PDA

View Full Version : what alignment would this character be?



Ettina
2015-05-16, 07:16 PM
This character believes that good government requires strict and unyielding order. A good government provides for the necessities of the majority population, but any individual can and should be sacrificed for the greater good. Any action is acceptable if it serves the greater good, even mind control, torture, murder, and raising undead. If a right-thinking person sees that their government is corrupt or weak, they should scheme, lie, manipulate, and do whatever is necessary to grab & hold onto power in order to improve things. The decision of who should be in charge should never be left to the common people, because the common people are weak-willed fools.

Based on these beliefs, he uses mind control and mundane manipulation to seize power and make himself into a dictator, and then sets up a magical surveillance state to monitor crime & rebellion, forces an army of undead to guard the borders and attack non-citizens, and sets up a Liquid Pain (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Liquid_Pain_%283.5e_Spell%29) farm to a) punish criminals and rebels, and b) help fuel the xp cost of the magic needed to keep this whole thing running.

This quiz (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fdnd%2F20001222b) pegged him as Lawful Good, but I seriously doubt that's accurate. They asked so few questions about the really nasty stuff he'd be willing to do.

Darth Ultron
2015-05-16, 07:40 PM
Lawful Evil is the best fit.

Kane0
2015-05-16, 07:48 PM
Lawful evil.
You believe in a strong system in order to use and abuse it for your benefit, with no regard for those below you. Thts not even starting with the liquid pain thing.
Youre doing too many evil things to e considered good, justified or no. If you toned that back you could make a case for lawful neutral, but that would cut out a lot of the stuff that makes you interesting IMO.

Ettina
2015-05-16, 07:51 PM
Lawful evil.
You believe in a strong system in order to use and abuse it for your benefit, with no regard for those below you. Thts not even starting with the liquid pain thing.

He's not intending to abuse it for his benefit. He's not selfish at all - he believes everything he's doing is for the good of all, even though it may seem unpleasant.

That's an odd assumption to make, really. I never said anything about him being self-interested or intending to benefit personally from his actions.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-16, 08:02 PM
If Asmodeus was a mortal, he'd be this character.

Ettina
2015-05-16, 09:43 PM
If Asmodeus was a mortal, he'd be this character.

That does sound a lot like him.

Except, thing is, if a beggar asked him for spare change, he'd give gladly, and try to help the guy find a home and a job. He protects and defends the weak, and certainly bears no contempt for them. He is somewhat contemptuous of most ordinary people, but he still wants to help them.

But if you stand in the way of his vision for society, he'll do pretty much anything to stop you.

I kind of think of him as like Light Yagami, but less arrogant.

Eisenheim
2015-05-16, 10:08 PM
Lawful evil does sound good. Nothing says evil people can't be nice in person, but he's pretty clearly evil. I mean there's nothing in there about trying to convince people to go his way first, or killing as a last resort, or really anything to mitigate the fact that he's ready to cheat, steal, lie and murder to impose his personal vision of order on the world.

Ettina
2015-05-16, 10:13 PM
Alright, Lawful Evil it is.

goto124
2015-05-16, 10:14 PM
Cosmic Evil with good intentions is what you guys are saying?

Eisenheim
2015-05-16, 10:15 PM
If you can track it down, there was a great article about Bane, a lawful evil deity, in dragon 372. Your character pitch here aligns very well with much of the ethos presented there.

Ettina
2015-05-16, 10:44 PM
That does sound a lot like him.

Clarification. This version of Asmodeus (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Asmodeus) sounds like him.

Flickerdart
2015-05-16, 11:27 PM
Yep, definitely LE.

Nothing is stopping Evil people from being nice. In fact, a proper Evil dictator would be personally invested in finding occupations for all his homeless subjects so they can become contributing members of his society and not just drains on resources. Turning people into supporters is an excellent governing strategy! But a Good character would help everyone regardless of whether or not they oppose his own agenda. A Lawful Neutral character would "believe in the system" and certainly not desire to change it through underhanded means. Any Chaotics would rather overthrow things in glorious revolution than climb the pyramid. I could sort of see this guy as a True Neutral type, but he seems to have a little too much "total control" and "total bastard" going on for Neutrality on either axis.

theNater
2015-05-17, 01:55 AM
He's not intending to abuse it for his benefit. He's not selfish at all - he believes everything he's doing is for the good of all, even though it may seem unpleasant.

That's an odd assumption to make, really. I never said anything about him being self-interested or intending to benefit personally from his actions.
It's interesting to note that while Evil is usually selfish, it isn't always. Evil clerics of Evil deities, for example, are usually acting out of service to the deity, rather than selfishness. Or if there's a child out there who's trying to get the top grades in the class, and whose parent insures it by murdering those children with higher grades, that parent is being totally selfless and totally Evil.

This character's Evil is in service to the system of "good government", rather than a deity or another character, but the principle is the same.

Kriton
2015-05-17, 08:05 AM
His selflessness makes him sound very Lawful Neutral to me.

Sure he does commit evil acts but he seems to be doing them for what he perceives as the betterment of society.

If his perception of the whole thing doesn't play a part in judging him, because we are talking about DnD alignments after all, and good and evil are objective forces in this universe that gain momentum when you feed or kill puppies respectively, then we would have to judge him based on his impact on his environment, if it's more good than bad then he is good, if more bad than good then evil, otherwise he is neutral.

That being said his kingdom sounds like a rather nasty place.

Michael7123
2015-05-17, 08:32 AM
Lawful Neutral. Maybe with some unintended evil leanings. The "liquid pain farm is practically straight out of the "Idiots guide to being a devil."

Hawkstar
2015-05-17, 02:46 PM
His selflessness makes him sound very Lawful Neutral to me.

