What DnD alignment do you think each hero is?

[Kareeah Indaga]

We had a thread like this some time ago for us, but what about the campaign heroes?

At a guess, I’d say:

Sandro—Lawful or Neutral Evil
Gauldoth—True Neutral
Queen Catherine—something Good, maybe Neutral Good with Chaotic leanings.
King Roland—might have had a brief stint as Neutral in his time at the early Demon Wars, but for the most part, Lawful Good.
Kastore (Okay, so he was Might and Magic 7, but…)—Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil
Crag Hack—Chaotic Neutral with possible leanings towards Good. (“I get to smash something? Great! It’s an evil magical artifact—even better!”)
Kilgor—probably not Lawful, very unlikely to be Good. Guess would be Chaotic Neutral, but maybe Chaotic Evil.
Gelu—Doubt he counts as highly Lawful, probably Neutral or Chaotic Good.
Xeron—Mmm, Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil.
Lysander—Neutral Good or Lawful Good.
Tawni Balfour—Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil
Mutare—Neutral Evil

And I better stop there before the list gets too long to read through.

What do you think? Any opinions?

[ThunderTitan]

We had a thread like this some time ago for us, but what about the campaign heroes?

At a guess, I’d say:

Sandro—Lawful or Neutral Evil

Neutral sounds about right. And Gauldoth is prob more Lawful Neutral, as he does have a certain personal code. And Crag Hack is more True Neutral, with a whiff of hatred of magic.

Some help:

The Nine Alignments

Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

Lawful Good, "Crusader"

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, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, "Benefactor"

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, "Rebel"

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to 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.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

True Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

[Kareeah Indaga]

And Gauldoth is prob more Lawful Neutral, as he does have a certain personal code.

Yes, but so does Drizz’t Do’Urden, and he’s classified as full-fledged Chaotic last I checked.

True Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

This why I figure Gauldoth to be TN.

Remember, “Everyone else is a fanatic.”

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to 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.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

By most of that definition, Lawful doesn’t really fit; Gauldoth hasn’t gone out of his way to be un-honorable, sure, but he hasn’t tried to be very honorable either—he got Alana killed in place of himself, for example.

And he went directly against tradition; traditionally, Necromancers are scheming, power-hungry sorts that like to slaughter villages to build armies, while Gauldoth did exactly the opposite.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Wearjak is definately Lawful Good as is Emilia Nighthaven.

[ThunderTitan]

But Gauldoth isn't exactly undecided, and he's also a king bringing order to his kingdom. But i do guess he started out at TN. At the end i guess he's somewhere in between the two. But i've always figured lawful as having a strong conviction about how one should lead a life.


I always figured that Chaotic characters do things on whims, their entire behaviour based on what makes them feel good atm without much thought . The original Drizzt fit this one, now he;s more neutral good to me (doing good for goods sake and all).

[BoardGuest808888]

Tawni more Neutral Evil I think.

Archibald Lawful Evil.

and Queen Catherine Lawful Neutral.

[vicheron]

Dracon - Lawful Evil

Gem - Neutral Good

Yog - Chaotic Neutral

Adrienne - Chaotic Good

Solmyr - Lawful Good

Sandro - Lawful Awesome

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But Gauldoth isn't exactly undecided, and he's also a king bringing order to his kingdom. But i do guess he started out at TN. At the end i guess he's somewhere in between the two. But i've always figured lawful as having a strong conviction about how one should lead a life.


I always figured that Chaotic characters do things on whims, their entire behaviour based on what makes them feel good atm without much thought . The original Drizzt fit this one, now he;s more neutral good to me (doing good for goods sake and all).

I think Gauldoth is Lawful Evil. He might not be interested in conquering the world, but his reasons for doing so are practical, that they world would stop him, not moral.

He is an evil man with a strong sense of order and code, he is lawful evil.

[ThunderTitan]

He is an evil man with a strong sense of order and code, he is lawful evil.

No, evil implies wanting to do harm. He doesn't care enough to be evil.

[vhilhu]

No, evil implies wanting to do harm.

then every military leader, fantasy or RL, should be evil. well, maybe they are

---

btw 237 posts?????? wtf? you did 237 posts in a single day?

