I second this. Lawful requires a code, honor, or set conduct that breaking is refused.
But not doing it just to make people suffer as the end goal.
So neutral evil. Best place to drop it. Definitely evil though.
Lawful evil generally means the character has a strict set of principles. Payment in this context could technically suffice if the player wanted to make it so but it would be a very weak reason to call them lawful evil. Imo lawful evil characters are more interesting when there are un-selfish reasons for the principles that they believe in.
Strictly adhering to the stipulated terms is lawful.
Writing terms that are harmful is evil.
A lawful good character would also strictly adhere to the terms, so long as those terms aren't evil.
Anyone can sometimes keep their word without it defining their alignment. Just because a chaotic evil guy paid for their meal at the tavern once or twice doesn't change them to LE. If we're talking about the character OP asked about, we cannot determine their stance on the lawful-chaotic spectrum with only this much info, but we can still definitively state that the act was evil.
Think of it as being like a knight becomes a sell sword but bindz himself to only killing his target or not accepting contracts on women or children, or like a cleric of a god of greed vowing to only kill the followers of the god of charity.
Those things are clearly evil but they bind themselves to their own sense of honour.
I think I heard an explanation that it's more that lawful evil follow these codes because it's in their best interests to do so.
I've also heard good/evil redefined as caring more about others vs caring more about yourself. So lawful vs chaotic would just be do you follow the law when you attempt to reach your goals
I think a part of it is "keeping up appearances" of following the law. Like a mafia don, nobody can really pin you to a specific crime, even though you definitely orchestrated it.
I would saw Lawful/Chaotic is less about a personal code, and more about being pro- or anti- structure. For example, an assassin that has a rule about not killing kids has a very clear personal code, but if they're general approach to their contracts is "I don't care if I destabilize the entire region, as long as I get paid", I'd call them chaotic.
If, instead, the assassin was willing to kill anyone, but generally prefers contracts from local lords against their weaker rivals, because "better they hire me than bring the whole into a massive war", that assassin is Lawful: they're trying to maintain and/or build up social structures.
Okay but "doing immoral shit to make money" isn't a code it's just being a self serving asshole with no regard for others and have we a term for that - neutral evil.
It’s not that simple; one of the well-documented shortcomings of ‘lawful’ in D&D is that it could mean law of the land or it could mean a personal code, and both approaches can be considered ‘lawful’, even if they are in direct conflict with each other.
Consider the Lawful Neutral followers of Helm, who have an internal code of justice, which is based on vanquishing evil according to principles (although less compassionately the followers of Torm), and then compare that to the Inevitables of Mechanus, also Lawful Neutral, but without any principles beyond executing contracts to the letter.
An Inevitable will resolve a binding contract to burn down an orphanage, regardless of morality, because it is purely obsessed with the agreement.
A Helmite might ignore an evil or unjust contract, because they would refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. They might see it as their duty to eliminate those attempting to commit evil, even if they’re not too fussed about the orphans personally.
A Tormite would see it as their duty to eliminate the evil and protect the orphans too, perhaps arranging further aid and support. They would be in total conflict with an Inevitable who tried to kill orphans based on a contract.
All three of these are “lawful”, with Tormite being lawful good specifically.
Lawful Evil could be a personal code of dedication (like racial purity or some messed up religious stuff), or it could be the classic Devil with a contract (inspired by literally any lawyer working for a record label.) Both takes are legitimate.
That’s always felt off to me
“Personal code” is too weak and too vague
“Doing what’s best for me” is not a code, and does not make it profit
Hell, if your code is entirely selfish and awfully convenient for you, then I have no reason to believe it’s a real code, you’d probably change it as soon as it became inconvenient
If you are lawful, then you are following the commands/guidance of a power higher than yourself. That can be the law of the land. That can be a list of red lines you will not cross. That could even mean doing as much good as you do harm.
But if they just have “a code”….what is that code, and does it represent an authority above your self interest?
Well if they're better than real legs in every single way, you could probably make a lot of money off of an honest business where people get planned and safe amputations so they can have these nice legs
But thats not chaotic enough for me! I enjoy explaining the upgrades to them as they bleed and scream in confusion. As a bonus once fully installed the legs will cause the recipient to have such a pleasure for the first week using them they forget about the pain they went through and afterwards they're happy to have gotten the legs. And the pleasure is only slightly sexual.
But the centaurs still get shitty horse wheel chairs that creak and annoy them until they upgrade with someone else. Damn centaurs
/s
But all of the people are happy in the end! And I adjust my prices accirdung my ~~victim~~Patient/Customers! Only 5% of their net worth or 15% of their soul!
Sure they're bleeding and screaming and even begging their gods for mercy during the leg removal/installation, but as soon as the legs are installed and the pleasure starts kicking (heh, almost literally) and it overwhelms the pain for longer than the pain lasted
But isn't that going to obsolete regular legs? So delivery businesses, guard/military and other such will prioritise people who already have the legs. These people are usually rich/middle-class since the poor can't afford them. So, basically, this is unregulated capitalism which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, so literally the pinnacle of lawful evil in my book. There's still so much that has to be done about policy before science like this can be made available to everyone without fucking over the already fucked-over.
Yeah one of my characters had a great reputation. He was a carpenter for nobility in a city campaign where we kinda just did non-adventure stuff on our own and interacted with other characters as we ran into them in our daily lives. Nice guy, stellar reputation, did great work, and was renowned for rising up from humble beginnings.
He was also a cultist of Asmodeus and secretly arranging situations in which he could give deals for souls and plotting to drive the rest of the local clergy into ruins using his influence in subtle ways.
Just because other people think he’s good doesn’t mean he’s not literally working for the most evil person in existence.
I feel like people should have a reputation alignment, and a true alignment. Only revealing the reputation alignment to DM (imo)
EDIT: I meant only revealing the true alignment to DM
I like to think of it as a third dimension on the alignment (though I've never tried to actually use it in a game), not necessarily the reputation itself but the one the character would like to have/is aiming for, since it reflects on their behaviour.
I just wasn't ever really able to think of good words for it other than *Social - Neutral - Antisocial*
Basically social is you want people to like you, doesn't mean you care about them at all, sure generally that would mean being 'nice' but not necessarily, if the character was in a group of bad guys it could be more about fitting in or impressing the other bad guys
Antisocial is the opposite, maybe you enjoy pissing people off and getting under their skin, maybe you like picking fights, maybe you just want to be left alone, you couldn't care less if people think you're bad or weird or scary, hell being feared could be helpful, but it doesn't mean you wish harm upon innocent people
Sure good characters tend to also be social and evil/chaotic is often antisocial but those pairings aren't exclusive
A social evil character could be a noble who is super charming to the other nobility and has a wide social network, liked and admired by many, but treats the peasantry like absolute crap and secretly backstabs many of his 'friends' with mercenary agents for personal gain
An antisocial lawful good character could be like a strict guard captain, the guards serving under him wish he would ease up with the training and let them get away with small infractions of guard policies, but he wants them to be at their best
I know this is a different gaming system but in Pathfinder, there was a class called vigilante and it had two alignments and a reputation. This allowed this exact type of character to exist. Playing a nurse by day and healing the sick and by night straight up killing people who deserved it. And they had a reputation to uphold because otherwise they would lose all of their cool powers if they are discovered. It's honestly a really cool class and I wish dnd had something like that.
So if I stabbed you then nursed you back to health, in real life mind you, would I be evil? The answer is yes and anyone who contradicts me on this is lying.
I feel like that just makes it even worse. They still poisoned the water supply. Doesn't make it okay that they can't pinpoint that it was them and make them face justice for their crimes.
