Please define this character's alignment (Sun Tzu-ish philosophy)

[Jon_Dahl]

As far back as he can remember, he was taught to be a great leader, strategist and a warrior. He was taught in the arts of war, with the leading principle being "All warfare is based on deception".

In that single phrase is the essence and truth of his way of life. Trying to claim anything else would be foolish and such foolishness would eventually cost him his life, his soldiers' lives and everything he values. Holding onto his teacher's words and the guiding principles, he wages war against the enemies of his beloved empire. He is loyal to his emperor, and only his principles come before the emperor's will (and the emperor doesn't know this, of course).

In warfare, he tricks and deceits his enemies, double-crosses his allies and plays mind games with his own troops without them even realizing it. He does this extensively, but not excessively. Everything has a purpose. He is considered to be a terrifying opponent due to his ability to confound his opponents and break their will. Trusting his word and not trusting his word are both paths to peril; the best option is not to listen at all. A Ceasefire? Treaty? Fair fight? Such things hold no true value in war. Fools will perish and only those who understand the true meaning of war will triumph.

In his civil life, he is a trustworthy man, a good father and an upstanding citizen. While on duty, he becomes a different man - more like a machine of death and destruction. He does not hate anyone in particular, not even his enemies, and he only loves his immediate family.

[Dlkpi]

Sounds like True Neutral to me.

[Tim Proctor]

Alignment is tricky I'd go Natural Neutral or w/e its called.

[Marthinwurer]

Sounds like True Neutral to me.

I've gotta agree.

[limejuicepowder]

Sounds lawful neutral to me.

Even if his actions amount to "do what is necessary to survive," the underlying thought process is rational and deliberate. He does what he has to with specific goals in mind - his actions are the complete opposite of random. This sounds very lawful. Plus he's an upstanding citizen during peace times, also a lawful trait.

He's clearly not good though; his willingness to break treaties, use underhanded tactics, and lie makes this obvious. The ends may justify the means, but means and ends must both be good for the person to be good (IMO).

He's also not evil though, since he doesn't cause unnecessary suffering (very important aspect), or seek to further himself to the detriment of others. Put those together and he's neutral.

Edit: also, St. Cuthbert has a similar militaristic philosophy, and he's the epitome of lawful neutral.

[Clistenes]

Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies.

Even if he uses deception, he uses it only as tool within a completely lawful frame. He's completely loyal to his principles and to the legitimate authority, and fights only to uphold the interest and security of his country and to serve the lawful government; his tricks aren't more chaotic that a swordfighter making a feint to catch his opponent off-guard.

And while he kills people, he does it only during war, when the choice is between killing the enemy or being killed/having your people killed. Outside war he's nice to his family, plus he doesn't seem to pursue a self-interested agenda, which pushes him a bit towards the Good side

Also, the real Sun-Tzu recommended to treat your men fairly and to treat humanely your captured enemies, trying to convince them to change sides with kindness, that is, he prefered to try to gain the love and loyalty of his soldiers rather than just be obeyed because of fear.

[Red Fel]

Agreeing with Lawful Neutral, for several reasons.

Lawful: Everything he does, he does "for King and Country," as it were. Selfless loyalty to a higher cause or organization is one of the signatures of Lawful. His actions are direct, calculated, and never excessive - again, Lawful. Although he deceives, deception is not automatically un-Lawful. He does so in service to his higher cause, not for selfish reasons, so it still fits.

Neutral: He serves his cause regardless of morality. He doesn't care how many people he kills, or why he kills them; he neither takes pleasure in it nor mourns the dead. His actions are mechanical; he has abdicated personal moral decision in favor of executing orders from on high. This is a cornerstone of Neutrality - being beyond the concepts of Good and Evil.

That said, as Clistenes points out, the historic Sun Tzu would be closer to LG-Stoic than LN. However, an LN philosopher/general is extremely fitting of the alignment archetype.