[ThunderTitan]

then every military leader, fantasy or RL, should be evil. well, maybe they are

There's wanting and there's doing. Prob should have said enjoy.

btw 237 posts?????? wtf? you did 237 posts in a single day?

238.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

No, evil implies wanting to do harm. He doesn't care enough to be evil.

No, although wanting to cause harm is an evil trait, it is not essential. An evil bieng normally does not wish to harm people for no reason, beacause this would make enemies for no reason, enemies which would threaten the evil bieng.

What makes evil is the following of one's own goals regardless of the ethical consequences of following them, except when those consequences are of practical concern to that goal or some other goal. Wanting to inflict harm upon others for sake of the pleasure they get from it, is sadism, not evil per se.

Gauldoth is utterly Lawful Evil, he is concerned with establishing and mantaining power and authority (preferably his own) and feels bound to his 'master'.

He is also pragmatic, and definately NOT a risk-taker. The reason he doesn't invade and conquer is beacause he fears the world will unite to destroy him and he realises his own weakness. While I wouldn't go as far as to call Gauldoth a coward, but he doesn't take risks unless strictly neccesery. In that he is wise (he would have a high wisdom stat in D&D).

Look at the way he treated the man who tied him to a stake and tried to burn him. He took great pleasure in turning him into his eternal slave after burning him at the stake. That is not the actions of a good man. All the good characters are in some way merciful towards those that have wronged them, Gauldoth not only shows no mercy, but delights in inflicting even greater pain upon his soul after death, in addition to the 'eye for an eye' retribution.

Also how he treated that priestess woman, admittadly it would be interesting to see how a 'good' character would have behaved under those circumstances. Probably they would have opted for the self-sacrifice approach.

Lastly, one must look at the essential nature of the magic to which Gauldoth is devoted. He is devoted to the arts of demonology and necromancy, neither of which are really good, or even neutral by definition.

To form hideous slaves by entrapping the spirits of the dead is the essence of necromancy, to consort with biengs that are personifications of evil, is demonology. A bieng practicing such things, is almost by definition evil, unless they use them sparingly and not exclusively, at which point they could be considered perhaps neutral.

[ThunderTitan]

No, although wanting to cause harm is an evil trait, it is not essential. An evil bieng normally does not wish to harm people for no reason because this would make enemies for no reason, enemies which would threaten the evil bieng.

See, they wouldn't do it because it would be dangerous to them, if it wouldn't they'd do it.

What makes evil is the following of one's own goals regardless of the ethical consequences of following them.

If a Neutral char cared about ethics wouldn't that make him good? A good/evil neutral char should be able to do both good and evil deeds for his goal.

Lawful evil:

Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself.

Gauldoth is utterly Lawful Evil, he is concerned with establishing and mantaining power and authority (preferably his own) and feels bound to his 'master'.

That's why he's Lawful. And that description fits Lawful Good paladins and their deities.

Look at the way he treated the man who tied him to a stake and tried to burn him. He took great pleasure in turning him into his eternal slave after burning him at the stake. That is not the actions of a good man. All the good characters are in some way merciful towards those that have wronged them, Gauldoth not only shows no mercy, but delights in inflicting even greater pain upon his soul after death, in addition to the 'eye for an eye' retribution.

That's why i said neutral.

Lastly, one must look at the essential nature of the magic to which Gauldoth is devoted. He is devoted to the arts of demonology and necromancy, neither of which are really good, or even neutral by definition.

To form hideous slaves by entrapping the spirits of the dead is the essence of necromancy, to consort with biengs that are personifications of evil, is demonology. A bieng practicing such things, is almost by definition evil, unless they use them sparingly and not exclusively, at which point they could be considered perhaps neutral.

Wouldn't a Neutral char not care what tools he uses?



A neutral char IMHO should be able to do any action anyone of the two sides can (good/evil; lawful/chaotic) to reach his goal, this is why neutral char are very hard to simulate in cRPG's.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

See, they wouldn't do it because it would be dangerous to them, if it wouldn't they'd do it.

It all depends on the balance of risk/reward.

