PDA

View Full Version : Corruption?



Tor the Fallen
2007-01-13, 03:20 PM
For corrupt officials, clergymen, guards, etc, what should their alignment be? I'm thinking any non-lawful.
But if that's the case, are devils above corruption?

oriong
2007-01-13, 03:26 PM
Nothing says you can't be corrupt and lawful. Lawful is not the same as following the law of the land, it's about a mindset that seeks order and stability, and a resistance to deviation from your 'standard' set of behaviors.

Devils are obviously as corrupt as you can get, just because they're lawful doesn't mean that they're absolutely unable to break or bend a rule for their own benefit, it just means they're hidebound, orderly, and strictly heirarchical.

Of course it all depends on what you mean by 'corrupt'. Taking bribe money to ignore/hide evidence is very different from just going around town beating people's skulls in and then claiming they were attacked first.

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-13, 04:30 PM
Nothing says you can't be corrupt and lawful. Lawful is not the same as following the law of the land, it's about a mindset that seeks order and stability, and a resistance to deviation from your 'standard' set of behaviors.

Devils are obviously as corrupt as you can get, just because they're lawful doesn't mean that they're absolutely unable to break or bend a rule for their own benefit, it just means they're hidebound, orderly, and strictly heirarchical.

Of course it all depends on what you mean by 'corrupt'. Taking bribe money to ignore/hide evidence is very different from just going around town beating people's skulls in and then claiming they were attacked first.

Corruption:
In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain. All forms of government are susceptible in practice to political corruption. Degrees of corruption vary greatly, from minor uses of influence and patronage to do and return favours, to institutionalised bribery and beyond. The end-point of political corruption is kleptocracy, literally rule by thieves, where even the external pretence of honesty is abandoned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt

After chronically abusing the system in such a manner, what alignment would the abuser have? I would posit a non-lawful one, as he is not acting in a lawful way.

Definition of Lawful, from the SRD:
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Do Paladins take bribes?

oriong
2007-01-13, 05:05 PM
After chronically abusing the system in such a manner, what alignment would the abuser have? I would posit a non-lawful one, as he is not acting in a lawful way.

Well....in what manner? The definition is hugely broad. Abusing the system is what Lawful Evil is all about, so it's quite possible to be both lawful and corrupt.

That said, just because someone IS a politician/judge/policeman/etc. doesn't make them lawful. A judge who decides cases by coin toss and ignores most rules and precedent but for some reason cannot be stripped of his position and authority is still chaotic although he has legal power.

A person's position does not determine their alignment, their behavior does, and it's possible (in the right circumstances) to behave either way.


Do Paladins take bribes?Of course not, they're paladins. That's the whole point.

But what does that have to do with corrupt politicians? Paladins by definition cannot be corrupt and still be paladins.

But in the end Lawful does not have anything to do with laws in a legal sense, it has to do with the person's personal relationship to the world and others.

For example a corrupt politician might not care one bit about the laws he's theoretically supposed to enforce, but might still have his own strict set of codes and rules that he abides by, they're just not the ones he claims to the general public.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-13, 05:54 PM
oriong is correct.

Corruption can be highly institutionalized and organized.

Maybe it would help if you thought of Lawful as having to do with order and structure.

Legal and moral laws are only part of that, many illegal activities can also be based on a high degree of structured organization.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-13, 06:00 PM
An interesting kind of corrupt character is to use Lawful Evil alignment. That way they'll follow the law, but will always try to bend it or find a breach to twist things at his favor. Think Lawyers :smallwink:

oriong
2007-01-13, 06:08 PM
Well, even lawful evil characters don't have to follow the law of the land. Like I've said, lawful evil characters can take bribes, which are certainly illegal, or use their position to hide crimes or other illegal activities.

The actual law of a city or country has very little to do with the Lawful alignment. Even a Lawful Good character could theoretically be a criminal (for instance in a society with extremely draconian and unjust laws).


One way to think about the 'corrupt' issue:

Bribery is illegal, but alignment-wise it's fairly Lawful. It's a business transaction of X in exchange for Y, and it relies on both parties having enough confidence in the other's reliability to take part in this exchange. A Lawful Neutral person who accepts a bribe will probably 'stay bought' and stick to the agreement so long as the other party sticks to their side, while a Lawful Evil character will likely stay bought but may screw with the briber party for their own personal amusement if they think they can get away with it, but will still work mostly in the confines of the deal. A chaotic evil or chaotic neutral person on the other hand might accept a bribe, but his actions are still completely unpredictable. He might turn the briber in for attempting it (probably keeping the money anyway), he might ignore the bribe and act like he would anyway, or he might just go along with it and follow the agreement.