[Eldonauran]

I'd peg him solidly as True Nuetral, with a bit of leeway to Lawful Neutral.

Why?

Good characters have a reverence for life and would sacrifice for other. This does not describe this man in great detail.

Evil characters enjoy debasing life for their own gain or pleasure. This does not describe this man in great detail.

Law and Chaos usually get mixed up quite a bit. How I understand Law and Chaos describs Law as a tendency for order and tradition above all else. Chaos is a tendency for self-government and freedom to do as one wills. He fits in with Law more than he does Chaos, but I wouldn't say enough to go either way.

You described him best when you said mechanical. His actions change based on where and when he is and what position he is in. He is trustworthy outside of battle? A True Nuetral character is generally trustworthy but not always.

[Clistenes]

I'd peg him solidly as True Nuetral, with a bit of leeway to Lawful Neutral.

Why?

Good characters have a reverence for life and would sacrifice for other. This does not describe this man in great detail.

Evil characters enjoy debasing life for their own gain or pleasure. This does not describe this man in great detail.

Law and Chaos usually get mixed up quite a bit. How I understand Law and Chaos describs Law as a tendency for order and tradition above all else. Chaos is a tendency for self-government and freedom to do as one wills. He fits in with Law more than he does Chaos, but I wouldn't say enough to go either way.

You described him best when you said mechanical. His actions change based on where and when he is and what position he is in. He is trustworthy outside of battle? A True Nuetral character is generally trustworthy but not always.

There are levels of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. Not every Good person has to be a hero and not every Evil person has to be raging psycho. Same for Chaos and Law.

Let's check Monte Cook's alignment chart (spoilered to make it shorter):

Level of Good
1 Doesn’t like to see bad things happen to others
2 Helps others occasionally, particularly friends
3 Willing to help strangers on occasion
5 Gives of himself to help others, whether it be time, money, possessions, or something else
7 Takes concepts like purity, innocence, and other higher principles very seriously
8 Would sacrifice anything, even his life, for others in a heartbeat
9 Refuses to harm anything or anyone, even if it brings misfortune or death on himself

Level of Evil
-1 Finds joy in the misfortune of others, but usually wouldn’t act to hurt others
-2 Willing to cause others pain or misfortune to better himself
-3 Actively enjoys lying, stealing, and inflicting pain on others
-4 Willing to cause harm even to friends to get ahead
-5 Willing to kill to better himself
-7 Will kill for the sheer pleasure of bringing pain and death to others
-9 Hates life, goodness, and light and does everything in his power to destroy them

Level of Law
1 Generally tries to keep his promises and, when in doubt, follows the rules
2 Has a set of guidelines he generally lives by
3 Genuinely respects authority figures for their positions
4 Willing to see one person killed or hurt if it helps large numbers of people
5 Willing to follow a code or a strict set of principles even if it brings misfortune on himself
8 Would be willing to see many people harmed or killed if it helped society as a whole
9 Follows a set path in such an orderly manner that it risks blind self-destruction. Despises and fears individuality.

Level of Chaos
-1 A bit of a nonconformist or free spirit
-2 Will lie if it suits him, hates to be ordered around
-3 Disorganized but extremely easygoing
-5 Rejects the idea of majority rule
-6 Would prefer anarchy to any other form of organization
-7 Occasionally destroys things in reckless abandon
-9 Hates structure and order so much that destruction for its own sake becomes desirable

An individual needs a level of at least 2 or -2 to be considered Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic. Somebody with a level 1 of Good or Law or a level -1 of Evil or Chaos registers as Neutral to all alignment-detecting spells and effects.

I think Sun-Tzu would rank as Lawful 8 (Would be willing to see many people harmed or killed if it helped society as a whole) Good 1 (Doesn’t like to see bad things happen to others) and probably even 2 (Helps others occasionally, particularly friends), because he seems a nice fellow in times of peace.