If a Neutral char cared about ethics wouldn't that make him good? A good/evil neutral char should be able to do both good and evil deeds for his goal.

Lawful evil:

Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself.

An evil bieng, may do good for his own selfish ends. He will not however do good for it's own sake.

A neutral character is one who seeks not to harm others, but does not have much concern for improving others lot in life, when it is not their buisness. "Mind your own buisness" is a neutral phrase.

A neutral character won't harm someone for profit, but they won't risk their life or interests to help others either.

An evil character does not spread evil for it's own sake, unless he is also a sadist. He does what benefits him and his own selfish or hateful goals, regardless of moral consequences. Sadistic evil biengs, inflict evil for it's own sake, others inflict evil whenever it benefits some other goal.

That's why he's Lawful. And that description fits Lawful Good paladins and their deities.

Yes, however I was explaining the lawful part of his character, not the evil bit of his character. That is one thing he has in common with Lawful Good paladins.

That's why i said neutral.

No, a neutral character would likely have tied him to a stake and burnt him, but wouldn't have enslaved his soul in order to torment him further. A good character would have probably forgiven him, punished him to a lesser degree if at all and tried to come to some understanding with him.

Gauldoth exceeds the demands of retributive justice, in order to gain maximum revenge. That makes him evil.

Wouldn't a Neutral char not care what tools he uses?

A neutral char IMHO should be able to do any action anyone of the two sides can (good/evil; lawful/chaotic) to reach his goal, this is why neutral char are very hard to simulate in cRPG's.

Yes, the neutral character would care about what tools they use, they would care about the damage this would cause to others in relation to how much it benefits their goals and what those goals are.

Evil characters don't care about tools they use at all. Good characters care about the tools they use a lot. Neutral characters care about them, but weigh things up.

A neutral character would summon undead and demons (thus trapping souls and increasing the power of evil), if they stood to gain enough from it or lost enough from not doing it. However, the evil neccesery would be weighed up against the benefits.

Think of there as bieng three main weights, morality, desire and practicality.

In a evil character, morality is not present and individual desire and practical concerns are the only factors taken into account.

A truly evil character acts on individual desire, only weighing up the practical concerns (such as fear of retribution or greater benefits to be gained from not doing it in future).

Morality has no weight, an evil character will act according to his desire, only weighing it against practical concerns.


In a neutral character, the three factors are equally balanced. A neutral character acts as they desire and weighs up moral concerns with a finate price attached to them. Practical concerns are the key element of a neutral character, typically fear of punishment or possibility of reward are what tips the balance when faced with a difficult moral dilemma.

In a good character, morality is weighed against practicality and individual desires are weighed less that morality. Obviously a good character must in order to survive, place some value upon their personal desires, but these weigh less than moral concerns but are still weighed against practical concerns.

Moral concerns are weighed against practical concerns, rather than individual desires. For instance, a good character will usually not endanger 100 others in order to help 1 person. A neutral character might, as long as that 1 person was valued to them on the basis of something like family or friendship, while an evil character would if the 1 person served their interests.

In general, the wiser the characters are, the more accurately they weigh up the practical difficulties against their main imperatives. In general, wiser evil characters (like Gauldoth) will often abandon evil plans on the basis of a practical concern, not on the basis of morals.

For instance, take the Great Arcan dilemma of Gauldoth, whether to invade Erathia when they are weak.

Evil Gauldoth- What are the chances of ultimate success (low wisdom), what are the chances of a long-term reversal (high wisdom).

Neutral Gauldoth- What do I and those close to me have to gain, what are the chances of ultimate success, how many people will likely have to die, how many people close to me will have to die? (low wisdom) What are the chances of a long-term reversal and long term casualties both of people in general and of self and those close to me.

Good Gauldoth- What have they done that would make such violence neccesery? (low wisdom) Is this neccesery to prevent possible future evil deeds, what are the chances of succeess (high wisdom).

Actually it is probably the case that all three Gauldoths would, in their present situations have a reason to go to war with Great Arcan, however the wiser one's would likely not go to war.

[Kareeah Indaga]

Dracon - Lawful Evil

Why Lawful Evil for Dracon?

