, he hopes to turn out Neutral.

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 11:18 AM
I got the impression that the OP was the DM, actually.

Perhaps if we could get a scene or something of the character in action? I'm hearing a lot of things that depends on how you take a particular statement.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 11:25 AM
It could just be that the OP doesn't want to play a character with an Evil Alignment - but he does want to play an Evil character.

I haven't seen his last "undefinable" character but I suspect it may be much the same; the sorts of information he's given about the wererat sounds like an attempt to apply a "balancing test" approach to Alignment: by having as many "good" traits as Evil ones, he hopes to turn out Neutral.

Well, if it is a "Balancing Test", he's going about it the right way, since his Good Traits seem to truly have as much weight or more than his Evil ones.

He hasn't burned down any orphanages, nor crossed any other Moral Event Horizons. He's just less-than-scrupulous in his methods of cleaning the world of scumbags.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 11:29 AM
He hasn't burned down any orphanages, nor crossed any other Moral Event Horizons. He's just less-than-scrupulous in his methods of cleaning the world of scumbags.
Eating people alive isn't a Moral Event Horizon for you? :smalleek:

EDIT:
Oh, and if the OP is reading - tl;dr, NE, pending more L/C info (i.e. how does the wererat feel about external authorities/traditions)

Telonius
2010-10-11, 11:33 AM
The character definitely has some sort of a moral code. From the description, he seems like he uses his brain against opponents, but also fights fair (not striking helpless opponents, etc). That indicates lawful, though it's hardly the only component of it. I think the real clincher would be: why does he fight fair? Is it only out of self-interest, or is it because he really thinks that people ought to go by Marquess of Queensberry rules?

For Good/Evil, he's right on the edge of Neutral and Evil IMO. I think the defining thing would be how far out of his way he goes to seek out combat. Does he go hunting for people, or just destroy anyone who challenges him? If it's the former, definitely evil. A serial killer who only targets evil people is still a serial killer. (The "eating" thing seems unrelated, IMO. He's a were-rat. Lycanthropes eat people, it's what they do.)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 11:37 AM
(The "eating" thing seems unrelated, IMO. He's a were-rat. Lycanthropes eat people, it's what they do.)
Alignment is Objective, not Subjective. It doesn't matter whether a certain race "does it" or not. For example, even though killing and raping is "what they do," Orcs are still considered Evil.

Also, the main issue is the eating alive of opponents. Since this implies killing them in an unnecessarialy brutal fashion, it must weigh on the G/E Axis.

Maryring
2010-10-11, 12:05 PM
Yes, I am the DM. The character is ranked third in one of the five main factions of the game, with the PCs being a sixth faction allied to two factions (not that of the wererat), and though once a potential ally, they are enemies for now.

If I appear vehement, it's because people seem to take certain aspects and blow them up and out of proportion. Such as how "will kill if you break his trust" becomes "sorry I'm late. I got attacked by bandits after my house burned down." "Not good enough! NOMNOMNOM"

And really, the main reason I need this knowledge is because Order's Wrath and Holy Word flies around easily in my campaign.

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 12:09 PM
Yes, I am the DM. The character is ranked third in one of the five main factions of the game, with the PCs being a sixth faction allied to two factions (not that of the wererat), and though once a potential ally, they are enemies for now.

If I appear vehement, it's because people seem to take certain aspects and blow them up and out of proportion. Such as how "will kill if you break his trust" becomes "sorry I'm late. I got attacked by bandits after my house burned down." "Not good enough! NOMNOMNOM"

And really, the main reason I need this knowledge is because Order's Wrath and Holy Word flies around easily in my campaign.

Ok, so can you give us a picture of what a typical week in town for this character might be like? Or how he'd react to certain scenarios?

Scow2
2010-10-11, 12:12 PM
Considering how many arguments can be made for each alignment, he's starting to sound a lot like True Neutral.

Compunctions against killing is a Good Trait, not Lawful.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 12:16 PM
If I appear vehement, it's because people seem to take certain aspects and blow them up and out of proportion. Such as how "will kill if you break his trust" becomes "sorry I'm late. I got attacked by bandits after my house burned down." "Not good enough! NOMNOMNOM"
Well... how did you feel about my summation of the Alignment? I tried to cite quotations from the OP, but what I got in the end was:

(1) Constantly looks to fight & kill

(2) Prefers to fight "betrayers of trust" and violent men

(3) Exacts disproportionate vengence on "betrayers of trust"

(4) This means eating them alive

His idiosyncratic desire to protect pregnant women, children and the elderly seems to interact weakly, if at all, with this heirarchy. If a pregnant woman is pregnant because of adultry, would the wererat devour her? What about a criminal that gave up his partner to the cops and has been hiding peacefully in the country for 20 years?

All in all, it sounds like the wererat cares little about The Innocent and more about a personally selected subset of sapience; which means it does little to inform his position on G/E.

Also - how does the wererat feel about external authority & traditions? Does he think they're generally important? Or are they things for sheeple?

Valameer
2010-10-11, 12:22 PM
Oi. Arguments for every single alignment huh? This beats even the Immortal Queen... I should make more of these threads. They're fun. Anyway.

Don't get ahead of yourself. I found a lot of what you said to be either irrelevant or poorly worded in your OP. When it comes to a rather subjective subject like alignment, that's obviously going to produce unsatisfactory results.

You still seem to have a better feel for this guy's attitude than anyone else here. Perhaps you could tell the Playground what alignment you feel is right for him and why.

Honestly, depending on a million things like motivation and circumstance, you could take any vague portfolio and make a case for any alignment.

Telonius
2010-10-11, 12:46 PM
Alignment is Objective, not Subjective. It doesn't matter whether a certain race "does it" or not. For example, even though killing and raping is "what they do," Orcs are still considered Evil.

Also, the main issue is the eating alive of opponents. Since this implies killing them in an unnecessarialy brutal fashion, it must weigh on the G/E Axis.

"Eating people" is a lot closer to a defining characteristic for lycanthropes, than "killing and raping" is for orcs.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 12:50 PM
"Eating people" is a lot closer to a defining characteristic for lycanthropes, than "killing and raping" is for orcs.

Doesn't change anything. As fat as the objectivity and subjectivity of alignments go, all deeds done by intelligent beings are aligned regardless of their opinion of it.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 12:52 PM
I think you should use the "Smite" as a baseline: Do you, as GM, consider his actions evil enough to deserve being hit for full damage by Holy Smite or Smite Evil? If not, he's neutral.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-11, 01:40 PM
Book of Vile Darkness says it isn't evil to eat people unless:
a. you gain power (vile spell)
b. to it for fun

Since he only eats enemies: it isn't just for fun, but to rid world of evil.

Still if he ever harms a non-evil that eliminates good and makes him neutral leaning evil automatically at minimum.

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 01:42 PM
I'm thinking: Chaotic Neutral, leaning toward chaotic evil.

Chaotic: People are getting really caught up in his personal rules, and as a result are assigning him to lawful. That just seems to be a terrible fit to me. His personal code is all about enforcing his own individual morality rather than society's morality, and he's willing (eager even) to act as judge, jury and executioner. He's presented very much an individualist, a loner, one that doesn't trust others or work well in society. He doesn't fight fair because of anything societal, he does it for strictly internal reasons. That puts him rather strongly on the chaotic side of the spectrum.

Neutral: He grants mercy to his enemies, spares those he sees as innocents (good, children, women, elderly), refuses to coerce people by threatening loved ones, targets the wicked specifically (mostly); that's enough to balance him to the evil side of neutral on the Good/Evil axis.


Two wrongs don't make a right, or even an "err...maybe?"Why not? We're talking about meting out vengeance to the wicked, and even granting them mercy. That certainly qualifies for an "err...maybe", and might even qualify as good, depending on the rest of the circumstances.


Because from the description he'd just as gleefully murder a man who defaulted on his loans because a tornado destroyed his property as he would Omnikill the Doombringer, slayer of children.That doesn't really jibe with how the OP has presented him at all. He's clearly much more gleeful about killing the latter, and since the former hasn't actually broken a trust and might be a good man, he'd offer him mercy (if he attacked him at all).


A serial killer who only targets evil people is still a serial killer. That doesn't really say anything about whether he's good or evil though. From a Demon's point of view, a Paladin is a serial killer, but that doesn't make the paladin evil.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 01:44 PM
Chaotic: People are getting really caught up in his personal rules, and as a result are assigning him to lawful. That just seems to be a terrible fit to me. His personal code is all about enforcing his own individual morality rather than society's morality, and he's willing (eager even) to act as judge, jury and executioner. He's presented very much an individualist, a loner, one that doesn't trust others or work well in society. He doesn't fight fair because of anything societal, he does it for strictly internal reasons. That puts him rather strongly on the chaotic side of the spectrum.

Neither is lawful someone who is obedient to outside manners. How can you then evaluate Order vs Chaos if not by the strength of your personal code? Mr Wererat doesn't "wing it" often, does he? He has a hardwired code to what he wants to fight.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 01:51 PM
Neither is lawful someone who is obedient to outside manners. How can you then evaluate Order vs Chaos if not by the strength of your personal code? Mr Wererat doesn't "wing it" often, does he? He has a hardwired code to what he wants to fight.

He seeks personal thrill of combat and causes chaos from his behavior.

His "Hardwired Code" to what he's willing to fight or not is a G/E moral choice, not a Lawful streak.

Otherwise, according to whatever those who say the guy is lawful, anyone who will not wantonly kill a child/helpless/elderly/honorable person "Because it would be wrong" is making a Lawful choice, not a Good choice. And that doesn't hold up.