Sure he does commit evil acts but he seems to be doing them for what he perceives as the betterment of society.

If his perception of the whole thing doesn't play a part in judging him, because we are talking about DnD alignments after all, and good and evil are objective forces in this universe that gain momentum when you feed or kill puppies respectively, then we would have to judge him based on his impact on his environment, if it's more good than bad then he is good, if more bad than good then evil, otherwise he is neutral.

That being said his kingdom sounds like a rather nasty place.He's very selfish, despite his denial of such. He sees himself as The One True Right-Minded person in all of society, and the rest of his policies are for enforcing His View of the world on everyone else.


Lawful Neutral. Maybe with some unintended evil leanings. The "liquid pain farm is practically straight out of the "Idiots guide to being a devil."Actually, the Liquid Pain farm is one of the less objectionable things in there, as long as sentences to service in them is not excessive of the crime. It certainly can't be more abhorrent than "Prison Sentence for 10 or more years".

The "Grab Onto and Hold Power at any costs" is what slams him so far into Evil that he's never getting out... in fact, I'd say that he's more Neutral Evil than Lawful Evil.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-18, 06:18 AM
That does sound a lot like him.

Except, thing is, if a beggar asked him for spare change, he'd give gladly, and try to help the guy find a home and a job. He protects and defends the weak, and certainly bears no contempt for them. He is somewhat contemptuous of most ordinary people, but he still wants to help them.

But if you stand in the way of his vision for society, he'll do pretty much anything to stop you.

I kind of think of him as like Light Yagami, but less arrogant.

If Asmodeus were a mortal and therefore physically capable of altruism I imagine he would also act quite like this. Every beggar that he turns into a worker is one less potential rabble-rouser and one more contributing member of an orderly society, for example.


Actually, the Liquid Pain farm is one of the less objectionable things in there, as long as sentences to service in them is not excessive of the crime. It certainly can't be more abhorrent than "Prison Sentence for 10 or more years".

Except that liquid pain farming requires the subject to be in constant pain. It's kind of right there in the name.

Keltest
2015-05-18, 06:21 AM
I would peg him as lawful neutral, constantly teetering on the edge of evil. He genuinely thinks that what he is doing is better for all involved, and while he is willing to cross lines, that doesn't seem to be his first reaction.

Cazero
2015-05-18, 07:03 AM
Seriously. Considering liquid pain farming on unwilling individuals is evil enough to make demons look at you funny. Doing it as a state-enforced retribution for crimes is outrageous enough to turn your home dimension in the new Lawful Evil afterlife. Even Evil must have standards, and you're redefining them faaaar away.

Make it forced labor or death sentence for any crime and you have a case for lawful neutral. Forced labor is simply more useful than your liquid pain abominations without the whole gratuitous torture, and death sentence cut the waste caused by non-contributive members of society to a minimum in the most pragmatic way possible.

Hawkstar
2015-05-18, 07:15 AM
Except that liquid pain farming requires the subject to be in constant pain. It's kind of right there in the name.Forever? Or only for a certain amount of time?

I think constant pain for a relatively short amount of time (Leaving you free to return to your life afterward, though traumatized toward offending the law again) is better than having your youth permanently and forever drained, and everything you've achieved in life prior to incarceration thrown away and forgotten by all but your immediate family and closest of friends.

Make it forced labor or death sentence for any crime and you have a case for lawful neutral. Forced labor is simply more useful than your liquid pain abominations without the whole gratuitous torture, and death sentence cut the waste caused by non-contributive members of society to a minimum in the most pragmatic way possible.Forced labor cannot create magic items, and requires months or years to be an effective deterrent, which the person will never get back (While his previous life accomplishments rot away and are forgotten). A death sentence is extremely expensive and unreliable to revoke if the person is eventually exonerated for the crime. A person wrongfully subjected to non-disfiguring torture, if exonerated, can be reimbursed for the failure of the legal system, and other spells can alleviate the trauma - without completely losing years of their life.

A day or month (At worst) in a Liquid Pain factory would probably be extremely effective in deterring crime, without creating a lifestyle dependency that results in repeat offenses, and allows the victim to continue to lead far more productive and beneficial-to-society lives than a life of indentured servitude would bring about.

What makes me peg the guy as Absolutely Evil is his arrogance and belief in his own infallibility/destiny to become the Supreme Source of Order for the world, and his ruthlessness in getting and holding that position.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-18, 07:44 AM
A day or month (At worst) in a Liquid Pain factory would probably be extremely effective

And what makes you think it would be only a month?

Hawkstar
2015-05-18, 08:01 AM
And what makes you think it would be only a month?Again - when I stated that the Liquid Pain factories were the least offensive of his actions, it was with the qualifier as long as the punishment wasn't in excess of the crime.

Kriton
2015-05-18, 08:58 AM
He's very selfish, despite his denial of such. He sees himself as The One True Right-Minded person in all of society, and the rest of his policies are for enforcing His View of the world on everyone else.

First, I don't remember him denying being selfish, it was just stated by the person who created him, so I assume it's a truth about him.

Second, we don't know he considers him self the one true right minded person,(OTRMP from now on) just the most right minded person he knows of.

Cazero
2015-05-18, 09:54 AM
Forced labor cannot create magic items, and requires months or years to be an effective deterrent, which the person will never get back (While his previous life accomplishments rot away and are forgotten). A death sentence is extremely expensive and unreliable to revoke if the person is eventually exonerated for the crime. A person wrongfully subjected to non-disfiguring torture, if exonerated, can be reimbursed for the failure of the legal system, and other spells can alleviate the trauma - without completely losing years of their life.
He can't possibly need that many magic items. A totalitarian state littering the streets with magic mojo is asking for troubles. The loyal followers that would be casting all those Liquid Pain spells can provide more than enough XP to arm a select few with the best equipment possible, and not upgrading the gear of your undead mooks prevents your enemies from arming themselves with your stuff.