Even if you take into account that he's willing to lie to advance the interests of his country, he doesn't do it to advance his own interest, and he doesn't hate to be ordered around, so he wouldn't merit even the -2 to the Chaos/Law Axis, when compared to his strong lawful tendencies.

Would be willing to see many people harmed or killed if it helped society as a whole =>+8
Will lie if it suits him =>-2

8-2 = 6, still lawful.

He is strongly Lawful, and Neutral or maybe very mildly Good.

[Eldonauran]

There are levels of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. Not every Good person has to be a hero and not every Evil person has to be raging psycho. Same for Chaos and Law.

Let's check Monte Cook's alignment chart (spoilered to make it shorter):

If you use that alignment chart, more power to you. I do not. If the character wants to be a hero or a villian, that is their option. I still stick them into one of the nine alignment groups. This character has no 'Good' or 'Evil' qualities that I see.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you everyone for the opinions so far!

Just one small note:
I find it hard to accept that Sun Tzu was a good man, just look at this quote (out of context, naturally):

Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.
Source: http://ctext.org/all-texts?filter=524101

But I will not argue against calling Sun Tzu a good man. It just surprised me, that's all. I'm just happy to hear opinions :smallsmile: Keep 'em coming!

[Clistenes]

Thank you everyone for the opinions so far!

Just one small note:
I find it hard to accept that Sun Tzu was a good man, just look at this quote (out of context, naturally):

Source: http://ctext.org/all-texts?filter=524101

But I will not argue against calling Sun Tzu a good man. It just surprised me, that's all. I'm just happy to hear opinions :smallsmile: Keep 'em coming!

In the old days, more soldiers died after defeat that during the battle. When the soldiers broke ranks and tried to escape the enemy usually ran over them and slaughtered them in great numbers; that's the reason some historical battles had such a big difference between the fatalities of the winning and losing sides.

When Sun-Tzu blocked his own troop's escape, he was effectively preventing them from committing suicide.

You have to remember that the bulk of Ancient China's troops had poor training and discipline, being mostly peasant levies pressed into service and trained for a short time (there were elite units too, of course). Sun-Tzu himself explains how you have to take your troops away from their homeland and into enemy territory as soon as possible, that way you will avoid the peasants deserting and running back to their farms.

Those kind of troops tended to easily become scared and escape when under pressure, so Sun-Tzu forced them to stand their ground. It may seem cruel, but the only option was to let them lose the battle and be killed.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you Clistenes, your explanation makes sense.

I'm just saying that what Sun Tzu did there could be considered as "playing mind games". If "mind games" is not a correct term, please tell me a better one, but definitely he utilized some questionable psychological manipulation on his own troops that wasn't exactly a nice thing to do (At least by modern Western moral standards), even though his men ultimately benefited from it by winning the battle. This is the sort of tactical thinking the leader in the OP also utilizes. It's just a question of how you want to put it into words :smallsmile:

I'm not being judgemental, I'm just explaining the OP's leader isn't mistreating his troops without a cause. He's just playing the same game as Sun Tzu. That's all.

[Deophaun]

Those kind of troops tended to easily become scared and escape when under pressure, so Sun-Tzu forced them to stand their ground. It may seem cruel, but the only option was to let them lose the battle and be killed.
Fair enough. But executing the King's concubines just to prove a point precludes him from being "good."

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'll also suggest lawful neutral or maybe neutral good. He serves out of loyalty, and is a traditionally caring father in peacetime. Although his strategies are based on deception, they are not new or radical ideas that depart from the norm but the ones that he was taught. He's adhering to previous traditions and teachings.

[Spuddles]

Neutral Evil. There's nothing to suggest that he's good, he has no paricular ethos other than self serving behavior with no constant other than constant deceit. He makes his living killing people and he backstabs allies.

I'd say he's almost chaotic evil.


In the old days, most soldiers died after defeat that during the battle. When the soldiers broke ranks and tried to escape the enemy usually ran over them and slaughtered them in great numbers; that's the reason some historical battles had such a big difference between the fatalities of the winning and losing sides.

