CE or NE? You decide!

[ZamielVanWeber]

Incorrect, his entire system of morality and how he treats people is based on the delusion that it doesn't matter because he will succeed. While time travel is possible in my world even the most powerful beings have difficulty with traveling back days, let alone decades. I have a special love of time travel so I believe I can handle it well. See world line shifts for more information (but this isn't really about how time travel works)..

That isn't a delusion. That is a moral justification. A delusion would be if he believed that he could solve his problems with time travel even though it is literally impossible and then acted on it in spite of the impossibility. Also a truly psychotic person would have a lot of trouble functioning, let alone accomplishing what he has. A better word would be obsessed.

Also as you describe him he is a clinical psychopath:
1) Decreased empathy? Check. The hows and whys don't matter as much as the fact that he does act with diminished empathy.
2) Antisocial behavior? Toying with anyone he deems to be unworthy? Check.
3) Disninhibition? He is trying to rework time, with all the consequences, to suit his own goals.

As for alignment he is solidly NE. He is taking actions for his own ends without regard for anyone else, but is not bent of upsetting that status quo.

edit:

To chip in on the psychotic thing, I actually agree that he might be. While the reasoning is different, I'm getting a very Anton(No Country For Old Men) feel from him, where he truly believes that he must do these things from his broken, insane logic, and may not even like doing it. He might not even like them, but he thinks he must. From both this and the fact that he seems to have mixed opinions on laws and chaos(establishing an order of strong ruling over the weak, but believing that the current laws don't mean anything because time will be turned back), I think he's Neutral Evil.

Bad logic is not psychosis. Acting on bad logic is not psychosis. The fact that Anton can analyze his actions and regret doing them, while deeming them necessary, is an indication that he is not psychotic. People have a very warped view of what psychosis is and it is not appropriate to cling to such a warped and incorrect belief, especially one that punishes the actual sufferers.

[Shackel]

Seeing how a very quick look to Wikipedia(I admit that it is not the most 'legit' source) shows that psychosis is a term used to refer to a rather wide number of symptoms and sicknesses in what seems like a similar situation to Asperger's, amongst other things, being now placed into the much wider-spanning high-functioning autism. Such symptoms or results from psychosis include grandiosity and paranoia, both linked to losing touch with reality. Anton most certainly has lost touch with reality, is a highly violent individual, etc.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Seeing how a very quick look to Wikipedia(I admit that it is not the most 'legit' source) shows that psychosis is a term used to refer to a rather wide number of symptoms and sicknesses in what seems like a similar situation to Asperger's, amongst other things, being now placed into the much wider-spanning high-functioning autism.

What? That analogy falls flat; psychosis is a loss of contact with reality; the symptoms don't represent a functional range but the ways psychosis can manifest. There is no grand spectrum of psychosis with "high functioning psychotics" up top and "low functioning psychotics" on the bottom. While symptoms can vary in severity you simply don't see the range that you do with autism. What varies mainly is responsiveness to medicine.

Such symptoms or results from psychosis include grandiosity and paranoia, both linked to losing touch with reality. Anton most certainly has lost touch with reality, is a highly violent individual, etc.

No, he hasn;t. I've read the book; Anton is clearly a psychopath. He does nothing, literally nothing, that indicates he has lost touch with reality. He is a ruthless, remorseless, capable, killer. That, at worst, is psychopathy.

Remember how I said views were warped; there is one of them. Psychosis has little to do with violence and the vast majority of it is self harm in an attempt to end the psychotic symptoms; there is a reason people with psychosis have a shorter average life span than people without. The myth of the "violent psychotic" is not doing anyone favors.

[MyrPsychologist]

I feel like it's an interesting concept but it needs some refining because there is a lot of inconsistency with the thought processes and patterns of behavior for the character. Individuals shouldn't be 2 dimensional, but they should at the very least make sense and follow their own logic. So let me outline some of the problems that I see and a few possible ways to solve them through more development.

1. Use of the word psychotic. This is extremely vague and I highly recommend not using it. It just states that he is suffering from a psychosis, which is a break with reality. Now crazy characters often are detached from reality, but even then they follow a logic that is consistent with their own worldviews. I apologize if this is nitpicky but it's a personal pet-peeve. Perhaps you could specify the type of psychosis he suffers from.