The deterring part is not the point of choosing forced labor and death sentence over alternatives. The point is that instead of meaningless retribution and wasted resources (prison), you either have free workforce and practical training to convert the individual into a productive member of society when he gets out (forced labor), or a fresh new corpse for your undead law enforcement (death sentence). Recidivists get caught again and contribute to society through the penal system instead of continuously undermining it. We're talking about a totalitarian state here, the ruling caste is never going to acknowledge that maybe the marvelous system they devised suffers from major and self-aggravating flaws.

And someone who establishes a totalitarian system definitely doesn't care about what happens to people wronged by it. They're collaterals. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few horribly tortured as an example to the others.

Sacrieur
2015-05-18, 10:30 AM
Lawful Evil characters don't do things for the greatest good. In fact I have a character that is like you describe and he's CG.

You gave it away yourself when you said he'd do whatever's necessary for the greatest good. That's CG.

Flickerdart
2015-05-18, 11:02 AM
Lawful Evil characters don't do things for the greatest good. In fact I have a character that is like you describe and he's CG.

You gave it away yourself when you said he'd do whatever's necessary for the greatest good. That's CG.
CG is the alignment that cares the least about "greater good" and the most about individual good. A CG character would not allow a criminal to suffer Liquid Pain extraction even if it serves to power the state's machine.

What part of totalitarian dictatorship screams CG to you?

Red Fel
2015-05-18, 11:15 AM
Lawful Evil characters don't do things for the greatest good. In fact I have a character that is like you describe and he's CG.

You gave it away yourself when you said he'd do whatever's necessary for the greatest good. That's CG.

You're right that LE doesn't do things for the greater capital-G Good. It can, however, do things for the greater lowercase-g good.

Let me explain. LE, obviously, isn't preoccupied with virtue, justice, compassion and selflessness. It is inherently selfish and self-promoting; caring about others isn't quite LE's wheelhouse. But that's cosmic Good, the absolute alignment value.

Lowercase-g good is something else. Social order. Productivity. Quiet and structure. Obedient citizens and efficient bureaucracies. These are "greater goods" with a lowercase g. These are things LE likes.

An ideal LE tyrant wants healthy citizens, so he builds an effective medical care infrastructure. That's not because he cares about them, but because healthy citizens are productive. He may invest in green energy projects, not because he cares about the environment, but because they are renewable, sustainable, and less expensive in the long run. He may invest in affordable, comfortable housing for the citizens, not because he wants them happy, but because it prevents the scourge of beggars and thieves. He may invest in schools and orphanages, to provide for the well-being of children, not because he loves their smiling, happy faces, but because schools and orphanages are the perfect vehicles for indoctrination. He may even crack down on crime, not because he cares about the safety of his citizens for their own sakes, but because he hates competition.

So he creates order. He makes jobs, and schedules, and everyone has a role. Those who deviate from their assigned roles, those who break the rules, are punished. And yes, some people are assigned the role of "those who must suffer for all our sakes." (See, e.g., Liquid Pain factories.) His methods are harsh and brutal, but his outcome is a net positive for society - everyone is fed, healthy, and housed; everyone has work, everyone contributes, everyone has value.

That's not CG. That's LE. That's deliciously LE.

Hawkstar
2015-05-18, 03:50 PM
Lawful Evil characters don't do things for the greatest good. In fact I have a character that is like you describe and he's CG.

You gave it away yourself when you said he'd do whatever's necessary for the greatest good. That's CG.Except his version of "Greatest Good" is absolutely monstrous.


He can't possibly need that many magic items. A totalitarian state littering the streets with magic mojo is asking for troubles. The loyal followers that would be casting all those Liquid Pain spells can provide more than enough XP to arm a select few with the best equipment possible, and not upgrading the gear of your undead mooks prevents your enemies from arming themselves with your stuff.You seem to be entirely on-board with "Full Villainy ahead! Next Stop, Mordor!" There are lots of magic items that can be served as significant quality-of-life enhancers to benefit the people.


The deterring part is not the point of choosing forced labor and death sentence over alternatives. The point is that instead of meaningless retribution and wasted resources (prison), you either have free workforce and practical training to convert the individual into a productive member of society when he gets out (forced labor), or a fresh new corpse for your undead law enforcement (death sentence). Recidivists get caught again and contribute to society through the penal system instead of continuously undermining it. We're talking about a totalitarian state here, the ruling caste is never going to acknowledge that maybe the marvelous system they devised suffers from major and self-aggravating flaws.The retribution is not meaningless - it is to serve as a powerful deterrent to initial AND repeat crime, as well as providing a source of valuable crafting materials. Death Penalties for insufficiently-heinous crimes are absolutely monstrous, and creating Undead out of someone prevents them from being Raised if they were wrongly convicted. You are pinning too many assumptions about the nature of a totalitarian state.


And someone who establishes a totalitarian system definitely doesn't care about what happens to people wronged by it. They're collaterals. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few horribly tortured as an example to the others.Unless he does care about the people who would otherwise be wronged with it - the needs of the many living under it outweigh the needs of a single psychopath on a powertrip. Wrongful convictions don't only hurt the person convicted, but also everyone they know and everyone who relies on a service or product they provide.

Kriton
2015-05-19, 01:44 AM
That's not CG. That's LE. That's deliciously LE.

So, what could he do different to be LN?