A neutral character won't harm someone for profit, but they won't risk their life or interests to help others either.

A nice idea, except last I checked most mercenaries were Neutral aligned.

An evil character does not spread evil for it's own sake, unless he is also a sadist. He does what benefits him and his own selfish or hateful goals, regardless of moral consequences. Sadistic evil biengs, inflict evil for it's own sake, others inflict evil whenever it benefits some other goal.

Sadism may be evil, but that doesn’t make all evil sadism. An Evil aligned lord could spread evil because it brings him power, or because it fills his coffers with more gold than he could get otherwise, not specifically to cause suffering.

No, a neutral character would likely have tied him to a stake and burnt him, but wouldn't have enslaved his soul in order to torment him further. A good character would have probably forgiven him, punished him to a lesser degree if at all and tried to come to some understanding with him.

Gauldoth exceeds the demands of retributive justice, in order to gain maximum revenge. That makes him evil.

No, based on that one deed alone that makes him Chaotic. A Lawful character would most likely have stuck to the exact letter of the law and/or justice and been content. A Neutral character is perfectly capable of seeking revenge and still being Neutral, even if doing so is excessive of justice. So are Good characters, for that matter, they’re just less likely to do it because of the whole morality thing.

Yes, the neutral character would care about what tools they use, they would care about the damage this would cause to others in relation to how much it benefits their goals and what those goals are.

Evil characters don't care about tools they use at all.

I find it odd that you argue this, and still argue Gauldoth being Evil. Because he did care.

He felt regret after getting Alana killed, and ordered that she be given a proper funeral; an Evil person either would not have cared about her death or would have been actively gleeful about it, and would have reanimated her carcass instead of having it buried (to taunt her, if nothing else).

He freed the children Kalibarr was going to take to the Plane of Death. Now, it can be argued that he did that to keep Kalibarr from using them against him—to power a spell, or something—and it was therefore a matter of practicality. Except there are other, much more efficient/practical ways of accomplishing the same thing:

1.) He could have killed them and destroyed/hidden their bodies so they couldn’t be used.
2.) He could have freed them, but released them into the wilderness so as not to be bothered by them, with the bonus of having them scattered so Kalibarr couldn’t retake them all at once or interrogate one of Gauldoth’s soldiers to find out where they were.
3.) He could have had one of his lieutenants arrange to transport them away without getting involved himself.
4.) He could have left them at Rija after they were evacuated, and made their parents go get them or leave them to starve.

All of which would prevent Kalibarr from using them with as much if not more surety than escorting them, personally, across the country and personally bringing them back afterwards. He gets a little too involved for it to be strictly a way to inconvienience his former master.

[ThunderTitan]

It all depends on the balance of risk/reward.

Yes, my point was that Gauldoth didn't do evil he could have gotten away with no problem.

A neutral character won't harm someone for profit, but they won't risk their life or interests to help others either.

But they would if they considered the profit worth it. At least they should, otherwise they're just non-proactive good characters. Neutral char should be motivated more by cold reason then desires (most of the times).

An evil character does not spread evil for it's own sake, unless he is also a sadist. He does what benefits him and his own selfish or hateful goals, regardless of moral consequences.

I don't think doing something that benefits you is enough to make you evil, even if it hurts someone else, you have to like hurting someone (not revenge or anything).

Yes, however I was explaining the lawful part of his character, not the evil bit of his character. That is one thing he has in common with Lawful Good paladins.

Then you prob shouldn't have used Evil in the beginning too.

No, a neutral character would likely have tied him to a stake and burnt him, but wouldn't have enslaved his soul in order to torment him further.
Gauldoth exceeds the demands of retributive justice, in order to gain maximum revenge. That makes him evil.

Only good char should care about justice imo,

A neutral character would summon undead and demons (thus trapping souls and increasing the power of evil), if they stood to gain enough from it or lost enough from not doing it. However, the evil neccesery would be weighed up against the benefits.

See, Gauldoth pretty much says that Death magic isn't evil, just a tool, so at least from his POV he isn't inceresing the power of evil.