In fact, most politicians/lawyers/whatever who accept bribes probably are lawful, because they're the only ones who can be trusted enough to take the bribe and follow through with the agreement.

Captain van der Decken
2007-01-13, 06:16 PM
Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#LawfulEvil)


Someone posted that being corrupt can mean using the laws for your own gain. Lawful Evil seems to fit.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-13, 07:13 PM
For corrupt officials, clergymen, guards, etc, what should their alignment be? I'm thinking any non-lawful.

Depends, what's motivating them to abuse the laws?

There isn't any one alignment that can be applied to any behaviour. It's all about outlook and motivation. If they're in it for their own gain, they're likely evil. If they're using questionable means to do what they feel needs to be done for the good of the community, they could conceivably be neutral or even good. If they're following procedure and trying to keep everything in order while abusing the system, then they're probably lawful. If they have no regard for procedure and just do things however they want to do 'em, then they're probably chaotic.

You could probably find a corrupt official of ANY alignment, honestly. So it depends. What motivates the corrupt official in question?

I look at Lawful as a desire for order, as mentioned above, but also a respect for procedure and "the way things are supposed to be done." You can have all of these things and still abuse the system, I'd think.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-01-13, 09:37 PM
A good description of lawful evil, courtesy of Full Frontal Nerdity:
Getting D&D sourcebooks printed at a copy shop, then turning in the employee and taking his job when he's sacked.

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-14, 01:19 AM
Well....in what manner? The definition is hugely broad. Abusing the system is what Lawful Evil is all about, so it's quite possible to be both lawful and corrupt.

That said, just because someone IS a politician/judge/policeman/etc. doesn't make them lawful. A judge who decides cases by coin toss and ignores most rules and precedent but for some reason cannot be stripped of his position and authority is still chaotic although he has legal power.

No crap.
But a lawful person who engages in corruption; ie, breaking the law (which he is a follower and supporter of, as he's in a position to take bribes) for personal gain, would they stay lawful?


A person's position does not determine their alignment, their behavior does, and it's possible (in the right circumstances) to behave either way.

Gee, really?


Of course not, they're paladins. That's the whole point.

Why can't a paladin accept a bribe? I thought position didn't determine alignment.

Oh wait, you missed the entire point of everything.


But what does that have to do with corrupt politicians? Paladins by definition cannot be corrupt and still be paladins.

Ok ok, I'll s p e l l it out for you.

Lawful neutral expert is elected to be an important and powerful town something. His duty is to protect the good of the town, uphold law, and enforce the will of the king. His platform for election (as he espoused his honest beliefs) was one on the basis of law.

Then, after awhile, he begins to take bribes.

Is he still lawful?


But in the end Lawful does not have anything to do with laws in a legal sense, it has to do with the person's personal relationship to the world and others.

Nothing?
Nothing's a really big, inclusive word. So big, I'd be careful about throwing it around in a discussion of a system frought with exceptions.

Unless you like being wrong.


For example a corrupt politician might not care one bit about the laws he's theoretically supposed to enforce, but might still have his own strict set of codes and rules that he abides by, they're just not the ones he claims to the general public.

Corruption for personal gain.
Personal gain.
Not a higher power.
Not a higher ideal.
A bigger house.
Swankier clothes.

Unless your code of conduct was to behave like a neutral evil bastard. In which case, you'd be neutral evil.

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-14, 01:22 AM
Well, if bribes are lawful, and if you take the bribe and spend it on orphans, it looks like paladins are allowed to take bribes.

Yaaay!

AmoDman
2007-01-14, 01:40 AM
But a lawful person who engages in corruption; ie, breaking the law (which he is a follower and supporter of, as he's in a position to take bribes) for personal gain, would they stay lawful?

What makes you think that a Lawful aligned person is in favor of the laws of the land that he or she is in? Laws vary from place to place. Obviously, a Lawfully aligned character will like certain codes of conduct and rule sets, but might be strongly opposed to the way codes and rules are being implemented or used in the place that he or she is currently in.



Why can't a paladin accept a bribe? I thought position didn't determine alignment.

A Paladin cannot accept a bribe because they are Lawful GOOD. Not just because they follow certain rules and codes of conduct, but because they follow GOOD rules and codes of conduct. It seems to me your blurring Lawful and Good, this is not the case in D&D alignments (a tricky business in the first place).



