What alignment is this?

[Allthingsspectacular]

I was thinking about alignments and I am a little confused as to which alignment this is:

Basically, I'm writing a character who was raised from infancy to uphold all laws no matter what. And will go to any extreme to uphold the law and never personally gets involved with their work. They don't question the laws, they just follow it. And even thinking that someone might be breaking the law is worth killing and/or torturing for. Because that's what she was taught to do. The order that she serves is lawful evil.

What is that? Is that Lawful Neutral because she doesn't care, never gets personally involved and only does it because that's what she's raised to do or Lawful Evil because that's what her order is?

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

I'm just curious.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

That's Lawful Neutral - following all laws regardless of moral inplications.

 

[Damien Granz]

I was thinking about alignments and I am a little confused as to which alignment this is:

Basically, I'm writing a character who was raised from infancy to uphold all laws no matter what. And will go to any extreme to uphold the law and never personally gets involved with their work. They don't question the laws, they just follow it. And even thinking that someone might be breaking the law is worth killing and/or torturing for. Because that's what she was taught to do. The order that she serves is lawful evil.

What is that? Is that Lawful Neutral because she doesn't care, never gets personally involved and only does it because that's what she's raised to do or Lawful Evil because that's what her order is?

I always say that actions speak louder than words. Anybody can 'claim' to be good, or whatever, but do their actions back it up.

I'd rule her as Lawful Evil. She's claiming to be neutral on the basis she doesn't get personally involved. Too bad. Her actions don't back that up.

I'd tell anybody rolling a class like Paladin (at least by 3.X standards of that class) too, that Law doesn't trump Good, and Law shouldn't be a ball and chain that forces you to do evil actions, in character.

Well first thing first, why are you putting this character into D&D alignments? Are you writing up background and personality for a character you're going to use in such a game?

I'd be inclined to say Lawful Evil because of that killing and torturing bit. The lack of respect for the life of innocents on such flimsy grounds.

Yeah. I'm sure that's the rationalization the character gives herself to sleep through the night too.

I'm sure the blackest hearted villain has their own rationalizations and flimsy excuses. That's why I rule stronger on the average of actions, rather than intentions. Anybody can claim they're killing children to save them and claim they're 'good'.

And I don't allow 'subjective' rulings on alignments in the game (presuming a game like D&D) where Good and Evil are literal cosmic forces that can be sensed with magic and carry with them actual supernatural power.

Otherwise everybody's alignment is 'Whatever they say it is', and you really can just rationalize anything to any alignment to get the best loot.

That's Lawful Neutral - following all laws regardless of moral inplications.

Doing things without regard to moral implications is evil though. Presuming by moral implications you mean on the Good/Evil axis.

Lawful Neutral is neutral towards good and evil, sure, but there's a balance to be had. Wiping your butt on the Good/Evil axis still makes you evil.

Consider if the character was Chaotic, instead, and doing all these evil actions, would you rule them Chaotic Neutral?

The Law/Chaotic axis shouldn't be a safeguard into Good/Evil.

You shouldn't be able to do evil 'because' of the law and call yourself good, and you shouldn't automatically be doing evil 'because' of the lack of it.

It seems like you're coming from this from a 4E point of view where Law is tied to Good, and Chaotic is tied to Evil, where being Lawful is a free pass to evil because Lawful by itself makes up for it on that axis.

 

[maddness666]

It would depend on the torturing, or rather the enjoyment got from it. If she enjoys the torturing and killing, I'd say she was lawful evil. If she does it with complete indifference and because torturing people is the lawful punishment for their crimes then she'd be lawful neutral. Though it might be more accurate to describe her as lawful, as she doesn't seem to have any moral reasoning past "Uphold the law".

If you're uncertain come up with a scenario which the law doesn't have a difinitive answer to, and then guage her alignment on whatever you feel she'd do.

 

[kayisking]

Lawful neutral, no doubt about it. Lawful evil abuses laws, lawful neutral simply follows them.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

I've always wondered how it was possible to have 'neutral' characters. Surely all people are either compassionate/altruistic or self-serving, or somewhere on the spectrum between them. But I suppose if someone has an ideal they care about more than people or themselves, that could be taken as being neutral. This still doesn't explain what the heck 'chaotic neutral' is.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

That's Lawful Neutral - following all laws regardless of moral inplications.

Doing things without regard to moral implications is evil though. Presuming by moral implications you mean on the Good/Evil axis.

Lawful Neutral is neutral towards good and evil, sure, but there's a balance to be had. Wiping your butt on the Good/Evil axis still makes you evil.

Consider if the character was Chaotic, instead, and doing all these evil actions, would you rule them Chaotic Neutral?

The Law/Chaotic axis shouldn't be a safeguard into Good/Evil.

You shouldn't be able to do evil 'because' of the law and call yourself good, and you shouldn't automatically be doing evil 'because' of the lack of it.

True enough, but whilst this character is working for a LE group the OP said that this character is bound to uphold all laws no matter what. This character then does not perform evil acts for the sake of doing harm to their fellow man, they simply follow orders without question. The Law/Chaos scale governs how well a character adheres to authority, whilst the Good/Evil scale governs the intent that lies behind any actions a character commits.

