If a character is, by nature, inherently intensively evil, only finding joy from hurting and killing other creatures, but upon realizing what a shithole the world is began abiding by a strict set of moral rules in order to not cause harm and try to make the world a better place for everyone, not because the character emotionally wants to but because it's logically the best outcome for everyone, is that character evil or good?
Basically, the character does good while living in a constant state of emotional dullness, only acting upon rationality, but still finds great joy from hurting and killing.
Pic unrelated, but it got your attention.
>>51642883
Depends on hte setting, some have objective morality, but for myself it is simple: Actions speak, thoughts do not.
If you do good you are good, if you do evil you are evil. What you get out of it doesnt matter
>>51642900
So say the character fights evil, but is incredibly sadistic and violent in the way it disposes of it, taking pleasure from seeing pain smeared across the faces of the monsters it kills?
>>51642904
T&A is the cherry on top for every good thread.
>>51642900
By action speaking 80% of my NE characters should be considered NG. But doing good because it profits you, builds you a good rep and generally helps the society which in turn helps you is an egoistic reasoning to it's core and thus Evil by the very definition of it. You can do plenty of good by being Evil and not stupd about it.
>>51642970
>Actions speak
>but is incredibly sadistic and violent
That aint a good person, thats an incredibly sadistic and violent person.
>>51642976
Depends on hte setting, some have objective morality. Please dont mix objective and subjective morality. DnD have strict rules for what is what.
>>51643029
The actions of the person might be sadistic and violent, but the actions causes peace and tranquillity in the land. The end justifies the means.
Guess it evens out to a neutral alignment?
>>51643057
To some it would justify the means, to others it does not. Going by DnD you'd be chaotic something, probably neutral.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Or possibly lawfull evil.
>>51642900
No, the intentions behind the action matter. If you do something that results in good but only because of selfish reasons that doesn't make you a good person.
Otherwise, an Evil creature could accidentally become Good just out of unintended consequences of its actions which is nonsensical.
>>51642883
So that character does good
BECAUSE doing good will help others
BUT the character is also sadistic?
I'd say it's a good character with a character flaw. If they did good to secure a position of trust, or to avoid retaliation, while ultimately pursuing sadism - They'd be evil.
>>51643089
No no, it's doing the right thing for the right reason, but the action of DOING is very cruel of sadistic, even if it is doing the right thing.
>>51642883
>not because the character emotionally wants to but because it's logically the best outcome for everyone
Why does it care about achieving the best outcome for everyone if it's evil?
>>51643089
Good for the land, adheres to strict moral code, does good but is doing ti because he gets his jollies from torturing people and doing it to them over there means he gets away with it?
Is this a clever troll thread to start poltics?
Either way, Lawful evil, but will work with lawful neutrals and convert neutral and chaotic evils to his cause.
LE: "Dudes! My scheme means that we can drink in a tavern!"
CE: "Nice! And then rape the waitress!"
LE: "Knock yourself out."
Tomrrow morning the Lawful Evil is torturing the CE and gets away with it. Neutral evil saw the entire thing and is impressed and joins Lawful on his castration scheme.
>>51643089
Killing Evil creatures is an objectively Good act, and punishing them for their wicked deeds is just. The character's D&D alignment would be Lawful and Good.
>>51642965
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had warning lights going off
Anyway, according to Nasu, Kirei is Lawful Evil.
>>51643163
More like
LE: "Dudes! My scheme means that we can drink in a tavern!"
CE: "Nice! And then rape the waitress!"
LE: "Do that, and I will split your dick in two and hang you from the split parts in butcher's hooks until you bleed dry."
>>51642883
HHHNNNNNGGG THICCKKEEERRRRR
>>51642883
Good-aligned character with a mental disorder.
>>51642970
Sliiding back down to evil.
Basically the difference between whether motivation is attempting to do the world better vs finding ways to indulge in sadism.
Lithmus test would be whether he would engage in prolonger torture of an evil monster on the opportunity or if he would dispose of it quickly and move on to find the next problem that needs stabbing.
>>51643185
Nasu is a fucking retard in assigning alignments.
>>51643234
Close enough. Depends on whether or not LE wanted to catch the CE just before the attempt, appear the hero AND get to punish him, or is satisfied with threats. Up to personality honestly.
>>51643264
>he would engage in prolonger torture of an evil monster
That he would.
>move on to find the next problem that needs stabbing
And this right after.
Basically, both. With the level of torture matched to the cruelty and crimes of the monster being tortured.