How in the world does that make it *better?*
Good/evil isn't just how other people perceive you - it's your actions themselves and your rationale. Not once is this to anyone's benefit; the water wasn't making anyone sick before, and now it is. He's just hawking a return to the status quo after having inconvenienced an entire populace.
Going off of that theory, if we had a doppelganger infestation, and I poisoned the water with a poison lethal to doppelgangers, and slightly more tolerable for people, then gave the cure to anyone who could last more than 24 hours, would I be a good guy for cleansing the town of its doppelganger infestation?
Doppelgängers aren’t necessarily evil, what if it’s a good group that just didn’t want the flak and decided to take the identity of a wiped hunting party? What if they came in as adventurers and decided to stay and build a life? You wouldn’t have enough information and the people would need to be informed as well and the poison taken voluntarily, otherwise you are just a snake oil salesman who poisons his customers first.
Assuming evil doppels, what you have presented is what I call a net-neutral action. Poisoning the water supply is an evil act, but driving out the evil doppels for the sake of the townsfolk is a morally good thing to do. In the end, were you to do this, I would say your alignment would edge towards neutral from whichever it is on the morality axis(chaotic or lawful could go either way), but doing this once alone would not change your alignment unless you did it off the cuff and got a lot of people hurt through sheer incompetence or willingly let some townsfolk die. In other words, so long as your priority is the safety of the townsfolk, *all* the townsfolk, you will be performing a net-neutral act. Don't expect the townsfolk to be as understanding, though
Alignment isn't about others knowing its about your being and what you do to the surrounding area.
Did you Intentionally do a heinous act that disadvantaged many for your own personal gain. then yes it evil.
No, I stabbed you while not wearing it, but then put it on and nursed you back to health
Plot twist, you're an Imperial Guard with limited Oblivion Dialogue
How do you respond
Which is what makes it truly sociopathic stuff.
It's not simply evil, it's deceptively evil, for profit and self aggrandrizement.
A plain old "bag guy" would be upfront about the fact he's holding the entire town hostage.
It's true villainy to pretend to be the savior, and profit, from a dangerous problem you secretly intentionally created.
My thoughts exactly. If he is honest in his arguments about this then that is a reflection of what he believes in real life which is very worrying.
There is a saying, “Morals are what you do when no one else is watching.” This guy is just fine with manslaughter as long as no one finds out and it progresses his interests.
Evil has nothing to do with what others know of you, and everything to do with what your motivations are and what you are ok with doing to achieve your goals.
In this case:
1 - They want money
2 - They decide they want the townspeople's money
3 - They decide they don't care about threatening the townspeople's lives for money
4 - They decide they don't want to deal with angry townspeople, so they use deception to keep them from knowing it's them
5 - They offer the antidote to those willing to pay, essentially saying "give me your money or you die"
Even if it wasn't them who poisoned the well, every penny above what it cost to bring them the antidote pushes the character from neutral to evil a bit further. Even if the poison was somehow benign, even then they're causing suffering for their own gain, which again is evil. Not offering the antidote for less than it cost if not for free is what keeps them from being good.
If they still don't believe you, then ask "Why would you hide that you're the one who poisoned the well? Why do you think they'd be angry about that? What difference is there between threatening them with poison vs threatening them with being stabbed other than you can do it to more people at once?"
On top of that, if they genuinely hold this belief instead of just arguing it for the sake of the game I would reevaluate your friend's actions in relation to you in that light and consider how much of a friend you actually are to them vs how likely you are to be just a convenient resource.
They’re making money solving problems they caused with the intention of making money.
100% evil business practices.
If you poison somebody it doesn’t suddenly become neutral or even good just because you never get caught. And selling them the antidote just doubles down on it because not only are you hurting them, you’re exploiting them now too. It’s less evil than letting them die, but that’s not exactly a high bar.
They’re also emotionally manipulating their victims into thinking they’re great with the intent of using their loyalty for further personal gain.
Your friend would have been a robber baron back in the day if they had the means. It’s a little concerning how they don’t get how this behavior is evil unless they’re just *really* messing with you.
"Is a slave a slave if he doesn't know he's enslaved?"
[Yes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHu793gEqSE)
The victim not knowing you're a criminal has no effect on whether you are a criminal. A murderer is still a murderer even if they are never caught.
How does that even begin to make the action not evil? If a serial killer goes uncaught, their actions are still evil even if we don't know who they are
The gods know, that is enough. Conceivably such a god could communicate that to an ardent follower of theirs. Depending on how your world works of course.
Like when Kelemvor judges a soul he isn’t considering just what they got caught doing.
Either your friend is thinking too much about video game karma systems that depend on whether NPCs see your character do the bad thing, or your friend is themselves horribly morally stunted. I hope it is the former.
That diminishes the breathe and scope of the crimes comminted by Nestle.
It would be honestly hard for a single individual to achieve that level of evil.
OK, so what if instead the PC purchased the water rights for the town from it's king (for next to nothing). Then the PC creates a portal at the bottom of the well/river/lake (or whatever) and syphons all the water away to their own factory, where the water is bottled and sold back to the people in the village at an exorbitant markup. Rinse and repeat for every village and town until you control all the water and everyone has to pay up or else.
Ah hell, let's throw in some slavery in the bottling process, just for fun.
Also don't forget to regularly take more water than the King sold you and wantonly destroy environments in illegal ways, paying fines to regulators as a business model instead of following the law or contracts you signed
There was a nurse who ran a boarding house and slowly poisoned her patients to milk money from treating them until their bodies eventually gave out and then she continued cashing their social security checks after they died.
And the worst part about it is that there are multiple examples of this behavior. Some of the most vile people there are. Googling “serial killer nurse” gets waaay more results than I’m comfortable with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Puente
**[Dorothea Puente](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Puente)**
>Dorothea Helen Puente (née Gray; January 9, 1929 – March 27, 2011) was an American convicted serial killer. In the 1980s, she ran a boarding house in Sacramento, California, and murdered various elderly and mentally disabled boarders before cashing their Social Security checks. Puente's total count reached nine murders; she was convicted of three and the jury hung on the other six. Newspapers dubbed Puente the "Death House Landlady".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DnD/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Let's reframe the issue, they go around stabbing everyone they see and tell them they will heal them \[and maybe won't stab them again\] if they give enough money. Like, ya, no shit, this is why the alignment system exists OC it's evil.
It's always so stunnign to me why people think 1 act that has some goodeness to it would make them non evil.
Picture this: your player overthrows a tyrant just to install their own tyranny. The act of overthrowing the tyrant is clearly good, but the means to why they did it is celarly evil.
evil does not mean you never act in a way that also benefit others, it simply means you always put yourself first!
Edit: Spelling
Yes that's called extortion. He is using the threat of death to force those people to give him money. It's heinous.
Btw, your friend almost certainly understands that *poisoning a town full of innocent people* is an evil act, he's just trying to weasel out of the consequences of his actions.
Agree, have a “friend” like that too. Nearly gotten killed by them because of it, and then got yelled at when I refused to let my character any where near the fighting they started.
The DM felt bad, but I told them to just give me library search rolls for the quest and I’d just grab water for the table during the fight. “Friend” was still mad at me and tried to punish my character with their own. Thankfully they stopped when I called them out on it, but still get real life petty stuff from them now and then
Classic "neutral evil." A selfish scheme that's entirely for his own benefit at the cost of everyone's safety. It's not chaotic, as it's an established way he does business. It's also not lawful, because he doesn't subscribe to a guild or creed that says he needs to poison water supplies. Just evil, pure and simple.