Most societies have laws that restrict violence. He doesn't abide by any of them.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 01:52 PM
Neither is lawful someone who is obedient to outside manners. How can you then evaluate Order vs Chaos if not by the strength of your personal code? Mr Wererat doesn't "wing it" often, does he? He has a hardwired code to what he wants to fight.
Note that "personal codes" do not swing L/C either way:

Full Text

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
On the issue of personal codes, note that while Lawfulness "implies ... obedience to authority," Chaotic creatures "follow their consciences" which can very well be a personal code.

A better place to focus is: where does the wererat turn for guidance? In general, Lawful creatures appeal to an extrinsic source of authority (e.g. traditions, the law, a person of authority) while Chaotic creatures look inwards (i.e. their conscience). So far, it sounds like the wererat generally pays attention to the law save for some very specific situations; a true Chaotic wouldn't even consider the Law or societal norms when acting.

That said, the wererat is far more likely to be Chaotic than Lawful, considering his highly idiosyncratic world-view.

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 01:57 PM
He seeks personal thrill of combat and causes chaos from his behavior.

His "Hardwired Code" to what he's willing to fight or not is a G/E moral choice, not a Lawful streak.

Otherwise, according to whatever those who say the guy is lawful, anyone who will not wantonly kill a child/helpless/elderly/honorable person "Because it would be wrong" is making a Lawful choice, not a Good choice.

Then is there a point to defining his law/chaos axis at all? The effects of each axis resonate with each other, and each different environment will cause different effects from it. Saying he's chaotic because "he causes a ruckus" is flawed because you are associating a conditional effect to something that isn't bound to cause it.
Trying to fit everything he does to the world around him by his alignment is iffy, to say the least. Mister LG paladin will "cause a ruckus" if he's ever stuck in the empire of blood's arena. Or he may not (see O-Chul). Mister NE faceless guy may cause a ruckus,if he's acting in the mob. Or he may just be the bitter old man that really hates everyone but can't do a thing about it, thus being reduced to a daily annoyance.




That said, the wererat is far more likely to be Chaotic than Lawful, considering his highly idiosyncratic world-view.
Idiosyncrasy is binary. Being "very idiosyncratic" is indistinguishable from being "idiosyncratic".

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 01:59 PM
How can you then evaluate Order vs Chaos if not by the strength of your personal code?By looking at the things that he does, and why he does them. Personal code has nothing to do with law vs chaos. Chaotic individuals are just as likely, if not more so, to have a personal code. They follow the dictates of their consciences (personal code), rather than the what society says (laws of your nation)

Snake-Aes
2010-10-11, 02:01 PM
Right, then personal code is a horrible word for it.
Yet, the reliability and consistency of behavior swing towards Order. Chaotic characters are the most likely to change his own methods over different circumstances, which is not what mr wererat does when he's picking his targets.
With only that piece of his personality to base my judgment on, I can't say he's chaotic.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 02:02 PM
Then is there a point to defining his law/chaos axis at all? The effects of each axis resonate with each other, and each different environment will cause different effects from it. Saying he's chaotic because "he causes a ruckus" is flawed because you are associating a conditional effect to something that isn't bound to cause it.
Trying to fit everything he does to the world around him by his alignment is iffy, to say the least. Mister LG paladin will "cause a ruckus" if he's ever stuck in the empire of blood's arena. Or he may not (see O-Chul). Mister NE faceless guy may cause a ruckus,if he's acting in the mob. Or he may just be the bitter old man that really hates everyone but can't do a thing about it, thus being reduced to a daily annoyance.
Oracle-Hunter explained my stance a lot better.

See above guy's comment on how Chaotic implies following his own conscience, which is exactly what his character is doing with his limits on who he won't attack. He doesn't seem to give a damn about the law, and picks fights with anyone regardless of its legality. However, these "He'll fight with anyone" fights aren't evil, because he handicaps himself to make it a challenge, and makes sure nobody's life is at stake: The fight ends before anyone is srsly hurt: A Chaotic Fun trait. (He likes the concept behind a Fight Club)

Jayabalard
2010-10-11, 02:04 PM
Right, then personal code is a horrible word for it.
I don't think the OP used that term, did he?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 02:11 PM
Idiosyncrasy is binary. Being "very idiosyncratic" is indistinguishable from being "idiosyncratic".

Fair enough.
Using the following definition

(1) a characteristic, habit, mannerism, or the like, that is peculiar to an individual.

it may be clearer to say that his personal code is highly idiosyncratic: it contains many elements that are, individually, idiosyncratic. I would argue that reading it otherwise makes the adjective meaningless - how many personal codes can be said to not be idiosyncratic? :smallamused:

But this is rightly spoilered as it is a pet peeve regarding language usage. I have a similar one regarding "unique" that I unfortunately inherited from a past relationship :smallsigh:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-11, 02:12 PM
That is certainly a "unique" way of reading it Oracle.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 03:59 PM
Doesn't change anything. As fat as the objectivity and subjectivity of alignments go, all deeds done by intelligent beings are aligned regardless of their opinion of it.

If you go by FC2, many deeds are not strongly enough aligned to register as Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic- though it does list some Lawful and Evil deeds.



Also, the main issue is the eating alive of opponents. Since this implies killing them in an unnecessarialy brutal fashion, it must weigh on the G/E Axis.

The suggestion that biting an enemy to death for a creature with a bite natural attack counts as "unnecessary brutality" is an interesting one- if that's the case, what methods of killing are "unnecessarily brutal" and what aren't?

If a person fights with a knife instead of a greatsword, is this "unnecessary brutality"- because the knife takes longer to kill the target?


If I appear vehement, it's because people seem to take certain aspects and blow them up and out of proportion. Such as how "will kill if you break his trust" becomes "sorry I'm late. I got attacked by bandits after my house burned down." "Not good enough! NOMNOMNOM"

What might this character count as "breaking his trust"? Does it generally imply something more serious- Betrayal with a capital B- a typically evil act according to BoVD- rather than more minor breaches of trust?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 04:08 PM
The suggestion that biting an enemy to death for a creature with a bite natural attack counts as "unnecessary brutality" is an interesting one- if that's the case, what methods of killing are "unnecessarily brutal" and what aren't?
Please refer to my previous post in regards to "Swallow Whole"


Swallow Whole is a viable combat tactic - it limits the ability of a dangerous opponent to inflict damage while causing them damage in turn.

A wererat cannot make the same tactical claim when fighting most opponents. Here, eating someone alive cannot reasonably be done while they are still fighting (save for the "eating" done with bite attacks) and is an unnecessarialy painful way to kill someone once they are incapacitated.

If the OP is just talking about snacking-while-fighting then that doesn't fall under G/E; if it is a method of killing (as is implied) then it does - as Evil.
Eating someone alive who is otherwise incapacitated is - by definition - an unnecessarialy brutal way to kill them.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 04:11 PM
Eating someone alive who is otherwise incapacitated is - by definition - an unnecessarialy brutal way to kill them.

And the OP's original comment said:


he will not strike someone who cannot fight back

This implies that the wererat will not harm incapacitated foes.

Concerning "unnecessarilly brutal ways of killing incapacitated foes"- many forms of execution might fall into this, being basically Death By Torture- and done this way in the hope of discouraging crime.

In previous debates, I asked if a person who tortures the "not-innocent" to death- but protects the innocent, and won't harm them, can be Evil aligned.

The response kept being "it doesn't make sense for a person to be like that".

Starbuck_II
2010-10-11, 04:15 PM
And the OP's original comment said:



This implies that the wererat will not harm incapacitated foes.
So he eats them before they pass out? Geez, he must have a good metabolism.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 04:17 PM
This implies that the wererat will not harm incapacitated foes.
Then I have no idea how do the following:

Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel.

:smallsigh:

EDIT:
I'm going to wait for the OP to clarify. If it is as you say, Hamishspence, then I wonder what earthly reason the OP would mention he eats his opponents alive.

In particular, from the OP

On one hand, he is a very violent person. He enjoys fighting and combat. He loves to test his wits, even against "unfair odds", evened by the fact that, as a wererat, and a very high-leveled one at that, most things can't hurt him. He loves the challenge, but he'll fight even if the fight ends up one sided, eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights.
Bolded for emphasis

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 04:20 PM
So he eats them before they pass out? Geez, he must have a good metabolism.

I was figuring it as

"bites target until they reach Dying (unconscious) waits for them to bleed out, then eats them."

It's not incompatible with "eats target alive, and enjoys every pain they feel"- if, with every bite, he swallows the flesh bitten off.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 04:29 PM
Killing someone to death by eating them alive is no more brutal or unneccessary than killing someone by biting them to death.

It may be painful, but it's not torture.

hamishspence
2010-10-11, 04:33 PM
However, these "He'll fight with anyone" fights aren't evil, because he handicaps himself to make it a challenge, and makes sure nobody's life is at stake: The fight ends before anyone is srsly hurt: A Chaotic Fun trait. (He likes the concept behind a Fight Club)

While this bit is interesting, I'm not sure how it jibes with:


He loves the challenge, but he'll fight even if the fight ends up one sided, eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights.

Maybe the OP assumed the wererat only kills anyone he fights in earnest- and even then, only if they don't surrender.

Dark_Nohn
2010-10-11, 04:42 PM
This wererat is obviously Chaotic Lawful.

doc*sk
2010-10-11, 05:41 PM
You certainly have a knack for eclectic characters.

My rules of thumb are help or harm. I would put him as somewhere in the middle. However, he seems to have a code of "honor," which makes me lean toward lawful. Having said that, he doesn't care for the rules of others. So I would have to make up my own alignment known as "It's all about me, baby." :smallwink:

Lord Raziere
2010-10-11, 05:53 PM
I'd say.....

True Neutral.