Lawful neutral expert is elected to be an important and powerful town something. His duty is to protect the good of the town, uphold law, and enforce the will of the king. His platform for election (as he espoused his honest beliefs) was one on the basis of law.

Then, after awhile, he begins to take bribes.

Is he still lawful?

I suppose it depends. Obviously he believes in a ruled and coded society, but does this person adhere to the validity of all that place's laws? (assuming bribes are illegal there, you never said they were) They may believe that bribes are an excellent way to run things or gain things that need be run or got. This person is neither good nor evil. Their motivations will lead them to whatever they believe are the safest and best way of doing things, or if they are someone who does believe strictly (not only in law, but) in the laws of the land in which they reside, and bribes are illegal, than they are violating their own personal code of conduct which is grounds for a corruption of their lawful alignment.



Corruption for personal gain.
Personal gain.
Not a higher power.
Not a higher ideal.
A bigger house.
Swankier clothes.

Unless your code of conduct was to behave like a neutral evil bastard. In which case, you'd be neutral evil.

Again, it seems to me that you're getting Lawful confused with Good. Certainly, some of those things might be abhorrent to certain chracter's ideas of conduct, and would strongly violate their personal code and belief in how things should be ordered, but you can also easily have a Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral character who believes in order and code, but not an order or code which any of those benefits violate.

LEGAL laws of the land, as I said, vary from place to place. You are unlikely to find a Lawful character that strictly adheres to all laws of the land, despite what land they might currently be in (though that would be a funny character to play...Lawful Lawful?). Lawful characters generally have their own codes that have been raised on and have accepted as correct. When this code deteriorates or changes is when their Lawful alignment might begin to be corrupted.

oriong
2007-01-14, 01:54 AM
No crap.
But a lawful person who engages in corruption; ie, breaking the law (which he is a follower and supporter of, as he's in a position to take bribes) for personal gain, would they stay lawful?

This is the problem. The fact that someone holds a position in a government or organization does not mean that they consider themselves are personally a supporter of that organization's rules, they may simply represent themselves as such (or they believe in certain laws, but not in others).

For example: say you've got a policeman who is a strictly Lawful individual, and just for the sake of arguement let's say his personal code aligns itself to that of the law of the city he serves. He is put undercover in an organization that is plotting to do something nasty and evil. He joins the organization and pretends to be a member, the organization is, due to it's set of strict rules and orders of initiation and philosophy, also highly Lawful. However, the policeman does not actually believe in and support this code of conduct, he is a follower of the city's laws. Therefore if he were to violate the cult's laws (such as disobeying an order to kill a certain individual, instead faking the death) he would not be acting in an unLawful manner, simply in a manner at odds with this particular organization (he is still obeying his true loyalties and duties).

The same situation can work in reverse. Our corrupt politician or policeman is violating the law of the land, but not his personal codes. The fact that he holds this job does not mean he must have alignment X.



Why can't a paladin accept a bribe? I thought position didn't determine alignment.


Come on now. 'Paladin' is a lot more than just a position.

Is there a 'politician' class? A 'police officer'? Do these classes have alignment requirements? No.

Paladin is not a position or an occupation, they have no legal authority or governmental status. What they DO have is a code of conduct which they MUST follow to remain a Paladin. A paladin who breaks the code is, by definition, no longer a paladin (until atonement and such has taken place).

Now, obviously people might still believe that the character is still a paladin if they don't know that he has broken his code, just as they might believe that a politician is still honest if they don't know he has taken bribes.



Lawful neutral expert is elected to be an important and powerful town something. His duty is to protect the good of the town, uphold law, and enforce the will of the king. His platform for election (as he espoused his honest beliefs) was one on the basis of law.

Then, after awhile, he begins to take bribes.

Is he still lawful?

This is a different scenario: it's an honest politician turning corrupt, someone who believed in a certain set of laws and then changed his beliefs. Perhaps if you actually said things like this to begin with there would be less confusion.

I would say that the change to his values would definitely count as a violation of his Lawful Alignment. However, this becomes a point of issue. there is no guideline for how many violations it takes to change alignment. If one violation (or a single extreme violation) is enough by the DM's book to change alignment then yes, he'd shift to neutral.

If it takes more than one violation or the alignment can shift again in the future he will likely be considered still Lawful (his LN may change to LE depending on what the bribes do.). He has changed his particular behavioral philosophy, which certainly breaks the lawful type, but if he sticks to his new set of standards then he could become lawful again (or would still be considered lawful) until he shifts again. Likely it would be a shift from lawful to neutral and then back to lawful (perhaps LE) as his new philosophy 'solidifies'.