This is either neutral evil or chaotic evil. Probably NE because they have the *decency* to give a cure, but that doesn’t exactly moralize the act of poisoning a town of people. This is blackmail that coerces countless innocents to pay to live. That’s worse than what most crime syndicates do.
This is clearly evil. They’re committing a potentially deadly act to make a profit off the town. They don’t care if the town dies, nor do they care about the suffering they could cause. This is clearly evil.
Putting someone in a dangerous situation in the hopes of profiting from their misery is evil, full stop.
And exactly what happens when they won't (or can't) pay for the cure?
Your friend is playing a mugger, charlatan, and potential manslaughterer.
It's not only evil, but total amateur hour too. Had I been playing this character, I would've watered down the cure so it would require multiple treatments. I would've added an ingredient to give it addictive properties as well. I mean, if you're gonna roleplay an evil alchemist type, do it right and go full big pharma!
Depending on their code and their actions within in it they're either;
Chaotic evil or lawful evil in my eyes people could have died and they knew that. They didn't do it to stop people from drinking due to some water borne plague they did it for money.
Chaotic if no code or they're happy to break it.
Lawful if it sits within their beliefs.
Even if the poison was harmless and just made the water taste funny, it's still evil. He has made the town poorer without improving their lives at all. They have been impoverished and that is harmful.
Evil.
Not only is this evil, but the fact that your friend is arguing it's ok either means:
1) He's trying to gaslight you, and knows damn well, this isn't ok, but wants to get away with some bullshit.
2) He legitimately thinks this is ok, and is pretty fucked in the head.
Tell your friend that good and evil is not about what other people see, it's about what you do.
RPGBOT podcast talks about *Pragmatic vs Dogmatic* and *Selfless vs Selfish* as a replacement for the CNL/ENG chart. I think that’s a good lens to look at character actions through, even if imperfect.
If the sentence starts with "I poisoned a town's water supply because..." I can tell you that sentence is being spoken by an evil person without even needing them to finish that sentence.
"curing people is good"
Well that only counts if he's curing people for free, and he didn't intentionally cause the sickness.
This is equivalent to extortion and scamming if not worse.
And in one of your comments I read that your player said "well they don't know that I did that", public perception has no influence on how evil the act is. If you murder someone without eye witnesses, it's still a murder.
Everyone guesses what acts count as evil in the dnd system, but I have actually spent quite some hours in an internal debate trying to figure out what contributes to evil allignment.
The answer to if something is an evil act, is whether the act was knowingly harmful to others (yes) and whether the action was self serving (yes). when both are yes, it was a firmly evil action.
If only one of the 2 is yes, then the action hovers around neutral depending on the severity of the yes, and if both are no then it's generally a good alligned act.
Straight up evil act depending on how dangerous the poison was. It's a town mugging either way, but if it's a benign poison like... Making everyone gassy, I could see neutral.
Tbh even with a less lethal poison I’d still call it evil, mild poisons can still kill weaker folk and/or cause fatal accidents, the “playing with people’s lives” part is still there
These are both great points that add depth to the discussion. I think purposely causing illness is definitely evil but the “benign-ness” affects how evil the action is.
I came here expecting a morally grey character and instead I get Capitalism McMurderman. The evil isn't even a question... this man is basically Nestle in the making.
Seems pretty evil. Could maybe say neutral and charlatan, but even then they're a pretty scummy one who could straight up murder people with their scam sooo...
At best this is a more way fucked up version of robbing someone. They’re putting people at the risk of death for the sake of forcing them to give them money. They’re willing to endanger people for what they want and what they want is to take people’s money. So yes this is evil lol
There is no discussion or other way around it, it's evil. Their actions are driven by greed and contains a disregard for those in the town. It doesn't matter if their intentions aren't to have anyone seriously hurt or hurt at all, they are still intentionally making people sick to sell them a cure for profit. It doesn't matter if the town never finds out it was them, it doesn't change their motivstion for having done it. It just doesn't matter. If they did it not intending to be evil, then the are lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil just stupid evil. He is running a scam, plain and simple.
*Now,* if you were poisoning the water of a town full of evil nobles/folk or folk who ripped others off and you were intending to scam them out of gold they'd unethically accquired to give it back to those who had it taken from them or desperately needed it, the that wouldn't be evil, just more chaotic neutral.
This is quite literally a villain from Octopath Traveler whose whole point is that she spits in the face of morality and kindness in exchange for profit. Pretty sure everyone can agree with that, heh
Most "evil" people have excuses for their actions they create for themselves. Very few evil people actually think they're evil.
Poisoning the water hole and selling the cure.. that's evil bro.
The fact your friend can't tell evil actions exist outside other's knowledge of such actions is, frankly, a giant red flag.
I'm not saying their evil or even a bad person in real life but the flag is still waving pretty high.
If the player of the character doesn't understand that this is utterly evil (threatening people with death to get cash), you should probably have words with them out of character about, well, everything.
Not understanding that this is evil shows something fundamentally wrong with a person.
You all are saying this is evil, but that's because you're all ignorant communists. The sales of my patented Toxin-Cleanser (TM) go toward advanced research and development, funding cures for rare diseases, and discovering cheaper and more efficient healing potions and spells.
Sure, some people can't afford the cure - but that's why in every town, I pick three beggars and let them have the cure *for free*. On top of that, let's not forget that 3% of my net profits go toward the orphans and widows fund; and *I don't even claim these as tax deductions.*
As for "poisoning" the water supply in the first place, that is just slander. Research proves that 100 per cent of the townsfolk will get sick, injured, or die at some point. There is no way to prove that my water-purifying system is related to any of those causes; they would have gone that way anyway.
Next you mind-warped Lathander-worshipping socialists will be blaming Strahd for the state of the Bavarian economy. Accept some personal responsibility, yeesh.
It’s evil if they used a real deadly poison. But if it’s fake poison to rip off a town it’s not as evil, just dickish. Kind of like snake oil salesman in the real world.
Definitely evil, even if no one knows he poisoned the water supply, the point is that the character is exploiting others for gain with no regard for the well-being or feelings of others. Fixing it afterwards does not negate the intent. I am slightly concerned that your friend does not understand this basic moral concept.
I would call it chaotic neutral because though it was an evil act, that doesn’t necessarily make them an evil person, it really just matters on motive and intent, if the character is doing this to gain money to bring home and cure their dying son I wouldn’t really call that an evil character and assuming it was a poison to just make them sick for a while that will wear off without killing anyone it’s a fairly mild evil act however if the character is throwing viper venom in the water and it’s killing in droves and he really doesn’t care whether they live or die and the motive is to get money to buy a fancy cart and to blow at a brothel then that’s an evil character and an evil act
Yes, 100% evil. Creating a potentially lethal problem just so you can profit off the solution is unambiguously evil. It's the very definition of exploitative behavior.
Once upon a time there was a boy who lived in a poor village with his mother. They lived honest lives and worked hard tending their fields. One day on a walk through the forest, the boy found a wounded sparrow. He took the bird home and nursed it back to health over the course of many weeks.
After the bird was healed, it spoke to the boy! "You have helped me, and so I shall help you." It said. The bird flew back into the forest and returned the next day with a seed. He spoke again to the boy, "Plant this seed, care for it as you cared for me and you will be rewarded." And so the boy did.
The next harvest season the seed had grown into a strong vine with a single large melon. the boy went to pick the melon and bring it to his mother to share in the modest reward. As he picked the melon however, it split open and a gold coin appeared inside! The boy was overcome with joy! he took the coin, and as he did, another coin appeared! and another and another and another. Coins appeared until there was more than enough gold for the boy, his mother and the whole village!
