PDA

View Full Version : Anarchist Sorcerer, What Alignment? (3.5)



The Anarresti
2010-09-07, 09:54 AM
In my IRL game, we are playing a homebrewed urban setting, based on the Nazi occupation of Paris. There are two human cultures, the "Germans"- Slavic-esq industrialized, fascist (not noble-ruled) empire that conquered half a continent, and the "French" - Welsh/Scandinavian-esq culture that has been conquered, once ruled by nobility, now deposed. There are two human racial languages, etc. The setting is based off of the political turmoil of 1848 and the 1930's. The nobility was in charge, but waning in power, until about 30 years before start of game, when with the rise of Eberron-esq magitech and new ideas the nobility was overthrown in "Germany," replaced by a totalitarian oligarchy of high-ranking military and industrial officials.
I am playing a brooding "German" sorcerer who is an anarchist, disillusioned by the ultra-nationalist craze sweeping his nation. This doesn't mean that he is a promoter of chaos, or random acts of violence: quite the opposite. It means that he believes that the key to a near-perfect society is to elimiate the state entirely. His goal is to bring down all forms of governement, with violent force if necessary (he does consider it necessary in most cercumstances). He does not enjoy violence, or killing people, although he will do so if necessary. He does believe in "for the greater good:" he will not hesitate to kill, torture, die or be tortured if he thinks that such action could bring about the stateless society. Although he avoids harming innocents, if he has to he will dispose of them as quickly and painlessly as possible, hopefully using nonleathel force, but will resort to leathal force.
My question is, what is his alignment by RAW 3.5? He isn't working for personal gain, but is instead making many sacrifices for the good of others. On the other hand, he is not hesitant to use unethical means to achieve his good-intentioned ends. For the law/chaos axis, his whole being is about elminating legitimate authority, but he lives by a strict ideal, dedicating himself to an ideal and a group larger than himself (although he is not the only anarchist in the setting, and was in a cell of them, the rest of the part aren't anarchists)

Disclaimer: I in no way am endorsing or criticizing the ideal of Anarchism. I do not intend for this to be a discussion about what constitutes right or wrong action, just what this character's alignment would be.

Ernir
2010-09-07, 09:57 AM
If you can see valid arguments for both, default to neutral.

Looks like True Neutral here.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 10:01 AM
Evil acts toward good ends tend to lead to an evil alignment- if you go with Champions of Ruin.

Even with the PHB "harming innocents" is a possible symptom of an evil alignment- while neutral characters generally "have qualms about harming the innocent" doing it enough may mean Evil alignment.

Torture is said in several sourcebooks (FC2, BoED) to be an Evil act- not just a "neutral act that Good people don't generally do".

So- a strong case can be made for Evil alignment- though more like one of the Champions of Ruin variants of Evil character, than the traditional PHB evil type.

An obsession with bringing down government may be a sign of Chaotic alignment- in PHB it implies Chaotic people have a "compulsion to rebel" Lawful people a "compulsion to obey" and Neutral people have neither.

So he may be Chaotic with some mild Lawful traits.

Chaotic Evil seems, so far, to be the most probable alignment.

Telonius
2010-09-07, 10:11 AM
I'd peg this guy as CN (Chaotic Nietzsche).

Seriously though, Chaotic Neutral sounds about right to me. Law/Chaos is not just about following a code, otherwise a Paladin of Freedom would be impossible. This particular guy goes out of his way to disrupt society and destroy all authority. It sounds like he really resents any rules that he didn't make.

As for good/evil, this sounds like a clear case of Neutral, with mildly evil tendencies. Evil goes out of its way to harm innocents; for this guy, they're more like collateral damage. If he starts getting reckless about it, then it's a quick trip to Evil.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 10:18 AM
Evil goes out of its way to harm innocents; for this guy, they're more like collateral damage.

This depends on the interpretation. Even PHB suggests there are evil characters who harm innocents if it's convenient, rather than specifically going out of the way to do so.

If you're going with a more detailed interpretation, like with BoVD or Champions of Ruin, then even doing evil deeds only to noninnocents, may eventually be enough for an alignment change.

The Anarresti
2010-09-07, 11:25 AM
Seriously though, Chaotic Neutral sounds about right to me. Law/Chaos is not just about following a code, otherwise a Paladin of Freedom would be impossible. This particular guy goes out of his way to disrupt society and destroy all authority. It sounds like he really resents any rules that he didn't make.


Well, not quite. He doesn't resent all authority, or intentionally try to disrupt society: it's not a personal matter for him. He believes that governments by their nature are poison to society: a society without government is what he hopes to shoot for. Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, it simply means lack of central authority. He believes that removing the central authority will bring about a more stable, ethical society.

Lysander
2010-09-07, 12:09 PM
Here's a question. Does he feel guilt? After shooting a baby and a puppy, does he cry himself to sleep for weeks or does he stoically tell himself it was for the greater good and their sacrifice was necessary, because he really needed that puppy fur and baby skull for a spell component. If he's evil he disregards the value of human life and wouldn't really be haunted by it, even if intellectually he believes that killing innocents should be avoided when possible.

As for law/chaos, he's definitely chaotic. He's trying to overthrow the established order and replace it with anarchistic freedom.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 12:18 PM
Here's a question. Does he feel guilt? After shooting a baby and a puppy, does he cry himself to sleep for weeks or does he stoically tell himself it was for the greater good and their sacrifice was necessary,

I figure even evil characters can feel guilt (though it may be rare)- the presence of guilt does not prove a non-evil alignment.

And some evil characters might feel extreme guilt about their rare evil deeds against the innocent, but no guilt about their evil deeds against the "non-innocent".

Telonius
2010-09-07, 12:28 PM
Well, not quite. He doesn't resent all authority, or intentionally try to disrupt society: it's not a personal matter for him. He believes that governments by their nature are poison to society: a society without government is what he hopes to shoot for. Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, it simply means lack of central authority. He believes that removing the central authority will bring about a more stable, ethical society.