Hawkstar
2015-05-19, 07:16 AM
So, what could he do different to be LN?First off, ditch the "Acquire power at any cost and by any means" - that is an inherently and strongly Chaotic Evil mindset. After all - if he holds that mentality, he needs to view his 'utopia' through the lens of everyone else living in it also holding that mentality.

toapat
2015-05-19, 08:17 AM
So, what could he do different to be LN?

set up infrastructure to organize and help the people without him either wielding total power

Hire the Amoral LG cleric who is willing to cast Mindrape on criminals to reform them rapidly. Hire a Moral LG Wizard to Mindrape LG cleric every 100 or so reformations

Flickerdart
2015-05-19, 09:55 AM
An LN character would never encourage people to cheat the system to gain control. He would believe in the system, and believe that any necessary change can come through legitimate channels.

SowZ
2015-05-19, 10:26 AM
He's not intending to abuse it for his benefit. He's not selfish at all - he believes everything he's doing is for the good of all, even though it may seem unpleasant.

That's an odd assumption to make, really. I never said anything about him being self-interested or intending to benefit personally from his actions.

He's basically the Kingpen from Marvel's new Daredevil adaptation. He is clearly LE in my mind. Evil can still have a code and goals and think what they do is just and good.

Kriton
2015-05-19, 10:48 AM
set up infrastructure to organize and help the people without him either wielding total power

Hire the Amoral LG cleric who is willing to cast Mindrape on criminals to reform them rapidly. Hire a Moral LG Wizard to Mindrape LG cleric every 100 or so reformations

I doubt LG clerics could be amoral, and I doubly doubt that any good character would chose to have anything to do with Mindrape. And Mindraping dissidents is not really that different from torturing them(morality-wise).

Mindrape aside what you describe sounds like LG to me and not NG.


An LN character would never encourage people to cheat the system to gain control. He would believe in the system, and believe that any necessary change can come through legitimate channels.

He doesn't encourage people to cheat the system, his liquid pain farms attest to that, and he seems to believe in the system he set up.

Flickerdart
2015-05-19, 11:07 AM
He doesn't encourage people to cheat the system, his liquid pain farms attest to that, and he seems to believe in the system he set up.
Read the fourth sentence of the original post: "If a right-thinking person sees that their government is corrupt or weak, they should scheme, lie, manipulate, and do whatever is necessary to grab & hold onto power in order to improve things."

Hawkstar
2015-05-19, 11:11 AM
I doubt LG clerics could be amoral, and I doubly doubt that any good character would chose to have anything to do with Mindrape. And Mindraping dissidents is not really that different from torturing them(morality-wise).

Mindrape aside what you describe sounds like LG to me and not NG.Actually, it is different. Mindrape does not involve actual trauma. Think a Good Guy playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic. The difference between ethically-followed castings of Mindrape and psychiatric treatments? No relapse in the former, and much more stress in the latter.


He doesn't encourage people to cheat the system, his liquid pain farms attest to that, and he seems to believe in the system he set up.He encourages others to cheat the system through the example he lead.

Kriton
2015-05-19, 11:12 AM
Read the fourth sentence of the original post: "If a right-thinking person sees that their government is corrupt or weak, they should scheme, lie, manipulate, and do whatever is necessary to grab & hold onto power in order to improve things."

My point stands, he applies that to himself and tortures anyone else doing this, so he doesn't encourage it.

Hawkstar
2015-05-19, 11:28 AM
My point stands, he applies that to himself and tortures anyone else doing this, so he doesn't encourage it.Except he encourages through example. All it would take is a 'trusted' advisor to turn on him. He himself lacks the resources to personally mind-control and torture every dissident what will ultimately be a short-lived government.

AzraelX
2015-05-19, 01:20 PM
A lot of this has to do with the person's intentions. I could easily see a non-evil non-lawful character acting in a very similar way, if their goal was to maximize the happiness/liberty/security of innocent people. I don't think torture is inherently evil, if it's being used as a deterrent to prevent evil acts from being committed (which doesn't sound like it's really the case here); it's a lot more justifiable when every person has fair warning, and is given the option to either (1) leave, (2) not commit evil acts, or (3) be tortured. If they voluntarily choose the third option, that's on them.

The way this is written though, that "anyone" can/should be sacrificed for the "greater good", doesn't exactly scream of wanting to make life amazing for every individual good innocent person. I mean, if the society as a whole would somehow benefit from brutalizing a third of the innocent population, then that's what would happen, right? It'd be okay because it's for the greater good, after all.

I'd say that caring so much more about the greater good than each person's individual good is Lawful, and being willing to do anything to anyone without concern for their character/virtue/goodness/innocence/loyalty/etc is Evil.

If you want to shift some part of that alignment, you'd need to change one of these attributes.

veti
2015-05-19, 03:32 PM
His selflessness makes him sound very Lawful Neutral to me.

Sure he does commit evil acts but he seems to be doing them for what he perceives as the betterment of society.

The thing is, his definition of "betterment" is "whatever he says it is", and he's not open to negotiation or compromise or (shudder) democracy on this subject. He's imposing his will, and his will alone, through power. He's definitely evil.

Cealocanth
2015-05-19, 04:05 PM
He's definitely Evil, or at least sub-Good due to his "the ends justify the means" mentality and his obsession with an oppressive, yet orderly government. Someone who is good would probably not go through such lengths to achieve the goal of perfect order.

He has some Lawful tendencies and some Chaotic tendencies. On one hand, he heavily values order in a society, demands that he make the rules and that everyone follows them, and enjoys climbing the ladder of law in order to get what he needs. On the other hand, he has no qualms with and even encourages the displacement of existing laws and rules. He kind of reminds me of the Anarchist type who will attempt to take down the government and rule the world only to put something more oppressive in its place.

Yeah, probably the more neutral end of Lawful Evil.

