Which alignment would say this is?

[heavyfuel]

I need to decide the alignment for the BBEG in my campaign. He's a benevolent dictator, ruling by himself and not allowing competition because he believes that he is the most adequate person to rule, and he is.

His laws are fair, there's no tolerance when it comes to corruption, taxes are low enough so that the people has enough money to still love comfortable lives.

However, when his Kingdom became threatened by a natural phenomenon, he cut a deal with a lawful evil creature to allow him and his loyal army passage to the nearest continent so he could take that land for his people.

He is ruthless when it comes to conquering basically because he's an extremist nationalist and wants that land to his people and his people alone.

So, the question. He is lawful, no doubt. But is he good, neutral or evil? Personally, I'd say LN, but a friend argued LE and another argued LN with Good tendencies. What do you guys think?

[Sir Chuckles]

Either Lawful Evil without the destructive side of Evil, or Lawful Neutral standing on the edge of the grease-lubed slope into Evil.

[mucat]

I would very likely consider such a character Lawful Evil. Just like an evil person can care for their friends and family, they can care for their nation...and if they look after its interests by crushing other nations, then they're pretty clearly evil.

Exactly how deeply evil, or whether he might actually have a valid claim another alignment, depends a lot on the circumstances. What was the nature of the disaster threatening his nation? Other than a war of conquest, were there any viable alternatives for saving his people? How did he treat the people he conquered, and how did this compare to the way they had fared under their old rulers?

[hamishspence]

Ruthless conquerers tend to be closer to Evil than Neutral in D&D as I recall.

[Theomniadept]

Cutting a deal with a Lawful Evil creature? I'm assuming a devil - that's lending a lot of credibility to the LE argument.

[SowZ]

It depends on how ruthless he is. If it is just an unwillingness to share resources without his people getting the better deal, no matter the consequences for the poorer nation and maybe a tendency to be overzealous and brutal with retaliation when his people are attacked? Probably still LN. If he makes a habit of conquering other lands and wiping out/enslaving large groups of people or evict them from their lands or enslave them just to increase the land/wealth of his people than he is LE but with sincere concern for the good of his subjects.

I may make exceptions in the right circumstances. If his people are kicked out of their homes by a foreign power, or the whole nation is crumbling,or a natural disaster wipes out their capital city, etc. etc. and he conquers a weaker nation out of desperation in a case of 'Us or Them' I could see Lawful Neutral, even if he is the aggressor. Such imperialistic actions look really bad to us with modern sensibilities, but would have been understood as reasonable by most cultures in most time periods.

[Tommy2255]

Dealing with a LE entity (assuming that means devil) is almost always an evil act, as is conquering and warmongering. He might have valid reasons, but the D&D alignment system isn't about reasons and justifications. In reality, you might not necessarily describe this person as evil per-say, but in game, you would definitely describe this character as evil.

[Killer Angel]

You described a LE person.
This part is the only one that mitigates the evilness:



His laws are fair ... taxes are low enough so that the people has enough money to still love comfortable lives.

So, LE with neutral tendencies.

[hamishspence]

If his people are kicked out of their homes by a foreign power, or the whole nation is crumbling,or a natural disaster wipes out their capital city, etc. etc. and he conquers a weaker nation out of desperation in a case of 'Us or Them' I could see Lawful Neutral, even if he is the aggressor.

Try scaling it down. A person has been kicked out of their home by violent thugs. They invade the home of a weaker person and take it for themselves.

I'd say that the act is evil, whether or not the person is.

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

[Valtu]

Try scaling it down. A person has been kicked out of their home by violent thugs. They invade the home of a weaker person and take it for themselves.

I'd say that the act is evil, whether or not the person is.

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

That's how I'd see it. From the way the OP described it, I'd still lean toward LN. He didn't enter into a pact with the devil (or whatever evil creature it was) that said he must turn over a portion of his own subjects to them or anything, he's just letting them pass through.

I'd say making a deal with someone you know to be evil can't be a good act, but I wouldn't say it makes you evil. There's also the possibility that the king/dictator/etc would regret this decision later, which I'd see as definitely a less evil way of thinking.

Even without the possibility for regret, he's more "looking the other way" than he is actively taking advantage of someone or causing harm directly.