A battle-raging guy who won't harm noncombatants is a typical Blood Knight trying to find glory in defeating the biggest enemy they can find and his trustworthiness and all that shows he has a concept of fair play so his lawfulness balances his chaoticness, canceling them out and leaving him being this guy who wants to kill the strongest person he can to prove he is stronger than that.

Weasel of Doom
2010-10-11, 06:16 PM
Good characters protect innocent life.
We've got a tick in the good box here because he's "saved almost as many as he's killed" and protects innocents such as children. I'd even argue that his hunting of muggers and traitors may be a sign of his desire to protect innocents and prevent them being betrayed / attacked as he has.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
We don't completely know about this because from the op's statements it seems like he protects the innocent and even if attacked by someone he will let them go if they ping good or ask for mercy

"Good" implies altruism ... Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Risks himself to save others, tick.

respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
'fraid the eating people alive is a pretty huge step away from good here, but doesn't necessarily make him evil on its own.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Yeeeeaah, he eats people ... that'd be evil but he doesn't eat innocents so he might still be good...maybe...just.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
I'd say he has compunctions against killing the innocent and has the commitment to make sacrifices to help others, so that'd be good but he eats people alive, so yeah.

At the moment I'm thinking N on the G/E axis but he could be evil (maybe good but seems unlikely).

We need clarification from the op on a few points but N seems a good fit.
Who does he eat? Did you mean just that he uses his bite attack in combat because that wasn't the impression I got.

If someone mugs him in the street because they're poor and need the money (and they're N so don't ping good) what would he do? Fight until they surrender then get a promise they won't attack him again, until they promise to stop mugging and turn themselves in? What if they don't surrender? Does he start eating them alive, what if they surrender then?

What about breaking promises and stuff? Are all broken promises an eating (read torture) offense?
What about the guy who defaulted on his loan because of a bad harvest?
What about the evil guy who betrays his town and opens the gates in a siege for the first pick of the women / looting? What about if he begs for mercy when you start eating him?
What about the various levels in between?

I also think motive plays some role in alignment. Why is he so willing to fight? Is it because he enjoys the challenge (N), that's what his code tells him to do(LN), enjoys causing pain to others (E), wants to stop the muggers and villians attacking and betraying people because he knows what it feels like (G)? Is he simply out for whatever he can get or does he want to do good?

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability...judgmentalness
Seems to fit three of the four but we don't really know his views authority, tradition etc

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
?? Can't tell

I'd say L/C's hard to determine with the info given, he seems to have a pretty rigid moral code so LN?

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need(maybe not the last one, op?), and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Some aspects fit but not completely

None of the evil alignments descriptions seem to fit at all but that's just because they all focus too much on sterotypical profit/for the EVULZ-driven villians which this character certainly isn't.

Scow2
2010-10-11, 06:50 PM
... :smallconfused:

So, our wererat here is Lawful Good. :smallbiggrin:

Nobody saw that one coming!

And he hits almost every aspect of the Lawful Good description!

This is too funny.

Maryring
2010-10-11, 06:56 PM
Ok, so can you give us a picture of what a typical week in town for this character might be like? Or how he'd react to certain scenarios?

Hiding most likely. He isn't too fond of large groups of people. It reminds him too much of home. And home reminds him of why he's so screwed up already. So he'll spend little time in settlements, only going in there if he's bored and trying to search out strong people to challenge. But let me try to give some scenarios.

Meeting an armed person/band of adventurers in the forest:
He'll challenge the person/most fightery guy among the adventurers to a duel. If his opponent accepts, he'll fight until his opponent yields, or he can't fight anymore. If he ends up killing his opponent, then too bad, so sad, should've yielded earlier.

Being attacked unprovoked by an armed person/band of adventurers:
He'll fight until his opponents are dead. If you want mercy from him now, you better throw yourself flat on the ground and beg loudly to get through his rage and calm him down.

Having party members intrude on the duel by attacking him:
See above. He won't attack those who didn't interfere though, but that's... usually a nonissue with adventurers since you can't trust em.

Meeting an unarmed traveller/merchant/anything:
He'll say hi. Ignore any terrified screams of "Oh my god. Wererat! Please don't hurt me!" and be on his way. If the guy doesn't act utterly terrified, he might chat if it is natural.

Having someone stumble upon him after he's made camp:
If the person looks suitably helpless and he is in a good mood, he may offer the person to stay the night around his campfire. Elsewise he will respond when talked to, gladly accept any suggestions of a fight, and otherwise hope that the person will just scurry along already, as he will not trust himself to sleep around someone who he doesn't trust (which are utmost few), and who isn't intimidated by him. If the person is a child, he'll help the child back to its parents the following day.

Noticing a campfire belonging to someone else:
He'll avoid it.

Stumbling across a field of battle:
Detect Good/Kids. If one side pings, he joins that. If both sides pings, he avoids the fight. If neither side pings, he joins the underdog. Once the battle is over, he leaves.

Discovering someone selling out his community to the enemy:
No mercy. This crime is unforgiveable.

Discovering someone selling out his community to the enemy not on purpose:
Punishment, though not neccessarily murder. Still, kids could be hurt, so he can't ignore this.

Discovering someone breaking a vow of confidence:
No mercy here either. It may be on a much smaller scale than what above, but it's still unforgiveable to willfully break trust.

Discovering a building burning/in the path of a charging band of orc/something similar:
If it is likely that there are kids inside, he'll try to rescue them. If not, he won't care about the buildings, but he will fight the orcs, because they are attacking which means that they're issuing a challenge.

That's... all I can think of right now. Bed calls.

Eldonauran
2010-10-11, 07:56 PM
I would peg this guy as Neutral Evil. I am unsure of Law vs Chaos. He doesn't seem to be particulary lawful or chaotic.

WarKitty
2010-10-11, 08:11 PM
So from the last post...it really depends on how bad that "eats people" thing is. Good-to-neutral, depending on how bad the "punishment" is. Not sure on the law/chaos scale, so I'll say Neutral there.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-11, 08:43 PM
So from the last post...it really depends on how bad that "eats people" thing is. Good-to-neutral, depending on how bad the "punishment" is. Not sure on the law/chaos scale, so I'll say Neutral there.
I didn't see any reference to this "eating alive" at all, actually.

So... does the wererat actually eat people? If not, he sounds a lot like Kharn (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Kharn) :smalltongue:

More seriously, without the people-eating it's basically CN now. He has a personal code which draws on no concept of external authority, but still seems squeamish about killing Innocents.

Milskidasith
2010-10-11, 09:34 PM
He sounds like a slightly evil chaotic neutral character, at this point. He basically acts pointlessly violently and actively seeks out people to kill, and although he has a code, it doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason to it, and the fact it doesn't kill innocents in no way makes it good ("Not murdering innocent children" is not a good act). The fact he helps who he sees as good could be a point in favor of good... except he's still a bloodthirsty murderer, especially if the "eating alive" bit is still true (well, depending; bite attacks are fine, eating somebody alive to kill them instead of a CDG is not), and I honestly don't see his helping the "good" side as looking like anything other than a random action caused by his crazy personal code.

DranWork
2010-10-11, 10:18 PM
I'd put it as TN with leanings to NE, his overall mentality seems to self focused to make him a good character in my book. Whilst he does protect children, so did my NE rogue, it doesn't excuse the fact that he seems to revel in combat. Good people fight things but I doubt they truly enjoy the bloodshed and violence. This character seems to enjoy it a little to much...

Scow2
2010-10-12, 01:24 PM
I think he's a by-the-book example of Lawful Good, with small handful of sordid qualities, because of this:

Good characters protect innocent life.
We've got a tick in the good box here because he's "saved almost as many as he's killed" and protects innocents such as children. I'd even argue that his hunting of muggers and traitors may be a sign of his desire to protect innocents and prevent them being betrayed / attacked as he has.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
We don't completely know about this because from the op's statements it seems like he protects the innocent and even if attacked by someone he will let them go if they ping good or ask for mercy

"Good" implies altruism ... Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Risks himself to save others, tick.

respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
'fraid the eating people alive is a pretty huge step away from good here, but doesn't necessarily make him evil on its own.


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Yeeeeaah, he eats people ... that'd be evil but he doesn't eat innocents so he might still be good...maybe...just.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
I'd say he has compunctions against killing the innocent and has the commitment to make sacrifices to help others, so that'd be good but he eats people alive, so yeah.

At the moment I'm thinking N on the G/E axis but he could be evil (maybe good but seems unlikely).

We need clarification from the op on a few points but N seems a good fit.
Who does he eat? Did you mean just that he uses his bite attack in combat because that wasn't the impression I got.

If someone mugs him in the street because they're poor and need the money (and they're N so don't ping good) what would he do? Fight until they surrender then get a promise they won't attack him again, until they promise to stop mugging and turn themselves in? What if they don't surrender? Does he start eating them alive, what if they surrender then?

What about breaking promises and stuff? Are all broken promises an eating (read torture) offense?
What about the guy who defaulted on his loan because of a bad harvest?
What about the evil guy who betrays his town and opens the gates in a siege for the first pick of the women / looting? What about if he begs for mercy when you start eating him?
What about the various levels in between?

I also think motive plays some role in alignment. Why is he so willing to fight? Is it because he enjoys the challenge (N), that's what his code tells him to do(LN), enjoys causing pain to others (E), wants to stop the muggers and villians attacking and betraying people because he knows what it feels like (G)? Is he simply out for whatever he can get or does he want to do good?

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability...judgmentalness
Seems to fit three of the four but we don't really know his views authority, tradition etc

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
?? Can't tell

I'd say L/C's hard to determine with the info given, he seems to have a pretty rigid moral code so LN?

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need(maybe not the last one, op?), and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Some aspects fit but not completely

None of the evil alignments descriptions seem to fit at all but that's just because they all focus too much on sterotypical profit/for the EVULZ-driven villians which this character certainly isn't.