2. Inconsistency with background/goals and actions. Your character has a strong goal in mind and a way that he believes to accomplish it, it seems very silly that he would toy with people. This doesn't serve his goal, it doesn't help him. If anything, this seems to work against him. Not only does it expose a possible threat that could destroy him but it also removes possible test subjects that he could use to further his goals. Why would he waste such valuable research potential on a simple game? I would go into more detail maybe about the why he does these kinds of things and ultimately what he hopes to gain. Even Jigsaw and Hannibal Lecter had goals and things they wanted. Your character should too.

Possible way to maintain the most integrity of the character concept: bump the age down. Someone willing to construct elaborate and deadly games for no real reason is not likely to be an adult. They could very easily be a child of around maybe 10. A child that is very self centered and DEMANDS people play his games. In this light the demands to play don't even contradict the character because they are a goal within themselves. If you aren't comfortable playing someone that young you could also go into further detail about a series of events that could have trapped him in that childish mindstate. Often times trauma can have strange impacts on an individual's personality.

3. Inconsistency with the quotes. The quotes seem to put a great deal of emphasis on control and law. For a character that is not supposed to be lawful, that is a tad strange. Perhaps shift the focus more onto ideas like power (and the exercise thereof), the lack of rights of the weak, and the characters right to experiment on whomever he chooses.

[Sacrieur]

I feel like it's an interesting concept but it needs some refining because there is a lot of inconsistency with the thought processes and patterns of behavior for the character. Individuals shouldn't be 2 dimensional, but they should at the very least make sense and follow their own logic. So let me outline some of the problems that I see and a few possible ways to solve them through more development.

1. Use of the word psychotic. This is extremely vague and I highly recommend not using it. It just states that he is suffering from a psychosis, which is a break with reality. Now crazy characters often are detached from reality, but even then they follow a logic that is consistent with their own worldviews. I apologize if this is nitpicky but it's a personal pet-peeve. Perhaps you could specify the type of psychosis he suffers from.

2. Inconsistency with background/goals and actions. Your character has a strong goal in mind and a way that he believes to accomplish it, it seems very silly that he would toy with people. This doesn't serve his goal, it doesn't help him. If anything, this seems to work against him. Not only does it expose a possible threat that could destroy him but it also removes possible test subjects that he could use to further his goals. Why would he waste such valuable research potential on a simple game? I would go into more detail maybe about the why he does these kinds of things and ultimately what he hopes to gain. Even Jigsaw and Hannibal Lecter had goals and things they wanted. Your character should too.

Possible way to maintain the most integrity of the character concept: bump the age down. Someone willing to construct elaborate and deadly games for no real reason is not likely to be an adult. They could very easily be a child of around maybe 10. A child that is very self centered and DEMANDS people play his games. In this light the demands to play don't even contradict the character because they are a goal within themselves. If you aren't comfortable playing someone that young you could also go into further detail about a series of events that could have trapped him in that childish mindstate. Often times trauma can have strange impacts on an individual's personality.

3. Inconsistency with the quotes. The quotes seem to put a great deal of emphasis on control and law. For a character that is not supposed to be lawful, that is a tad strange. Perhaps shift the focus more onto ideas like power (and the exercise thereof), the lack of rights of the weak, and the characters right to experiment on whomever he chooses.

This is very helpful, thank you.

[Segev]

Having read more on the OP's character's goals, I'm reminded of Nox of Wakfu. I will say no more lest I spoil it for those who have not seen it. His opening fight scene with Grogulorugran, however, is spectacular.

You know, while your approach has merit, there's a whole lot of room between alignment-lawyering-should-the-paladin-fall (in which I plead guilty to sometimes indulge) and simplistic.

Oh, absolutely. Start with that simple base, however, and you can build up to a perfectly reasonable level of depth and nuance without having an alignment system that is asinine or inherently broken. My point is more that the tendency to see it as inherently and unavoidably bad stems from trying too hard to complicate it in unnecessary ways.

[Straybow]

NE. All time travel plots suck, and any character who tries it must be NE, as is any author, DM, or player involved.

[Seto]

Oh, absolutely. Start with that simple base, however, and you can build up to a perfectly reasonable level of depth and nuance without having an alignment system that is asinine or inherently broken. My point is more that the tendency to see it as inherently and unavoidably bad stems from trying too hard to complicate it in unnecessary ways.

Sure ! So we both defend alignment, or some version thereof. It doesn't help, though, that the tendency to complicate it is responsible for several official D&D books and book sections and makes money...

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, though I don't have a dissertation on why, I'd say that he's definitely Neutral Evil.