[Duke of Urrel]

Ruthless conquest makes your NPC Evil. If your NPC merely tried to assimilate his neighbors, in the manner of the formians, then you could make a stronger argument for Lawful-Neutrality. But waging wars of "ethnic cleansing" to clear new territory exclusively for one's own nation qualifies as Evil.

Context matters. If you first petitioned your neighbors for the right to settle peacefully in their territory and they refused you, and if you really had nowhere else in the world to go, then waging war against them for a right to some place to live wouldn't be Evil.

[mucat]

Ruthless conquest makes your NPC Evil. If your NPC merely tried to assimilate his neighbors, in the manner of the formians, then you could make a stronger argument for Lawful-Neutrality. But waging wars of "ethnic cleansing" to clear new territory exclusively for one's own nation qualifies as Evil.
Hopefully he's not being that extreme. Although the OP did say he "wants the land for his people alone," I presume that means in the "we're running this place from now on" sense.

If he were actually leading his people on a war of genocide, then the fact that the OP was still in doubt about his alignment would be kinda disturbing...

[JusticeZero]

I'd tag him as LN with LG tendencies, and make him flag as LE for awhile after making the deal.

[Inevitability]

It's not about what he did. It's about if there were any alternatives for what he did.

Could he've got some of the land he wants through diplomacy, or maybe by trading it?

Were there other ways to save his people then dealing with a devil?

If there were alternatives for his evil acts, then he's most certainly evil.
If there weren't, the act may have been evil, but it was the only option he had, making it more neutral.

[XionUnborn01]

I'd put him firmly in LN with some tendencies for LG and LE. He seems like he's benevolent and mostly fair, if not a little narcissistic.

I don't get why people think that cutting a deal with a LE entity to pass through their land to save your own kingdom can make you evil, even slightly so. Unless the deal involved a lot of allowance of evil things which is way different.

If you're walking through a gang filled part of town, and you give a gang leader $20 dollars to ensure safe passage, is that an evil thing?

[hamishspence]

I'd put him firmly in LN with some tendencies for LG and LE. He seems like he's benevolent and mostly fair, if not a little narcissistic.

I don't get why people think that cutting a deal with a LE entity to pass through their land to save your own kingdom can make you evil, even slightly so.

It's not the cutting a deal - it's what he does when he gets to the new continent:

passage to the nearest continent so he could take that land for his people.

He is ruthless when it comes to conquering basically because he's an extremist nationalist and wants that land to his people and his people alone.

[heavyfuel]

Wow, did not expect that many answers.

Ok, so to clarify a few things:

The deal cut with the LE entity (not devil, but i think one of my players reads the boards once in a while) was harmless to everyone. It was something that held sentimental value to the entity and no one was hurt in the process.

There were no real attempts of diplomacy or anything of the sort. He came with an army and started conquering the land and solidifying his new kingdom.

I didn't really say it in the OP so it's my fault, but mucat got it right:


Hopefully he's not being that extreme. Although the OP did say he "wants the land for his people alone," I presume that means in the "we're running this place from now on" sense.

The lands being invaded naturally reacted and there is now a war.


Hopefully, this clears up a few thing.

[Eldonauran]

I'd peg him solidly as a Lawful Evil character, and a very smart one as well.

[hemming]

He sounds like a fascist - I would say LE

[Mongrel]

I'd say he's pretty firmly LN. Good to his people, uncaring of what happens to others. The conquerer part doesn't really make him evil IMO, even if he's "ruthless" in doing it. Good characters ruthlessly slaughter all monsters in dungeons and whatnot after all.

[hamishspence]

I'd say he's pretty firmly LN. Good to his people, uncaring of what happens to others.

He's actually harming others without provocation though.

In Forgotten Realms, invading conquerers like Yamun Khan tend to be Evil-aligned.

The general thing about dungeons is that they are home to countryside raiders - which is why the adventurers get "quests" to save the local towns from the raiding monsters in the first place.

[nyjastul69]

The description given seems to indicate LE to me.

[VoxRationis]

Would Charlemagne count as LE?
This is pretty typical behavior for kings, dukes, princes, emperors, and the like throughout history. It is practically expected for them to attempt to conquer their neighbors; that's why you had knights and the like, both to attempt to conquer your neighbors and because of the assumption that your neighbors would do the same. A head of state is expected to put the good of the people of their country ahead of the good of people in other countries, especially in a pre-modern temporal setting. Attempting to conquer other countries for the good of your people, and as their legitimate ruler, sounds like Lawful behavior to me. Not really Good, but not Evil either, so long as he wasn't particularly awful about the process.
Really, this is the problem with objective alignments. Our sense of morality and ethics in the modern age is much different from that in the ages we base our settings on, and this makes it difficult to properly assume the mindsets of our NPCs. That's probably why my brother's NPCs all act like modern-day Americans (that and his high, technology-replacing levels of magic).