Eating someone alive is no different than using w/e bite attack is available. The only difference is the method of disposing of the now-useless chunks. And once their dead, they don't need their body anymore (Except for a Raise Dead, which they don't deserve). Waste not want not. It's not cannibalism if they are of a different species :smalltongue:

Milskidasith
2010-10-12, 01:50 PM
The point is, as far as I can see by the OP, he doesn't use his code because he actually cares about it, he just uses his code to pick justifiable targets. He gleefully murders anybody he can get his hands on that's "justifiable" to murder, but his justifications are incredibly narrow, to the point he'll just join random battles for the thrill of murdering people.

The fact that he tortures people by eating them alive (a bite attack doesn't really seem like eating, but the OP should clarify) fights purely for the sake of murdering people, and exacts disproportionate retribution on people is not negated by the fact he has (very crazy, very lax) moral code. "Not killing children" isn't a good act. "Not killing the people you randomly fought in a combat you randomly joined because they asked for mercy" is not a good act. "Eating people alive" is an evil act as a form of torture. "Taking pleasure in murdering for the sheer sake of it" is an evil act.

I can see him as neutral, but there's no way he's good, and his code doesn't seem to be done for anything but the sake of not pissing people off, so I'd hardly call him lawful; even chaotic characters can follow that rule.

Scow2
2010-10-12, 02:28 PM
What is the functional difference between biting someone and swallowing the chunks to just biting them?

I do not see eating something alive as Torture, since its intent is to kill someone, and is just as efficient as killing with bite attacks, and moreso than Swallow Whole. Using a natural bite attack is a sound Tactical option, and he just disposes of the removed flesh in the process. They are dead long before he eats too much of them.

WarKitty
2010-10-12, 02:33 PM
What is the functional difference between biting someone and swallowing the chunks to just biting them?

I do not see eating something alive as Torture, since its intent is to kill someone, and is just as efficient as killing with bite attacks, and moreso than Swallow Whole. Using a natural bite attack is a sound Tactical option, and he just disposes of the removed flesh in the process. They are dead long before he eats too much of them.

It's the difference between cutting pieces off someone with a sword during a fight and killing them by carving pieces of flesh off. It doesn't add anything helpful if the only goal is to kill a person that's already helpless. It's unnecessary infliction of suffering (as opposed to necessary in the case of winning a fight).

Scow2
2010-10-12, 02:45 PM
Except he eats them alive in the middle of the fight. So, it's the exact same damn thing.

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 03:01 PM
It's the difference between cutting pieces off someone with a sword during a fight and killing them by carving pieces of flesh off. It doesn't add anything helpful if the only goal is to kill a person that's already helpless. It's unnecessary infliction of suffering (as opposed to necessary in the case of winning a fight).Where are you getting the idea that he does this to helpless people rather than during the fight? I don't recall seeing the OP say this, but I might have missed it

Milskidasith
2010-10-12, 03:09 PM
Where are you getting the idea that he does this to helpless people rather than during the fight? I don't recall seeing the OP say this, but I might have missed it

The fact that he's, multiple times, stated he would eat people alive and enjoy the pain they felt? There's nothing clear either way, but he's clearly doing it for the purpose of inflicting pain, which makes it evil anyway.

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 03:12 PM
The fact that he's, multiple times, stated he would eat people alive and enjoy the pain they felt? There's nothing clear either way, but he's clearly doing it for the purpose of inflicting pain, which makes it evil anyway.He's also clearly stated that "he will not strike someone who cannot fight back". And his only indication of the wererat eating people has been in the context of fighting people to the death. So your interpretation doesn't jibe with what the OP has told us.

Milskidasith
2010-10-12, 03:22 PM
He's also clearly stated that "he will not strike someone who cannot fight back". And his only indication of the wererat eating people has been in the context of fighting people to the death. So your interpretation doesn't jibe with what the OP has told us.

His first post indicates he eats people alive without even killing them, which... could be taken as in combat, but sounds like it's just to torture.

He's also stated that he will eat people alive and take pleasure in the pain they feel, which is very evil.

He's stated a lot of things, and a lot of the things don't really make sense with each other. I'm still thinking he's CN or CE, TBH; juts because he has a code that seems sort of good and entirely crazy doesn't make him LG. He does blatently evil things and only does good or neutral fights in order to inflict pain.

WarKitty
2010-10-12, 03:23 PM
Except he eats them alive in the middle of the fight. So, it's the exact same damn thing.

It's unclear here whether it's in the middle of the fight or after he's already won the fight.

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 03:27 PM
It's unclear here whether it's in the middle of the fight or after he's already won the fight.He doesn't stop fighting until after his opponent is dead (or until the enemy begs for mercy). So if it's not during the fight, it's after the opponent is dead.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-12, 03:30 PM
It's unclear here whether it's in the middle of the fight or after he's already won the fight.
Meh, at this point I'm going to take the "enjoy the pain" as sufficient evidence of Evil.

This guy is a Complete Monster - he goes around picking fights based on a personal code that is rooted in past personal injustices. He then fights, kills, and glories in their pain unless they submit to him by surrendering.

He's CE - my mind is made up.

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 03:41 PM
His first post indicates he eats people alive without even killing them, which... could be taken as in combat, but sounds like it's just to torture.No, he's pretty clear that it involves combat: "eagerly killing and eating, sometimes even skipping the killing part, anyone he fights." ... so he'll eat people that he's fighting, not helpless people.


He's also stated that he will eat people alive and take pleasure in the pain they feel, which is very evil.The OP hasn't used the word "pleasure" in this thread as far as I can tell (lots of other people have though). He has used the word "enjoy" in the context of fighting/combat, and in the context of (in his eyes) punishing the wicked: "Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel."

Not so different from the sheriff who takes satisfaction in watching a child murderer hang by the neck until dead... just more personal.

WarKitty
2010-10-12, 03:44 PM
Meh, at this point I'm going to take the "enjoy the pain" as sufficient evidence of Evil.

This guy is a Complete Monster - he goes around picking fights based on a personal code that is rooted in past personal injustices. He then fights, kills, and glories in their pain unless they submit to him by surrendering.

He's CE - my mind is made up.

See "code rooted in past personal injustices" is a perfectly fine moral code for a good character, as far as I'm concerned. And it being his personal code as opposed to society's code just makes him a bit more chaotic.

Kish
2010-10-12, 03:46 PM
He doesn't stop fighting until after his opponent is dead (or until the enemy begs for mercy). So if it's not during the fight, it's after the opponent is dead.
How do you "not stop fighting" if your opponent is alive but unconscious? I mean, you can call gnawing on your unconscious enemy "fighting" if you want, but the definition won't stretch that far.

Jayabalard
2010-10-12, 03:47 PM
How do you "not stop fighting" if your opponent is alive but unconscious? I mean, you can call gnawing on your unconscious enemy "fighting" if you want, but the definition won't stretch that far.If the opponent is unconcsious, and isn't ever going regain consciousness, he's not exactly being tortured is he?

WarKitty
2010-10-12, 03:50 PM
If the opponent is unconcsious, and isn't ever going regain consciousness, he's not exactly being tortured is he?

No, not really. You may have a point there, given D&D's lack of a system for disabling blows that don't cause unconsciousness.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-12, 03:52 PM
See "code rooted in past personal injustices" is a perfectly fine moral code for a good character, as far as I'm concerned. And it being his personal code as opposed to society's code just makes him a bit more chaotic.
Sure, if the code were a Good one.

It's not.

The wererat's code is about dishing out (self-admittedly!) disproportionate punishment for a very specific subset of injury. It's not about protecting the Innocent, protecting life in general, or even preserving the dignity of sentient beings; it is in fact the opposite of that.

Yes he will not attack (and will protect) children, Good people, old people, and pregnant ladies but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for why he does so. As opposed to his vengence-based criteria there doesn't seem to be much of a reason why he has selected these folks as opposed to others. For example, he doesn't protect Neutrals who are also Innocents unless they happen to be fall into the above categories.

Being Good is about protecting the Innocent not just some subset of sapience that is likely to be Innocent. His code doesn't even contemplate Innocence as a criteria for action or inaction, much less consider it a reason to protect someone.

Kish
2010-10-12, 04:09 PM
If the opponent is unconcsious, and isn't ever going regain consciousness, he's not exactly being tortured is he?
So it retroactively becomes torture if the victim is rescued before dying? Or feel free to substitute "both arms and legs broken, not able to move much" for "unconscious" if you're seriously trying to make a point. He's perfectly willing to eat people alive, and enjoys their suffering, if he considers them to have betrayed him. They're only "fighting" if both participants are actively fighting; if his opponent, for any reason, stops fighting but doesn't beg for mercy, he proceeds to torture that opponent. Calling it not-torture makes absolutely no sense.

Milskidasith
2010-10-12, 06:15 PM
I'd also like to put it this way: If I were in a party with him, I would ask him to leave or kill him in his sleep. Even if he's good (which he is most certainly not) he's still an active detriment to the team (so as a good or neutral character, I'd ask him to leave, evil killing him), and if he's neutral or evil (both far more plausible than good), I'd ask him to leave very sternly (good) or kill him in his sleep (neutral/evil).

Even if he's a very complex character (which he doesn't seem to be... he's just a violent psychopath with a "you're an evil guy in a videogame so we can't show you killing these types of people" moral code... the confusion mostly stems from the OP's description of him), he still seems to be doing his best to be actively detrimental to the party, and I can't see anybody growing attached to him considering his bloodthirsty tendencies.

Sidenote: "Takes pleasure in" and "enjoys" are pretty much the same thing.