[Segev]

Sure ! So we both defend alignment, or some version thereof. It doesn't help, though, that the tendency to complicate it is responsible for several official D&D books and book sections and makes money...

Honestly, I think it's less "there is money in complicating it" and more "we decided to make books on it and hired people who wanted to be clever/weren't paid to really think things through/needed to get it out hte door in 1 month."

There IS good stuff in both the BoVD and the BoED. There's just a lot of garbage, too. And I think some of the fluff garbage is trying to justify crunch garbage that was lazy, we-need-this-much-crunch-by-July throw-ins.

In reality, it's still mostly us fans who do the overcomplication to the point that things are unworkable. Internet discussions being what they are, it's only natural. Most of the most eggregious stuff in the official work is easily ignored (not that that isn't entering into house rules territory; it is), but it's easy to ignore because it's not the predominant presentation. We just, as fans, tend to fixate on the contradictions to build our internet ire over how "asinine" it all is.


Anyway, all I'm doing here is agreeing with you at greater length than necessary, because I talk too much. ^^;

[Brookshw]

Honestly, I think it's less "there is money in complicating it" and more "we decided to make books on it and hired people who wanted to be clever/weren't paid to really think things through/needed to get it out hte door in 1 month."

There IS good stuff in both the BoVD and the BoED. There's just a lot of garbage, too. And I think some of the fluff garbage is trying to justify crunch garbage that was lazy, we-need-this-much-crunch-by-July throw-ins.

In reality, it's still mostly us fans who do the overcomplication to the point that things are unworkable. Internet discussions being what they are, it's only natural. Most of the most eggregious stuff in the official work is easily ignored (not that that isn't entering into house rules territory; it is), but it's easy to ignore because it's not the predominant presentation. We just, as fans, tend to fixate on the contradictions to build our internet ire over how "asinine" it all is.


Anyway, all I'm doing here is agreeing with you at greater length than necessary, because I talk too much. ^^;

Amen to us overcomplicating.

[icefractal]

Nice Guy Who Follows the Rules |                Nice Guy               | Nice Guy Who Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follows the Rules              | Okay Guy Who Follows Convenient Rules | Ignores the Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerk Who Follows the Rules     |                 Jerk                  | Jerk Who Ignores The Rules

That works fine for "here's an example character for each alignment", but it doesn't really handle figuring out what alignment an existing character is, in anything but the obvious cases.

One big issue - "the rules". What rules are these, exactly? Laws of kingdoms? You can't follow "all the laws", because many of the laws contradict each-other. Laws of a god? Again, even between the Lawful gods only, there are conflicts. Your own principles? How does that differ from a Chaotic person?

You could say "To be Lawful, pick a set of rules in advance, doesn't matter what they are, then stick to them." But that can get pretty meaningless - consider this code of rules:
1) Nobody should attempt to command another person. And if they do, they should be ignored.
2) Abstract things like currency, contracts, national borders, and such are all meaningless.
3) Grouping up into towns/cities makes people weak. Tearing down settlements so that people live more independently is an important endeavor to pursue.
Would someone who faithfully follows this code be considered lawful?

[Segev]

As I said, that was the simplest way to break it down.

"What rules?" is less important than recognizing that rules are important to the character. Which ones are up to him, but he's going to stick to the ones to which he subscribes if he "plays by the rules." The more he finds himself at odds with them, the more likely he is to either find a new set to which to subscribe that are more in line with his desires, or to shift to Neutral on the ethical axis.

This is an important point: changing the rules to which you subscribe is not a chaotic act. Doing so capriciously is. But doing so at all can be the act of a deeply lawful person who's found his moral alignment doesn't agree with the ethics of the rules he had been following. Or simply that the rules he had been following are stacked so much against his interests that he'd have to be insane to follow them.

Note that this doesn't mean "oh, it's inconvenient" or even "oh, the rules say I should die here." It means, "nothing I believe is worth having happen comes of this. These are actively bad rules!"


You listed some rules that suggest a barbarian-like outlook. Believe it or not, a "savage tribe" can have Lawful people. They adhere to traditions, to codes, to "honor" or something similar. Just because Barbarian, the class, must be Chaotic doesn't mean all members of his tribe are.