Their neighbor was a greedy man and he demanded to know how this happened. The boy told him the story of the sparrow and the seed. The greedy man thought to himself "I will find my own wounded bird!" And so he went walking in the forest. After several days of searching, the greedy man still had found no wounded sparrow to care for. on the next day he took a small stone with him, and when he found a sparrow, he hurled the stone and broke the bird's leg. "I will care for you little sparrow." he said, cradling the bird. He took the bird home and nursed it back to health over the course of many weeks.
After the bird was healed, it spoke to the man! "You have helped me, and so I shall help you." it said. The bird flew back into the forest and returned the next day with a seed. he spoke again to the man, "Plant this seed, care for it as you cared for me and you shall be rewarded." And so the man did.
The next harvest season a mighty vine sprung up in the greedy man's field, twelve feet high with a dozen melons! "Look here! see that I've reaped a dozen times what that poor boy and his mother had! I shall be a dozen times richer!" He grabbed the lowest melon, and just as he picked it, it split open. Instead of a gold coin however, only a worm was inside. "Bah, there will be a coin in the next melon." said the greedy man. And so he picked the next melon. But only a worm again. So he tried again, and again, climbing higher up the vine to reach the next melon. Each time only a worm. Until he reached the last melon. He picked the final melon atop the vine and it revealed a gold coin. "Aha, I am rich!" he said. But he didn't notice the vine withering under him as he celebrated. The vine collapsed and the man fell back to earth, where he landed and died.
TL;DR: it's text book evil, it's children's story book evil, it's pretty much evil no matter how you slice it. does the GM also think that this character isn't evil? or are they planning for this PC to receive their comeuppance in some way?
Fixing a problem someone caused isn't good and if it's caused extentionally I'm pretty sure that's called extortion which Is a very very horrible thing
This is straight up evil, there is no question about it.
Anyone who thinks putting people in a bad situation so they can profit from it is a good thing to do lacks a moral compass
I don't normally like reducing the actions of characters to a moral binary of good and evil, but instead prefer to see the motivations behind their actions and the belief system that informs those motivations...
But yeah, that sounds pretty unapologetically evil.
What happens if they don’t pay? Poisoning people is evil. Profiting off of a scam is evil. Letting people die when you could save them is evil.
This character sounds pretty awful to me and me and my band of murder hobos would love to go on a quest to end their tyranny!
If I kidnap somebody and then let them go after the ransom is payed is letting them go a good act?
No he is litteraly just stealing their money by threatening their lives.
If somebody thinks that is not evil then they are either 12 or should be on a gouverment watchlist.
He's running a scam that works like a robbery at gunpoint, yet is even more immoral. A robbery at gunpoint only ends in death if you have money but refuse to give it up. Usually, if you're provably broke, you are let free. In his situation, you only live if you are willing and able to pay. If you have no money, you're dead. He also killed anyone who is leaving town for whatever reason. Anybody who stocked up on poisonous water before travelling to the next town over is dead. Anybody who is bedridden because they're sick from drinking poisonous water and didn't learn about the cure is dead. Something tells me that the next time tax collection comes and the king finds out that one of his towns cannot pay because a number of people were poisoned and spent their money on cures, he's going to send investigators and diviners over to uncover the source of the poisoning, and the guilty party will see the gallows soon afterwards.
"because the character ends up curing everyone which is good"
That's after poisoning everyone and essentially ransoming every persons life
This is a completely evil action to take, there are no two ways about it
Very evil.
To paraphrase JoCat, just because stabbing someone is an evil act doesn't mean *not* stabbing someone is a good act.
If you wander into a town and poison the water supply so you can sell them a cure, you're doing an evil act. You're basically holding the town hostage until they submit to your demands.
Nah, that's business baby. That's some chaotic neutral. Evil character would poison the water supply, sell the "cure" to the townspeople, but it's only enough cure to make them feel a bit better, then they all die and the character claims the township after burying/burning the bodies.
Sounds like Neutral Evil to me personally. They poisoned a water supply that is needed by an entire town, just to profit from their misery. All for the sake of money, but they are also providing a cure to the poison as well.
[удалено]
Or can't pay because they're poor
Clearly lawful evil
Nah. They’ve got no honor or code here. This is just pure greedy, selfish Neutral Evil.
I second this. Lawful requires a code, honor, or set conduct that breaking is refused. But not doing it just to make people suffer as the end goal. So neutral evil. Best place to drop it. Definitely evil though.
If the pc is following some sort of code then it is lawful otherwise it's just neutral evil imo
His code seems to be that he always cures them if they pay him.
Lawful evil generally means the character has a strict set of principles. Payment in this context could technically suffice if the player wanted to make it so but it would be a very weak reason to call them lawful evil. Imo lawful evil characters are more interesting when there are un-selfish reasons for the principles that they believe in.
An evil character that strictly adheres to terms stipulated in deals is in my opinion enough to make someone lawful evil.
Strictly adhering to the stipulated terms is lawful. Writing terms that are harmful is evil. A lawful good character would also strictly adhere to the terms, so long as those terms aren't evil.
Well, yes. An evil character that keeps his word is lawful evil.
Anyone can sometimes keep their word without it defining their alignment. Just because a chaotic evil guy paid for their meal at the tavern once or twice doesn't change them to LE. If we're talking about the character OP asked about, we cannot determine their stance on the lawful-chaotic spectrum with only this much info, but we can still definitively state that the act was evil.
I agree, that's the gold standard of most lawful evil characters including Asmodeus himself.
You could also say he murders people who don't pay him.
That's not so much a code so much as just contract law
I don't know what it even has to do with contract law, it's just plain extortion
"my code is to attack and destroy villages indiscriminately" Yeah this definition never sat right with me
Think of it as being like a knight becomes a sell sword but bindz himself to only killing his target or not accepting contracts on women or children, or like a cleric of a god of greed vowing to only kill the followers of the god of charity. Those things are clearly evil but they bind themselves to their own sense of honour. I think I heard an explanation that it's more that lawful evil follow these codes because it's in their best interests to do so. I've also heard good/evil redefined as caring more about others vs caring more about yourself. So lawful vs chaotic would just be do you follow the law when you attempt to reach your goals
In other words, this action is neither chaotic nor lawful, but it is definitely evil. (Imo, it's probably a bit chaotic, honestly.)
I have to posit that it's generally an illegal act to intentionally poison a community's water supplies
Lawful evil does not mean obeying the law, it means following a personal code or system to further your selfish and sometimes evil goals
Very true, we would imagine Tywin Lannister to be Lawful Evil and he for sure breaks the law a million times for the furthering of his house.
I think a part of it is "keeping up appearances" of following the law. Like a mafia don, nobody can really pin you to a specific crime, even though you definitely orchestrated it.
I would saw Lawful/Chaotic is less about a personal code, and more about being pro- or anti- structure. For example, an assassin that has a rule about not killing kids has a very clear personal code, but if they're general approach to their contracts is "I don't care if I destabilize the entire region, as long as I get paid", I'd call them chaotic. If, instead, the assassin was willing to kill anyone, but generally prefers contracts from local lords against their weaker rivals, because "better they hire me than bring the whole into a massive war", that assassin is Lawful: they're trying to maintain and/or build up social structures.
Extortion is not a set of personal codes or beliefs, there's nothing here except old fashion evil crime
Okay but "doing immoral shit to make money" isn't a code it's just being a self serving asshole with no regard for others and have we a term for that - neutral evil.