WarKitty
2010-10-12, 06:18 PM
I'd also like to put it this way: If I were in a party with him, I would ask him to leave or kill him in his sleep. Even if he's good (which he is most certainly not) he's still an active detriment to the team (so as a good or neutral character, I'd ask him to leave, evil killing him), and if he's neutral or evil (both far more plausible than good), I'd ask him to leave very sternly (good) or kill him in his sleep (neutral/evil).

Even if he's a very complex character (which he doesn't seem to be... he's just a violent psychopath with a "you're an evil guy in a videogame so we can't show you killing these types of people" moral code... the confusion mostly stems from the OP's description of him), he still seems to be doing his best to be actively detrimental to the party, and I can't see anybody growing attached to him considering his bloodthirsty tendencies.

Sidenote: "Takes pleasure in" and "enjoys" are pretty much the same thing.


....That sounds like every PC I've ever seen. Especially the paladins.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-12, 06:37 PM
Yes he will not attack (and will protect) children, Good people, old people, and pregnant ladies but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for why he does so. As opposed to his vengence-based criteria there doesn't seem to be much of a reason why he has selected these folks as opposed to others. For example, he doesn't protect Neutrals who are also Innocents unless they happen to be fall into the above categories.

Proof is on you to show neutrals are Innocents.
Kinda skipping a step here when you condemn him.


Being Good is about protecting the Innocent not just some subset of sapience that is likely to be Innocent. His code doesn't even contemplate Innocence as a criteria for action or inaction, much less consider it a reason to protect someone.

Yeah, he isn't good. I agree, but I don't agree with your process for determining that.

He defines Innocents as "children, Good people, old people, and pregnant ladies ". Why? No one knows (he is a psychopath).

Weasel of Doom
2010-10-12, 07:02 PM
And it being his personal code as opposed to society's code just makes him a bit more chaotic.

That's not how I read the alignment descriptions, a personal code is just as lawful as obeying society's code.

A lawful neutral character acts as ... a personal code directs her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government

"The wererat's code is … not about protecting the Innocent,"
But I think it is, it’s about protecting them from betrayal and, as per the op’s last post, if he sees a burning house full of children he will risk himself to save them. He will also risk his life to assist a good side in a battle and so on. If he enters a town he’ll go around looking for muggers and fighting them until they surrender, preventing them attacking others.
These could all be good acts if he were motivated by the desire to do good. From what the op has said I think only the rescuing children is actually good and the others probably just neutral but they all still involve protecting the innocent.

"Yes he will not attack (and will protect) children, Good people, old people, and pregnant ladies but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for why he does so."
Really? Seems to me that the reason is because these people are more likely to be innocent and they are an objective criteria by which he can determine innocence. If he comes across a fight he can’t instantly tell which side is innocent but he can tell which is good and therefore more likely to be innocent.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-12, 07:16 PM
Proof is on you to show neutrals are Innocents.
Kinda skipping a step here when you condemn him.
Are you saying that no Neutral can be Innocent? :smallconfused:

I was merely showing that his criteria leaves a large gap in regard to Innocents.

Also, Innocence isn't subjective; we are dealing with an objective Alignment system.

SmartAlec
2010-10-12, 08:35 PM
Proof is on you to show neutrals are Innocents.

I kind of think it's actually on the were-rat to prove they aren't. Before he kills them, preferably.

Amiel
2010-10-12, 08:47 PM
Violence isn't inherently evil; given your morality, it can swing both ways.
There is also the fact that he won't harm ill, pregnant, the elderly, children et al. At the very least, he isn't evil, but given his predilection for violence, I won't call him good either.
He seems to fit a trickster persona and archetype. CN (with neutral tendencies)? CN doesn't always mean a homicidal maniac with a blatant disregard for the law, that's chaotic stupid.

DranWork
2010-10-12, 09:30 PM
If the opponent is unconcsious, and isn't ever going regain consciousness, he's not exactly being tortured is he?

The same way that lighting a Coma victim on fire isn't torture cause their unconscious and doesn't look like they will regain consciousness? Eating someone alive when they are knocked out is torture, you cant justify that they are not doing torture because the person/animal doesn't react in a way that we can see. I could think of very few things worse then being eaten alive, the shear pain that you would be in during it would be unimaginable.

The rat is TN at best NE is more realistic.

Scow2
2010-10-12, 11:37 PM
It's not torture when it's just finishing the job he set out to do. It's just not a clean kill. Either way, the guy's still dead.

Or, if he survives, it means he was being eaten alive/hit by repeated bite attacks in the fight itself, but surrendered.

He seems to fight by a strong code of honor for his random fights.

He is Lawful because he's reliable, trustworthy, loyal, and vidictivive to those who aren't.

As mentioned earlier, he didn't match any Criteria for the Evil or Chaotic Alignments, hit 3 of 4 for Good, and 4 out of 5 for Lawful. Seems pretty straightforward.

Also, not everyone can distinguish between -1 and -10 HP in the game world. It's how creatures and people get "Left for Dead"

It's very likely he recognizes someone is "Dead" when they stop moving and flailing about at him, whether that's -3 or -300 HP.

Milskidasith
2010-10-13, 12:09 AM
It's not torture when it's just finishing the job he set out to do. It's just not a clean kill. Either way, the guy's still dead.

Or, if he survives, it means he was being eaten alive/hit by repeated bite attacks in the fight itself, but surrendered.

He seems to fight by a strong code of honor for his random fights.

He is Lawful because he's reliable, trustworthy, loyal, and vidictivive to those who aren't.

As mentioned earlier, he didn't match any Criteria for the Evil or Chaotic Alignments, hit 3 of 4 for Good, and 4 out of 5 for Lawful. Seems pretty straightforward.

Also, not everyone can distinguish between -1 and -10 HP in the game world. It's how creatures and people get "Left for Dead"

It's very likely he recognizes someone is "Dead" when they stop moving and flailing about at him, whether that's -3 or -300 HP.

He's not reliable or trustworthy. He's likely to murder his allies for slight infractions, and appears to have the "Join the weakest cause, switch when your side starts winning" syndrome.

Also, I'd like to point out that not killing certain targets isn't a good act. It's just not an act at all. He's a murderous psychopath with no loyalty, and just because he refuses to kill certain groups doesn't mean he's any less of a murderer, especially considering he does it for little, if any ("you lied. DIE!") justification.

I can see him as true or chaotic neutral (rather than evil), maybe, but he's in no way good and his code seems more about practicality than actually giving a damn about honor or loyalty, so him being lawful doesn't make sense. He takes joy in murder, which is decidedly evil, and attempts to do so with the slightest of justifications. Maybe it's not the OP's intent, but it seems like the guy's code is in no way based on his morality but just based on practicality of not doing "unacceptable" kills.

In short, he's an unrepentant murderer who seeks out those with a slight justification for killing them to not piss off more people, but still doesn't really give a damn if they deserve death. Just because he only murders those who do something socially unacceptable doesn't make the murder less evil, and yes, I'd consider a guy who eats people alive, revels in causing pain, and joins fights for no reason but to get a higher bodycount a murderer, regardless of if he joins the side of slightly more good.

Scow2
2010-10-13, 12:24 AM
He's not reliable or trustworthy. He's likely to murder his allies for slight infractions, and appears to have the "Join the weakest cause, switch when your side starts winning" syndrome.Considering how much he hates traitors, that latter issue seems untrue. He chooses the weak side at the beginning (Unless its clearly the wrong side), and sticks with it. And I've seen no indication that he'd murder allies for slight infractions.

He also holds everyone accountable for their deeds (A strong lawful, anti-chaotic trait)


Also, I'd like to point out that not killing certain targets isn't a good act. It's just not an act at all. He's a murderous psychopath with no loyalty, and just because he refuses to kill certain groups doesn't mean he's any less of a murderer, especially considering he does it for little, if any ("you lied. DIE!") justification. Well, he generally protects the guys he doesn't have on his "potential kill list"(Those that are clearly either innocent or Just) which IS a good act. Or have you completely overlooked that facet of his personality? Considering he's been stated to have actively saved about as many lives as he's killed, he has a better killed/saved ratio than the average Paladin.


I can see him as true or chaotic neutral (rather than evil), maybe, but he's in no way good and his code seems more about practicality than actually giving a damn about honor or loyalty, so him being lawful doesn't make sense. He takes joy in murder, which is decidedly evil, and attempts to do so with the slightest of justifications. Maybe it's not the OP's intent, but it seems like the guy's code is in no way based on his morality but just based on practicality of not doing "unacceptable" kills.
I'm reading it as he likes to fight(Which isn't an evil act. Most Paladins like to fight as well). Even Paladins take joy in dispatching their foes. That Smite Evil ability isn't just for show. He doesn't seem to be looking for excuses to kill as much as he sees certain acts as so vilely abhorrent that the perpetrators are beyond redemption (Harming children is one of these. So is being an untrustworthy, backstabbing *******)

In short, he's an unrepentant murderer who seeks out those with a slight justification for killing them to not piss off more people, but still doesn't really give a damn if they deserve death. Just because he only murders those who do something socially unacceptable doesn't make the murder less evil, and yes, I'd consider a guy who eats people alive, revels in causing pain, and joins fights for no reason but to get a higher bodycount a murderer, regardless of if he joins the side of slightly more good.
He does seem to give a damn about who deserves death or not. Those that do are those that betray their own team, target children, or aren't smart enough to let them know they've had enough in one of his duels (It's not like he can accurately gauge the combat ability and toughness of those who are willing to accept his challenges). There are lots of people he doesn't consider as deserving death.

He likes to see people suffer the pain they wish to inflict on others. That's not exactly an evil trait.
He gets a thrill in combat, and seeks the greatest challenge, which isn't an evil trait either.
Eating people alive just means he likes to use his Bite Attack in combat.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-13, 12:32 AM
Yup. Pending more info from the OP, he's CE.