To provide a different example: say you've got a hobgoblin who lives under hobgoblin laws (designed to enforce the beliefs of a LE group). He then is injured and raised by a group of kindly monks (LG) and eventually decides to adopt their ways of peace, discipline, and inner strength. He has broken with his original beliefs, but he adopts a new set of beliefs that are certainly just as Lawful.



Nothing?
Nothing's a really big, inclusive word. So big, I'd be careful about throwing it around in a discussion of a system frought with exceptions.

okay, better not to say 'nothing' but, the relation ship is not legal laws = lawful, rather it's the other way around. The laws of the land are produced by Lawful individuals, and people follow those laws because they are Lawful, but following those laws is not what makes people lawful.



Corruption for personal gain.
Personal gain.
Not a higher power.
Not a higher ideal.
A bigger house.
Swankier clothes.

Unless your code of conduct was to behave like a neutral evil bastard. In which case, you'd be neutral evil.

'code of conduct' does not mean 'higher power' or 'higher ideal'

They're after personal gain, but that doesn't mean that there are not rules to how they're willing to go about it. A politician might only accept bribes for certain, minor infractions (perhaps he only accepts them to remove parking tickets from the record), he's still after personal gain but he follows a strict set of rules (nothing but parking tickets, never anything but parking tickets). bit of a silly example but it's just an example.

Like I've pointed out above, bribery is actually fairly lawful if you think about it in proper terms. The politician's codes might be things like 'stick to the agreement', 'don't squeal' 'never charge less than X or more than Y for certain things', and 'don't accept any bribes for actions that would directly endanger the government/king/people'. Obviously they would have additional personal ethics, but that's about as defined as most lawful characters get in their codes anyway.

It's mostly a matter of what he's willing to take a bribe to do, and what he does afterwards.

Plenty of organizations can have codes of conduct centered around personal gain, but still be very much based around a sense of 'honor among theives' and even ideas like fair play and honesty. A strictly organized theives guild for instance.

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-14, 02:00 AM
I'm discussing NPCs here. Not wandering PCs who wish to bend and break rules for their own gain, then claim they can continue to keep their alignment unchanged.

No, I'm wondering what the Detect spell will ping, when the ruddy-faced, hand wringing mayor requires a little clink to grease the wheels of bureaucracy.


(assuming bribes are illegal there, you never said they were)

If bribes were legal, would it be called corruption? No, it would be called "campaign finance."

So bribing is on the good/evil axis?
Are you sure?
Good people never take bribes?
Good people can't accept bribes habitually? Bribe taking is a non good action?

What is a bribe?
It's charging someone money for a service you are performing as a state official. It's an illegal tax.

What about taxation?
Taxation without representation?

oriong
2007-01-14, 02:07 AM
I think your definition of bribe is off.

A bribe is any payment made in order to influence someone's behavior. Especially when it's something they aren't supposed to do. Such as giving a police officer money in order to keep them from arresting you.

It certainly can be what you're talking about, but that's just one example of a bribe.

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-14, 02:35 AM
This is the problem. The fact that someone holds a position in a government or organization does not mean that they consider themselves are personally a supporter of that organization's rules, they may simply represent themselves as such (or they believe in certain laws, but not in others).

For example: say you've got a policeman who is a strictly Lawful individual, and just for the sake of arguement let's say his personal code aligns itself to that of the law of the city he serves. He is put undercover in an organization that is plotting to do something nasty and evil. He joins the organization and pretends to be a member, the organization is, due to it's set of strict rules and orders of initiation and philosophy, also highly Lawful. However, the policeman does not actually believe in and support this code of conduct, he is a follower of the city's laws. Therefore if he were to violate the cult's laws (such as disobeying an order to kill a certain individual, instead faking the death) he would not be acting in an unLawful manner, simply in a manner at odds with this particular organization (he is still obeying his true loyalties and duties).

The same situation can work in reverse. Our corrupt politician or policeman is violating the law of the land, but not his personal codes. The fact that he holds this job does not mean he must have alignment X.

That's a different case altogether.
Do we really have to go into that example?


Come on now. 'Paladin' is a lot more than just a position.

Is there a 'politician' class? A 'police officer'? Do these classes have alignment requirements? No.

Paladin is not a position or an occupation, they have no legal authority or governmental status. What they DO have is a code of conduct which they MUST follow to remain a Paladin. A paladin who breaks the code is, by definition, no longer a paladin (until atonement and such has taken place).