I would stand by my assertion that this would lead to a LN character because the character themselves is not inherently evil, they are merely following tyrannical laws. If the character is as stated not getting emotionally involved in their orders I would claim that as being the very essence of Neutrality.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

I've always wondered how it was possible to have 'neutral' characters. Surely all people are either compassionate/altruistic or self-serving, or somewhere on the spectrum between them. But I suppose if someone has an ideal they care about more than people or themselves, that could be taken as being neutral. This still doesn't explain what the heck 'chaotic neutral' is.

Chaotic Neutral is the wildcard who is often either depicted as being completely bonkers or just people who just do random things.

One of the best examples of the latter form of Chaotic Neutral is the internet group LulzSec who does things for its own sake or for the "lulz." It's neither good nor particularly self serving. Just doing whatever for whatever.

It's also known for being the most flexible alignment. Since literally anything you do can fall under Chaotic Neutral.

 

[s0p0g]

if the extremes (killing and/or torturing on the suspicion of illegal activities) the character is willing to go to are demanded by the code she follows, lawful neutral

if not, i'd say slightly lawful-evil (although the motivation behind that alignment, as has been said, is usually to abuse the LAW!!! for personal gain, ripping someone apart because they thought of stealing some fruit to survive the day will most certainly be considered evil - just not welcome-to-the-deepest-pits-of-hell-evil)


lawful neutral is a great (read: fun) alignment, especially if the rest of the group is usually somewhere around neutral/chaotic (regarding order) and good/neutral with a tendency to good (on the good/evil scale)
aah, good times...

 

[Damien Granz]

That's Lawful Neutral - following all laws regardless of moral inplications.

Doing things without regard to moral implications is evil though. Presuming by moral implications you mean on the Good/Evil axis.

Lawful Neutral is neutral towards good and evil, sure, but there's a balance to be had. Wiping your butt on the Good/Evil axis still makes you evil.

Consider if the character was Chaotic, instead, and doing all these evil actions, would you rule them Chaotic Neutral?

The Law/Chaotic axis shouldn't be a safeguard into Good/Evil.

You shouldn't be able to do evil 'because' of the law and call yourself good, and you shouldn't automatically be doing evil 'because' of the lack of it.

True enough, but whilst this character is working for a LE group the OP said that this character is bound to uphold all laws no matter what. This character then does not perform evil acts for the sake of doing harm to their fellow man, they simply follow orders without question. The Law/Chaos scale governs how well a character adheres to authority, whilst the Good/Evil scale governs the intent that lies behind any actions a character commits.

I would stand by my assertion that this would lead to a LN character because the character themselves is not inherently evil, they are merely following tyrannical laws. If the character is as stated not getting emotionally involved in their orders I would claim that as being the very essence of Neutrality.

People aren't robots though. If an animal mauls a child, it's a neutral act because (at least in D&D parlance) they're inherently incapable of knowing better. If you kill a child because somebody payed you or told you to, you're still an assassin, and still culpable for your actions.

Just because somebody chooses to give up their free will to do evil acts, seems like a bad excuse for a player to do evil acts then claim they're good.

"I murdered all these orphans for their gold, but really it tore me up inside. I really love children, I swear! It's just that my friend told me he'd cut me in on a large surplus of coin if I did it!", I guess would be a weak position for a player to hold.

Just because they've done so much harm they've eroded their conscious and their emotions, to me, doesn't make them neutral or good. Heck, that's sort of the scariest types of evil character, the sort that's so far gone they can't even feel remorse or seek redemption.

I guess I don't like the abuse or implication that one alignment gives you a blank check towards the other axis.

Being lawful and good should be a difficult set of axis to play (though not impossible), but I can't see a Paladin skinning a child alive because some Count told him to, and putting up no resistance because he 'has to follow the law'.

I've always wondered how it was possible to have 'neutral' characters. Surely all people are either compassionate/altruistic or self-serving, or somewhere on the spectrum between them. But I suppose if someone has an ideal they care about more than people or themselves, that could be taken as being neutral. This still doesn't explain what the heck 'chaotic neutral' is.

It's the average of actions. You become neutral through an average. An evil character can still be a devoted father or mother to their children. It's just that after that 'protected circle' then things get a lot more nasty.

An evil monarch that murders innocent people to build a pillar of bones to make a monument to himself, because he thinks he's that cool, then is a loving father to his children, is still a pretty evil guy.

Also, neutral actions don't (for me at least) move somebody towards good or evil. Like if you're Good and do a neutral action, you don't move down towards evil. Otherwise every time you breathed or took a crap, you'd pop back to neutral, regardless of where you started. They just 'fail' to move you along the path.

A neutral person would be somebody who, if it was convenient enough, could or would do good, but if they really had to work for it.. meh, screw it. But at the same time they wouldn't go out of their way to do an evil act... unleeeess they reward was good enough.

I'd honestly rule that 90% of random people on the street are lawful neutral.