For reference:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Picking and choosing amongst these traits to determine Alignment isn't how it's done; protecting Innocents five days a week and burning down orphanages on the weekends doesn't make you Neutral, much less Good. The wererat's primary motivation is to hurt and kill others - Evil.

At the very least, a simple "which of these is not like the others" should be enough to make the answer clear at this point.


Also: He lost his L/C Neutrality when it became obvious he didn't actually care about laws at all - in all these posts there isn't a single reference to any external source of authority that is remotely relevant to his decision-making process.

true_shinken
2010-10-13, 12:35 AM
Eating people alive just means he likes to use his Bite Attack in combat.

No. It means he eats people alive.

Scow2
2010-10-13, 12:38 AM
Yup. Pending more info from the OP, he's CE.

He lost his L/C Neutrality when it became obvious he didn't actually care about laws at all - in all these posts there isn't a single reference to any external source of authority that is remotely relevant to his decision-making process.

He holds others to standards, instead of letting everyone go their own way. He's judgmental of others, another Lawful quality. He holds everyone to their word, another Lawful quality. He fights by pre-established rules, another Lawful qualiry... I can keep going.

He is a Watchman. Of the Knight Templar variant.

Also, he's actively saved more Innocent lives than all lives he's taken... Again, a claim that gives Paladins a run for their money.

Also, Gold Dragons like to eat people alive. And unlike being eaten alive by a wererat, you die even if you wish to surrender. And, it's a LOT more painful as you feel yourself being outright digested by acid against your whole body, while the Wererat might be merciful. And, it's essentially the exact same thing, except the Gold Dragon just takes even bigger bites.

true_shinken
2010-10-13, 12:55 AM
Also, Gold Dragons like to eat people alive.
No, they don't. The entire plot of Year of Rogue Dragons is built around that.

Maryring
2010-10-13, 03:45 AM
Any dragon has the potential to swallow whole. Any dragon with the Snatch and Swallow feat uses this technique actively. Any dragon can take that feat. It isn't limited by colour.

Anyway.


I'd also like to put it this way: If I were in a party with him, I would ask him to leave or kill him in his sleep. Even if he's good (which he is most certainly not) he's still an active detriment to the team (so as a good or neutral character, I'd ask him to leave, evil killing him), and if he's neutral or evil (both far more plausible than good), I'd ask him to leave very sternly (good) or kill him in his sleep (neutral/evil).

Even if he's a very complex character (which he doesn't seem to be... he's just a violent psychopath with a "you're an evil guy in a videogame so we can't show you killing these types of people" moral code... the confusion mostly stems from the OP's description of him), he still seems to be doing his best to be actively detrimental to the party, and I can't see anybody growing attached to him considering his bloodthirsty tendencies.

Active detriment to the party? Pretty sure I mentioned earlier that he's highly ranked within a powerful faction in the game world. You don't get that high up by being an active detriment. :smalltongue:

Honestly, I don't see how he would be an active detriment. He is very competent, he does not randomly attack people who wield a sword. Challenge, yes. Stab without provocation? No. He would not betray the party. Even if he doesn't outright state a promise, if someone travels with him, there is the implied trust that he will not betray them. And he will not break that trust.

Although you give an excellent reason for why he has such poor mental health. You'd hardly be the first to try and kill him in his sleep, when weakened or suffering from bad circumstances. Treachery is THE sin of the world. So he is fiercely loyal to the very few who has earned his trust. Which so far counts as two. His mentor and his boss.

Kish
2010-10-13, 06:53 AM
It's not torture when it's just finishing the job he set out to do.

Absurd. Of course "the job he set out to do" can involve torture, and in this case it obviously does.


As mentioned earlier, he didn't match any Criteria for the Evil or Chaotic Alignments, hit 3 of 4 for Good, and 4 out of 5 for Lawful. Seems pretty straightforward.

...or would, if we were limited to judging morality by looking at whether someone obviously fits points on a checklist, like poorly programmed computers.


It's very likely he recognizes someone is "Dead" when they stop moving and flailing about at him, whether that's -3 or -300 HP.
So your defense of him now hinges on "dead" not actually meaning "dead," despite the lack of any reason to assume that except that it's the only way to escape the conclusion that "torturing helpless people" falls within his moral code.

Milskidasith
2010-10-13, 08:02 AM
Active detriment to the party? Pretty sure I mentioned earlier that he's highly ranked within a powerful faction in the game world. You don't get that high up by being an active detriment. :smalltongue:

He randomly murders and picks fights with people. Yeah, I'd rather not associate with that type of character unless I was playing a chaotic stupid type character.


Honestly, I don't see how he would be an active detriment. He is very competent, he does not randomly attack people who wield a sword. Challenge, yes. Stab without provocation? No. He would not betray the party. Even if he doesn't outright state a promise, if someone travels with him, there is the implied trust that he will not betray them. And he will not break that trust.

You've strongly implied he'll randomly join fights just for the thrill of causing others pain and said he would murder people for the slightest "betrayals," so yeah, I wouldn't trust the unrepentent murderer as far as my non-hulking hurlers could throw him.


Although you give an excellent reason for why he has such poor mental health. You'd hardly be the first to try and kill him in his sleep, when weakened or suffering from bad circumstances. Treachery is THE sin of the world. So he is fiercely loyal to the very few who has earned his trust. Which so far counts as two. His mentor and his boss.

OK... and? He's not even loyal to the party, apparantly. And yes, I would, as a good character, kill an obviously evil bloodthirsty murderer, and as a neutral (well, depending) or evil (definitely) character, I'd kill somebody who was incredibly likely to kill me or get me into pointless fights by association.

The point is that this guy seems to have a "do not persecute me" complex while at the same time, murdering people either because he feels he is persecuting them as their crimes, or using "I'm persecuting them for their crimes" as an excuse. He's a tremendous hypocrite in that respect, and a guy who still revels in causing pain, eating opponents alive, and murder is nothing but Evil, even if he doesn't murder everybody.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-13, 08:10 AM
OK... and? He's not even loyal to the party, apparantly. And yes, I would, as a good character, kill an obviously evil bloodthirsty murderer, and as a neutral (well, depending) or evil (definitely) character, I'd kill somebody who was incredibly likely to kill me or get me into pointless fights by association.

Um, killing your party members is never good: even if they are evil.
Neutrals care about friends and family only.
Good cares about the rest.

So when Neutral is more good than your hypothetical "good" character: frankly you aren't good.

Milskidasith
2010-10-13, 08:20 AM
Um, killing your party members is never good: even if they are evil.
Neutrals care about friends and family only.
Good cares about the rest.

So when Neutral is more good than your hypothetical "good" character: frankly you aren't good.

Except the unrepentent murderer isn't my friend? :smallconfused:

You seem to think that just because I'm in the party with somebody, they have to be my friend or somebody I should care about. They don't; if somebody is playing somebody who's actively detrimental to the party (whether directly, because he seems very inclined to kill the party and is an unrepentant murderer, or indirectly, because he seems very inclined to kill other people and get the party in trouble), then I'd call them out on it. If the only force binding me with the other party member (who has been stated by the OP to neither trust, nor be loyal to anybody in the party) is the fact he's in the gaming group, there would be problems out of game, and in game, there just doesn't seem to be a reason to associate with him.

I've also already stated my good characters would ask the guy to leave first, and I'll admit it depends on the character (exalted super good guy wouldn't kill him, hard line paladin or psion whose parents were killed by a serial killer would be more likely to do so).

Also, good doesn't always have to do good actions. Killing somebody who is evil in their sleep is probably a neutral act if it's done to prevent him from murdering others. It's certainly not the most moral way to do things, but it's certainly not so evil the character couldn't be good, and if it is, then this guy is incredibly evil and there should be no doubt about it.

WarKitty
2010-10-13, 09:23 AM
I really am not getting where people are saying he's killing innocents. Nowhere in this have I seen him listed as killing anyone who's not either already in a fight with him (dueling is a neutral behavior imo), or actively caught doing evil.

Amiel
2010-10-13, 09:25 AM
Unless you have edited your opening post, OP, I don't see why your character would be (solidly) evil; his selfishness and blood-lust is balanced out by his non-desire to harm the ill, the pregnant, elderly, youths et al.
While he is still excessively violent, such actions cause your character to fall upon the alignment spectrum of neutrality.

Scow2
2010-10-13, 09:42 AM
Ouch, arguing with the OP (Who knows the character better than you?) about his personality? And twisting words into things that are simply not his style?

He's not a murderer who randomly kills people. He likes the thrill of combat, not murder and inflicting pain. Even Paladins love fighting.

He follows a self-imposed code to rid the world of Cheats, Traitors, and Child-killers, and draws pleasure from knowing he's taken such scum out of the world. He is entirely trustworthy, since he will NEVER go back on his word, nor otherwise betray someone.

I was suggesting that he continues eating people once they fall unconscious because he assumes they are already dead. It's not torture, because his intent isn't to cause undue suffering, but to not waste the corpse of his prey: something all Hunters deem as a responsible act.

The times he eats someone he knows is merely unconscious is morally the same as anyone who CDGs unconscious enemies.

Even if Canniballism is considered an Evil act, he's not guilty of that because he's a different species. At least he has the decency to at least respect the lives of those lower on the food chain than him who don't tick him off.

Jayabalard
2010-10-13, 10:05 AM
So it retroactively becomes torture if the victim is rescued before dying?No. An analogous situation: If you're executing someone by hanging them, and you severely injure them instead of killing them when they drop, and they are somehow rescued, it's not torture either.