Hm, so more of a relationship-, tradition-, and ethics-based source of authority, than a "free your mind from all fetters" sort of anarchism? That is a little bit more towards the Neutral side of things (and also much less common than the other - it's nice to see a different variation on the theme).

Magdela
2010-09-07, 12:34 PM
Lawful Neutral:
Lawful: He abides by his own set of rules and ideals which he (probably) will refuse to break.
Neutral: He has qualms in harming others, but if force is needed, he will apply it.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 12:36 PM
Hm, so more of a relationship-, tradition-, and ethics-based source of authority, than a "free your mind from all fetters" sort of anarchism? That is a little bit more towards the Neutral side of things (and also much less common than the other - it's nice to see a different variation on the theme).

The Diaboli in Dragon Compendium (CG [Chaotic] subtype outsiders from the Plane of Nightmares) do have a bit of this.


They build their societies around the belief that since they canot provably define any one form of government as better than any other, they must simply live without governments.

Despite their chaotic natures, diaboli strongly believe in traditions and ancient mores that continue to maintain their societies. Along with these strong and repeatedly proven customs, diaboli hold together their otherwise free-willed societies with a mixture of traditions, taboos, customs and a strong sense of fair play.

"Do what thou wilt but harm none" unifies the diaboli and acts as the great truth from which all traditions and taboos grow.

The Anarresti
2010-09-07, 01:24 PM
Here's a question. Does he feel guilt? After shooting a baby and a puppy, does he cry himself to sleep for weeks or does he stoically tell himself it was for the greater good and their sacrifice was necessary, because he really needed that puppy fur and baby skull for a spell component. If he's evil he disregards the value of human life and wouldn't really be haunted by it, even if intellectually he believes that killing innocents should be avoided when possible.

As for law/chaos, he's definitely chaotic. He's trying to overthrow the established order and replace it with anarchistic freedom.
In the rare case that he would have to harm or kill an innocent, he would feel terrible guilt. He would cry himself to sleep for weeks in that situation.
However, given that situation (a spell that would destroy a government, but requires unethical spell components), he would first try and see if he could make do with more humane components. If that would be impossible, he would use the puppy fur and baby skull, however, one the ritual was complete, he would be stricken with guilt and would take on some kind of massive penance. He possibly would kill himself, with the explanation that a
monster such as himself has no place in the golden anarchy.

However, I haven't actually played him yet, I'm just making the character, so I don't fully know what he would do (I haven't gotten in character and put myself on the spot).


Hm, so more of a relationship-, tradition-, and ethics-based source of authority, than a "free your mind from all fetters" sort of anarchism? That is a little bit more towards the Neutral side of things (and also much less common than the other - it's nice to see a different variation on the theme).
Exactly. Thank you :smallbiggrin:. A slight elaboration: his nation overthrew their old kings, which were bad enough, in favor of a totalitarian military regime. He intends to eliminate the regime, and he also is intelligent enough to know that unless he educates the populace, another one will just arise in it's place. So, the new-found "Pseudo-German" tradition of militant nationalism wouldn't have a place in his vision of the stateless society. However, the institution of marriage, or religions that do not engage in theocracy, would have a place.


I figure even evil characters can feel guilt (though it may be rare)- the presence of guilt does not prove a non-evil alignment.

And some evil characters might feel extreme guilt about their rare evil deeds against the innocent, but no guilt about their evil deeds against the "non-innocent".
The one argument I have against an evil alignment is that evil people are defined as supremely selfish. This man has sacrificed his place as a lawful citizen in order to bring the world one step closer to the stateless society. He is willing (but uninclined) to sacrifice the lives of others, preferably others at fault for the creation of the government, but is even more willing to sacrifice himself. If he saw his death as way to bring about the sateless society, he would kill himself without a second thought.

Dirty n Evil
2010-09-07, 01:43 PM
I'm another who's going for the Chaotic Neutral alignment on this character.

A lawful character is more likely to believe strongly in the laws of government and appreciate the natural orderliness it provides to a society. While not exactly "Chaos", a chaotic individual is more likely to emphasize a system in which personal freedoms are considered over the demands of government. It sounds to me like his reliance on the individual as a concept puts him at CN.

Consider that there are at least two different points of view that lead to the Chaotic alignment. There's the whole "rules are for other people" person... the rebel, the non-conformist. He bucks against the system because he enjoys the freedom of working outside of it. Then there's the "these rules don't work" person. They're the ones who sees that laws more often interfere with justice than promote it. He focuses on individual freedoms over the power of the state... and that, to me, sounds much more like the character you're describing.

hamishspence
2010-09-07, 01:54 PM
The one argument I have against an evil alignment is that evil people are defined as supremely selfish.

Where? Even the PHB does not state "Anyone who is not supremely selfish cannot be evil aligned".

"Evil and altruistic" is not an impossibility, even in D&D. Characters who are sufficiently ruthless in "ends justify means" methods, can be evil even if they are willing to sacrifice themselves, and make many sacrifices toward their end.

KillianHawkeye
2010-09-07, 02:34 PM
Selfishness is neutral, not evil. Selfishness is basic human nature. (See the quote in my sig.)



Anyway, this guy sounds like Lawful Evil to me. He's got a strict code of conduct. He's willing to do horrible, evil things "for the greater good." He's picky about the class of people that he targets (i.e. noncombatants). He acknowledges that the finished society will have no place for a "monster" such as himself.

Basically, he sounds pretty much like the Operative from the movie Serenity. (Except the Operative didn't care about harming civilians.)

NeoVid
2010-09-07, 03:59 PM
As an anarchist in RL, I would say it's a CG philosophy, but this guy's methods would put him at CN.

BRC
2010-09-07, 04:16 PM
You use the word "When Neccessary" alot, so I guess my question is, how frequently does he declare such action "Necessary".
For example, if a state official (who he want's dead) is going to be on a boat full of innocent people. I understand that he would first try to kill the official without harming the innocents, but if the only way to take out the official was to destroy the boat and all it's passengers, would he say "No, I can't do this, too many people will get hurt" or will he say "It's the only way to kill that official, it is sadly necessary that they die".