So taking bribes is a matter of good and evil?
Nothing to do with law. That seems wrong, as you're saying complex societies are inherently good or evil. A society may be good or evil, but the existance of a society is only a sufficient condition, not a necessary one, for the presence of good and evil.


This is a different scenario: it's an honest politician turning corrupt, someone who believed in a certain set of laws and then changed his beliefs. Perhaps if you actually said things like this to begin with there would be less confusion.

My bad.


I would say that the change to his values would definitely count as a violation of his Lawful Alignment. However, this becomes a point of issue. there is no guideline for how many violations it takes to change alignment. If one violation (or a single extreme violation) is enough by the DM's book to change alignment then yes, he'd shift to neutral.

I doubt one or two bribes would be sufficient to sway one's alignment.
So now corruption is on the law/chaos axis.


If it takes more than one violation or the alignment can shift again in the future he will likely be considered still Lawful (his LN may change to LE depending on what the bribes do.). He has changed his particular behavioral philosophy, which certainly breaks the lawful type, but if he sticks to his new set of standards then he could become lawful again (or would still be considered lawful) until he shifts again. Likely it would be a shift from lawful to neutral and then back to lawful (perhaps LE) as his new philosophy 'solidifies'.

And now it's on the good/evil axis.


To provide a different example: say you've got a hobgoblin who lives under hobgoblin laws (designed to enforce the beliefs of a LE group). He then is injured and raised by a group of kindly monks (LG) and eventually decides to adopt their ways of peace, discipline, and inner strength. He has broken with his original beliefs, but he adopts a new set of beliefs that are certainly just as Lawful.

That's a rather poor example, as that's obviously a change on the good/evil axis. It doesn't have much to do with corruption.



okay, better not to say 'nothing' but, the relation ship is not legal laws = lawful, rather it's the other way around. The laws of the land are produced by Lawful individuals, and people follow those laws because they are Lawful, but following those laws is not what makes people lawful.

Would you agree with the following statement:
Following laws out of the belief that they are right makes a person lawful (or at least non-chaotic).





'code of conduct' does not mean 'higher power' or 'higher ideal'

It was the phrase you used to describe the paladin. It is also the phrase RAW uses in the text block on paladin mechanics.
*shrug*
I figured it was ok to use.


They're after personal gain, but that doesn't mean that there are not rules to how they're willing to go about it. A politician might only accept bribes for certain, minor infractions (perhaps he only accepts them to remove parking tickets from the record), he's still after personal gain but he follows a strict set of rules (nothing but parking tickets, never anything but parking tickets). bit of a silly example but it's just an example.

Here we're back to corruption on the good/evil axis, contingent on personal gain, which, of course, is exactly what taking a bribe is.

Is buying low and selling high evil?
Do peasants earn only 2 sp a day because to make any more would be too much money? Enough bread to starve on, and don't take any more. Personal gain is on the good/evil axis right?

That's an extreme example, I know.

But there are too many shades with money to square it easily and nicely away on the good/evil axis.

A big dwarven mining company wishes to excavate yon hills. They've gone through all the necessary paperwork to begin digging. Do you gouge them a few 1000 gp (they can afford it 100 times over) to validate the paperwork in a few days, rather than a few years? With those few thousand gp you can invest in town infrastructure, maybe build that aqueduct, or a poorhouse. What axis of alignment is this working on?

Let's take a robinhood-esque character.

Takes things from wealthy nobles who pass through his forest. Safe passage guaranteed. He then gives the money away to poor people. A Lawful Evil villain, or Chaotic Good hero?


Like I've pointed out above, bribery is actually fairly lawful if you think about it in proper terms. The politician's codes might be things like 'stick to the agreement', 'don't squeal' 'never charge less than X or more than Y for certain things', and 'don't accept any bribes for actions that would directly endanger the government/king/people'. Obviously they would have additional personal ethics, but that's about as defined as most lawful characters get in their codes anyway.

I'm unconvinced that's lawful. Neutral, perhaps.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.

Corruption, by definition, is none of those.


Plenty of organizations can have codes of conduct centered around personal gain, but still be very much based around a sense of 'honor among theives' and even ideas like fair play and honesty. A strictly organized theives guild for instance.


Yes yes yes.
But if there was a thief in the thieves' guild that disobeyed their rules, rattted out comrades unless they gave him a fatter slice of the haul, stole from the guild, charged higher fees of guild service to customers, hurting the guild to benefit himself, what alignment would he most likely have?