Or feel free to substitute "both arms and legs broken, not able to move much" for "unconscious" if you're seriously trying to make a point.I'm not aware of any mechanics in D&D that allow for broken arms and legs that prevent movement. Pretty much you're: fighting at full efficiency, or unconscious or dead, with nothing in between.


They're only "fighting" if both participants are actively fighting; if his opponent, for any reason, stops fighting but doesn't beg for mercy, then they're still fighting.

Kish
2010-10-13, 10:22 AM
*shrug* Redefine "fighting" to the point of meaninglessness if you want. It won't make the character described any less vile.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-13, 10:33 AM
Thread is TL;DR.

From the OP and a skim, answer is blindingly clear.
Rat is Unaligned. :smallwink:

Scow2
2010-10-13, 10:37 AM
*shrug* Redefine "fighting" to the point of meaninglessness if you want. It won't make the character described any less vile.

Most fights are too the death in D&D. And most players see <0 HP as "Dead" when it comes to NPCs. And fighting to the death is not an Evil Act (Otherwise, Paladins would never get anywhere)

WarKitty
2010-10-13, 10:53 AM
*shrug* Redefine "fighting" to the point of meaninglessness if you want. It won't make the character described any less vile.

See the *only* thing possibly evil I've seen about this character is that eating people bit. Which given the rest of his description seems to be either (1) during combat, or (2) as a means of execution. It's not any worse than death by hanging or any of the other medieval penalties. Plus unless he's taking pains to incapacitate them without knocking them out, they're unconscious and he's killing them.

Chen
2010-10-13, 02:01 PM
Similarly, threathen a kid or break his trust, and he will eat you alive, and enjoy every pain you feel.

Enjoying the pain you inflict on others is evil. If eating someone alive just means biting then whatever, but generally when one says "eating someone alive" it doesn't just mean they are killing them efficiently and quickly.

Frankly enjoying killing at all should probably be an evil act. Everything can be redeemed towards good. Killing can be necessary but it certainly shouldn't be the first choice which pretty much appears to be the case here. Enjoying the killing is psychopathic even if the person had to be killed for whatever greater good. On the G/E side its definitely more towards evil. Most likely enough to be considered evil or at the very best neutral but right on the edge.

true_shinken
2010-10-13, 02:25 PM
Any dragon has the potential to swallow whole. Any dragon with the Snatch and Swallow feat uses this technique actively. Any dragon can take that feat. It isn't limited by colour.

First - dragons can't swallow whole. Yeah, I know you read it in OotS. They can't. Open the Monster Manual. Now search for swallow whole. Dragon don't get it. There is a Snatch feat, but no Swallow feat. Snatch allows you to bite. In Year of Rogue Dragons, it's described time and time again that chromatic dragons (evne during the Rage) bite and then spit the meat they ripped from sentient beings.

Second - only because you can take a feat or use a particular combat maneuver, it does not mean you actually take that feat. It's like saying 'we all know level 3 Wizards have Weapon Focus' because they can take that feat. Dragons can take Snatch. So what? They can also take hundreds of other better feats.

Golden dragons don't eat people. They protect people. Even during the Rage, they go to great lenghts to avoid harming 'the small folk' like they call the humanoid races.

Also, if you want to say your man-eating torturer wererat character is good... fine. It's your game, you're the DM. If golden dragons eat people for the lolz in your game, yeah, whatever. It's just not compatible with how alignment works in D&D as usual, but throw whatever houserules you see fit to create your concepts. But if you are so set an a good alignment for this guy, why the hell would you even ask the playground for help? Looks like you have everything decided already.

Maryring
2010-10-13, 02:31 PM
I gave you the feat that allows a dragon to use swallow whole. Wasn't that fun?

true_shinken
2010-10-13, 02:43 PM
I gave you the feat that allows a dragon to use swallow whole. Wasn't that fun?

There is no Swallow feat in the Monster Manual.

EDIT: Just found it, Draconomicon. Makes no difference, because gold dragons wouldn't even take the feat - just like a level 3 Wizard wouldn't take Weapon Focus.

Milskidasith
2010-10-13, 05:28 PM
Again: He's an unrepentant murderer who kills anybody just for the thrill of killing, enjoys causing pain, and eats people alive (actually eating them, not biting and tearing as most creatures do).

He still seems evil with no good traits; "Not killing children" isn't a trait at all. Yeah, he seems to save people... by joining the underdog in fights so he can gleefully murder the other side. Incidental semi-good acts caused by murdering for the sheer hell of it isn't good.

true_shinken
2010-10-13, 05:56 PM
"Not killing children" isn't a trait at all. Yeah, he seems to save people... by joining the underdog in fights so he can gleefully murder the other side. Incidental semi-good acts caused by murdering for the sheer hell of it isn't good.
Hell is full of good intentions, they say.
I believe this guy is at best CN.

jumpet
2010-10-13, 06:15 PM
I think its pretty clear he's lawful. He has very strong personal code of rules he plays by. What I think is less clear is whether he is good, evil or neutral. It sounds like he has good intentions that is countered by an uneccessary bloodthirstiness.

I think most likely he is striving to be LG, but could slip the otherway to LE if he doesn't hold his blood thirst in check. His desire to go good is juxtaposed by his love of killing. Thus I'd take the average. LN.

Milskidasith
2010-10-13, 06:44 PM
I think its pretty clear he's lawful. He has very strong personal code of rules he plays by. What I think is less clear is whether he is good, evil or neutral. It sounds like he has good intentions that is countered by an uneccessary bloodthirstiness.

I think most likely he is striving to be LG, but could slip the otherway to LE if he doesn't hold his blood thirst in check. His desire to go good is juxtaposed by his love of killing. Thus I'd take the average. LN.

He doesn't respect authority and his code seems to be more out of convenience than an actual moral justification, so I don't really see him as lawful at all. He's not joining the "good" side in a fight because he believes in good, or because he knows the opponents to be evil... he's joining it because he's less likely to get flak for murdering them. Likewise, his "I'm going to kill you for betraying my trust" seems less about any kind of personal honor and more a justification for murdering. He doesn't seem lawful at all; just because he does things in a formulaic manner doesn't mean he respects honor or authority.

hamishspence
2010-10-24, 04:46 AM
Picking and choosing amongst these traits to determine Alignment isn't how it's done; protecting Innocents five days a week and burning down orphanages on the weekends doesn't make you Neutral, much less Good. The wererat's primary motivation is to hurt and kill others - Evil.

Enjoying inflicting pain on others- evil. But, there's nothing in the OP's description that suggests the wererat lacks "qualms about hurting the
innocent" or "hurts the innocent for fun or profit" which I've previously seen you claim are Necessary conditions for an Evil alignment.

It is a common trope for an antiheroic character to go overboard when it comes to dealing with the "Not-Innocent"- hurting and killing them because they believe they "deserve it" and because they enjoy it, and so on. And yet, go out of their way to protect "The Innocent"

So- either an unwillingness to harm "The Innocent" is not a necessary condition- a character who is sufficiently sadistic toward the "Not Innocent" despite being unwilling to harm "The Innocent" can be evil.

Or, the character who excessively enjoys inflicting pain and death on the "Not Innocent" cannot be evil- which may include this wererat character.

Given how common the trope of the excessively brutal "defender of the innocent" is, I'm inclined to go with the idea that such a character is evil- and a willingness to harm the innocent is not necessary for an evil alignment.

The "Any character who enjoys inflicting that much suffering must be willing to harm the innocent too" claim seems like a bit of a cop-out- and it fails to recognize that people are complex- some people can be cruel toward those they believe deserve it, and compassionate toward those they believe deserve compassion.

Shademan
2010-10-24, 04:53 AM
I think its pretty clear he's lawful. He has very strong personal code of rules he plays by. What I think is less clear is whether he is good, evil or neutral. It sounds like he has good intentions that is countered by an uneccessary bloodthirstiness.

I think most likely he is striving to be LG, but could slip the otherway to LE if he doesn't hold his blood thirst in check. His desire to go good is juxtaposed by his love of killing. Thus I'd take the average. LN.

what, kinda like Dexter?

hamishspence
2010-10-24, 05:07 AM
I did mention Dexter in previous alignment threads as the textbook example of someone who combines evil traits (revels in murdering the Not Innocent in somewhat torturous ways- tying them up and killing them slowly while they are helpless and conscious) yet lacks the supposedly necessary for an evil alignment trait, of willingness to harm the innocent.

The Punisher might be another possible candidate. Or John Kelly in the Tom Clancy novel Without Remorse.

So it really depends on how important you consider that trait.

true_shinken
2010-10-24, 04:07 PM
I did mention Dexter in previous alignment threads as the textbook example of someone who combines evil traits (revels in murdering the Not Innocent in somewhat torturous ways- tying them up and killing them slowly while they are helpless and conscious) yet lacks the supposedly necessary for an evil alignment trait, of willingness to harm the innocent.

The Punisher might be another possible candidate. Or John Kelly in the Tom Clancy novel Without Remorse.

So it really depends on how important you consider that trait.

Dexter is evil. He takes pleasure in causing suffering.
Frank Castle... well, depends on the writer. Sometimes he is good, sometimes he is neutral, sometimes he is evil, sometimes he is a modern version of Frankenstein's creature, sometimes he is an angel. That's Marvel for you.

Callista
2010-10-24, 06:12 PM
Since when did evil characters have to be puppy-kicking evil characters?

Taking pleasure in violence isn't actually an evil trait; it's a chaotic one. It's who you're willing to fight that affects the G/E axis.

OK, so--L/C axis has traits going either way. He's got a code of honor; however, he loves chaos and violence. I would put him at either N or C, depending on which trait affected his behavior more.

G/E axis--pretty obviously an E here. He's willing to kill people who don't deserve to be killed; therefore, Evil. However, he does have some compunctions about it; so he's evil, but not irredeemably evil. He's not completely lacking in empathy, and has the capacity to do good, which is actually pretty good for a wererat.