It really depends where he draws the line, if he's willing to attack an enemy in the middle of a crowded street using rays, magic missles, and other such spells, even though innocents might be caught in the crossfire, I would call that CN. If he's willing to use Fireballs to guarantee he hits his target, I would call that CE.

Icewraith
2010-09-07, 04:25 PM
He's definitely chaotic. Even if he's not as "I hate all order" as some archetypal chaotic people, his inherent distrust of any centralized government pegs him squarely along that side.

where he is on law-chaos will depend on how you play him and may evolve over the course of the game.

The Anarresti
2010-09-07, 05:17 PM
You use the word "When Neccessary" alot, so I guess my question is, how frequently does he declare such action "Necessary".
For example, if a state official (who he want's dead) is going to be on a boat full of innocent people. I understand that he would first try to kill the official without harming the innocents, but if the only way to take out the official was to destroy the boat and all it's passengers, would he say "No, I can't do this, too many people will get hurt" or will he say "It's the only way to kill that official, it is sadly necessary that they die".

It really depends where he draws the line, if he's willing to attack an enemy in the middle of a crowded street using rays, magic missles, and other such spells, even though innocents might be caught in the crossfire, I would call that CN. If he's willing to use Fireballs to guarantee he hits his target, I would call that CE.

The line may waver and change throughout the course of the game, such is the nature of roleplaying. As it stands, he would not sink a boat full of innocent civilians just to get one high-ranking official. He might, however, sink a ship full of high-ranking officals that has a few innocents on it, although he would first try to remove the innocents from the boat. Failing that, he would attempt to rescue their corpses for resurrection (on his own dime), or at least a decent burial.
He has a practice of proforming atonement for every innocent killed or harmed. Some kind of behind-the-scenes aid to kin, or to the innocent if they survived. Whether it is leaving gold on their porch, scrounging up a cleric to cast a regenerate spell pro bono, or just passing the word along to his buddies that family X deserves protection.
Because of his squeamishness about harming civilians, he has no lethal area attack spells (at least not yet, maybe when I get more spells known). His only lethal options are rays, to snipe important targets with. He tends toward enchantment and illusion, to sow confusion in enemy ranks. He has no qualms about using Suggestion on an innocent civilian, in fact, if he is about to blow up a building, he will take the time to Suggest to the civilians that they have a pressing appointment elsewhere, even if this means one or more of his targets might get away.
Note that although he believes he is willing to hurt innocents for the greater good, he has never actually done so: killing of innocents is conspicuously absent from his backstory. When push comes to shove, he may delay his plans a few months.

So, in conclusion, by BRC's argument, he is CN: he would go with the less-certain option in order to decrease collateral damage.

KillianHawkeye
2010-09-07, 05:24 PM
Okay, so maybe not Evil. But I still think being anti-government doesn't necessarily make you Chaotic.

Blue Ghost
2010-09-07, 06:54 PM
So his definition of "innocent" is anyone not working for the government, and anyone involved with government at all is fair game? That sounds pretty evil to me. I'd peg him as CE.

Raistlin1040
2010-09-07, 07:03 PM
Well we are talking a fascist nation. It's most likely LE, and while there is no rule that says Evil and Evil are always best buddies, Anarchy-Man is very against the government, on many ethical and moral grounds that a CE character wouldn't be concerned with. He's not building a new dystopia, he's working towards a utopia. Granted, the lines can get blurred, and he is not going about it in the most Good way possible, but in my opinion, he seems like a CN character.

Quellian-dyrae
2010-09-07, 07:45 PM
I'd go with CN. Although obeying the laws isn't the one and only aspect of the Lawful alignment, it is pretty clearly there, and dedication to a cause is not inherently Lawful. Dislike of authority is a pretty clear-cut Chaotic trait, and if that's this guy's driving motivation, it would take a whole lot of Lawful to even balance it out.

As far as good-evil goes, he doesn't want to hurt others, but it sounds like his cause is more important to him overall than helping and protecting others. Here's a question: forget killing innocents, what if he learned of innocents who needed to be saved, say some blood magic sacrifice was going on right then. He could save them, but doing so would mean missing out on completing a major goal for his cause (say, a powerful noble is giving a speech at the time and he plans to use his magic to trick him into revealing his corruption).

Trying to save the innocents would be at the cost of his goal and at personal risk. If he would save them anyway, you have a strong case for CG. If he'd keep to his own task, you're probably talking CN. I don't think there's much of a chance for CE, unless he does start making it a habit of killing innocents when it is convenient for his goals, or if as was suggested above, he goes around killing people just because they happen to serve a bureaucracy (killing people because you just don't like them/what they are/what they do is pretty textbook evil).

hamishspence
2010-09-08, 02:46 AM
If you're going with "evil is about deeds at least as much as victims" (as Champions of Ruin does) a case can be made for evil if he has done a lot of evil deeds to "non-innocents"- torturing government members, and so on.

So, he wouldn't be required to "harm innocents, either for fun or to further his cause" to be evil aligned.

The fact that his goal is "bring down all forms of government" does suggest he's not going to limit himself to this one LE government.

Psyx
2010-09-08, 04:04 AM
CE. The man is scum, who deludes himself into believing that he has some kind of moral authority to commit the crimes he does, and who is lying to himself with the false constraints he puts upon himself. Having a single redeeming feature does not make one neutral. A fair few mass murderers have been vegans who were nice to their mothers. Many serial killers would never harm a priest or doctor because that would be 'wrong'.

Anarchy is chaotic in nature. That's the point. It puts the individual above any authority, and recognises no authority. Freedom is the only thing that matters; even to the point of utter impracticality.