Neutral Gauldoth- What do I and those close to me have to gain, what are the chances of ultimate success, how many people will likely have to die, how many people close to me will have to die? (low wisdom) What are the chances of a long-term reversal and long term casualties both of people in general and of self and those close to me.

But he did do that... even for his kingdom in the long run.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Sadism may be evil, but that doesn’t make all evil sadism. An Evil aligned lord could spread evil because it brings him power, or because it fills his coffers with more gold than he could get otherwise, not specifically to cause suffering.

That is the case. Gauldoths actions are very much of this nature. He has no qualms about spreading evil and pain in order to further his personal goals, but doesn't delight in evil and suffering per se.

No, based on that one deed alone that makes him Chaotic. A Lawful character would most likely have stuck to the exact letter of the law and/or justice and been content. A Neutral character is perfectly capable of seeking revenge and still being Neutral, even if doing so is excessive of justice. So are Good characters, for that matter, they’re just less likely to do it because of the whole morality thing.

No, beacause Gauldoth later actions betray a lawful alignment, for instance the lengths he went to in order to rescue his master, beacause he felt obliged too.

Only a Lawful Neutral character would stick to the exact letter of the law against their own desires, remember that alignment good/evil, is actually stronger than lawful/chaotic, where the two come into conflict in all non-nuetral characters.

A Lawful Good character, would not obey an order to kill innocent people for instance, while a Lawful Evil character would attempt to overturn a law that stood in their way rather than obey it.

All characters generally want revenge for wrongs against them. What marks out an evil character is that there is no limit to their sense of revenge.

I find it odd that you argue this, and still argue Gauldoth being Evil. Because he did care.

He felt regret after getting Alana killed, and ordered that she be given a proper funeral; an Evil person either would not have cared about her death or would have been actively gleeful about it, and would have reanimated her carcass instead of having it buried (to taunt her, if nothing else).

He freed the children Kalibarr was going to take to the Plane of Death. Now, it can be argued that he did that to keep Kalibarr from using them against him—to power a spell, or something—and it was therefore a matter of practicality. Except there are other, much more efficient/practical ways of accomplishing the same thing:

Sure, he felt regret after killing Alana, but he still did it quite happily. He regretted that it was neccesery, the reason was simple, Gauldoth considered Alana a friend.

Lawful Evil characters are loyal to their friends, even if they are prepared to even kill them for their personal goals, or to mantain 'order'. Loyalty is a trait which exists among evil beings, beacause even evil biengs get lonely too and need companionship.

To use a real world example- even Hitler was a friend to his dogs.

As for the children, have you considered that perhaps Gauldoth was trying to improve his reputation among the living, for the sake of securing his position. Those children, if they were allowed to live, would go and tell others that Gauldoth was a just and decent ruler. Since Gauldoth understood the living to be 'neccesery' for the long term survival and strength of an undead kingdom, protecting and encouraging a thriving population of them, was entirely in his own interests, as would be mantaining their loyalty. Killing those children would gain him nothing, letting them live would create loyal servants and be good for his image.

Even Sandro, widely considered by people here to be evil, wouldn't have harmed Vidomina for no reason (to use a comparison).

Yes, my point was that Gauldoth didn't do evil he could have gotten away with no problem.

Beacause Gauldoth saw no profit to be gained in doing that evil, and gains to be achieved by not doing them.

But they would if they considered the profit worth it. At least they should, otherwise they're just non-proactive good characters. Neutral char should be motivated more by cold reason then desires (most of the times).

A non-proactive good character is kind of a contradiction in terms to be honest. They would not be evil in that they do not harm others for personal gain, but they would not be good beacause they would not sacrifice anything to help others either. Hence they would be evil.

There are actually many ways a character could be neutral. But this is the most likely way they would be.

Whether your neutral character is motivated by cold reason or by desires is not relavent. Animals are governed by desires rather than cold reason, but they are neutral.

I don't think doing something that benefits you is enough to make you evil, even if it hurts someone else, you have to like hurting someone (not revenge or anything).

Whether you enjoy hurting people, is not relavent to anything, except whether you are sadistic. Perhaps some good characters might actually hate being good at times.