Chaotic people cna even be accepted and acceptable in Lawful societies...if the Lawful societies have built themselves and their traditions around the Chaotic individuals' proclivities. A tyrannical, despotic nation could be ruled by a CE monster. The laws and traditions are built to keep people in line and minimize the likelihood of the CE despot simply wreaking havoc, and recognize inherently the despot's right to do whatever the heck he pleases. The rules are in place to protect people from his ire not by restraining him, but by keeping them from doing things they know will anger him.

A barbarian tribe with Lawful people in it will obey traditions surrounding the idea of the barbarian's way of life as honorable and noble. They get away with their behavior because Might Makes Right, and the traditions are designed to placate the mighty and encourage their free-wheeling choices to more likely benefit those who obey said traditions. "Cities make us weak" because barbarians don't get along well in cities, and tradition says barbarians are the strongest. So the lawful savage doesn't dwell in cities. (He also, if he realizes how backwards those laws are for his own well-being and the interests of everybody except the barbarians, may well decide this code of rules and traditions is not for him, and change to a more civilized one if such are available.)

[Ettina]

Incorrect, his entire system of morality and how he treats people is based on the delusion that it doesn't matter because he will succeed. While time travel is possible in my world even the most powerful beings have difficulty with traveling back days, let alone decades.

This is not delusional, because it's in the realm of possibility. For example, think of the guy who figured out that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, but no one believed him, so he drank a culture from an ulcer patient's stomach. He got an ulcer, proving that he was right, and then took antibiotics to cure it.

Now, that was a reckless thing to do, but not delusional, because he had good reason to believe what he believed - ie, that this would give him an ulcer and that antibiotics would cure said ulcer. Even if he happened to be wrong, it would have just been an honest mistake.

A delusion is more like someone in our world thinking he's going to travel back in time and fix all his mistakes, so he can do whatever he wants. Not in a world where time travel is known and possible.

Essentially, a delusional person has no logical basis for believing what they believe (even though they think they do). The mere fact that they can believe that indicates a serious impairment in logical thinking.

[ryu]

This is not delusional, because it's in the realm of possibility. For example, think of the guy who figured out that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, but no one believed him, so he drank a culture from an ulcer patient's stomach. He got an ulcer, proving that he was right, and then took antibiotics to cure it.

Now, that was a reckless thing to do, but not delusional, because he had good reason to believe what he believed - ie, that this would give him an ulcer and that antibiotics would cure said ulcer. Even if he happened to be wrong, it would have just been an honest mistake.

A delusion is more like someone in our world thinking he's going to travel back in time and fix all his mistakes, so he can do whatever he wants. Not in a world where time travel is known and possible.

Essentially, a delusional person has no logical basis for believing what they believe (even though they think they do). The mere fact that they can believe that indicates a serious impairment in logical thinking.

Even in such a world you run into the very real question of what is considered a mistake? What future would you seek to build with time travel? Instead of actively making more work for your later self, why aren't you just working towards the future you want now? For that matter what guarantee do you have that you'll suddenly start to act like a paragon when given more power rather than actually becoming a worse version of what you are now as is statistically likely?

[TheBrassDuke]

Even in such a world you run into the very real question of what is considered a mistake? What future would you seek to build with time travel? Instead of actively making more work for your later self, why aren't you just working towards the future you want now? For that matter what guarantee do you have that you'll suddenly start to act like a paragon when given more power rather than actually becoming a worse version of what you are now as is statistically likely?

This.

"T" is just a psychopathic murderhobo by this point. Unless you're the DM you aren't guaranteed the possibility of time travel; however, given that I believe you are the DM..this is just a poorly disguised excuse for justifying your character's actions throughout the game.

You're going out of your way to do inane, outright evil things. Because whatever, it won't have happened. Yeah. Bs. Who's to say he won't continue if and when he alters the past? Frankly, he's a psychopath at this point. Nothing will stop him from continuing his path of bloodshed. He might even go after all his previous victims again. Just 'cuz.

Never mind your quotes. Contradictory statements to give depth that isn't there.

Chaotic evil. Power player concept with huge metagame syndrome. You already know he's evil. You already know that he'll succeed. I dislike the concept.

I hope he's a BBEG or at least one-off villain and not a PC...

[Sacrieur]

this is just a poorly disguised excuse for justifying your character's actions throughout the game.

Why? Because you don't like him? He lost his entire family at a very young age. This kind of tragic backstory trope is used all the time, especially in villain stories. And he's just one character of many. In the grand scheme of my campaign he's just a character who the party happened to cross paths with. They were trying to steal from him, so it's kinda on them as well. The wizard and paladin in the party were the only ones who went, "Maybe we shouldn't be here."