Sure, he could be an undercover Lawful Good paladin, but how likely do you think that would be? Would it be more likely that he was chaotic, or a lawful infiltrator from another group?
What if he wasn't from any other group? He's just acting in accord with his own judgement and beliefs. What alignment would you give our wayward thief?

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-14, 02:37 AM
I think your definition of bribe is off.

A bribe is any payment made in order to influence someone's behavior. Especially when it's something they aren't supposed to do. Such as giving a police officer money in order to keep them from arresting you.

It certainly can be what you're talking about, but that's just one example of a bribe.

Actually, the most common form of a bribe is having to pay an official more money for him to do his official work. For instance, you arrive in port with your documents in order. The port authority can either hold you until the feel like looking at your papers, or you could give him some gold and you'll be on your way.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-14, 03:28 AM
That's a different case altogether.
Do we really have to go into that example?

That example was intended solely to show what exactly a "Lawful" alignment entails. Taking bribes is not Unlawful simply because it's illegal (otherwise, Paladins would change all their beliefs every time they crossed borders).


So taking bribes is a matter of good and evil?

In a word: Depends. If taking bribes causes harm to others, then the bribe-taker is putting his own comfort above the well-being of others, which is Evil (or, at the very least, Nongood).


Nothing to do with law. That seems wrong, as you're saying complex societies are inherently good or evil. A society may be good or evil, but the existance of a society is only a sufficient condition, not a necessary one, for the presence of good and evil.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your logic here. Could you explain how you got this conclusion from the statement you quoted?


I doubt one or two bribes would be sufficient to sway one's alignment.

Alignment is a matter of personal belief, not actions. The DM will only cause an alignment shift due to actions because PC action is all he has to go on to determine character alignment. In actuality, so long as the politician is still Lawful at heart, he remains immune to a Dictum spell and shows up quite nicely under Detect Law. Now, the real question at hand is whether or not he can consistently accept bribes while still being Lawful, not because the bribes themselves change his alignment, but rather because it's possible that taking the bribes desensitizes his conscience to the point where he is no longer Lawful.

Of course, a Lawful alignment doesn't really say what the moral codes are, and in some cases it's easier to tell than others: If a politician who firmly believes in rooting out corruption takes bribes, it's likely that he's lost his Lawful alignment (again, not because of the actions themselves, but because his actions are a reflection of his alignment change).


So now corruption is on the law/chaos axis.

And now it's on the good/evil axis.

In the first case, the quoted poster was referring to your specific example (which clearly violates a Lawful alignment). In the latter, the quoted poster was being more general (bribes can cause a shift to Evil if accepting bribes allows others to be hurt).


That's a rather poor example, as that's obviously a change on the good/evil axis. It doesn't have much to do with corruption.


Again, just an example. Orion was showing how someone's code of conduct can change without the loss of a Lawful alignment. I do agree that it's likely a change from LG to LE or vice-versa will include a temporary shift to Neutral ethics in most cases (you are, after all, abandoning your morality, which probably plays a role in your code of conduct).

However, it's possible to change morality without changing a code of conduct: For example, let's say that a politician rises to office with a strong faith in his country/township/whatever. The central tenents of his life are all based around promoting his C/T/W to the point where all his actions are based off the good of the C/T/W (Lawful). He also believes that his country is best served by aiding others so as to become an example to all (Good). Later, one of the allies he aided uses this money to betray him and invade. The politician then decides that everyone else is scum and the best way to serve his country is to crush everyone else and reign supreme over their ashen corpses (Evil). The central tenents of his code of conduct have never changed (he spends his entire life devoted to the good of the C/T/W), but his morality has had a drastic shift.


Would you agree with the following statement:
Following laws out of the belief that they are right makes a person lawful (or at least non-chaotic).

This is some sort of trick question, I think. Yes, your statement is correct. However, laws are not themselves lawful. You could be a rebel devoted to destroying every government in the world and still be Lawful.


It was the phrase you used to describe the paladin. It is also the phrase RAW uses in the text block on paladin mechanics.
*shrug*
I figured it was ok to use.

"Code of conduct" is just that: A list of beliefs that define conduct. If those beliefs are tailored around serving a higher power, then and only then is a higher power implied.


Here we're back to corruption on the good/evil axis, contingent on personal gain, which, of course, is exactly what taking a bribe is.

Is buying low and selling high evil?
Do peasants earn only 2 sp a day because to make any more would be too much money? Enough bread to starve on, and don't take any more. Personal gain is on the good/evil axis right?

That's an extreme example, I know.