That's the sort that, if they walked RIIIGHT UP to somebody bleeding on the street might stop to help them.. but otherwise couldn't be arsed to do anything about it. But they wouldn't go out of their way to like, rob a bank either... but if the teller turned her back and there was a lot of cash.. maaaaaaybe they'd take it.

 

[Littaly]

It sounds like Lawful Neutral to me.

Alignments have a tendency to differ ever so slightly in their descriptions depending on where you look them up. But as far as I understand it, the good/neutral/evil axis (axes? Is that even the right word) is to be understood in terms of the DnD world where there's no question that the concepts of good and evil exist, not just as a point of view, people who are evil are just evil, they don't need any specific reason or justification for it.

And in light of that, if your character doesn't have any malignant intent, they do not belong on the evil side. Just my guess though, I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong. As insignificant as the whole thing is, I find the Character Alignment table to be very interesting ^^

 

[VeryOddGamer]

It's Lawful Neutral. A very extreme kind of it, but still.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

Surely, it depends how you play it. you could have them racked with guilt when the law demands they do evil, or have them do what all non psychopaths do to justify their own barbarity by de-humanising the victims. The whole 'they gave up any rights when they committed a crime' thing. Surely, provided that you're role-playing is consistent with the alignment you choose, you can choose any of them?

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

People aren't robots though. If an animal mauls a child, it's a neutral act because (at least in D&D parlance) they're inherently incapable of knowing better. If you kill a child because somebody payed you or told you to, you're still an assassin, and still culpable for your actions.

Just because somebody chooses to give up their free will to do evil acts, seems like a bad excuse for a player to do evil acts then claim they're good.

"I murdered all these orphans for their gold, but really it tore me up inside. I really love children, I swear! It's just that my friend told me he'd cut me in on a large surplus of coin if I did it!", I guess would be a weak position for a player to hold.

Just because they've done so much harm they've eroded their conscious and their emotions, to me, doesn't make them neutral or good. Heck, that's sort of the scariest types of evil character, the sort that's so far gone they can't even feel remorse or seek redemption.

The above example is a notably evil decision. Because it is causing harm for personal gain.

I could argue that they do just as much good as evil because that's what their law demands. If someone is terrorizing citizens, she is obligated to stop them for no other reason than they're breaking the law. Then she'll proceed to torture any survivors for information on their motives, if they have a nearby basecamp or if they have any info on a mission they're currently on.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

""I murdered all these orphans for their gold, but really it tore me up inside. I really love children, I swear! It's just that my friend told me he'd cut me in on a large surplus of coin if I did it!", I guess would be a weak position for a player to hold."

well yes, but that's a bit of a straw man. In this situation its much more likely to be "Yes I executed that orphan, but he stole a goat, and the law is unequivocal" Sounds cold, and there is an argument for saying that they couldn't be good, and yet well known good guy King Arthur turned it into a virtue with his "the law must have no exceptions, not even for the king" and would have killed his best friend, lancelot, because of it.

 

[Damien Granz]

People aren't robots though. If an animal mauls a child, it's a neutral act because (at least in D&D parlance) they're inherently incapable of knowing better. If you kill a child because somebody payed you or told you to, you're still an assassin, and still culpable for your actions.

Just because somebody chooses to give up their free will to do evil acts, seems like a bad excuse for a player to do evil acts then claim they're good.

"I murdered all these orphans for their gold, but really it tore me up inside. I really love children, I swear! It's just that my friend told me he'd cut me in on a large surplus of coin if I did it!", I guess would be a weak position for a player to hold.

Just because they've done so much harm they've eroded their conscious and their emotions, to me, doesn't make them neutral or good. Heck, that's sort of the scariest types of evil character, the sort that's so far gone they can't even feel remorse or seek redemption.

The above example is a notably evil decision. Because it is causing harm for personal gain.

I could argue that they do just as much good as evil because that's what their law demands. If someone is terrorizing citizens, she is obligated to stop them for no other reason than they're breaking the law. Then she'll proceed to torture any survivors for information on their motives, if they have a nearby basecamp or if they have any info on a mission they're currently on.

Yeah, but then you get a situation where the Dark Lord of the Underworld is neutral because he upholds the law (he doesn't like his trophies of his conquests into the mortal plane stolen any more than you or I) and that occasionally happens to put actual evildoers in jail (said trophy thieves).

 

[somonels]

I'd align you with Acheron [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheron_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29].

Acheron is an eternal battlefield of endless conflict. It is a plane of law where conformity takes precedence over any thoughts of good.

Think of any popular dystopia with mind police and such, you enforce that way of life.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

Yeah, but then you get a situation where the Dark Lord of the Underworld is neutral because he upholds the law (he doesn't like his trophies of his conquests into the mortal plane stolen any more than you or I) and that occasionally happens to put actual evildoers in jail (said trophy thieves).

I think evil is based more on intent than on action. Because it is so ambiguous otherwise.

Like, killing people is bad right? Well, what if it is killing someone who, if you don't kill him, he'll just kill more people? Or he'll rob more people?