When Sun-Tzu blocked his own troop's escape, he was effectively preventing them from committing suicide.

You have to remember that the bulk of Ancient China's troops had poor training and discipline, being mostly peasant levies pressed into service and trained for a short time (there were elite units too, of course). Sun-Tzu himself explains how you have to take your troops away from their homeland and into enemy territory as soon as possible, that way you will avoid the peasants deserting and running back to their farms.

Those kind of troops tended to easily become scared and escape when under pressure, so Sun-Tzu forced them to stand their ground. It may seem cruel, but the only option was to let them lose the battle and be killed.

That sounds pretty Evil by D&D standards. I have a pretty hard time seeing a paladin doing that, for instance. Arguably, using levees is Evil, or at least not Good, and definitely extremely lawful.

[PersonMan]

I have a pretty hard time seeing a paladin doing that, for instance.

I don't see how

"Well, chances are that your undisiciplined troops will break ranks and try to flee early on, getting themselves slaughtered in droves for nothing. You could put them in a situation where retreat isn't an option, so they keep fighting and you have far fewer needless deaths."

isn't paladin-like. I'd say it'd be a Neutral or Evil (depending on how you view the whole Evil-By-Inaction thing) to not take measures against such a problem.

It's like letting your troops march into the mild northern summer without bothering to make sure they carry winter gear. Sure, it's hard on them, and keeping the heavy loads may incur some losses that would otherwise be avoided, but the other option is watching your troops die in great numbers because you couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures.

The Evil general shrugs and says "Let them die, we can round up more peasants from the other regions and we don't lose much by arming them". The Good general says "Even if it's hard on them and the war effort, we need to take measures to keep our losses as few as possible".

[Ashtagon]

Sounds lawful neutral to me.

Even if his actions amount to "do what is necessary to survive," the underlying thought process is rational and deliberate. He does what he has to with specific goals in mind - his actions are the complete opposite of random. This sounds very lawful. Plus he's an upstanding citizen during peace times, also a lawful trait.

I respectfully disagree. As you note, survival is more important to him than following rules. A truly lawful character would follow the rules, even to the point of it not being in their best interests, but because it is the lawful thing to do.

[RogueDM]

Thank you everyone for the opinions so far!

Just one small note:
I find it hard to accept that Sun Tzu was a good man, just look at this quote (out of context, naturally):

Source: http://ctext.org/all-texts?filter=524101

But I will not argue against calling Sun Tzu a good man. It just surprised me, that's all. I'm just happy to hear opinions :smallsmile: Keep 'em coming!

A Sun Tzu anecdote: He preferred to keep his army light and fast, being a moving target kept him from -being- targeted, which worked out well for him. He could strike where his enemy was weak and vanish again before being exposed to reprisal. He did, however, have allies who were not afforded this luxury. He received word that an opposing general was marching on one of his allies' cities.

Rather than letting his ally fall he presented himself and his army along the marching route. Valuing Sun Tzu over his original target the general changed his objective, Sun Tzu retreated to a river bend, and the general followed. Here Sun Tzu made his stand knowing that his soldiers would see the swift moving river as too dangerous to retreat across and fight all the more vigorously. (He, like many, rationalized that you fought more effectively when given no option for retreat. The "cornered animal is at its most dangerous" philosophy".) Although outnumbered his men fought and won, protecting his ally (for largely political reasons) and ensuring the survival of as many of his many as possible (Had some retreated, successfully or not, those remaining would have a greater chance of death. And in Sun Tzu's mind at least the entire army fought better for being unable to retreat.

A sort of ruthless way to handle your men, but he believed it was for the greater good.
Endangered himself and his soldiers to protect an ally, fairly good behavior.
And another quote: "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death." -Sun Tzu
He either cared deeply for his soldiers, or was a really really terrible parent. (Though did have successful off-spring, allegedly).

