PDA

View Full Version : Genghis Khan: LN or LE?



MarkusWolfe
2010-09-21, 08:49 AM
I've been pondering this for a while. The body count he built and lust for women he had certainly eliminate the possibility of the Good alignments, he was a great empire builder. He has been quoted as saying 'It is not difficult to conquer to from horseback, what is difficult is to get of your horse and set up a government, local infrastructure etc.' He was big on loyalty (he even expected his enemies not to sell their master out to him, and when they did, he executed them more painfully than their masters) and did great things for his people. He must've been very lawful. He also ordered one complete genocide and hundreds of thousands of death.

Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil?

Project_Mayhem
2010-09-21, 08:57 AM
He must've been very lawful. He also ordered one complete genocide and hundreds of thousands of death.

genocide ...


Lawful Evil?

Shademan
2010-09-21, 08:59 AM
Lawful KHAAAAN!


To be fair, good luck finding a medieval king who was NOT evil

Esser-Z
2010-09-21, 09:01 AM
I note that Genghis was also smart about making use of recruiting experts from those he conquered--siege weapon engineers and so on. And smart about not recruiting traitors. If you've been defeated and want to join, well, that's great, welcome aboard. But if you betrayed your leader before he was defeated... not good for you. (Tactically sound because Traitors might do it again). This is pretty irrelevant to alignment, but I love the Mongols. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:01 AM
Discussing alignments of famous figures from Real Life is always tricky- no matter how far back they were- but if it can avoid straying into politics it might be OK.

Esser-Z
2010-09-21, 09:02 AM
Discussing alignments of famous figures from Real Life is always tricky- no matter how far back they were- but if it can avoid straying into politics it might be OK.

Excluding Hitler1. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree at least on half of that one. :smalltongue:


1Not a Godwin, as it's relevant!

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:04 AM
Faerun's version of Genghis Khan was in the Hordelands boxed set in 2nd ed- can anyone remember what alignment that version was?

EDIT: the name was Yamun Khahan.

Project_Mayhem
2010-09-21, 09:04 AM
Excluding Hitler1. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree at least on half of that one

Indeed. The man's Alignment box on his character sheet is filled with his name in BURNING LETTERS 5000 FEET HIGH

Esser-Z
2010-09-21, 09:05 AM
Kinda like a Dinosaur. Dinosaurs aren't chaotic, or neutral, or good, or evil, or lawful. They're TRUE DINOSAUR.

Caliphbubba
2010-09-21, 09:09 AM
See this is why I always like Palladium Alignments,

cause clearly Genghis Khan is Aberrant.

if we stick to D&D I'd have to say LE(N) lol

Esser-Z
2010-09-21, 09:11 AM
Evil enough that a Paladin could smite him, neutral enough that the Paladin isn't obligated to do so.

Greenish
2010-09-21, 09:12 AM
Lust for women isn't Evil itself.

Anyhow, so he united the tribes and built a great empire. LN. You can't build an empire without breaking a few eggs.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:12 AM
Palladium alignments can map very approximately to D&D:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

With Aberrant falling somewhere between LE and LN depending on how generous the interpretation is.

Easydamus:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

draws on Palladium as well as D&D for it's interpretation.

A slightly different Khan (Noonien Singh) is cited as typical for NE:
http://easydamus.com/neutralevil.html

Esser-Z
2010-09-21, 09:15 AM
Lust for women isn't Evil itself.
Rape is, though. Under a modern moral system, anyway. Which leads to the whole 'is alignment relative' issue and... yeah.

Greenish
2010-09-21, 09:26 AM
Rape is, though.Of course, but the OP said that Genghis Khan couldn't be good because of his "body count and lust for women". It doesn't have to imply rape, and I rather it didn't (because it makes it sound as if a person couldn't control themselves because they're horny).

Esser-Z
2010-09-21, 09:26 AM
Of course, but the OP said that Genghis Khan couldn't be good because of his "body count and lust for women". It doesn't have to imply rape, and I rather it didn't (because it makes it sound as if a person couldn't control themselves because they're horny).

Oh, certainly. I agree there.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:28 AM
Interestingly, in Dungeonomicon:

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Socialomicon

while slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice are suggested as falling within cultural relativism, genocide is still considered right out.


The goblins have gone and conducted a raid on your village in full force. They rode in, took a bunch of the sheep, killed some of the people, set fire to some of the cottages, and rode away again with Santa Sacks filled with this year's crop. And they laughed because they thought it was funny. And now that your elder brother has been slain you want to dedicate yourself to the eradication of the Goblin Menace and begin the training necessary to become a Ranger so that you can empty the goblin village from the other side of the valley once and for all.