Evil firstly because he is willing to use torture and almost freely murder. It doesn't matter that he still tries to have a semblance of decency by slightly staying his hand as regards innocents: He is happy to use extreme measures and use fear as a weapon to get what he wants. Torture is pretty much as low as humans can go. The constraint against innocents is really just a bit of self-justification: 'I'm a murdering terrorist, but I'm a good one, because I don't kill innocents'. Most importantly and crucially though:

"The one argument I have against an evil alignment is that evil people are defined as supremely selfish. "

He IS completely selfish. He is willing to murder and kill because HE thinks it's aright. He is willing to bring down a government because HIS moral compass tells him it's fine. Like all terrorists, he is a minority who is attempting to force HIS ideas upon society, because HE thinks that it's 'right', regardless of what anyone else says. He 'knows' that he is right. If you oppose him, you are 'wrong' and become a target. That's a selfish scum-bucket right there.

Looking at it from the perspective of society; is a person who kills and tortures to get what HE wants anything but a selfish individual, who puts his own desires ahead of anyone else's? Of course not. It doesn't matter if you seek to kill and destroy and torture to instigate a 'good' society against the desires of everyone else: Doing so is evil.

Jack Bauer is an evil SOB. 'The greater good' is poor justification for the individual's actions.

Example: If a peaceful minority religion contained a tiny percentage of supporters who were willing to murder, torture and kill in order to enforce their moral codes against the will of the majority of the population, would you consider them 'neutral'?

Of course not. They are selfish, and they are failing to recognise that they have no more right to decide these things that anyone else.

hamishspence
2010-09-08, 05:23 AM
While I tend to agree with most of the above- I must point out that the PHB doesn't really say much that supports it- it suggests those who "harm the innocent" are likely to be evil and those who "have qualms about harming the innocent" are neutral.

Similarly, it doesn't say what acts are "evil regardless of the fact that their victims are Not Innocent".

The splatbooks, however, do- with BoED and FC2 both stating that torture is an evil act regardless of the intent, and Champions of Ruin saying that people who repeatedly commit evil acts, regardless of their "good intentions" will usually be evil aligned.

Heroes of Horror does allow for Neutral people who commit mild evil acts toward Good ends (casting evil spells, maybe, or rebuking undead). However the character in the OP's post may be a bit worse than that.

On selfishness- if a person genuinely believes their acts are for the good of the many, and make sacrifices (not just of other people, but acts of self-sacrifice as well) toward that end, can they fairly be called "selfish" or are they, at least in part "altruistic" despite their acts and possibly their alignment being evil?

Ozymandias in Watchmen is a good example. Sure, his acts, by most D&D standards, are evil, but are they meaningfully "selfish"?

Psyx
2010-09-08, 06:43 AM
...Heroes of Horror does allow for Neutral people who commit mild evil acts toward Good ends (casting evil spells, maybe, or rebuking undead). However the character in the OP's post may be a bit worse than that.

On selfishness- if a person genuinely believes their acts are for the good of the many, and make sacrifices (not just of other people, but acts of self-sacrifice as well) toward that end, can they fairly be called "selfish" or are they, at least in part "altruistic" despite their acts and possibly their alignment being evil?

Ozymandias in Watchmen is a good example. Sure, his acts, by most D&D standards, are evil, but are they meaningfully "selfish"?

In the first case; I too think that they are way beyond that. They use terror, murder and torture as the primary weapons in their armoury. Regardless of good intent (which the person doesn't have anyway), that's evil.

As regards selfishness... yes, they are. They can genuinely believe as much as they like that the ideal they strive for is for everyone's good. Just as a nut-case can believe their god wants them to kill women with blonde hair. It doesn't make it morally correct.

Additionally, many who see themselves as martyrs to a cause break down as typically selfish people. They strive to be seen as doing great deeds for 'everyone'; but to be identified with the cause, as a martyr, and to self-actualise themselves on that level is actually an internal and selfish act.

I used the word selfish, because I was responding to a point made by another using that word. I don't think it's entirely incorrect: They see their own morals and ideals as over-riding anyone else's. Self-centred or ego-maniacal might be better descriptors. There's an element of psychopathy in there as well, in that they are failing to identify with others as anything like equal creatures.

Dictating your will forcefully upon others via violence, torture, intimidation and fear is evil; no matter what those ideals are.

hamishspence
2010-09-08, 06:55 AM
True- but sometimes the line between genuine selfishness and extremely warped altruism can be a bit blurry- hence my point that just because intentions are altruistic- even genuinely, doesn't make the acts non-evil.



Additionally, many who see themselves as martyrs to a cause break down as typically selfish people. They strive to be seen as doing great deeds for 'everyone'; but to be identified with the cause, as a martyr, and to self-actualise themselves on that level is actually an internal and selfish act.

I used the word selfish, because I was responding to a point made by another using that word. I don't think it's entirely incorrect: They see their own morals and ideals as over-riding anyone else's. Self-centred or ego-maniacal might be better descriptors. There's an element of psychopathy in there as well, in that they are failing to identify with others as anything like equal creatures.

Good generalizations- but there might be a few exceptions- people who have no interest in being identified with a cause.

There's also the character who believes that doing evil deeds to evil people, publically, deters crime- which has been quite a common belief throughout the ages- though generally those who propound it will not call their acts evil, and instead say "Torturing really evil criminals in order to deter crime should not be considered evil".

The Anarresti
2010-09-08, 07:23 AM
If you're going with "evil is about deeds at least as much as victims" (as Champions of Ruin does) a case can be made for evil if he has done a lot of evil deeds to "non-innocents"- torturing government members, and so on.

So, he wouldn't be required to "harm innocents, either for fun or to further his cause" to be evil aligned.

The fact that his goal is "bring down all forms of government" does suggest he's not going to limit himself to this one LE government.

The one important thing, that I already pointed out is that in this circumstance the character hasn't actually tortured anyone, harmed innocents, or killed anyone except for in a straightforward fight (in standard adventurerer style) or a planned assassination of a diabolical fascist government official. So, although he thinks he is capable of such action, he might not be (probably won't be: I don't like playing evil characters.)