You're going out of your way to do inane, outright evil things. Because whatever, it won't have happened.

I'm guessing you have a lot of trouble understanding villains.

Yeah. Bs. Who's to say he won't continue if and when he alters the past? Frankly, he's a psychopath at this point. Nothing will stop him from continuing his path of bloodshed. He might even go after all his previous victims again. Just 'cuz.

That wouldn't make any sense. If he were to prevent his family's death from ever happening, his world line would cease to exist. He would still exist, but in the new world line. Who knows what he would do if he succeeded. He would probably dedicate himself to good as penance for all of the evil he caused to fix things.

Never mind your quotes. Contradictory statements to give depth that isn't there.

They're really not.

"Reality shall bend to my will or be crushed beneath it." is a chaotic thing to say, but not contradictory to his character. Powerful wizards bend reality to their will all of the time. "or be crushed beneath it" is an extension of just how determined he is to fix things. He can't even entertain the thought that he might be wrong. He must be right; he has to be; he knows he is. Everyone else is wrong about what he wants to do.

There is only one rule: the strong make the rules and the weak follow them." was in response to a PC inquiring about the rules of his game. I picked this quote in particular because I believe it to be quintessential NE.

I'm suspecting you're really not diving into the character and just rejecting it because you don't like evil characters.

Chaotic evil. Power player concept with huge metagame syndrome. You already know he's evil. You already know that he'll succeed. I dislike the concept.

You really haven't presented a convincing argument that he's more chaotic than neutral. You've convinced me you really don't like him.

I've explicitly stated that what he wants to do isn't possible, but he doesn't know that and refuses to listen to anyone who tells him that. That's the opposite of metagaming.

I hope he's a BBEG or at least one-off villain and not a PC...

I'm the DM, in case you missed the "DM Help" tag. All characters in my campaign have their own motivations and desires. It's fleshed out in all directions. The party could very well try to help this character find redemption if they wanted to (if they can manage) or attempt to stop him. Or they can leave him alone because they have more pressing matters to take care of.

The plot is not pre-written.

[Sacrieur]

This is not delusional, because it's in the realm of possibility. For example, think of the guy who figured out that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium, but no one believed him, so he drank a culture from an ulcer patient's stomach. He got an ulcer, proving that he was right, and then took antibiotics to cure it.

This isn't a discussion about H. pylori. And they're only one cause (of many) of peptic ulcers. Most people with H. pylori do not develop symptoms, so if that story ever happened it would have been an invalid conclusion based on a sample size of one.

A delusion is more like someone in our world thinking he's going to travel back in time and fix all his mistakes, so he can do whatever he wants. Not in a world where time travel is known and possible.

The fun bit is that time travel isn't impossible in reality. I do my best to make sure time travel in my world adheres to current temporal mechanics. That's why it's based on world lines instead of some weird Hollywood nonsense. I guess the fun part is that traveling into the future is relatively simple in reality. You just have to go very fast. But this isn't a true world line shift, unlike this.

In any case time travel is known to be possible in D&D, but not nearly to the degree he wants it to be. Stopping time for a few seconds isn't nearly the same as actually going backwards several decades. I don't even know if there are any ways to use divination magic to see backwards in time.

Essentially, a delusional person has no logical basis for believing what they believe (even though they think they do). The mere fact that they can believe that indicates a serious impairment in logical thinking.

Not always true. This is what the term doublethink was created for. Additionally, many real people have inconsistent and contradictory beliefs that are otherwise capable of rational thought.

[Sacrieur]

That isn't a delusion. That is a moral justification. A delusion would be if he believed that he could solve his problems with time travel even though it is literally impossible and then acted on it in spite of the impossibility. Also a truly psychotic person would have a lot of trouble functioning, let alone accomplishing what he has. A better word would be obsessed.

Also as you describe him he is a clinical psychopath:
1) Decreased empathy? Check. The hows and whys don't matter as much as the fact that he does act with diminished empathy.
2) Antisocial behavior? Toying with anyone he deems to be unworthy? Check.
3) Disninhibition? He is trying to rework time, with all the consequences, to suit his own goals.

As for alignment he is solidly NE. He is taking actions for his own ends without regard for anyone else, but is not bent of upsetting that status quo.

I am forced to agree.

Having read more on the OP's character's goals, I'm reminded of Nox of Wakfu. I will say no more lest I spoil it for those who have not seen it. His opening fight scene with Grogulorugran, however, is spectacular.