[hemming]

Would Charlemagne count as LE?
This is pretty typical behavior for kings, dukes, princes, emperors, and the like throughout history. It is practically expected for them to attempt to conquer their neighbors; that's why you had knights and the like, both to attempt to conquer your neighbors and because of the assumption that your neighbors would do the same. A head of state is expected to put the good of the people of their country ahead of the good of people in other countries, especially in a pre-modern temporal setting. Attempting to conquer other countries for the good of your people, and as their legitimate ruler, sounds like Lawful behavior to me. Not really Good, but not Evil either, so long as he wasn't particularly awful about the process.
magic).

But historical conquerors often wanted to expand the territory they rule - not kill the people off that lived there and take over the land for their own people. Whether this was done for the good of the people, personal ambition or some other motive (religious beliefs pretty common) is often very difficult to say.

Going historical he sounds more like Oliver Cromwell campaigning in Ireland or Mussolini campaigning in Africa to me - or, in fantasy, an elf king that wants to kill all humans and take their lands because humans are inferior

[Jeff the Green]

But historical conquerors often wanted to expand the territory they rule - not kill the people off that lived there and take over the land for their own people. Whether this was done for the good of the people, personal ambition or some other motive (religious beliefs pretty common) is often very difficult to say.

Going historical he sounds more like Oliver Cromwell campaigning in Ireland or Mussolini campaigning in Africa to me - or, in fantasy, an elf king that wants to kill all humans and take their lands because humans are inferior

Yeah, this is more Lebensraum than anything else, but I'd still say most historical conquerors are LE. Unless your motives are actually altruistic, making unprovoked war is pretty clearly an evil act.

[Larrx]

I agree with previous posters that it seems like the NPC has performed some evil actions. That alone is not enough to really nail down his alignment. Sometimes good people do bad things.

Also, D&D alignment has a strange relationship with violence. Was the conquered nation filled with people that the MM has dubbed Evil? Then he's probably OK invading even if he's good.

That being said, make him Good. I think the idea of a BBEG (legitimately Good by D&D standards) who must be opposed by the PCs because his actions offend modern moral sensibilities would make for a really interesting campaign.

[Seto]

Yeah, this is more Lebensraum than anything else, but I'd still say most historical conquerors are LE. Unless your motives are actually altruistic, making unprovoked war is pretty clearly an evil act.

Actually, "Lebensraum" was used as a "we need our space to live - and the space we need is all of frickin' Europe !!!" kind of deal. Here, the OP's NPC was actually driven out of his country and had to look for a place to live. It's only natural that he'd try to settle down somewhere, and fight the natives if he had to. That's more Aeneas than Lebensraum.

In that situation, I'd say that actively being pacific and politely ask the natives if they can give/sell you some land is the Good option. Conquering them is the Neutral one. Slaughtering half of them and taking the rest as slaves is the Evil one.

Even if this were an Evil act - which I doubt - the rest of his description (fair laws, puts the well-being of his people above his personal gain) is enough to make me see him as LN altogether, with no clear tendencies towards G or E.

[malonkey1]

Try scaling it down. A person has been kicked out of their home by violent thugs. They invade the home of a weaker person and take it for themselves.

I'd say that the act is evil, whether or not the person is.

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

To be fair, it's more like "A person has been kicked out of their home by violent thugs, and then goes to purchase a new home from a sleazy landlord who sells it out from under his tenants illegally, and then that person has to either find another new home or get rid of the previous tenants." I'd say it's still evil, but there are some extenuating circumstances in that the OP's character was never stated to have known people already lived on that continent, and going back on deals with fiends usually ends even worse than following them. In the end, he's really only evil by necessity and circumstance than by any sort of malice. This is why I ignore the alignment as understood by D&D.

[Corneel]

I need to decide the alignment for the BBEG in my campaign. He's a benevolent dictator, ruling by himself and not allowing competition because he believes that he is the most adequate person to rule, and he is.