The difference between a neutral character and an evil character, is that a neutral character will not cause greater harm to others, in order to obtain an equal or lesser reward. They are pretty selfish, they look after number 1 first, but this doesn't extend to altruisticly sacrificing for others benefit.

An evil character does not factor in the consequences of evil, except on a practical level. If they gain something from harming someone else, they will do it, regardless of how little the reward and how great the reward.

In general, being annoyed or harmed by something, creates the desire to inflict harm upon that thing. Even good characters are that way inclined.

Some evil characters (like Gauldoth) would not slay someone just for nothing, beacause not bieng sadistic they take no pleasure in killing for it's own sake. But if they saught revenge, there would likely not be anything more than practical concerns as to the extent of that revenge, the pleasure they get from avenging themselves, weighs higher than any moral concern.

See, Gauldoth pretty much says that Death magic isn't evil, just a tool, so at least from his POV he isn't inceresing the power of evil.

That is beacause Gauldoth does not really believe in evil. If he killed someone, that is just "a tool" to Gauldoths agenda. The consequences are the material consequences to Gauldoth's desires and to the order in which Gauldoth lives.

Of course on one hand it is Gauldoths interests to try and portray death magic as morally neutral, beacause it helps turn people against his enemies, paladin/crusader types, by making them appear like intolerent bigots.

To convince people that he is neutral, or even good in order to divide people, is a good ploy that many evil characters, RL and fantasy have used to good effect.

Assuming that someone analysing Gauldoth's actions in the Heroes IV world, came to the conclusion that he was nuetral (you lot), while another (myself) came to the conclusion that was evil, then this division would be of good use to Gauldoth at weakening and destroying the unity of the world and keeping Gauldoth and his undead order safe.

Remember that 2 things serve Gauldoth's long-term interests.

Increasing the popularity and reach of death magic and thus the power of the undead and demonic.
Creating internal division and thus weakness in the rest of the world.

A few token gestures of 'goodness' by a proffesed necromancer, would go well towards achieving this goal by confusing people.

[ThunderTitan]

A Lawful Good character, would not obey an order to kill innocent people for instance,

But they would allow an innocent to be hanged by the law (*chough* Aribeth *chough*).

A non-proactive good character is kind of a contradiction in terms to be honest. They would not be evil in that they do not harm others for personal gain, but they would not be good because they would not sacrifice anything to help others either. Hence they would be evil.

I hope you mean neutral...

The difference between a neutral character and an evil character, is that a neutral character will not cause greater harm to others, in order to obtain an equal or lesser reward. They are pretty selfish, they look after number 1 first, but this doesn't extend to altruisticly sacrificing for others benefit.

An evil character does not factor in the consequences of evil, except on a practical level. If they gain something from harming someone else, they will do it, regardless of how little the reward and how great the reward.

My problem with your definition is that neutral characters to you do have morals, they just don't act on them, that's why they're not good. That isn't being in between, it's more close to being good, but a coward. Or it could work the other way around, you're evil but such a coward that you don't harm anyone for fear of consequences.




Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. - i think Gauldroth would aprove of this as a description of himself.


IMO you need to take into account all the description of an aligment before making a call about a character. All evil aligments say that the char take pleasure in evil, Gauldroth doesn't seem to.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But they would allow an innocent to be hanged by the law (*chough* Aribeth *chough*).

It wasn't actually in Aribeth's power to not hang Fenthick. Although on another note, given that Aribeth later fell beacause of this action, I'm wondering whether Aribeth actually made the 'right' choice, or whether the action was in fact motivated more by cowardice. Also, since to stop Fenthick from being killed, would require the overthrow of the established order, which would create even more chaos, which would weaken Neverwinter against the evil forces.

Also, consider that in the end Aribeth did rebel against Neverwinter and this caused her to become 'evil'.

The question is, would a lawful good person, in the position to help people threatened by an evil law, actually disobey that law, if by doing so they do not cause even greater evil.

I hope you mean neutral...

Yes I do mean neutral. Sorry

My problem with your definition is that neutral characters to you do have morals, they just don't act on them, that's why they're not good. That isn't being in between, it's more close to being good, but a coward. Or it could work the other way around, you're evil but such a coward that you don't harm anyone for fear of consequences.