Par for the course D&D, right? Wrong! Killing all the goblins isn't just an Evil act, it's unthinkable to most D&D inhabitants. This is the Classical Era, and actually sowing the fields of Carthage with salt is an atrocity of such magnitude that people will speak of it for thousands of years. In the D&D world, goblins raid human settlements with raiding parties, humans raid goblin settlements with "adventuring parties", and like the cattle raiding culture of Scotland, it's simply accepted by all participants as a fact of life.

When your city is raided by other groups of humanoids, it's a bad thing for your city. Orcs may kidnap some of your relatives and use them as slaves (or food), and many of your fellow villagers may lose their lives defending lives and property important to them. But that's part of life in the age, and people just sort of expect that sort of thing.

shadow_archmagi
2010-09-21, 09:35 AM
A slightly different Khan (Noonien Singh) is cited as typical for NE:
http://easydamus.com/neutralevil.html

Slightly different? That's a STAR TREK character!

Ghenghis was almost certainly LN, because life in his empire was quite reasonable.

Oslecamo
2010-09-21, 09:37 AM
Interestingly, in Dungeonomicon:

while slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice are suggested as falling within cultural relativism, genocide is still considered right out.

And that's one of the many reasons why that's an excellent read for laughing and should not be taken seriously in any sense of the word.

Of course, Dungeonomicon assumes that everybody is chain biding everybody else so of course slavery is awright, and the other suplement make undeads superior to everything else so of course sacrifice and canibalism are ok because otherwise you couldn't have good necromantic abominations that feed on their own and that would be unaceptable by their standards.

houlio
2010-09-21, 09:43 AM
I think its more if a toss up, I read somewhere that Genghis Khan killed his brother at a young age and avenged his tribe killing an entire enemy tribe by himself or something. I can't verify this stuff though, just something I heard.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:45 AM
If you're looking for core sources that place genocide on a plane of its own for Evilness- BoVD does list it as an example of the sort of thing that has the most powerful Evil effects on the world: an

"Act of darkness like the world has never seen"

Slavery by contrast tends to be portrayed slightly less badly in D&D sources- mostly "something Good people always object to" rather than "something that guaranteed the people involved are Evil."


Slightly different? That's a STAR TREK character!

Still a warlord who ruled a quarter of the world though- and was seen as the "least worst" of the dictators of the Eugenics Wars.

Greenish
2010-09-21, 09:45 AM
I think its more if a toss up, I read somewhere that Genghis Khan killed his brother at a young age and avenged his tribe killing an entire enemy tribe by himself or something. I can't verify this stuff though, just something I heard.Half-brother, actually, and I should think it's safe to say he didn't slaughter a tribe alone, either.

kamikasei
2010-09-21, 09:46 AM
Ghenghis was almost certainly LN, because life in his empire was quite reasonable.
I don't understand your reasoning. Why would that make him LN rather than LE?

What argument is there for his not being LE? Context? But that just suggests that most of the people with power around him were also xE. It doesn't make wars of conquest including genocide and mass rape less evil, it just means he personally wasn't exceptionally evil by the standards of the day.

If the question is relevant in a game for some reason, perhaps if a DM wants to have an NPC based on Genghis Khan and needs to figure out if the paladin can smite him (or treat with him without risking a fall), then answering it depends on a few other factors at the table: how evil does the DM want his evil? How much does your culture and context excuse your own actions? Should knowing that someone is evil tell the players they can expect this or that behaviour, or is it just a single fact about a complex character that isn't terribly useful in predicting specific actions?

"Act of darkness like the world has never seen"
I have to go to the corner and laugh now. You know, once I'm done crying.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 09:51 AM
Of course, Dungeonomicon assumes that everybody is chain biding everybody else so of course slavery is awright, and the other suplement make undeads superior to everything else so of course sacrifice and canibalism are ok because otherwise you couldn't have good necromantic abominations that feed on their own and that would be unaceptable by their standards.

Not so much that- more a case of: if a nation practices human sacrifice in the D&D era, its Neutral neighbours won't complain much- if it practices genocide on nations it conquers, the neighbours will band together and destroy it.



I have to go to the corner and laugh now. You know, once I'm done crying.

It's poorly worded, true. More an attempt to class evil acts- some are comparatively minor and very common- some are major and very rare.

And some aren't so much acts, as manifestations "The birth of an evil god" isn't an act- but it has very powerful effects.

averagejoe
2010-09-21, 09:59 AM
The Mod They Call Me: Though it's a few thousand years old, it's still real world politics. Thread locked.