The other thing to bear in mind is that this character has never been exposed to a decent form of government. First, his nation (although he was only a baby at the time) was ruled by an aristocracy, with all the usual aristocratic flaws: a small minority living in castles while the majority of people starves in straw huts. A lord is allowed to take whatever they want from their populace, up to and including raping them. Only the conscious of the individual lord prevents a lord's land from turning into a despotic earldom.
This was then replaced with a fascist oligarchy, where now in addition to peasants there are throngs of urban poor who labor in dangerous conditions for slave wages, with laws passed to keep them in place. In the new system, gladiatorial combat is a common form of entertainment for the rich and powerful.
Lastly, the nonhuman races that seem the best off, the elves, barely have any government to speak of.
All in all, what evidence is there to this character that a government can be anything but a despotic rule of the few over the many? If he actually found a genuine LG government, he might have to give his (fundamentally CG) views a thorough think-through.

Psyx
2010-09-08, 07:24 AM
We're straying onto morality and ethics here, but -to my mind- pulling the fingernails off someone, and other less pleasant things is evil: Be it be done for fun, or revenge, or -possibly worse- in order to instil fear in the population. Nobody sane could witness such an occurrence and in good conscience declare it was anything other than the pit of human depravity.

Any moral justification for it fails fairly rapidly. Essentially it makes the State that sanctions such acts no better than the criminals that it seeks to punish. Answering fire with fire removes the moral high ground from the equation.

Psyx
2010-09-08, 07:35 AM
The one important thing, that I already pointed out is that in this circumstance the character hasn't actually tortured anyone, harmed innocents, or killed anyone except for in a straightforward fight (in standard adventurerer style) or a planned assassination of a diabolical fascist government official. So, although he thinks he is capable of such action, he might not be (probably won't be: I don't like playing evil characters.)

So he's more of a fantasist, then...

He's still putting his ideals and desires above everyone else's though. He believes himself to be right, and all those who oppose him to be wrong and deserving of death and/or torture if required.

It may mean that this makes him CN; but a character who even thinks that they are capable of carrying out those actions (even if they falter in reality), or who consider them legitimate weapons of law is NOT 'good'. Ever.

Even if he never commits those acts, he is likely to share with others his opinions that such actions are ok... and that's not 'good', either.



The other thing to bear in mind is that this character has never been exposed to a decent form of government.


And as a result, sees no good in Order. He strives to remove it and put individuals first. That's Chaotic. He seeks to do this regardless of the will of the majority: That's Chaotic. He seeks to do it because his whim to do so outweighs everything else: That's Chaotic



First, his nation (although he was only a baby at the time) was ruled by an aristocracy, with all the usual aristocratic flaws: a small minority living in castles while the majority of people starves in straw huts. A lord is allowed to take whatever they want from their populace, up to and including raping them. Only the conscious of the individual lord prevents a lord's land from turning into a despotic earldom.


To anyone who spends three minutes in careful consideration: Those flaws apply equally to an Anarchy. Except there's nobody shoring the society up.

There is no way that this character could be construed as CG. CN at the very best.

hamishspence
2010-09-08, 08:44 AM
We're straying onto morality and ethics here, but -to my mind- pulling the fingernails off someone, and other less pleasant things is evil: Be it be done for fun, or revenge, or -possibly worse- in order to instil fear in the population. Nobody sane could witness such an occurrence and in good conscience declare it was anything other than the pit of human depravity.

Any moral justification for it fails fairly rapidly. Essentially it makes the State that sanctions such acts no better than the criminals that it seeks to punish. Answering fire with fire removes the moral high ground from the equation.

The state- or the individual vigilante.

That said, it's worryingly common in antiheroic fiction. Generally early on the antihero says "it's evil- and I'm going to do it anyway" in response to reassurances that "it's not evil, it's necessary, and morally just"- but some antiheroes aren't even that self-aware.

To be a chaotic Good vigilante/revolutionary (with the emphasis on Good) may require them to show as much self-restraint (or more) as any paladin- since unlike the paladin they have nothing to show them they have strayed off the path.

The Anarresti
2010-09-08, 11:15 AM
And as a result, sees no good in Order. He strives to remove it and put individuals first. That's Chaotic. He seeks to do this regardless of the will of the majority: That's Chaotic. He seeks to do it because his whim to do so outweighs everything else: That's Chaotic

This, I think, is flawed. Government and Order are not always hand in hand, not even prominently. There are many governmental systems that are Chaotic in nature, such as the tribal backstabbing among the orcs (a CE government) or the elvish magistrates (CG government). He sees nothing wrong with all institutions, just government institutions: lawful religions, monasteries, lawful family traditions such as dwarvish clan ties he has no animosity toward, and in many cases supports. Lastly, you cannot say he seeks to do this regardless of the will of the majority: the government in this setting is despotic. By definition, the majority of the people would rather not have this government. However, most people are to scared to do anything about it, lack the means to do anything about it, or have knowledge of any non-despotic alternative. My character wants to provide the people with the tools to overthrow the government. This is his primary goal. His secondary goal is to weaken to the government itself, yes, and that is where the terrorism/freedom fighting comes in. But he does not want even to seek revenge against the government, or punish it.
Also, he realizes that many people who work for the government do so because they have little other choice: were drafted in the military, became bureaucrats to feed their families and protect them from the Gestapo-equivalent, etc. He only has animosity toward the few who actively orchestrated the current system, i.e. the oligarchs themselves.




To anyone who spends three minutes in careful consideration: Those flaws apply equally to an Anarchy. Except there's nobody shoring the society up.

There is no way that this character could be construed as CG. CN at the very best.