His laws are fair, there's no tolerance when it comes to corruption, taxes are low enough so that the people has enough money to still love comfortable lives.

However, when his Kingdom became threatened by a natural phenomenon, he cut a deal with a lawful evil creature to allow him and his loyal army passage to the nearest continent so he could take that land for his people.

He is ruthless when it comes to conquering basically because he's an extremist nationalist and wants that land to his people and his people alone.

So, the question. He is lawful, no doubt. But is he good, neutral or evil? Personally, I'd say LN, but a friend argued LE and another argued LN with Good tendencies. What do you guys think?
Allow me to doubt: attacking without provocation and without casus belli does not sound like lawful behaviour.

Putting laws into place as a ruler does not make someone lawful (it's a basic necessity), it will depend on the type and quantity of laws, how many aspect of everyday life are covered by them, how stable they are, and the type of enforcement.

And being a Dictator does not make one lawful per se.

The guy sounds pretty NE to me.

[malonkey1]

Allow me to doubt: attacking without provocation and without casus belli does not sound like lawful behaviour.

Putting laws into place as a ruler does not make someone lawful (it's a basic necessity), it will depend on the type and quantity of laws, how many aspect of everyday life are covered by them, how stable they are, and the type of enforcement.

And being a Dictator does not make one lawful per se.

The guy sounds pretty NE to me.

It depends on whether his society's war protocols require a good reason for war beyond "Protecting my people," which is arguably the reason for this war. I'd still say LE leaning toward neutral.

[Corneel]

It depends on whether his society's war protocols require a good reason for war beyond "Protecting my people," which is arguably the reason for this war. I'd still say LE leaning toward neutral.
Even then, there is nothing that makes this character stand out as particularly lawful.

[hamishspence]

"His laws are fair" might be.

Arbitrarily unfair laws might be a symptom of a CE ruler.

[Mnemnosyne]

To answer I would have to ask what he's doing with the inhabitants of the land he conquers. Is he exterminating them or driving them out as refugees into yet another land, or is he assimilating them into his domain?

If he's exterminating them or throwing them out, then I'd say he's definitely evil in the first case, and mostly evil in the second. But if he is simply conquering and bringing his population with him, he's probably neutral. Indeed, if the assimilated conquered populace is accepted without prejudice, then I'd even peg him as potentially leaning good.

[VoxRationis]

Where did this Azure City "nation of refugees" scenario come up? I don't see it in the original post; it just seemed to crop up somewhere in people's replies. Where is the post that I am not seeing?

[Corneel]

"His laws are fair" might be.

Arbitrarily unfair laws might be a symptom of a CE ruler.

And by just adding "and few" to "His laws are fair" we drift into CG territory.

Of course, this BBEG could be lawful, but the description in the OP is certainly not sufficient to qualify him as "lawful, no doubt".

[hamishspence]

Where did this Azure City "nation of refugees" scenario come up? I don't see it in the original post; it just seemed to crop up somewhere in people's replies. Where is the post that I am not seeing?

This bit:


when his Kingdom became threatened by a natural phenomenon, he cut a deal with a lawful evil creature to allow him and his loyal army passage to the nearest continent so he could take that land for his people.

The implication is that the kingdom is being destroyed and the only option is to flee.

[Mongrel]

To be fair, it's more like "A person has been kicked out of their home by violent thugs, and then goes to purchase a new home from a sleazy landlord who sells it out from under his tenants illegally, and then that person has to either find another new home or get rid of the previous tenants."

I dunno, I'd say it's more like a person and his entire extended family who were living with him are kicked out and he needs to find a place to keep them safe, so he invades someone else's home and takes it for himself. Not really good, but not really evil either since his motives are to help his people. I'd say if anything this act is lawful (done for the good of the many rather than the good of the few. Of course "the many" are his people and "the few" are not...)

[hamishspence]

Also, D&D alignment has a strange relationship with violence. Was the conquered nation filled with people that the MM has dubbed Evil? Then he's probably OK invading even if he's good.

Not according to BoED at least - you need more than just an Evil alignment on the other side to justify war.


To be fair, it's more like "A person has been kicked out of their home by violent thugs, and then goes to purchase a new home from a sleazy landlord who sells it out from under his tenants illegally, and then that person has to either find another new home or get rid of the previous tenants."

All the "deal offerer" is offering is passage - they have no rights to the continent itself, or its inhabitants.