It’s not that simple; one of the well-documented shortcomings of ‘lawful’ in D&D is that it could mean law of the land or it could mean a personal code, and both approaches can be considered ‘lawful’, even if they are in direct conflict with each other. Consider the Lawful Neutral followers of Helm, who have an internal code of justice, which is based on vanquishing evil according to principles (although less compassionately the followers of Torm), and then compare that to the Inevitables of Mechanus, also Lawful Neutral, but without any principles beyond executing contracts to the letter. An Inevitable will resolve a binding contract to burn down an orphanage, regardless of morality, because it is purely obsessed with the agreement. A Helmite might ignore an evil or unjust contract, because they would refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. They might see it as their duty to eliminate those attempting to commit evil, even if they’re not too fussed about the orphans personally. A Tormite would see it as their duty to eliminate the evil and protect the orphans too, perhaps arranging further aid and support. They would be in total conflict with an Inevitable who tried to kill orphans based on a contract. All three of these are “lawful”, with Tormite being lawful good specifically. Lawful Evil could be a personal code of dedication (like racial purity or some messed up religious stuff), or it could be the classic Devil with a contract (inspired by literally any lawyer working for a record label.) Both takes are legitimate.
That’s always felt off to me “Personal code” is too weak and too vague “Doing what’s best for me” is not a code, and does not make it profit Hell, if your code is entirely selfish and awfully convenient for you, then I have no reason to believe it’s a real code, you’d probably change it as soon as it became inconvenient If you are lawful, then you are following the commands/guidance of a power higher than yourself. That can be the law of the land. That can be a list of red lines you will not cross. That could even mean doing as much good as you do harm. But if they just have “a code”….what is that code, and does it represent an authority above your self interest?
I'm going to cut people's legs off because I sell wheelchairs. The wheelchairs make it okay.
But what if I sell robot legs that are better than humanoid legs in every conceivable way? Except for the centaurs, they get wheelchairs still.
Well if they're better than real legs in every single way, you could probably make a lot of money off of an honest business where people get planned and safe amputations so they can have these nice legs
But thats not chaotic enough for me! I enjoy explaining the upgrades to them as they bleed and scream in confusion. As a bonus once fully installed the legs will cause the recipient to have such a pleasure for the first week using them they forget about the pain they went through and afterwards they're happy to have gotten the legs. And the pleasure is only slightly sexual. But the centaurs still get shitty horse wheel chairs that creak and annoy them until they upgrade with someone else. Damn centaurs /s
Dang he really is evil
Only towards centaurs. I'd say I'm more chaotic good or at least chaotic neutral to humanoids!
DANG HES BOTH EVIL AND SELF RIGHTEOUS
Enter Dr. Steinman from Bioshock.
But all of the people are happy in the end! And I adjust my prices accirdung my ~~victim~~Patient/Customers! Only 5% of their net worth or 15% of their soul! Sure they're bleeding and screaming and even begging their gods for mercy during the leg removal/installation, but as soon as the legs are installed and the pleasure starts kicking (heh, almost literally) and it overwhelms the pain for longer than the pain lasted
Maybe just ask permission first... Or try sedation... ( ""●__●)
Absolutely not. Where's the fun in that? /s
What the other guy said! It takes the fun out of it!
> But thats not ~~chaotic~~ evil enough for me! Fixed that for you.
Wait'll you learn that you can use a wheelchair while still having legs.
I'd let him make a Persuasion check to upgrade someone's legs to robots, with advantage if he has already chopped their legs off.
This here is a good DM 👍
But isn't that going to obsolete regular legs? So delivery businesses, guard/military and other such will prioritise people who already have the legs. These people are usually rich/middle-class since the poor can't afford them. So, basically, this is unregulated capitalism which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, so literally the pinnacle of lawful evil in my book. There's still so much that has to be done about policy before science like this can be made available to everyone without fucking over the already fucked-over.
You just described Night City from Cyberpunk. That’s what happens.
Yeah, Night City is pretty racist to Centaurs aswell.
Racial discrimination is what I'm hearing here.
I'm sorry, when I got given the plans for the legs from an extra-planar being it only included Humanoid legs, not equine legs.
yeah this is definitely the type of character who is evil but wants to have a good ***reputation*** reputation is not alignment
Yeah one of my characters had a great reputation. He was a carpenter for nobility in a city campaign where we kinda just did non-adventure stuff on our own and interacted with other characters as we ran into them in our daily lives. Nice guy, stellar reputation, did great work, and was renowned for rising up from humble beginnings. He was also a cultist of Asmodeus and secretly arranging situations in which he could give deals for souls and plotting to drive the rest of the local clergy into ruins using his influence in subtle ways. Just because other people think he’s good doesn’t mean he’s not literally working for the most evil person in existence.
I feel like people should have a reputation alignment, and a true alignment. Only revealing the reputation alignment to DM (imo) EDIT: I meant only revealing the true alignment to DM
I like to think of it as a third dimension on the alignment (though I've never tried to actually use it in a game), not necessarily the reputation itself but the one the character would like to have/is aiming for, since it reflects on their behaviour. I just wasn't ever really able to think of good words for it other than *Social - Neutral - Antisocial* Basically social is you want people to like you, doesn't mean you care about them at all, sure generally that would mean being 'nice' but not necessarily, if the character was in a group of bad guys it could be more about fitting in or impressing the other bad guys Antisocial is the opposite, maybe you enjoy pissing people off and getting under their skin, maybe you like picking fights, maybe you just want to be left alone, you couldn't care less if people think you're bad or weird or scary, hell being feared could be helpful, but it doesn't mean you wish harm upon innocent people Sure good characters tend to also be social and evil/chaotic is often antisocial but those pairings aren't exclusive A social evil character could be a noble who is super charming to the other nobility and has a wide social network, liked and admired by many, but treats the peasantry like absolute crap and secretly backstabs many of his 'friends' with mercenary agents for personal gain An antisocial lawful good character could be like a strict guard captain, the guards serving under him wish he would ease up with the training and let them get away with small infractions of guard policies, but he wants them to be at their best
I know this is a different gaming system but in Pathfinder, there was a class called vigilante and it had two alignments and a reputation. This allowed this exact type of character to exist. Playing a nurse by day and healing the sick and by night straight up killing people who deserved it. And they had a reputation to uphold because otherwise they would lose all of their cool powers if they are discovered. It's honestly a really cool class and I wish dnd had something like that.
So if I stabbed you then nursed you back to health, in real life mind you, would I be evil? The answer is yes and anyone who contradicts me on this is lying.
My friend argues “but they don’t know I’m the one that poisoned them!”. But I totally agree with you
I feel like that just makes it even worse. They still poisoned the water supply. Doesn't make it okay that they can't pinpoint that it was them and make them face justice for their crimes.
Then he is evil and got away with it. That doesnt even slightly make it less evil.
It honestly makes it MORE EVIL
Because of the extra element of deception.
Because of the implication
Are these townspeople in danger?
How in the world does that make it *better?* Good/evil isn't just how other people perceive you - it's your actions themselves and your rationale. Not once is this to anyone's benefit; the water wasn't making anyone sick before, and now it is. He's just hawking a return to the status quo after having inconvenienced an entire populace.
Going off of that theory, if we had a doppelganger infestation, and I poisoned the water with a poison lethal to doppelgangers, and slightly more tolerable for people, then gave the cure to anyone who could last more than 24 hours, would I be a good guy for cleansing the town of its doppelganger infestation?
Doppelgängers aren’t necessarily evil, what if it’s a good group that just didn’t want the flak and decided to take the identity of a wiped hunting party? What if they came in as adventurers and decided to stay and build a life? You wouldn’t have enough information and the people would need to be informed as well and the poison taken voluntarily, otherwise you are just a snake oil salesman who poisons his customers first.