A good character feels obliged by their moral compass to help other AND not to harm others.

A neutral character either feels obliged by their moral compass to harm others as little as possible while benefitting themselves, but does not feel obliged to help others at their own expense, except where the benefit is great and the cost little.

A neutral character is somewhere between the extremes of good and evil in other words. In fact there are many ways one could be neutral, it simply means that your character avoids either extremes of evil due to their moral compass, or extremes of good due to their selfishness.

Sometimes a neutral character will harm others when their own needs are great enough, but they attempt to minimise the harm caused due to moral concerns or lack of malice.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. - i think Gauldroth would aprove of this as a description of himself.

No, a lawful neutral character is someone without moral initiative of their own, that relies entirely upon the judgments of others, laws and traditions and/or legalistic moral codes in order to decide how to behave in a situation.

Their actions don't carry moral weight, simply beacause those actions are always done "following orders". If a lawful neutral character was ordered to massacre innocents, they would do so, if they were ordered to sacrifice their life to save innocents, they would do so.

What they care about is not right or wrong, but the percieved legitimacy of their master. When placed in positions of power, they act according to expectation and past precedent.

All in all, lawful neutrals are the perfect servants of evil beings, once those evil biengs have obtained positions of authority, since they do not question the moral content of their orders, nor do they care about their own interests or betray their master.

IMO you need to take into account all the description of an aligment before making a call about a character. All evil aligments say that the char take pleasure in evil, Gauldroth doesn't seem to.

The problem with that statement, is few evil beings consider their actions evil, some (usually lawful) even consider their actions good, or do not believe in either concept.

Evil is in effect to profit one's self interest and the interest of your friends and group, regardless of what harm this may cause to others. The former is chaotic evil, the latter is lawful evil and neutral evil is somewhere in between.

Taking pleasure in inflicting evil for the sake of it, is sadism. Taking pleasure in inflicting maximum revenge for real or imagined wrongs, that is bieng vengeful. Both, one of them or even neither could be present in an evil character.

All evil biengs do not uniformly find the same things pleasurable, nor are they uniformly brave or wise. Someone like Gauldoth, takes no pleasure in inflicting evil for the sake of it, but a great deal in taking vengeance for slights against him.

Heroes of Might and Magic, does a good job, in that it does not portray any evil character as simply a sadist, no evil character inflicts pain and suffering simply for the sake of it beacause they enjoy the process (so common in fiction).

Instead all the goals that the evil characters follow, are one's which are in a sense universal human desires (even for good characters). The desire for power, knowledge, wealth, glory, interests of family or group, revenge, recognition and so on.

They never act in an evil way, simply beacause they can, always beacause they have some other motivation. To say, well an evil character must take pleasure in evil, is a bit muddled beacause of course they take pleasure in it, beacause the things they are seeking through evil are things which are desirable to them.

What distinguishes them from good and neutral characters, is that they always seek the easiest and most profitable route to those things, without regarding what harm it will do to others (except perhaps their group, friends and family). Neutral characters strike a balance, good characters will take the harder and less profitable route, beacause they desire to be on good terms with their conscience.

[ThunderTitan]

I never like Lawful as "obeying the law/tradition", coz that just makes Chaotic char ppl that have different values then the norm at the time, so in 100 or more years they wouldn't be Chaotic anymore. IMO Lawful should mean having a definitive set of beliefs you guide your life by all the time, Chaotic about doing everything on whims and Neutral both, depending on the situation.

It wasn't actually in Aribeth's power to not hang Fenthick.

She was the most respected paladin there... her defending him should have counted alot, prob only second to the PC (i really hated how you had no say in the matter... i just saved them all, letting him go if i asked would be the least they could do, bunch of ungrateful curs).

Also, since to stop Fenthick from being killed, would require the overthrow of the established order, which would create even more chaos, which would weaken Neverwinter against the evil forces.

No it wouldn't... he got hanged to appease the masses, even if it was legal.

Also, consider that in the end Aribeth did rebel against Neverwinter and this caused her to become 'evil'.

She was brainwashed, and by your definition wasn't evil, she wasn't putting her desires first, she just went crazy.