@V
Well, a Neutral (Good/Evil, not Law/Chaos) individual doesn't care much for morals either way. A Good person tries to uphold society's morals, or at least what they believe is most beneficial to the individual, the most altruistic, if you will. An Evil person deliberately opposes society's morals. They see it as a corrupting, contradictory, and abhorrently wrong system. While an Evil person may care about the greater good of the many (they don't have to, though), an Evil person would care very little if one individual is damaged on the way. This is why you will never see a Good character eating babies, but may see an Evil one doing so if it benefits them.

A Neutral person straddles the line between these two. They prefer to uphold society's morals, but will abandon them at the drop of a hat if their own morals say better. There is a certain amount of self-doubt that is required in a Neutral individual. There is a willingness to question the world but also an acceptance that they might be wrong and that society's rules work well as a default. Democracy, as in the will of the masses, may be important to a Neutral character, but only if they hold such values as right. You could also have a Neutral character who believes that 'the common man is a fool' and that the best function for a society is to get a smart, rational, and benevolent leader with all the power.

Kriton
2015-05-19, 04:17 PM
The thing is, his definition of "betterment" is "whatever he says it is", and he's not open to negotiation or compromise or (shudder) democracy on this subject. He's imposing his will, and his will alone, through power. He's definitely evil.

As I wrote and you quote "what he perceives".

Is "democracy" imperative to being LN?

theNater
2015-05-19, 05:45 PM
Is "democracy" imperative to being LN?
No, but it's an easy way to refrain from oppressing people. Since oppressing people is Evil, it's a reasonable route for a LN character to take.

Mostly, being Neutral is about what one won't do. No oppression, no torture, no killing the innocent. The character as described will do any and all of those things, and so is Evil. All it takes to be Neutral instead is to have some boundaries; say those things are not worth doing even in service to the "good government".

goto124
2015-05-19, 07:54 PM
Is oppressing people Evil, or just Lawful?

theNater
2015-05-19, 08:31 PM
Is oppressing people Evil, or just Lawful?
Oppressing people is Evil. Lawful Evil people tend to build or use oppressive systems, while Chaotic Evil people tend to oppress on a whim; random acts of bullying. See: Thog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html).

Susano-wo
2015-05-19, 10:09 PM
Definitely Lawful evil. The evilness has been touched on enough, but I wanted to comment on Lawful.

Lawful doesn't mean that you subscribe to any order, just that you believe in Order and that society should be rigidly contained and controlled. This character believes all these things. He believes it is just to defy the current order if it is not the proper one. This is perfectly valid for a Lawful character.

Malifice
2015-05-20, 12:54 AM
He's not intending to abuse it for his benefit. He's not selfish at all - he believes everything he's doing is for the good of all, even though it may seem unpleasant.

I don't want to Godwin this thread, but so did Hitler. The Holocaust, the invasion of Poland (and the rest of Europe), secret police etc etc were done for the greater good of his country and people. Hitler also nationalized industry, built the autobahns, increased the standard of living and so forth. He was sincere in his efforts to build a better country for Germany and the Germans.

Your character is Lawful Evil. By your own admission he would commit genocide, engage in murder, torture, warfare and tyranny because 'weak fools' need strong leadership, and to reach the common good.

He's not far away from my LE Paladin of Bane who thinks the same thing (establishing a theocratic empire devoted to Bane, wiping out other religions in a bloody pogrom, and establishing racial harmony via genocide). Only then will we have peace and order, and civilization.

Kriton
2015-05-20, 01:05 AM
No, but it's an easy way to refrain from oppressing people. Since oppressing people is Evil, it's a reasonable route for a LN character to take.

Mostly, being Neutral is about what one won't do. No oppression, no torture, no killing the innocent. The character as described will do any and all of those things, and so is Evil. All it takes to be Neutral instead is to have some boundaries; say those things are not worth doing even in service to the "good government".

If being neutral is about not doing, then by that logic, neutral characters would be unable to commit evil acts, but to balance this out they would also be unable to commit good acts, therefore they would be able to eat(on occasion) and sleep, and possibly interact with other neutral entities on some limited level.

EDIT: And I think that is not the case.

theNater
2015-05-20, 02:30 AM
If being neutral is about not doing, then by that logic, neutral characters would be unable to commit evil acts, but to balance this out they would also be unable to commit good acts, therefore they would be able to eat(on occasion) and sleep, and possibly interact with other neutral entities on some limited level.

EDIT: And I think that is not the case.
There are waaaay more Neutral behaviors than you seem to think. A parent who takes lethal revenge on the killer of their child is engaging in Neutral behavior, because while killing the innocent is Evil, killing the guilty is not. On the flipside, a parent who gives of themselves for the good of their beloved children is also behaving Neutrally, because it's more of an exchange than a sacrifice. A Neutral character can build an entire adventuring career on the basis of going to dungeons for loot, as long as they only pick dungeons that don't house innocents. Neutral characters can go to war for a paycheck or to defend their family, they can negotiate peace agreements for the same reasons. They can worship deities, even Good or Evil deities, and act in service to those deities. They can develop friendships or enmities with characters of all alignments, and can act to benefit their friends or hinder their foes. Neutrality is a huge array of behaviors, not just eating and sleeping.

On top of that is the fact that alignment is not a straight-jacket. A Good character can screw up and do an Evil thing occasionally, and an Evil character can do the occasional act of Good. Of course Neutral characters can do both, but as a general rule, they won't. If a character will, as a matter of course, kill innocents, then they are Evil. If a character might, once, in the heat of the moment, kill an innocent, then feel guilty about it and seek redemption, they're probably not.

icefractal
2015-05-20, 02:33 AM
At first I was totally thinking Lawful. Being a dictator, valuing order highly - it seems natural. However, thinking about it, I'm not sure. I think he might be Neutral or even Chaotic.