>>51642883
How about "Morality is a spectrum and not some autistic grid designed by literal man children who've never once demonstrated skill in a STEM field or picked up a weight in their entire lives"?
That's...That's a pretty good answer, right?
>>51643291
So, he would lose time on torturing rather than expedite the removal of evil from the world.
Ergo, his motivation is in sadism rather than in the well-doing.
So he is an evil guy that is kept on a leash rather than a good guy with a mental problem.
>>51643291
My 2 cents on this is
"The DnD alignments are shit for describing anything more than a 1 dimensional character."
the other one is
"Whichever you gain the most mechanical benefit from."
It's fucking DnD/PF. It's not like you do anything without having the intention of using it to maximize your build.
Serious answer, what direction do you want the character to evolve to? Heroic with a personality flaw? Slowly bur surely turning into what he is fighting? Abandoned by friends witohut understanding why they are upset?
And so on and so fourth. All the altenratives work.
>>51643332
*forth
>>51643368
Ah yeah. Thanks. I'm shit at typing.
>>51643332
This. If you're going to use a super-simplistic, crunchy system, might as well take full advantage of it.
If you wanted moral nuances you wouldn't use a 3x3 grid.
Oh hey, OP read Incorruptible too.
>>51642883
Lawful Evil with strong neutral tendencies. In time, may graduate to Lawful Neutral
Also
>Muh Dick/10
>>51643163
I want to rape waitresses with CE
>>51642883
Actually Anon, the alignment system is literally an active force that makes all sentient beings adhere to a set of stereotypes.
When people go against this system, they end up dead, or thrown out of the D&D reality entirely, and end up as Vestiges, or simply cease to be.
Deities literally get saves against this, and most are not even aware of it, except for Pelor, hence his grey Knights.
Allegedly, the Alignment system is held up by paragons of each part of the spectrum, and if they go, the system goes, but without the system, Demons, aberrations, and a select number of Far Realm natives would be able to exist as they were, which is that "Above all your crap" eldritch horror bullshit, and these things get defaulted to CE to offset their actual Intellectual high ground features.
If you've played D&D enough you'll have noticed this immensely, Lawful evil sounds good, but the evil part almost seems unessary despite providing results, LG's are basicaly YHVH tier assholes, CE's want out of the universe are are reduced to psychopathic nihlistic asshats with self destruction in mind, and CG just is a gateway to a slippery slope.
The Egyptian Pantheon came from earth itself but KEK isn't present because he literally cannot exist in universe bu tthe collective meme that spawns him lays dormant, and this is why the Slaadi final evolutionary form is literally a Black Slaad, because it's the Darkness before the light, but the False laws in place prevent it from moving forward.
Technology in D&D is completely stunted because of the weave, and every instance of progress is shut-down completely
Even the fucking Outer Gods and Great Old ones are denied access and work through proxies to unravel this system, as it's a universe that Yog-sothoth doesn't recognise and thus, under his all too-common statement, means it doesn't exist, it's an orphaned reality.
>>51642883
>Pic unrelated, but it got your attention
True. I thought it was a photo I posted on an /s/ Asian exes thread. It's not but uncanny.
Yes, that character is good. Both through actions and intentions.
Human nature often drives people to desire to do evil things, fighting that and being good is goodness. Not the absence of evil desires.
>>51643134
If you are intentionally pursuing a cruel and sadistic methodology when there is one that is more humane available to you that yields a net same result, then yes you are still evil.
You're just applying your evil in productive ways (productivity being a facet irrelevant to both axis of alignment)
>>51642883
If you're willing to forgo your own joy for the sake of doing the right thing, that makes you Lawful and probably Good.
I like an Ideals system better myself, but yeah.
>>51642883
Mostly a neutral guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqZXPX0CiQI
>>51642883
Lawful neutral
You basically just described Dexter, as well.
Well isn't good and evil a manner of perspective? I'll use an exaggerated example.
"The king is good, he feeds the poor."
"The Duke is evil he wants the king to stop feeding the poor so they will starve."
Turns out the king is feeding the poor corpses from his conquests outside the kingdome, the Duke thinks it is heinous and wants to stop it. Is the king still good and the Duke still evil?
What if a character acts in a manner of self preservation, but is hated and loathed by the "good" guys? Was frankensteins monster evil?
I'm pretty poor with the alignment chart so maybe it's answered on there but I never found morality to be a black and white issue, justification can be found almost anywhere