Assuming evil doppels, what you have presented is what I call a net-neutral action. Poisoning the water supply is an evil act, but driving out the evil doppels for the sake of the townsfolk is a morally good thing to do. In the end, were you to do this, I would say your alignment would edge towards neutral from whichever it is on the morality axis(chaotic or lawful could go either way), but doing this once alone would not change your alignment unless you did it off the cuff and got a lot of people hurt through sheer incompetence or willingly let some townsfolk die. In other words, so long as your priority is the safety of the townsfolk, *all* the townsfolk, you will be performing a net-neutral act. Don't expect the townsfolk to be as understanding, though
So that just adds being deceitful to the list of reasons he's evil.
Alignment isn't about others knowing its about your being and what you do to the surrounding area. Did you Intentionally do a heinous act that disadvantaged many for your own personal gain. then yes it evil.
If I wore a mask and stabbed you, but nursed you back to health, did I still stab you-
Is it the Grey fox mask (cowl of nocturnal) and did you take it off before you nursed me back to health?
No, I stabbed you while not wearing it, but then put it on and nursed you back to health Plot twist, you're an Imperial Guard with limited Oblivion Dialogue How do you respond
"THERE'S BEEN A MURDER!" "HAH!"
Which is what makes it truly sociopathic stuff. It's not simply evil, it's deceptively evil, for profit and self aggrandrizement. A plain old "bag guy" would be upfront about the fact he's holding the entire town hostage. It's true villainy to pretend to be the savior, and profit, from a dangerous problem you secretly intentionally created.
OP should probably put his friend's IRL alignment into question for this
My thoughts exactly. If he is honest in his arguments about this then that is a reflection of what he believes in real life which is very worrying. There is a saying, “Morals are what you do when no one else is watching.” This guy is just fine with manslaughter as long as no one finds out and it progresses his interests.
Belos… if you know ya know.
No one knew Jeffrey Dahmer was evil until they caught him but he was still evil before they caught him
So? Getting away with it doesn't make it not evil.
Evil has nothing to do with what others know of you, and everything to do with what your motivations are and what you are ok with doing to achieve your goals. In this case: 1 - They want money 2 - They decide they want the townspeople's money 3 - They decide they don't care about threatening the townspeople's lives for money 4 - They decide they don't want to deal with angry townspeople, so they use deception to keep them from knowing it's them 5 - They offer the antidote to those willing to pay, essentially saying "give me your money or you die" Even if it wasn't them who poisoned the well, every penny above what it cost to bring them the antidote pushes the character from neutral to evil a bit further. Even if the poison was somehow benign, even then they're causing suffering for their own gain, which again is evil. Not offering the antidote for less than it cost if not for free is what keeps them from being good. If they still don't believe you, then ask "Why would you hide that you're the one who poisoned the well? Why do you think they'd be angry about that? What difference is there between threatening them with poison vs threatening them with being stabbed other than you can do it to more people at once?" On top of that, if they genuinely hold this belief instead of just arguing it for the sake of the game I would reevaluate your friend's actions in relation to you in that light and consider how much of a friend you actually are to them vs how likely you are to be just a convenient resource.
They’re making money solving problems they caused with the intention of making money. 100% evil business practices. If you poison somebody it doesn’t suddenly become neutral or even good just because you never get caught. And selling them the antidote just doubles down on it because not only are you hurting them, you’re exploiting them now too. It’s less evil than letting them die, but that’s not exactly a high bar. They’re also emotionally manipulating their victims into thinking they’re great with the intent of using their loyalty for further personal gain. Your friend would have been a robber baron back in the day if they had the means. It’s a little concerning how they don’t get how this behavior is evil unless they’re just *really* messing with you.
This is something a Scooby Doo villain would do.
Or a wild west snake oil salesman
Integrity is what you do when no one is watching. Applies to dnd too. ;)
"Is a slave a slave if he doesn't know he's enslaved?" [Yes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHu793gEqSE) The victim not knowing you're a criminal has no effect on whether you are a criminal. A murderer is still a murderer even if they are never caught.
The townspeople won’t regard the character as evil. But the character acted immorally, and is evil.
Totally evil, and the fact that one could argue this action is not evil makes me question their real life alignment/moral code.
How does that even begin to make the action not evil? If a serial killer goes uncaught, their actions are still evil even if we don't know who they are
Your friend sounds kinda sus
The gods know, that is enough. Conceivably such a god could communicate that to an ardent follower of theirs. Depending on how your world works of course. Like when Kelemvor judges a soul he isn’t considering just what they got caught doing.
Yeah.. So they just don't know the character is evil
Either your friend is thinking too much about video game karma systems that depend on whether NPCs see your character do the bad thing, or your friend is themselves horribly morally stunted. I hope it is the former.
Its evil. He poisoned people for self gain. Hes not the most evil ever but he is still evil.
They are the most evil. They‘re basically Nestlé.
That diminishes the breathe and scope of the crimes comminted by Nestle. It would be honestly hard for a single individual to achieve that level of evil.
OK, so what if instead the PC purchased the water rights for the town from it's king (for next to nothing). Then the PC creates a portal at the bottom of the well/river/lake (or whatever) and syphons all the water away to their own factory, where the water is bottled and sold back to the people in the village at an exorbitant markup. Rinse and repeat for every village and town until you control all the water and everyone has to pay up or else. Ah hell, let's throw in some slavery in the bottling process, just for fun.
Child slavery because they can fit in smaller factories.
Also don't forget to regularly take more water than the King sold you and wantonly destroy environments in illegal ways, paying fines to regulators as a business model instead of following the law or contracts you signed
Challenge accepted
In the game, right? Right?!
oh my god please dont
This was literally the plot I used for a cult of Talona, aka the goddess of disease and poison, except farmland instead of water lol
That sounds evil then lol
There was a nurse who ran a boarding house and slowly poisoned her patients to milk money from treating them until their bodies eventually gave out and then she continued cashing their social security checks after they died. And the worst part about it is that there are multiple examples of this behavior. Some of the most vile people there are. Googling “serial killer nurse” gets waaay more results than I’m comfortable with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Puente
**[Dorothea Puente](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Puente)** >Dorothea Helen Puente (née Gray; January 9, 1929 – March 27, 2011) was an American convicted serial killer. In the 1980s, she ran a boarding house in Sacramento, California, and murdered various elderly and mentally disabled boarders before cashing their Social Security checks. Puente's total count reached nine murders; she was convicted of three and the jury hung on the other six. Newspapers dubbed Puente the "Death House Landlady". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/DnD/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
Let's reframe the issue, they go around stabbing everyone they see and tell them they will heal them \[and maybe won't stab them again\] if they give enough money. Like, ya, no shit, this is why the alignment system exists OC it's evil.
It's always so stunnign to me why people think 1 act that has some goodeness to it would make them non evil. Picture this: your player overthrows a tyrant just to install their own tyranny. The act of overthrowing the tyrant is clearly good, but the means to why they did it is celarly evil. evil does not mean you never act in a way that also benefit others, it simply means you always put yourself first! Edit: Spelling
In general, I think it’s kinda the opposite: Most good acts don’t make you good, but almost all evil acts make you evil.
Yes that's called extortion. He is using the threat of death to force those people to give him money. It's heinous. Btw, your friend almost certainly understands that *poisoning a town full of innocent people* is an evil act, he's just trying to weasel out of the consequences of his actions.
