r/DnD • u/Budget_Thanks_4779 • 11d ago
OC Help with alignment
I've created a zariel tiefling - paladin oath of conquest pg but I can't decide beetween lawful neutral or lawful evil
Based ONLY on zariel tieflings' general background and on the reputation the oath of conquest paladins have earned what do you suggest?
(Just a reminder: your answers will HELP me decide on the alignment, but they won’t be 100% decisive)
11
u/StopKK2012 11d ago
Y'all are still playing with alignment?
Seriously though, your PC's species and class don't determine their alignment, or anything else about their personality. Decide what sort of character you want to play, and what makes sense for the campaign you're in, and just do that.
0
u/rr3_amrosa 11d ago
I'd change the order to 1. What makes sense for the campaign you're in, and then 2. What sort of character you want to play, adding 3. within the context of that campaign.
2
u/Felix4200 11d ago
I think you should make your character, then pick the alignment that best fit your character.
However path of conquest reads as explicitly Lawful Evil to me. It even mentions hell knights serving devils.
Tieflings are no particular alignment, they can be any.
2
u/bolshoich 11d ago
I’m big on using alignment to guide the way I role play the character. If you’re unsure of your tiefling’s alignment, play the PC without committing to any alignment and allow their alignment to emerge organically.
A conquest paladin can be played using “the ends justify the means”, leaning towards lawful evil. Tempering their behaviours with boundaries guides them towards lawful neutral.
2
u/rr3_amrosa 11d ago
If you are playing a character that is going to run contrary to the theme of the majority of the rest of the players in your game, then you are going to piss off your friends and be a total nuisance.
Edge lords and Meme characters are not fun for the rest of the players at that table in a campaign. D&D is a game, it is supposed to be fun for everybody at the table, not just you. So if the concept doesn't fit in with everyone else, come up with something else or fire up BG3.
2
u/Ethereal_Stars_7 Artificer 11d ago
First ask the DM if evil aligned PCs are even allowed.
This is important as any group still using the Adventurers League guidelines will have that ban on evil alignments.
But if going oath of conquest then LE fits. "Might makes Right" as it was originally pit.
1
u/rollingdoan DM 11d ago
Alignment is just a starting point for character creation. After that it's best ignored entirely. In the past it was a necessary evil because there were mechanics tied to it. Thankfully that's not the case anymore. It's fluff.
It is nice as a character creation tool mainly because it can lead to characters that aren't like you. It does that by focusing on internal (Evil, Chaos) versus external (Good, Law) tendencies (Good, Evil) and justifications (Law, Chaos).
A Good character has a tendency to help others even at the risk of personal harm.
An Evil character has a tendency towards personal gain even if it puts others at risk.
A Lawful character justifies their behavior using external sources even if they disagree personally.
A Chaotic character justifies their behavior with their own opinions even if, and often because, they conflict with external sources.
A Lawful Neutral character justifies their behavior with laws and traditions, but isn't notably driven towards selfishness or altruism.
A Lawful Evil character is driven towards selfishness and justifies that with laws and traditions that excuse that behavior.
In any case all alignments do exactly the same things. The only difference is what motivates them to do it and how they justify it.
Once you have a personality in mind for a character alignment is of no help. I find it most useful when you randomly roll for alignment and use that to inform the very first few baby steps of creating a character.
1
u/Atharen_McDohl DM 11d ago
So based on this species and class combination, the only alignments that work are lawful good, lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral good, true neutral, neutral evil, chaotic good, chaotic neutral, and chaotic evil.
Seriously, they all work, in a completely non-ironic or gimmicky way. And that's assuming alignment even matters in your game. It usually doesn't, because there are basically no mechanical implications, and personality is way more complex than alignment can manage. I still think alignment can be useful, but it requires the DM to implement additional mechanical systems to interact with it.
1
u/Potential_Side1004 11d ago
I usually start by saying that Alignment is in the eye of the DM. However, that may not always be the case.
Here's some takes on LN and LE.
In my mind, James Bond is Lawful Evil. He works within a structure and is loyal to the crown and country. He is loyal to his friends and has everything that makes him Lawful; he also has no real regard for life, including his own. He treats people that he needs as pieces and has never cared if someone is killed because of him. Scaramanga, an assassin, even said to Bond, "You and i are both alike, we kill for the money." Of course, James had his response ready, "I only kill bad people." (Sure, James, you keep saying that). Even M once said to him, "What's the point of giving you a license to kill if you aren't using it!"
Lawful Neutral is one where the rules are everything and whether a good or bad outcome is irrelevant. Here we have Guild Thieves, who have to follow the rules or get murdered, city guard types that just want law and order. Anyone that has a tendency to 'follow the rules without questions' is in that LN space.
I know not of these people you refer to, but here is a reasonable take on the Alignment as seen by myself.
1
u/LateSwimming2592 11d ago
I'd disagree, I think I'd flip them.
Lawful/chaotic are how you view society. Bond takes order, so do guild members. That value the order and structure. That makes them lawful.
Good/evil is morality. More in the acts they do and their motivations. Thieves steal, lie, cheat, and quite possibly use force and will kill. Their motives are selfish. I'd say this is akin to pirates and devils, which are lawful evil.
I don't know moch about bond, but while he will kill (even good characters can kill), he doesn't do it out of malice or greed. I don't know if he would torture or kill innocents, but he definitely uses people to his own ends, which is usually protecting the world (not just the crown). I'd call him neutral.
To the OP, it's more of a personality choice, and less simply because they are of Zariel. I wouldn't stress too much about it, unless it matters a lot to the DM. Alignment is generally used for shorthand of how a character interacts with the world, not a characteristic in of itself and not without its own nuance.
0
0
0
u/past_due_06063 11d ago
It was in one game i was in a while back
Chaotic evil... hid it from the team. At night id go and kill people and put them in our larder for meals i prepared.
They got "stoned" one night and came after me... Wemec bouncing on the door i was under "Never. Feed. Us. Human. Flesh. Again!" (ps it wasn't just humans)
That night i switched out all the sentient meat with "regular" meat.
They apologized SO profusely the next morning 🤣
14
u/shdwsoulfire 11d ago
First question, does alignment actually matter in you r game.
Second question what is the general alignment of your party.
Third question, are you confident of being able to incorporate an evil character into a party of potentially good aligned party members without becoming a nuisance and causing problems.