To anyone who spends three minutes in consideration, who has been steeped in the values and education of Modern/Post-Modern Western Society, as I assume you are, being a well-spoken english speaker on a website devoted to a overwhelmingly middle-class pastime. Now, this might stray onto the politcal grounds here, but I am merely explaining my character's views on anarchy, not my own:

Anarchy means different things to non-Anarchists than it does to Anarchists. It does not mean chaos, it does not mean might is right. It means the opposite. What holds together families, the little thorps without a sheriff, or the elves in the woods? Mutual respect. Freedom. By removing the government, by making it impossible for other governments to arise, we give people ultimate freedom. This is not achieved by violence alone: we must educate the people, show them that there is an alternative to subjecting others or being subjected.
This is not a discussion about wether or not Anarchism is correct, or about wether or not my character is an idiot to hold such views. It is just that the RAW D&D books are geared toward a mixture of medieval and Post-Modern thought: the early twentieth century method of thinking is absent from those books, while heavily prevalent in my setting. Therefore, I was asking for help in fitting my character into this setting.

Psyx
2010-09-08, 12:21 PM
Lastly, you cannot say he seeks to do this regardless of the will of the majority: the government in this setting is despotic. By definition, the majority of the people would rather not have this government. However, most people are to scared to do anything about it, lack the means to do anything about it, or have knowledge of any non-despotic alternative. My character wants to provide the people with the tools to overthrow the government. This is his primary goal. His secondary goal is to weaken to the government itself, yes, and that is where the terrorism/freedom fighting comes in. But he does not want even to seek revenge against the government, or punish it.

He hasn't polled them, so he is deciding what is 'best' for them, and then committing acts of violence towards that goal. Their opinion doesn't seem to matter. He's tearing down society. I'm not seeing anything here that isn't chaotic. It doesn't matter that he's not seeking revenge: He's tearing it down and destroying the structured society. He believes that a larger organisation and structure has no place in governing society. He exists outside the laws and has no respect for them. Indeed: He seeks a society where there are no laws and people are 'free'. He's not even part of a structured organisation; hoping to achieve more as a 'lone gunman' than as part of any kind of structure.

Additionally, the majority of people will indeed be opposed to anarchy. It's a fact of life that we strive for stability. People want a stable society, even if it's unpleasant. Even a despotic society is preferable in most people's eyes to anarchy. Give people a choice between high taxes and no bandits and no taxes and banditry, and people choose the 'safer' option.


To anyone who spends three minutes in consideration, who has been steeped in the values and education of Modern/Post-Modern Western Society, as I assume you are, being a well-spoken english speaker on a website devoted to a overwhelmingly middle-class pastime.

Close, but I was bought up in a very rural part of southern Africa... :smallwink:
Educated in the West, though.

I struggle slightly with the character's perceptions. Banditry and random monster-caused terror is rife in game-worlds. It seems odd to look around at violence and crime and think 'this will all go away if we just got rid of those blokes in armour who go out and murder orc raiders and execute the people who nicked my cattle'. The truth of the matter is that rural domains in fantasy settings are effectively in a state of anarchy the second that one steps outside the area patrolled by men-at-arms (paid for by the nobility...). So there's already essentially a living example of what the character strives for (well: That and pirate ports. Lovely places). One could never look upon those and think 'that'd be grand!' The character's attitude must logically come from an urban background, and a rather naive upbringing, in many ways.

Has the character ever seen or heard anyone being tortured? I really don't see it as being remotely possible that he could have experienced that, still maintain that it is acceptable, and be labelled anything close to 'CG'.

Ormur
2010-09-08, 12:52 PM
I don't think him being chaotic is quite as clear cut as most people here assume. His desire to bring down centralized government is certainly chaotic but since you stress that he's not necessarily against the traditional values of society he might be neutral depending on his temperament. The law-order axis in D&D is very vague and includes both personality traits and philosophical views. Might not someone that's very lawful or ordered in personality but adheres to a chaotic philosophy or an ideology be on average neutral?

Whether he is good or evil is also up for discussion. As you describe it he has not yet commuted any major evil acts like cold blooded murder, killing innocents as collateral damage or torturing so I'd say he's not evil yet. If he does engage in those things in the future he'd certainly slide towards evil no matter his lofty goals.

Concerning his selfishness in wanting to change a despotic society, possibly with violent means, I think we'll have to look at that from a wider perspective. Since he's obviously unable to poll people's opinions in such a society the only way he could be absolutely sure he's not imposing his views on people would be a completely non-violent campaign like Gandhi's.
If that is the standard we have for justifiable opposition to a tyrannical government we'd be forced to condemn, more or less popularly supported, resistance movements in WWII which I think the OP's campaign might be comparable to.

I'd hazard to say that most post-enlightenment political theories allow for the justifiable overthrow of a non-representative government. I don't think we can assume the character's selfishness unless we'd know how he'd handle such an overthrow that proved successful. Will he strive to let the people shape a new society, merely trying to influence them, or would he continue a violent campaign against a more representative, yet centralized government that would arise? The French resistance included many communists that did not fight against the non-communist Fourth Republic established after the overthrow of German occupation.

The Anarresti
2010-09-08, 06:19 PM
He hasn't polled them, so he is deciding what is 'best' for them, and then committing acts of violence towards that goal. Their opinion doesn't seem to matter. He's tearing down society. I'm not seeing anything here that isn't chaotic. It doesn't matter that he's not seeking revenge: He's tearing it down and destroying the structured society. He believes that a larger organisation and structure has no place in governing society. He exists outside the laws and has no respect for them. Indeed: He seeks a society where there are no laws and people are 'free'. He's not even part of a structured organisation; hoping to achieve more as a 'lone gunman' than as part of any kind of structure.

Additionally, the majority of people will indeed be opposed to anarchy. It's a fact of life that we strive for stability. People want a stable society, even if it's unpleasant. Even a despotic society is preferable in most people's eyes to anarchy. Give people a choice between high taxes and no bandits and no taxes and banditry, and people choose the 'safer' option.
Society =/= Government. And you probably haven't thoroughly read my last (admittedly long-winded) comments, or just not gotten the vague hints, where I implied he was part of a larger organization. Basic backstory: with a group of Anarchists whose primary goal is to take down current government, and then re-evaluate needs after primary goal is accomplished. His branch busted, he is thrown in prison, where the campaign starts.