It's only Evil if you put your welfare ahead of that of others. Naturally, if someone else attempts to unfairly take advantage of you, you are entitled to protecting yourself. It's also not at all Evil to enjoy life a little, provided you aren't actively harming anyone to get ahead.


But there are too many shades with money to square it easily and nicely away on the good/evil axis.

A big dwarven mining company wishes to excavate yon hills. They've gone through all the necessary paperwork to begin digging. Do you gouge them a few 1000 gp (they can afford it 100 times over) to validate the paperwork in a few days, rather than a few years? With those few thousand gp you can invest in town infrastructure, maybe build that aqueduct, or a poorhouse. What axis of alignment is this working on?

If you're genuinely concerned about using the money to build infrastructure, and the dwarves really can afford the extra charge, then it's not at all Evil. You're looking out for the good of your city.


Let's take a robinhood-esque character.

Takes things from wealthy nobles who pass through his forest. Safe passage guaranteed. He then gives the money away to poor people. A Lawful Evil villain, or Chaotic Good hero?

I'm going to call that Lawful Good :smallbiggrin: . Robin Hood follows a strict socialistic code of conduct.


I'm unconvinced that's lawful. Neutral, perhaps.

Well, a few of those are mostly common sense (it's not Lawful to have a code of conduct that says "Don't get caught and don't betray people who can very easily kill you"), but a Lawful bribe-taker can be trusted to always keep his word with you. A Chaotic bribe-taker will let you in, then report you to his superiors to get the reward.


Corruption, by definition, is none of those.

Corruption actually involves a great deal of trust. You trust that nobody's going to break your little scam and that all corrupt individuals will support each other (in the more widespread corruption, involving entire governing entities, at any rate).


Yes yes yes.
But if there was a thief in the thieves' guild that disobeyed their rules, rattted out comrades unless they gave him a fatter slice of the haul, stole from the guild, charged higher fees of guild service to customers, hurting the guild to benefit himself, what alignment would he most likely have?

Sure, he could be an undercover Lawful Good paladin, but how likely do you think that would be? Would it be more likely that he was chaotic, or a lawful infiltrator from another group?
What if he wasn't from any other group? He's just acting in accord with his own judgement and beliefs. What alignment would you give our wayward thief?

I would call that theif very, very dead. It appears to me that his code of conduct is "Do what's best for me in a very short-sighted manner." That's not really so much a code of conduct as it is a statement of intent (and a suicide note). Chaotic Evil.

Thomas
2007-01-14, 06:54 AM
For corrupt officials, clergymen, guards, etc, what should their alignment be? I'm thinking any non-lawful.
But if that's the case, are devils above corruption?

The stereotype is Lawful Neutral, leaning to Evil. It depends on how corrupt are they. A cop who kills people for the mafia is probably LE, a bureaucrat who expedites processing in exchange for some money in his own pocket is probably Lawful Neutral.

Of course, this is a cultural thing. In, say, Faerūn's Amn, it's expected that everyone uses bribes to speed up things or get contracts. It's not corruption, relatively - you could be Lawful Good and be part of the system.

GolemsVoice
2007-01-14, 07:57 AM
Yes, I thin this must rather be determined on the good/evil axis, not on the lawful/chaotic axis.
Imagine a Lawful Neutral cityguard and a chaotic neutral city guard. Someone bribes him for not payiing attention to a crime.
The lawful neutral guard would see himself as an honorful, upright man. He was payed and has given his word, so he will do as the contract says.
A Chaotic Neutral guard would maybe bring along other guards to catch the thieves red-handed, but tell nothing about the bribe and his informant.

Thomas
2007-01-14, 08:12 AM
Alignment wouldn't determine the response to that situation, really. Two Lawful Neutral guards could react differently (one wouldn't accept the bribe to begin with, for instance). Chaotic Neutral persons might do anything; one could take the bribe and go home, one might refuse it for some reason, one might take it and betray the thief, etc. Similarly, a Lawful Evil character might take the bribe but arrest the thief anyway ("If he wants to give me money, why not? I can still arrest him and uphold the law and look good to my boss"), or might take the bribe, or might beat the thief for protection money or a cut of the profit...

Alignment's descriptive, not defining. A character who works to uphold society and order, in an orderly, organized fashion, is probably Lawful; but you can only describe the character as an alignment when observing multiple actions where a consistent pattern (consistent inconsistency is still a pattern...) emerges.