[Clistenes]

Fair enough. But executing the King's concubines just to prove a point precludes him from being "good."

If that legend were true, he couldn't be considered Good. But anyway, would the King really have allowed him to kill his concubines? and would Sun-Tzu really have dared to do it? I have a hard time believing that Sun-Tzu would anger his liege that way, or that the King would allow it.

I can't remember if the concubines were really killed. And if they were, I would suspect that it would be an embellishment of the story rather than what really happened. But if that really happened, then yes, Sun-Tzu would be LN or even LE.


I respectfully disagree. As you note, survival is more important to him than following rules. A truly lawful character would follow the rules, even to the point of it not being in their best interests, but because it is the lawful thing to do.

That's not lawful. That's lawful stupid.

Not every Evil character is required to eat his own babies, and not every Lawful character is required to be a dumbass who committs suicide with all his army rather that not following every letter of the book.

[Spuddles]

I don't see how

"Well, chances are that your undisiciplined troops will break ranks and try to flee early on, getting themselves slaughtered in droves for nothing. You could put them in a situation where retreat isn't an option, so they keep fighting and you have far fewer needless deaths."

isn't paladin-like. I'd say it'd be a Neutral or Evil (depending on how you view the whole Evil-By-Inaction thing) to not take measures against such a problem.

It's like letting your troops march into the mild northern summer without bothering to make sure they carry winter gear. Sure, it's hard on them, and keeping the heavy loads may incur some losses that would otherwise be avoided, but the other option is watching your troops die in great numbers because you couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures.

The Evil general shrugs and says "Let them die, we can round up more peasants from the other regions and we don't lose much by arming them". The Good general says "Even if it's hard on them and the war effort, we need to take measures to keep our losses as few as possible".

That's not the scenario.

The scenario is forcing untrained and under-equipped peasants to force to fight for you under penalty of death. The soldiers weren't volunteers. Then you lead your levees into death because them fighting as untrained slaves isnt promising.

The Romans jus trained their troops better and held the better trained troops in reserve. That way they could retreat their untrained units when they started to route. Alternatively you put your nubly troops in flanking or skirmishing units, as opposed to volunteering them for suicide.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Peasant levies aren't evil. They're lawful. They're simply a necessary part of warfare when you don't have a massively centralized government like that of the Roman empire, and thus don't have the funds to pay for professional soldiers on a full time basis, especially when facing large threats. Besides that, your painting this as a situation where peasants were facing professional armies, which they very often weren't.

Are we going to argue that all military drafts are also evil? Draftees aren't exactly given rigorous training before they go off to war.

Sidenote on Rome: Rome might have had more "evil" tactics when it came to war, with their policy of throwing men at a problem until the problem went away.

[Clistenes]

That's not the scenario.

The scenario is forcing untrained and under-equipped peasants to force to fight for you under penalty of death. The soldiers weren't volunteers. Then you lead your levees into death because them fighting as untrained slaves isnt promising.

The Romans jus trained their troops better and held the better trained troops in reserve. That way they could retreat their untrained units when they started to route. Alternatively you put your nubly troops in flanking or skirmishing units, as opposed to volunteering them for suicide.

Sun-Tzu was working with what he had. If 90 % of the army was composed of poorly trained peasants, what could he do? Surrender an allow his country to be sacked and conquered?

Anyways, his soldiers weren't under-equipped: He remarks the importance of giving good weapons and good armor to the soldiers, and even points that armor has not just a practical use, but also a psychological effect on men, making them braver. And he wrote about the importance of training (he said that lack of training was one of the six usual causes of defeat).

And we don't know if the men who fought in that battle close to the river were peasant levies. They could have been elite troops, for all we know, but they were outnumbered and Sun-Tzu feared that they would be scared, run from the enemy and be slaughtered.

[Valluman]

I'd have to do with True Neutral with Lawful tendencies. Sun Tzu was willing to do what he must for China, but he still has a calling and something he must obey.