Close, but I was bought up in a very rural part of southern Africa... :smallwink:
Educated in the West, though.

Southern Africa or South Africa? Because I think that South Africa, at least the Afrikaans and English bits, is a Western country. Not that it really matters, though, the term "Western" is rapidly becoming obsolete.
My (American, Virginian) boarding school has some pretty close ties to brother schools in South Africa.


I struggle slightly with the character's perceptions. Banditry and random monster-caused terror is rife in game-worlds. It seems odd to look around at violence and crime and think 'this will all go away if we just got rid of those blokes in armour who go out and murder orc raiders and execute the people who nicked my cattle'. The truth of the matter is that rural domains in fantasy settings are effectively in a state of anarchy the second that one steps outside the area patrolled by men-at-arms (paid for by the nobility...). So there's already essentially a living example of what the character strives for (well: That and pirate ports. Lovely places). One could never look upon those and think 'that'd be grand!' The character's attitude must logically come from an urban background, and a rather naive upbringing, in many ways.
Well, you're pretty spot-on, here. Except that instead of being niave, I'd say at the moment he doesn't see an alternative. There are plenty of towns that have, instead of a formalized government, an informal town meeting type-thing, that beat back the monsters pretty well. This setting is a bit beyond the assumed medieval time period, so the monsters are much rarer, and he's never actually seen a monster (goblin, orc, ogre, anything like that) himself.
He doesn't oppose informal government, so maybe it's not a strict anarchist. But yes, there is an element of niaveate.

Has the character ever seen or heard anyone being tortured? I really don't see it as being remotely possible that he could have experienced that, still maintain that it is acceptable, and be labelled anything close to 'CG'.
First sentence: In a word, no. Second sentence: I personally agree wholeheartedly. Sergei is going to have some deep thinking to do.

Thanks for your feedback by the way, it's helping me to flesh out my character in a real 3D growing guy, not a 2D antihero.:smallsmile:


I don't think him being chaotic is quite as clear cut as most people here assume. His desire to bring down centralized government is certainly chaotic but since you stress that he's not necessarily against the traditional values of society he might be neutral depending on his temperament. The law-order axis in D&D is very vague and includes both personality traits and philosophical views. Might not someone that's very lawful or ordered in personality but adheres to a chaotic philosophy or an ideology be on average neutral?
True. So, to add data here: his personal habits are definably neutral on the law/chaos scale.

Whether he is good or evil is also up for discussion. As you describe it he has not yet commuted any major evil acts like cold blooded murder, killing innocents as collateral damage or torturing so I'd say he's not evil yet. If he does engage in those things in the future he'd certainly slide towards evil no matter his lofty goals.

Concerning his selfishness in wanting to change a despotic society, possibly with violent means, I think we'll have to look at that from a wider perspective. Since he's obviously unable to poll people's opinions in such a society the only way he could be absolutely sure he's not imposing his views on people would be a completely non-violent campaign like Gandhi's.
If that is the standard we have for justifiable opposition to a tyrannical government we'd be forced to condemn, more or less popularly supported, resistance movements in WWII which I think the OP's campaign might be comparable to.

I'd hazard to say that most post-enlightenment political theories allow for the justifiable overthrow of a non-representative government. I don't think we can assume the character's selfishness unless we'd know how he'd handle such an overthrow that proved successful. Will he strive to let the people shape a new society, merely trying to influence them, or would he continue a violent campaign against a more representative, yet centralized government that would arise? The French resistance included many communists that did not fight against the non-communist Fourth Republic established after the overthrow of German occupation.
I agree with the first two paragraphs, otherwise I'd never have made such a character in the first place. In answer to your last question, he would probably be just a shaping guide. The idea of a representative, democratic government would certainly intrigue him: remember, in this setting, democracy among humans has never been seen before, and he saw his first non-human at age 17 (a halfling moneylender), after he ran away from home (a typical move for a burgeoning sorcerer). See, he still has that rather medieval worldview of government as a small group of individuals born into the position of absolute dictator, answering only to their own consciousnesses. In his mind, no formal government, only informal village elders, family ties and tradition is far better than a centralized government of that sort.

Ormur
2010-09-08, 06:43 PM
Yeah, well from a truly medieval perspective (as far as I know) the anarchist ideal would make a great deal of sense with their concepts of laws simply being codified local traditions, courts enforcing that, a lack of any kind of sovereignty or proper nationalism and kings just being powerful nobles. From a medieval farmer's perspective any kind of external authority, usually just in the form of thieving nobles and royal tax collectors, could be perceived as evil or at least unnecessary. There are certainly examples of medieval communities being governed in a sort of proto-anarchist way, at least in internal matters.

You haven't indicated that the things which would make them accept centralized government, such as divinely anointed kings that offered a modicum of protection from voracious local nobles, have been particularly prevalent so I'd say you're character's views would make a great deal of sense.

I'd still wonder if there aren't radical political theorists around laying the foundations for representative government as there were in Europe at least from the 17th century onwards. Even absolutist kings were construed as different from "oriental despots" by virtue of the limitations to their power.

The Anarresti
2010-09-08, 09:04 PM
There probably are such theorists: however, my character having grown up under a despotic government that does not put a premium on freedom of speech, he has never been exposed to them. Their works would be under-the-counter essays only.
And as I said, the Kings were replaced by piddling nobles and upper bourgeoisie, industrialist merchants and military men, the very people that the kings would have been protecting the peasants from.

Hallavast
2010-09-08, 09:28 PM
From the description, it seems he's more concerned with overthrowing the existing government than he is with any ideals about freedom. If he were, he might be considered chaotic. He tends to torture, maim and murder people that dissagree with him or get in his way. So he's not good. So it's either neutral or evil and lawful or neutral. He seems to be convinced that his personal code WILL bring about the greater good. And he's fairly fanatical about it if he's willing to hurt people for it. So I'd peg him as lawful.