Obeying laws that agree with what you were going to do anyway doesn't really mean anything. To my mind, part of being Lawful is that you could disagree with a rule or contract, think the consequences of following it this instance are negative, but do it anyway because you value having rules and contracts. This character wouldn't. If he thought he could achieve greater good by breaking every single promise and law he swore to, he'd do it.

So, possible CE. A very strange CE, almost the opposite of many CE characters, but it could fit. Which goes to show the issues with D&D alignment, I guess. :smalltongue:

Kriton
2015-05-20, 03:10 AM
There are waaaay more Neutral behaviors than you seem to think.

I don't think that there are few Neutral behaviors. I explicitly stated so.


A parent who takes lethal revenge on the killer of their child is engaging in Neutral behavior, because while killing the innocent is Evil, killing the guilty is not. On the flipside, a parent who gives of themselves for the good of their beloved children is also behaving Neutrally, because it's more of an exchange than a sacrifice.

There is no real choice on those behaviors you describe, they are reactive(they are amoral thy could be equally committed by good, evil or neutral characters). Although killing the guilty, as a general statement might be evil.


A Neutral character can build an entire adventuring career on the basis of going to dungeons for loot, as long as they only pick dungeons that don't house innocents. Neutral characters can go to war for a paycheck or to defend their family, they can negotiate peace agreements for the same reasons.

Murdering for robbing, and murdering for a paycheck seem pretty evil as acts to me.


They can worship deities, even Good or Evil deities, and act in service to those deities. They can develop friendships or enmities with characters of all alignments, and can act to benefit their friends or hinder their foes. Neutrality is a huge array of behaviors, not just eating and sleeping.

I completely agree with that.


On top of that is the fact that alignment is not a straight-jacket. A Good character can screw up and do an Evil thing occasionally, and an Evil character can do the occasional act of Good. Of course Neutral characters can do both, but as a general rule, they won't.

I also agree with that, though concerning neutrality, I would put the emphasis on the word "general". I think that a neutral character can systematically commit evil acts, in order to systematically preserve(or enforce in the case we are examining) something good(if his regime is better, than the one that preceded it).


If a character will, as a matter of course, kill innocents, then they are Evil. If a character might, once, in the heat of the moment, kill an innocent, then feel guilty about it and seek redemption, they're probably not.

The characterization of people as innocents and guilty, seems very arbitrary to me, and I think the way someone feels plays little part in their alignment. Shouldn't redemption expunge their sins and therefore make them good?

Grim Portent
2015-05-20, 03:33 AM
A good rule of thumb regarding alignment is that if your character description at any point contains the phrases 'for the greater good' or 'the ends justify the means' then that character is probably evil.

theNater
2015-05-20, 03:48 AM
There is no real choice on those behaviors you describe, they are reactive(they are amoral thy could be equally committed by good, evil or neutral characters).
D&D assumes people get to choose all their actions. Whether or not that's true in real life is irrelevant to this discussion.


Although killing the guilty, as a general statement might be evil.
The rules are very clear that it's killing the innocent, specifically, which is Evil. Killing the guilty is not.

Note that Good characters have a respect for life, and so will be somewhat less likely to kill the guilty than Neutral characters.


Murdering for robbing, and murdering for a paycheck seem pretty evil as acts to me.
Neither the dungeon nor the battlefield contains innocents, so there's no killing of innocents. These things are Neutral by the D&D rules, however they seem to you.


I also agree with that, though concerning neutrality, I would put the emphasis on the word "general". I think that a neutral character can systematically commit evil acts, in order to systematically preserve(or enforce in the case we are examining) something good(if his regime is better, than the one that preceded it).
This character has no respect for life(as evidenced by readiness to kill anyone who gets in the way), and is especially lacking in a concern for the dignity of sentient beings(there's no interest in who any of the people are; it's just a numbers game to him). Even if people are overall better off under his rule, he's not being Good in any of his actions, and he's being Evil in a lot of them. That's Evil.


The characterization of people as innocents and guilty, seems very arbitrary to me, and I think the way someone feels plays little part in their alignment.
I didn't write the crazy rules, I'm just trying to explain what they say. Arbitrary or not, the division between the innocent and the guilty is part of those rules.


Shouldn't redemption expunge their sins and therefore make them good?
A character can change their alignment to Good, but that doesn't rewrite history. If they committed a murder before their change, they are still guilty of murder. That murder probably won't count against them when seeking entry to an afterlife, but it is still a thing they did.

Kriton
2015-05-20, 04:53 AM
D&D assumes people get to choose all their actions. Whether or not that's true in real life is irrelevant to this discussion.

So killing the killers of ones offspring, is a neutral action, therefore shifting the evil towards good and the good towards evil by extension.



The rules are very clear that it's killing the innocent, specifically, which is Evil. Killing the guilty is not.

Innocent and guilty of what? There has to be some gradient of guilt an innocence that everyone falls into. At what point does one gain enough guilt to make a non evil act


Note that Good characters have a respect for life, and so will be somewhat less likely to kill the guilty than Neutral characters.

If it's a non evil act I don't see why.



Neither the dungeon nor the battlefield contains innocents, so there's no killing of innocents. These things are Neutral by the D&D rules, however they seem to you.

Why is that? Does an army defending their home from invaders fall into the guilty category(note that you did specifically say "Neutral characters can go to war for a paycheck"). Or a dungeon that acts as a habitat of a non aggressive tribe of monstrous humanoids for that matter.



This character has no respect for life(as evidenced by readiness to kill anyone who gets in the way), and is especially lacking in a concern for the dignity of sentient beings(there's no interest in who any of the people are; it's just a numbers game to him). Even if people are overall better off under his rule, he's not being Good in any of his actions, and he's being Evil in a lot of them. That's Evil.