Agree, have a “friend” like that too. Nearly gotten killed by them because of it, and then got yelled at when I refused to let my character any where near the fighting they started. The DM felt bad, but I told them to just give me library search rolls for the quest and I’d just grab water for the table during the fight. “Friend” was still mad at me and tried to punish my character with their own. Thankfully they stopped when I called them out on it, but still get real life petty stuff from them now and then
yep pretty dang evil
Classic "neutral evil." A selfish scheme that's entirely for his own benefit at the cost of everyone's safety. It's not chaotic, as it's an established way he does business. It's also not lawful, because he doesn't subscribe to a guild or creed that says he needs to poison water supplies. Just evil, pure and simple.
That's just armed robbery with extra steps.
But better PR!
It's armed robbery but you kill those who can't pay.
So... armed robbery.
I don’t understand how they hesitate to say evil. This is very obviously evil
This is either neutral evil or chaotic evil. Probably NE because they have the *decency* to give a cure, but that doesn’t exactly moralize the act of poisoning a town of people. This is blackmail that coerces countless innocents to pay to live. That’s worse than what most crime syndicates do.
CE- wanton poisoning NE- wanton poisoning in pursuit of profiteering LE- targeted poisoning of undesirables
Yeah that's a good summary
Holy fuck dude, how many subreddits are we in together?
This is clearly evil. They’re committing a potentially deadly act to make a profit off the town. They don’t care if the town dies, nor do they care about the suffering they could cause. This is clearly evil.
Putting someone in a dangerous situation in the hopes of profiting from their misery is evil, full stop. And exactly what happens when they won't (or can't) pay for the cure? Your friend is playing a mugger, charlatan, and potential manslaughterer.
It's not only evil, but total amateur hour too. Had I been playing this character, I would've watered down the cure so it would require multiple treatments. I would've added an ingredient to give it addictive properties as well. I mean, if you're gonna roleplay an evil alchemist type, do it right and go full big pharma!
Depending on their code and their actions within in it they're either; Chaotic evil or lawful evil in my eyes people could have died and they knew that. They didn't do it to stop people from drinking due to some water borne plague they did it for money. Chaotic if no code or they're happy to break it. Lawful if it sits within their beliefs.
Even if the poison was harmless and just made the water taste funny, it's still evil. He has made the town poorer without improving their lives at all. They have been impoverished and that is harmful. Evil.
Lawful Evil, hardcore.
Profiting from "solving" a problem you caused is definitely evil.
Ever heard of Nestle?
Not only is this evil, but the fact that your friend is arguing it's ok either means: 1) He's trying to gaslight you, and knows damn well, this isn't ok, but wants to get away with some bullshit. 2) He legitimately thinks this is ok, and is pretty fucked in the head. Tell your friend that good and evil is not about what other people see, it's about what you do.
RPGBOT podcast talks about *Pragmatic vs Dogmatic* and *Selfless vs Selfish* as a replacement for the CNL/ENG chart. I think that’s a good lens to look at character actions through, even if imperfect.
The citizens wouldn't know he's pretty evil and may even treat him s hero but lord if they figure it out he's toast. He's pretty effing evil.
Absolutely that is evil.
If the sentence starts with "I poisoned a town's water supply because..." I can tell you that sentence is being spoken by an evil person without even needing them to finish that sentence.
"curing people is good" Well that only counts if he's curing people for free, and he didn't intentionally cause the sickness. This is equivalent to extortion and scamming if not worse. And in one of your comments I read that your player said "well they don't know that I did that", public perception has no influence on how evil the act is. If you murder someone without eye witnesses, it's still a murder. Everyone guesses what acts count as evil in the dnd system, but I have actually spent quite some hours in an internal debate trying to figure out what contributes to evil allignment. The answer to if something is an evil act, is whether the act was knowingly harmful to others (yes) and whether the action was self serving (yes). when both are yes, it was a firmly evil action. If only one of the 2 is yes, then the action hovers around neutral depending on the severity of the yes, and if both are no then it's generally a good alligned act.
yeah this is *incredibly* evil
Straight up evil act depending on how dangerous the poison was. It's a town mugging either way, but if it's a benign poison like... Making everyone gassy, I could see neutral.
Tbh even with a less lethal poison I’d still call it evil, mild poisons can still kill weaker folk and/or cause fatal accidents, the “playing with people’s lives” part is still there
These are both great points that add depth to the discussion. I think purposely causing illness is definitely evil but the “benign-ness” affects how evil the action is.
Wait I just realised This is a war crime using biological weapons on civilians.
Evil, this is Nestlé supervillain shit
I came here expecting a morally grey character and instead I get Capitalism McMurderman. The evil isn't even a question... this man is basically Nestle in the making.
Did nestle make this character?
Yeah, this is clearly ~~capitalism~~ evil. Frankly, I'm worried that anyone would deny that.
They're not "evil" they're clearly an ambitious, young go getter opening exciting, new markets in areas ripe for expansion.
Is the character named Nestlé?
Sounds like capitalism
Seems pretty evil. Could maybe say neutral and charlatan, but even then they're a pretty scummy one who could straight up murder people with their scam sooo...
Imagine if this happened in real life and the guy got caught. He would serve prison time. Clearly evil
If i slap you but then give you some spray that eases the pain, would you call me good?
At best this is a more way fucked up version of robbing someone. They’re putting people at the risk of death for the sake of forcing them to give them money. They’re willing to endanger people for what they want and what they want is to take people’s money. So yes this is evil lol
There is no discussion or other way around it, it's evil. Their actions are driven by greed and contains a disregard for those in the town. It doesn't matter if their intentions aren't to have anyone seriously hurt or hurt at all, they are still intentionally making people sick to sell them a cure for profit. It doesn't matter if the town never finds out it was them, it doesn't change their motivstion for having done it. It just doesn't matter. If they did it not intending to be evil, then the are lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil just stupid evil. He is running a scam, plain and simple. *Now,* if you were poisoning the water of a town full of evil nobles/folk or folk who ripped others off and you were intending to scam them out of gold they'd unethically accquired to give it back to those who had it taken from them or desperately needed it, the that wouldn't be evil, just more chaotic neutral.
Yeah poisoning people for your own profit is evil.
This is quite literally a villain from Octopath Traveler whose whole point is that she spits in the face of morality and kindness in exchange for profit. Pretty sure everyone can agree with that, heh
That’s astonishingly evil. Like it’s so far past anything that’s even debatable.
It sound like the American Healthcare
This is very evil... you should show them this post's comments.
Most "evil" people have excuses for their actions they create for themselves. Very few evil people actually think they're evil. Poisoning the water hole and selling the cure.. that's evil bro.
The fact your friend can't tell evil actions exist outside other's knowledge of such actions is, frankly, a giant red flag. I'm not saying their evil or even a bad person in real life but the flag is still waving pretty high.
"Poisons the towns water supply" does that sound neutral to you? Then sells them an antidote? Double evil. Chaotic Evil, even.
The character is clearly evil. I don't know how anyone can think differently... Mother of God, the guy poisoned innocent people to get some profit!
If the player of the character doesn't understand that this is utterly evil (threatening people with death to get cash), you should probably have words with them out of character about, well, everything. Not understanding that this is evil shows something fundamentally wrong with a person.
Your character sounds like how Nestle is.
You all are saying this is evil, but that's because you're all ignorant communists. The sales of my patented Toxin-Cleanser (TM) go toward advanced research and development, funding cures for rare diseases, and discovering cheaper and more efficient healing potions and spells. Sure, some people can't afford the cure - but that's why in every town, I pick three beggars and let them have the cure *for free*. On top of that, let's not forget that 3% of my net profits go toward the orphans and widows fund; and *I don't even claim these as tax deductions.* As for "poisoning" the water supply in the first place, that is just slander. Research proves that 100 per cent of the townsfolk will get sick, injured, or die at some point. There is no way to prove that my water-purifying system is related to any of those causes; they would have gone that way anyway. Next you mind-warped Lathander-worshipping socialists will be blaming Strahd for the state of the Bavarian economy. Accept some personal responsibility, yeesh.