The next question is about how self centered he is. If backed into a corner and questioned about his motives, does the character say "I don't want to live under the control of a state" or does he rather say "The state is a detriment to the greater good. I will free the people from the state"? In other words, is he pursuing this ideal for his own benefit, or does he truly believe he is serving others? If the former then LE if the latter, LN.


Short answer: LN or LE

The Anarresti
2010-09-09, 06:53 AM
"The state is a detriment to the greater good. I will free the people from the state"

This. Without a doubt.
It's funny to see what variation I get. I've gotten every single alignment right of the three good, with a nod toward CG.

Psyx
2010-09-09, 07:43 AM
Basic backstory: with a group of Anarchists whose primary goal is to take down current government, and then re-evaluate needs after primary goal is accomplished.

Disorder first, re-order afterwards?
Again, I'm seeing this as chaotic. We can delve deeply and find Lawful and Neutral elements on the LNC axis, but the primary drives (Importance of freedom, anarchist, doing what he wants, ignoring the laws, sees no value in strong government, by any means necessary attitude, etc) are all chaotic.



Southern Africa or South Africa? Because I think that South Africa, at least the Afrikaans and English bits, is a Western country.

Southern. Botswana... Though South Africa is only 'westernised' in the urban areas, really. There's still a lot of wilderness there.



There are plenty of towns that have, instead of a formalized government, an informal town meeting type-thing, that beat back the monsters pretty well.

Which are -ironically- probably run in reality by ruthlessly self-serving guilds and merchant houses!
The good thing about the nobility is that at least they're trained from birth to be competent at running things, unlike other political leaders.




If that is the standard we have for justifiable opposition to a tyrannical government we'd be forced to condemn, more or less popularly supported, resistance movements in WWII which I think the OP's campaign might be comparable to.

Then so be it. We can't condemn as terrorism the very same activities that we praise as the work of freedom fighters, dependant of the organisation's ideology. That's hypocrisy: "Well done you lot with berets on and a lingering smell of garlic for using a roadside bomb to kill a bunch of those occupying foreigners, but you guys with different head-wear who did it are EVIL!" The resistance in France was far from universally supported either, remember.

Ghandi achieved more than any terrorist organisation ever has, and retained the moral high ground: something that no terrorist organisation can really do, except in the most extreme of circumstances.



He seems to be convinced that his personal code WILL bring about the greater good. And he's fairly fanatical about it if he's willing to hurt people for it. So I'd peg him as lawful.

I don't see the lack of self-doubt and utter conviction as being a Lawful trait. I don't really see it as really being indicative of any particular alignment trait.


Far from seeming to be horribly despotic, the Feudal system was secure, and it did value the people at the bottom. By its very nature the system required that they had an important place, and were looked after to some extent. Japan -for example- prized its farmers above its craftsmen because of their importance in society. The problem with the Feudal system were those upstart class-hopping merchants waving money around everywhere.

Ormur
2010-09-09, 11:30 AM
Disorder first, re-order afterwards?
Which are -ironically- probably run in reality by ruthlessly self-serving guilds and merchant houses!
The good thing about the nobility is that at least they're trained from birth to be competent at running things, unlike other political leaders.

Often, in Europe at least, they were mostly trained at fighting and hunting and I'm not sure being taught that you alone have the right to rule makes for a healthy government in any case. I think a class closer to being taught to rule justly, at least in theory, would be the Chinese imperial bureaucracy, and even they were mostly taught literature.


Then so be it. We can't condemn as terrorism the very same activities that we praise as the work of freedom fighters, dependant of the organisation's ideology. That's hypocrisy: "Well done you lot with berets on and a lingering smell of garlic for using a roadside bomb to kill a bunch of those occupying foreigners, but you guys with different head-wear who did it are EVIL!" The resistance in France was far from universally supported either, remember.

Ghandi achieved more than any terrorist organisation ever has, and retained the moral high ground: something that no terrorist organisation can really do, except in the most extreme of circumstances.

The proper definitions of terrorism is that it's intended to create fear, to make society so afraid that they accede to your demands. Of course it was originally used over state violence. A guerilla warfare and sabotage campaign does not necessarily have to have that as an objective. You could also ask whether it might be alight to aim to cause fear only in a certain group, such as members of an oppressive government, or an occupying force. The actions would then only be classified as terrorism against that limited segment. It's an easy propaganda tool to classify everything aimed at you as terrorism without considering different goals and methods.

There are also campaigns that could be classified as terrorism that have achieved their goals or that have gone on to become respectable. Some not very far from your home country.

It's true as you say that the resistance in WWII, at least in the west, didn't always enjoy widespread support until towards the end of the war or even after it as a sort of a sop for the national conciousness. Gandhi also advocated non-violent resistance even there, but personally I doubt that would have swayed the Nazis. I think ultimately the British raj was more susceptible to such actions than a totalitarian government contemptuous of such "weakness".

Therefore I couldn't blanket condemn every form of violent resistance even though non-violence is by far the most preferable option and so I couldn't conclusively say that the OP's character's campaign itself was wrong, although it doesn't preclude if from becoming so depending on the methods.


Far from seeming to be horribly despotic, the Feudal system was secure, and it did value the people at the bottom. By its very nature the system required that they had an important place, and were looked after to some extent. Japan -for example- prized its farmers above its craftsmen because of their importance in society. The problem with the Feudal system were those upstart class-hopping merchants waving money around everywhere.

The European feudal system was instituted through ruthless force by nobles and rulers trying to maximise their income. Peasants that before had enjoyed considerable freedom were herded into villages so they could till the land and be taxed more effectively. Their legal status was also very poor in many cases and they were the first to suffer if nobles fought between themselves. Japanese nobles also requestioned up to half of the harvest from farmers.

There may have been a degree of paternalism but I'd advice against romanticising the feudal system too much. It's also a very vague concept to begin with and doesn't cover all pre-industrial societies.