I did take his moral justification from Nox, I'll admit. I realized I had built a character so similar that I may as well copy it. I suppose a large difference is that Nox actually needed to destroy life in order to accomplish his goal.

Nox is definitely one of my favorite villains. He's at the top of the list alongside Hannibal.

[Segev]

I suppose the biggest question I have is: why do you care whether he's NE or CE? He's definitely Evil. And definitely selfishly so, viewing everyone and everything else as totally expendable because they are, essentially, not real to him. Because he's going to unmake everything that's come about to make them. They're video game NPCs as far as he's concerned, and he's got a saved game he'll reload to undo all the "bad stuff" and make sure they never know it happened.

When you don't view others as people, but as things of no value, you're Evil.

Chaotic or Neutral or even Lawful, you're Evil.

If he's taking advantage of this for kicks and grins, that pushes him a little more towards CE, but not strongly by itself. It's not LE behavior, but NE can engage in casual sadism for the lols. (LE reserves it for recreational time, if that's how they get their kicks.)

[Ettina]

Why? Because you don't like him? He lost his entire family at a very young age. This kind of tragic backstory trope is used all the time, especially in villain stories.

Used badly all the time, yes. Just like it's being used badly here.

If you want to use a tragic backstory to explain villainy, you need to connect the links and do your research. Otherwise it's just a disconnected backstory added to a cartoony villain.

If you stuck only to 'cruelty that accomplishes his goals', your backstory would be enough to explain his behaviour. But there is nothing in his backstory to explain why he'd play with people for his personal amusement. Unless he was already a psychopath (not psychotic, that's completely different) before his parents died - in which case, why would he bother bringing them back when he has more freedom to play with them gone?

[Sacrieur]

I suppose the biggest question I have is: why do you care whether he's NE or CE? He's definitely Evil. And definitely selfishly so, viewing everyone and everything else as totally expendable because they are, essentially, not real to him. Because he's going to unmake everything that's come about to make them. They're video game NPCs as far as he's concerned, and he's got a saved game he'll reload to undo all the "bad stuff" and make sure they never know it happened.

When you don't view others as people, but as things of no value, you're Evil.

Chaotic or Neutral or even Lawful, you're Evil.

If he's taking advantage of this for kicks and grins, that pushes him a little more towards CE, but not strongly by itself. It's not LE behavior, but NE can engage in casual sadism for the lols. (LE reserves it for recreational time, if that's how they get their kicks.)

I'm at a bit of a quandary about how to proceed with him. There's a very possible plot event coming up that may involve him and require him to take sides. I want to have personally accountability on what happens by determining his alignment before it happens so I know which side he'll take. That way I can say, "He's been this alignment since X so his actions are justified."

[Ettina]

I'm at a bit of a quandary about how to proceed with him. There's a very possible plot event coming up that may involve him and require him to take sides. I want to have personally accountability on what happens by determining his alignment before it happens so I know which side he'll take. That way I can say, "He's been this alignment since X so his actions are justified."

You're going at it backwards.

Don't go 'my character is evil, so he's going to eat babies', go 'my character eats babies, so he's evil'. Evil should never be used as a reason for a character to act a certain way, only as a label for a character who does act that way. Figure out who your character is, first, then slap an alignment label on him.

[Segev]

Yeah, his alignment doesn't determine the side he takes. The side he takes MAY indicate his alignment.

Given what you've said about him, I would ask these questions:

Which side offers him a greater chance to achieve his goals?
Which side grants him a better overall position after the conflict is over?
Which side is he more able to get away with betraying, if he has to?
How likely is he to have to betray each side if he joins them?
Which side is more likely to amuse him if he joins?
Which side is he more likely to enjoy toying with?
Is he more able to toy with people on his side or on the other side?


In essence, figure out what he wants, how strongly he values long-term goals vs. short-term amusement/satisfaction, and which side will best satisfy his desires by joining it.

[Spore]

Time travel should be barred by a single or several deities in a well-written setting. Because it would unravel too much. And T would have to try really hard to get magic that one or several deities have forbidden.

[Keltest]

He sounds neutral evil to me. Believing in there being merits to order but not avoiding chaos when it comes up? sounds pretty solidly neutral, though those quotes to the effect of "I make the rules" all sound pretty chaotic.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

NE. All time travel plots suck, and any character who tries it must be NE, as is any author, DM, or player involved.

Preach it, brother!