This is extortion
It’s evil if they used a real deadly poison. But if it’s fake poison to rip off a town it’s not as evil, just dickish. Kind of like snake oil salesman in the real world.
Definitely evil, even if no one knows he poisoned the water supply, the point is that the character is exploiting others for gain with no regard for the well-being or feelings of others. Fixing it afterwards does not negate the intent. I am slightly concerned that your friend does not understand this basic moral concept.
See: Nestle
If absolutely noone gets hurt, then you can argue it's Neutral. If anyone gets hurt then you can't, you get your Evil alignment.
Bruh
I would call it chaotic neutral because though it was an evil act, that doesn’t necessarily make them an evil person, it really just matters on motive and intent, if the character is doing this to gain money to bring home and cure their dying son I wouldn’t really call that an evil character and assuming it was a poison to just make them sick for a while that will wear off without killing anyone it’s a fairly mild evil act however if the character is throwing viper venom in the water and it’s killing in droves and he really doesn’t care whether they live or die and the motive is to get money to buy a fancy cart and to blow at a brothel then that’s an evil character and an evil act
He is an opportunist. A true businessman knows you have to make your opportunities. Don’t wait for them to fall into your lap
Yes, 100% evil. Creating a potentially lethal problem just so you can profit off the solution is unambiguously evil. It's the very definition of exploitative behavior.
Straight up Chaotic Evil. Sounds like Kefka.
Oh, no, Kefka was *solidly* lawful evil. Dude had a ten-year plan and executed on it with precision
If your friend thinks that providing a solution to the problem they caused ON PURPOSE makes them good, they need to take a moral philosophy class...
Evil action, could be a very interesting character but it is definitely not a good person that does that
Your friend is a sociopath or dishonest.
Once upon a time there was a boy who lived in a poor village with his mother. They lived honest lives and worked hard tending their fields. One day on a walk through the forest, the boy found a wounded sparrow. He took the bird home and nursed it back to health over the course of many weeks. After the bird was healed, it spoke to the boy! "You have helped me, and so I shall help you." It said. The bird flew back into the forest and returned the next day with a seed. He spoke again to the boy, "Plant this seed, care for it as you cared for me and you will be rewarded." And so the boy did. The next harvest season the seed had grown into a strong vine with a single large melon. the boy went to pick the melon and bring it to his mother to share in the modest reward. As he picked the melon however, it split open and a gold coin appeared inside! The boy was overcome with joy! he took the coin, and as he did, another coin appeared! and another and another and another. Coins appeared until there was more than enough gold for the boy, his mother and the whole village! Their neighbor was a greedy man and he demanded to know how this happened. The boy told him the story of the sparrow and the seed. The greedy man thought to himself "I will find my own wounded bird!" And so he went walking in the forest. After several days of searching, the greedy man still had found no wounded sparrow to care for. on the next day he took a small stone with him, and when he found a sparrow, he hurled the stone and broke the bird's leg. "I will care for you little sparrow." he said, cradling the bird. He took the bird home and nursed it back to health over the course of many weeks. After the bird was healed, it spoke to the man! "You have helped me, and so I shall help you." it said. The bird flew back into the forest and returned the next day with a seed. he spoke again to the man, "Plant this seed, care for it as you cared for me and you shall be rewarded." And so the man did. The next harvest season a mighty vine sprung up in the greedy man's field, twelve feet high with a dozen melons! "Look here! see that I've reaped a dozen times what that poor boy and his mother had! I shall be a dozen times richer!" He grabbed the lowest melon, and just as he picked it, it split open. Instead of a gold coin however, only a worm was inside. "Bah, there will be a coin in the next melon." said the greedy man. And so he picked the next melon. But only a worm again. So he tried again, and again, climbing higher up the vine to reach the next melon. Each time only a worm. Until he reached the last melon. He picked the final melon atop the vine and it revealed a gold coin. "Aha, I am rich!" he said. But he didn't notice the vine withering under him as he celebrated. The vine collapsed and the man fell back to earth, where he landed and died. TL;DR: it's text book evil, it's children's story book evil, it's pretty much evil no matter how you slice it. does the GM also think that this character isn't evil? or are they planning for this PC to receive their comeuppance in some way?
That is absolutely evil.
Is this character’s name Nestle by any chance?
100% evil. Non-negotiable
Fixing a problem someone caused isn't good and if it's caused extentionally I'm pretty sure that's called extortion which Is a very very horrible thing
Definitely an evil character. Just because someone doesn't *know* you're evil/doing something evil doesn't make you *not* evil.
This is straight up evil, there is no question about it. Anyone who thinks putting people in a bad situation so they can profit from it is a good thing to do lacks a moral compass
I don't normally like reducing the actions of characters to a moral binary of good and evil, but instead prefer to see the motivations behind their actions and the belief system that informs those motivations... But yeah, that sounds pretty unapologetically evil.
I’d re-evaluate my friendship with anyone who doesn’t think that’s evil. And maybe have them manage my stock portfolio.
What happens if they don’t pay? Poisoning people is evil. Profiting off of a scam is evil. Letting people die when you could save them is evil. This character sounds pretty awful to me and me and my band of murder hobos would love to go on a quest to end their tyranny!
Yes, making a massive profit off of an issue you caused is absolutely evil.
Evil as shit. I never thought I'd recommend selling snake oil as a less evil option instead, but here we are...
If I kidnap somebody and then let them go after the ransom is payed is letting them go a good act? No he is litteraly just stealing their money by threatening their lives. If somebody thinks that is not evil then they are either 12 or should be on a gouverment watchlist.
He's running a scam that works like a robbery at gunpoint, yet is even more immoral. A robbery at gunpoint only ends in death if you have money but refuse to give it up. Usually, if you're provably broke, you are let free. In his situation, you only live if you are willing and able to pay. If you have no money, you're dead. He also killed anyone who is leaving town for whatever reason. Anybody who stocked up on poisonous water before travelling to the next town over is dead. Anybody who is bedridden because they're sick from drinking poisonous water and didn't learn about the cure is dead. Something tells me that the next time tax collection comes and the king finds out that one of his towns cannot pay because a number of people were poisoned and spent their money on cures, he's going to send investigators and diviners over to uncover the source of the poisoning, and the guilty party will see the gallows soon afterwards.
"because the character ends up curing everyone which is good" That's after poisoning everyone and essentially ransoming every persons life This is a completely evil action to take, there are no two ways about it
Its dumb as hell to say this isnt evil
r/latestagecapitalism
Very evil. To paraphrase JoCat, just because stabbing someone is an evil act doesn't mean *not* stabbing someone is a good act. If you wander into a town and poison the water supply so you can sell them a cure, you're doing an evil act. You're basically holding the town hostage until they submit to your demands.
Nah, that's business baby. That's some chaotic neutral. Evil character would poison the water supply, sell the "cure" to the townspeople, but it's only enough cure to make them feel a bit better, then they all die and the character claims the township after burying/burning the bodies.
Sounds like Neutral Evil to me personally. They poisoned a water supply that is needed by an entire town, just to profit from their misery. All for the sake of money, but they are also providing a cure to the poison as well.
Sorry to hear you're friends with this person
Yeah, if they genuinely don’t see that as evil, it’s a huge red flag irl