Also, since this was touched on somewher eabove, "adherence" to a Chaotic pattern is not in itself Lawful; that's just silly (especially when you consider that Chaotic does not mean "unorganized" or "random;" it usually means individualistic, placing individuals - not necessarily just one's own self - before groups and society). If it were, then no one would be anything but Lawful.

Stephen_E
2007-01-14, 08:45 AM
Would you agree with the following statement:
Following laws out of the belief that they are right makes a person lawful (or at least non-chaotic).


No. Following laws because you beleive they right isn't an alignment descriptor at all. Doesn't tell you anything.

If someone follows the law because they're laws, regardless of whether they beleive they're right, but simply because they see the alternative as chaos - That's the sign of a Lawful person.

Note - This doesn't mean that a Lawful person will always follow the laws. If they don't see the law as affecting general Law and Order they can ignore or break a law as well as anyone. Also in any particular situation it's possible that their Godd/Evil alignment axis may be the deciding factor.

Most of the examples you've given can be declared as almost any alignment you want to simply because you give insufficient infomation, so people fill in the balnks, and depending how they fill in the blanks they get different results. Even Bribery has many different definitions and degrees. Corruption by dictionary definition is mostly about Evil, but it can just involve Bribery, in which case we get inot defining Bribery. If you define Bribery as merely receiving money for doing your job, beyond your normal renumeration provided by your employer, then you're using a definition that on it's own tells you nothing on the Good/Evil or Law/Chaos axcis, and yes, a Paladin could indeed give Bribes, although it is doubtful if they could take bribes, unless they were specifically working in a job that the bribes are considered part of the pay. An example would be the culture of tipping in service industries in many countries (including the U.S. TTBOMK). By the broad description Tipping is bribery, but only an idiot would consider Tipping, in a culture where it's the norm, tells you anything about the alignment of the giver or the receiver.

Stephen

Shazzbaa
2007-01-14, 09:54 AM
Tor, you sound like you're trying to get us to pick an axis that bribery/corruption falls on, especially in response to oriong's post ("now it's good/evil. Now it's back to law/chaos"). I still think the whole point is that it could be either, and you can't apply one set alignment descriptor to corruption and law-breaking. So, yes, sometimes it's good/evil, and sometimes it's law/chaos. It changes based on the example given because, with different motivations or outlooks, you could make any alignment into a corrupt official.

You could have a chaotic corrupt official. Somebody who says, "Hang the rules," and does things the way he wants to do them.
However, I would propose that most corrupt officials will probably be Lawful-something just because Lawful officials will typically be more successful -- they may not be following the laws of the land as such, but they still care about doing things "the way they're supposed to be done." Thus, their corruption is more subtle. They want to keep order, and status quo... they just also want to profit by it.

If you're asking because you want to know how your corrupt official should react to detect spells, then it's entirely up to you. He can be chaotic if you want. Does your official seem chaotic? Is he likely to overturn status quo, not worry about how things are "supposed to be done," or worry more about individual needs than about keeping society in order? Then yeah, go ahead, make him chaotic, because he very probably is.

I'd merely say that corrupt officials aren't non-lawful by definition, becasue I can easily see a corrupt official who wants to keep status quo, who wants to keep society in order, so that he can rise through the ranks of an ordered society through his corrupt means and profit by it. He would have respect for what's "supposed to be done" and thus keep his office and appear to be doing his job well, but he would still be abusing the laws. He'd be Lawful.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-14, 10:42 AM
Yeah, it's just impossible to put "all corrupt officials" in the same alignment box. For one thing, a lot of it depends on the society they're in.

I think the example Tor the Fallen used, of bribing an official to do their work, is actually the most likely to involve a lawful alignment. This isn't the policeman who's supposed to arrest you, but you bribe him to look the other way. That would probably be chaotic, since you're basically saying "ignore the system for personal gain." On the other hand, the bureaucrat who you pay to make sure your papers go through faster, or similar, isn't really breaking the system. He's working the system for personal gain. This guy can definitely be lawful.

I'd put it this way: Lawful means you believe in order, rules, and systems. Just because, idealistically, the system is supposed to work one way (without corruption) doesn't mean that the system actually works that way. Just because you're working with the real system instead of the ideal system, doesn't make you chaotic.

That said, there are definitely systems where it's hard to be corrupt and lawful. Nowadays many police organizations and governments take active steps to fight corruption. If this is done well, and integrated into every level of the system, you can't really take bribes or etc. without directly going against the rules. So you're very probably chaotic. But there are also lots of places in the world where lipservice is paid to fighting corruption, but the day-to-day reality is that the system is corrupt.