Do you want to do a redemption arc for this guy? Talk to another player; see if they're willing to RP it with you. It might actually come down to his seeking a magical cure for the lycanthropy--choosing between the power of the rat form and the violence it tempts him to do. Somewhat interesting concept.

jumpet
2010-10-24, 08:05 PM
what, kinda like Dexter?

Yep I think it would be fair to say Dexter could be considered lawful. Got no arguments there. Whether he is evil would make an interesting debate, the show explores this morally shady area very nicely and is essentially what the show is about. Can a serial killer be considered good? I'm not sure if the simplified alignment categories of dnd could be applied effectively here.

true_shinken
2010-10-24, 08:09 PM
Yep I think it would be fair to say Dexter could be considered lawful. Got no arguments there. Whether he is evil would make an interesting debate, the show explores this morally shady area very nicely and is essentially what the show is about. Can a serial killer be considered good? I'm not sure if the simplified alignment categories of dnd could be applied effectively here.

If there is anything resembling good/evil, then a serial killer is evil. Period.
Of course, without an alignment system, this is a different story.

Jayabalard
2010-10-24, 08:25 PM
I think its pretty clear he's lawful. I really can't agree. His "code*" is strictly an internal affair; he cares nothing for the rules of society, does not seem to respect authority, or tradition; nor does he seem pretty reliable (he's willing to switch sides in the middle of a battle). Nothing said about him says that he cares about order, or organization.

He seems very clearly chaotic.

*The OP never referred to it as a code; I think you're putting FAR too much stress on this. Even if he does have a personal code, that doesn't say anything about him being lawful as opposed to chaotic.


If there is anything resembling good/evil, then a serial killer is evil. Period.A paladin, executing people in a chaotic evil society, could probably be labeled as a serial killer.

Kish
2010-10-24, 10:07 PM
A paladin, executing people in a chaotic evil society, could probably be labeled as a serial killer.
More redefining words to the point of meaninglessness? I'm pretty sure missing true_shinken's point requires deliberate dodging.

Grytorm
2010-10-24, 10:15 PM
Not really relevant to the argument, but the OP has apparently done something like this before. Could someone provide a link?

Weasel of Doom
2010-10-25, 06:36 AM
I really can't agree. His "code*" is strictly an internal affair; he cares nothing for the rules of society, does not seem to respect authority, or tradition; nor does he seem pretty reliable (he's willing to switch sides in the middle of a battle). Nothing said about him says that he cares about order, or organization.



A lawful neutral character acts as ... a personal code directs her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, OR she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government

Seems pretty clear to me that a "stricly internal affair" is fine for L. LN can but doesn't have to care at all for the "rules of society"


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

"Treachery is THE sin of the world" doesn't sound like the credo of someone who is unreliable, untrustworthy or dishonourable.

Honour, trustworthiness and reliability are all true for this character who clearly despises liars, cheats and traitors. This character is extremely focused on reliability and trustworthiness almost to the same extent as the Zelekhuts which epitomise LN. I don't know where this idea that he'll switch side in the middle of the battle has come from, as far as I can tell he chooses which side to to support stricly on basis of his 'personal code' and then he 'reliably' sticks with that side.

Obedience to authority appears true, the OP has said that the rat obeys his faction leader. He may not obey the courts etc but clearly that's not necessary for a lawful character unless you're trying to say that paladins have to obey the order's of Evil Emperor McEVIL to slaughter innocents.

Closemindedness and judgmentalness are obvious in the character description, right?

Finally, I'll admit adherence to tradition, reactionaryness and a lack of adaptability haven't been shown but neither have they not been shown so I don't think this is evidence either way.

Looks clearly lawful to me (I also think he's good for the reasons I've gone into before and especially since the op has given further clarification)

Jayabalard
2010-10-25, 08:19 AM
There is no Swallow feat in the Monster Manual.

EDIT: Just found it, Draconomicon. Makes no difference, because gold dragons wouldn't even take the feat - just like a level 3 Wizard wouldn't take Weapon Focus.And like a succubus would never take levels in paladin?


More redefining words to the point of meaninglessness? I'm pretty sure missing true_shinken's point requires deliberate dodging.I really don't understand what you're driving at. Serial killer is a legal definition. A paladin in the circumstances above (especially a Grey Guard) could indeed be labeled as a serial killer, falling into the visionary/Mission-oriented types. Therefore: serial killer = always evil period is probably a bad assumption in D&D, because you're leaving too much of your assumption on a label, and it really doesn't really say as much about the person as you think it does.

You're much better off saying "a murderer that does X, Y and Z is always evil" especially when you clearly define X, Y and Z as particular behaviors.

hamishspence
2010-10-25, 10:58 AM
"Treachery is THE sin of the world" doesn't sound like the credo of someone who is unreliable, untrustworthy or dishonourable.

Honour, trustworthiness and reliability are all true for this character who clearly despises liars, cheats and traitors. This character is extremely focused on reliability and trustworthiness almost to the same extent as the Zelekhuts which epitomise LN. I don't know where this idea that he'll switch side in the middle of the battle has come from, as far as I can tell he chooses which side to to support stricly on basis of his 'personal code' and then he 'reliably' sticks with that side.

If you go by DMG2, the default D&D social system is at least semi-feudalistic.

And "oath-breaking" in that, is seen as a crime on a par with murder.

So, for an oathbreaker to be seen as someone deserving of death, is not that out of place in a D&D setting.

That said, not all cases of "treachery" and "deception" are as serious as breaking a feudal oath. Still, it does show that it can be a very serious thing.

Grytorm
2010-11-03, 08:45 PM
Nobody noticed my post, I asked if somebody could provide the link to the thread about the empress.

Maryring
2010-11-04, 05:43 PM
Since when did evil characters have to be puppy-kicking evil characters?

Taking pleasure in violence isn't actually an evil trait; it's a chaotic one. It's who you're willing to fight that affects the G/E axis.

OK, so--L/C axis has traits going either way. He's got a code of honor; however, he loves chaos and violence. I would put him at either N or C, depending on which trait affected his behavior more.

G/E axis--pretty obviously an E here. He's willing to kill people who don't deserve to be killed; therefore, Evil. However, he does have some compunctions about it; so he's evil, but not irredeemably evil. He's not completely lacking in empathy, and has the capacity to do good, which is actually pretty good for a wererat.

Do you want to do a redemption arc for this guy? Talk to another player; see if they're willing to RP it with you. It might actually come down to his seeking a magical cure for the lycanthropy--choosing between the power of the rat form and the violence it tempts him to do. Somewhat interesting concept.
Yeah. There are plans for possible and very potential redemption for him. He's a natural wererat, so he'll forever be that, there is no cure. But if, and that is a very long, painful and hard to reach if, he begins to trust people again. If he learns that his belief that everyone in the world will ultimately end up a cowardly backstabber, and that there are those who won't judge him for being a wererat, and try to murder him in his sleep for being different. If he does find someone willing to treat him with respect, kindness and, a must due to his extremely thick head, a lot of patience, he can redeem himself of his blood knight status.



Not really relevant to the argument, but the OP has apparently done something like this before. Could someone provide a link?
One moment. I'll see if I can't locate it, but that thread is years old, so no posting in it.

hamishspence
2010-11-04, 05:51 PM
There is precedent for nonevil lycanthopes of a kind that would normally be Always Evil- in Champions of Valor, one of the factions of the Fangshields, a group of normally Good animalistic creatures- is a tribe of Selune-worshipping werewolves.

So- I like the idea of the wererat (even if he might start with an Evil alignment) changing alignment over time.

Maryring
2010-11-04, 06:07 PM
Seems the old thread perished some time ago. A pity.

However, I do have a new thread in the works, this time with a much more... good character.

hamishspence
2010-11-04, 06:18 PM
Taking pleasure in violence isn't actually an evil trait; it's a chaotic one. It's who you're willing to fight that affects the G/E axis.

On taking pleasure in violence (the killing aspect of it):

While a case can be made that things outside the Evil Acts list, but still in BoVD, aren't automatically Evil (execution comes to mind) it is in the section on "addictions, perverted tastes and the like."

Specifically:


For the purposes of the D&D game, however, a psychopath is someone who derives pleasure from- and in fact can become addicted to- killing. Some psychopaths slay for the sheer joy of it and to experience the power-mad rush that accompanies the taking of another's life. Psychopaths who enjoy watching their victims beg for mercy are often sadists, and this type enjoys inflicting pain before killing a victim. The type of psychopath who simply enjoys the feeling of ending a life is interested only in death, and cries of mercy or pain only annoy him.

(this is one of two kinds of psychopath listed)

So a case can be made that it's closer to Evil than Chaotic behaviour.

Callista
2010-11-04, 06:24 PM
Oh, no, I don't mean enjoying killing; I meant enjoying violence. A non-evil character who enjoys violence might start bar brawls, fight competitively (everything from friendly boxing matches to being a gladiator), or hire himself out as a mercenary as a career option instead of something less violent. You might also apply it as fluff to a Barbarian rage. Lots of characters just enjoy the rush of danger and excitement that comes with many battles, at least for those who have that sort of temperament.

hamishspence
2010-11-04, 06:27 PM
It is true that some characters might enjoy the fight, the risk, the challenge, their skills being tested to the limit- without enjoying the killing.

So that kind of "enjoys violence" might be decidedly less problematic.

true_shinken
2010-11-04, 07:23 PM
And like a succubus would never take levels in paladin?

Erm, not at all. A gold dragon taking that feat is wasting feat slots for actually useful stuff like Rapidstrike or metamagic feats... to get something else that he probably wouldn't use, since they don't eat intelligent creatures and usually fight them.