Not entirely true, he has a vested interest in the improvement of the standards of living of his subjects, he is lacking concern for the dignity of those that oppose him in his plan to make his realm a better place.

As stated here:


Except, thing is, if a beggar asked him for spare change, he'd give gladly, and try to help the guy find a home and a job. He protects and defends the weak, and certainly bears no contempt for them. He is somewhat contemptuous of most ordinary people, but he still wants to help them.

But if you stand in the way of his vision for society, he'll do pretty much anything to stop you.



I didn't write the crazy rules, I'm just trying to explain what they say. Arbitrary or not, the division between the innocent and the guilty is part of those rules.

I would never accuse you for writing the rules, but I think they don't say enough to address this case.



A character can change their alignment to Good, but that doesn't rewrite history. If they committed a murder before their change, they are still guilty of murder. That murder probably won't count against them when seeking entry to an afterlife, but it is still a thing they did.

So we agree that if they sought redemption they would be good and not neutral, at least on that account.

theNater
2015-05-20, 05:41 AM
So killing the killers of ones offspring, is a neutral action, therefore shifting the evil towards good and the good towards evil by extension.
Shifting either of them towards Neutral. If they do that all day, every day, they will end up being Neutral. The Good character won't become Evil, and the Evil character won't become Good, so calling it "towards Good" and "towards Evil" is misleading.


Innocent and guilty of what?
It's not explicit, but the implication is the things that make one Evil. Hurting, oppressing, killing.


If it's a non evil act I don't see why.
Because they're not trying to be non-Evil. They're trying to be Good, which is not the same thing.


Why is that? Does an army defending their home from invaders fall into the guilty category(note that you did specifically say "Neutral characters can go to war for a paycheck").
It's the ol' mutual self-defense loophole. If two people go to the same place at the same time and simultaneously try to kill each other, both of them can claim self-defense. Armies are just that on a grand scale.


Or a dungeon that acts as a habitat of a non aggressive tribe of monstrous humanoids for that matter.
I also specifically said "dungeons that don't house innocents". If it's the habitat of a non-aggressive tribe of monstrous humanoids, then it houses innocents.


Not entirely true, he has a vested interest in the improvement of the standards of living of his subjects, he is lacking concern for the dignity of those that oppose him in his plan to make his realm a better place.
There's no "people who agree with you" clause on the concern for the dignity of sentient beings. There's not even an "innocent" clause on it. Goodness is concerned with the dignity of all sentient beings, even the most dastardly Evil ones.


I would never accuse you for writing the rules, but I think they don't say enough to address this case.
All right. You're certainly welcome to think that.


So we agree that if they sought redemption they would be good and not neutral, at least on that account.
I think there's a miscommunication here. The idea of redemption is to remove the stain of an Evil act. That means that act doesn't count at all; not as Good, or as Evil, or even as Neutral. For alignment/afterlife purposes, it's as if it never happened.

Kriton
2015-05-20, 06:24 AM
Shifting either of them towards Neutral. If they do that all day, every day, they will end up being Neutral. The Good character won't become Evil, and the Evil character won't become Good, so calling it "towards Good" and "towards Evil" is misleading.

I see why you might think it's misleading, yet it's valid.


Because they're not trying to be non-Evil. They're trying to be Good, which is not the same thing.

Fair enough.


It's the ol' mutual self-defense loophole. If two people go to the same place at the same time and simultaneously try to kill each other, both of them can claim self-defense. Armies are just that on a grand scale.

It's good to know that you consider those that defend themselves against violence as guilty, it puts things in perspective.


I also specifically said "dungeons that don't house innocents". If it's the habitat of a non-aggressive tribe of monstrous humanoids, then it houses innocents.

True you did, and I never claimed you did otherwise; what I said was a non aggressive tribe, not one that doesn't do all that:
It's not explicit, but the implication is the things that make one Evil. Hurting, oppressing, killing.




There's no "people who agree with you" clause on the concern for the dignity of sentient beings. There's not even an "innocent" clause on it. Goodness is concerned with the dignity of all sentient beings, even the most dastardly Evil ones.

If I wrote he was good excuse me, I meant neutral. In the same way that a neutral character is not concerned about the dignity of the dastardly dungeon dwellers and soldiers.


All right. You're certainly welcome to think that.

Thanks, I guess.


I think there's a miscommunication here. The idea of redemption is to remove the stain of an Evil act. That means that act doesn't count at all; not as Good, or as Evil, or even as Neutral. For alignment/afterlife purposes, it's as if it never happened.

Ok, not good, just innocent.

Hawkstar
2015-05-20, 07:18 AM
Not entirely true, he has a vested interest in the improvement of the standards of living of his subjects, he is lacking concern for the dignity of those that oppose him in his plan to make his realm a better place.Except the people standing in his way of making his realm a 'better' place are his subjects.

theNater
2015-05-20, 11:36 AM
I see why you might think it's misleading, yet it's valid.
Yes, it's technically correct. I'm more interested in effective communication than technical correctness, so I'll continue to point out when people say things that are technically correct but misleading.


It's good to know that you consider those that defend themselves against violence as guilty, it puts things in perspective.
There is a world of difference between two groups of people charging at each other with weapons drawn and one person attacking another, who then goes to defend themselves. Pretending they are the same is being intellectually dishonest.


True you did, and I never claimed you did otherwise; what I said was a non aggressive tribe, not one that doesn't do all that:
Who are they hurting, oppressing, and killing if they're not aggressive?


If I wrote he was good excuse me, I meant neutral.
You wrote that he was doing Good things to balance out the Evil things he was doing, claiming an overall result of Neutral. But the actions you were calling Good were in fact Neutral, and doing Neutral things plus horrifically Evil things means the character is Evil.


Ok, not good, just innocent.
Innocent in terms of alignment and afterlife. Not innocent in terms of the history of the prime material plane.

veti
2015-05-20, 04:38 PM
As I wrote and you quote "what he perceives".

Is "democracy" imperative to being LN?

No, not at all. But an LN person values laws and structures, and works through them to achieve their own ends. The described character has just hit an end run around all those, and cut straight to "the law is what I say it is". (That's actually quite chaotic behaviour, but since their end goal is so lawful I think that overrides the chaotic means.)

But the point is, there's a general contempt for rules other than "the ruler's own whim", which is not LN. Come to think of it, it's barely even LE. Maybe NE.

Kriton
2015-05-21, 06:01 AM
There is a world of difference between two groups of people charging at each other with weapons drawn and one person attacking another, who then goes to defend themselves. Pretending they are the same is being intellectually dishonest.

So innocent is only he who defends himself against violence by succumbing to it. Not much different from my first assessment of what you were saying.


Who are they hurting, oppressing, and killing if they're not aggressive?

Them selves.


You wrote that he was doing Good things to balance out the Evil things he was doing, claiming an overall result of Neutral. But the actions you were calling Good were in fact Neutral, and doing Neutral things plus horrifically Evil things means the character is Evil.

His evil acts, are the part that makes his good acts, neutral.

Kriton
2015-05-21, 06:15 AM
But the point is, there's a general contempt for rules other than "the ruler's own whim", which is not LN. Come to think of it, it's barely even LE. Maybe NE.

Have any clues, as to the whimsicality of the rules he's set up?

theNater
2015-05-21, 10:56 AM
So innocent is only he who defends himself against violence by succumbing to it. Not much different from my first assessment of what you were saying.
Someone who defends themselves with violence is guilty of violence. Their use of violence isn't Evil, but they are still guilty of it. One can be a killer without being a murderer.


Them selves.
All of them? There's no individual on the bottom who gets pushed around but can't or doesn't push back? There's not a single one of them who has decided to take a principled stand against the violence and oppression? There's no babies?


His evil acts, are the part that makes his good acts, neutral.
He doesn't have any Good acts, so his Evil acts make him Evil.

Kriton
2015-05-21, 01:46 PM
So...


Neutral characters can go to war for a paycheck or to defend their family, they can negotiate peace agreements for the same reasons.

The rules are very clear that it's killing the innocent, specifically, which is Evil. Killing the guilty is not.

Neither the dungeon nor the battlefield contains innocents, so there's no killing of innocents. These things are Neutral by the D&D rules, however they seem to you.

Why is that? Does an army defending their home from invaders fall into the guilty category(note that you did specifically say "Neutral characters can go to war for a paycheck").

It's the ol' mutual self-defense loophole. If two people go to the same place at the same time and simultaneously try to kill each other, both of them can claim self-defense. Armies are just that on a grand scale.

There is a world of difference between two groups of people charging at each other with weapons drawn and one person attacking another, who then goes to defend themselves. Pretending they are the same is being intellectually dishonest.

Someone who defends themselves with violence is guilty of violence. Their use of violence isn't Evil, but they are still guilty of it. One can be a killer without being a murderer.

-Killing soldiers is non evil.
-Killing innocents is evil.
-No innocents on a battlefield.
-An army defending their home from invaders are abusing "the ol' mutual self-defense loophole". Similar to how two people fighting but on a grand scale.
-There is a world of difference between two groups of people fighting and one person fighting another, and whoever equates the two is committing "intellectual dishonesty".
-Someone who defends themselves using violence is guilty of violence(so not guilty in the evil sense).

Well, someone is being "dishonest" here, for sure. Or am I reading this wrong?

And which is it after all? Is it ok to kill the "guilty of violence" or is it not? And who is not guilty of violence after all?


All of them? There's no individual on the bottom who gets pushed around but can't or doesn't push back? There's not a single one of them who has decided to take a principled stand against the violence and oppression? There's no babies?

Irrelevant.


He doesn't have any Good acts, so his Evil acts make him Evil.

Good acts:


Except, thing is, if a beggar asked him for spare change, he'd give gladly, and try to help the guy find a home and a job. He protects and defends the weak, and certainly bears no contempt for them. He is somewhat contemptuous of most ordinary people, but he still wants to help them.

Bad acts:


But if you stand in the way of his vision for society, he'll do pretty much anything to stop you.

"however they seem to you."

theNater
2015-05-21, 03:02 PM
-There is a world of difference between two groups of people fighting and one person fighting another, and whoever equates the two is committing "intellectual dishonesty".
Wrong. There is a world of difference between attacking simultaneously by arrangement and one person attacking and the other defending. Once the armies have moved to the battlefield, such an arrangement has been made.

If one army attacks people in their houses, then there's a clear aggressor/defender split. On the battlefield, that split is absent.


Irrelevant.
If some of the tribe members are innocent, then the dungeon houses innocents. So it is entirely relevant whether or not some of the tribe members are innocent.


Good acts:



Bad acts:



"however they seem to you."

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
This character's protection of the weak does not stem from altruism, respect for life, or concern for the dignity of sentient beings. We know that because the character would happily kill the weak if they stood in the way of his grand vision. Protecting the weak because protecting the weak is an item on the to-do list is not Good by D&D standards. Helping the poor because it is socially expected is also not Good by D&D standards.

The only thing this character values is that grand vision. Therefore, the only thing he could sacrifice that would be a personal sacrifice is that vision. If he never acts in any way against what is best for that vision, there is no personal sacrifice, and therefore, no Good acts.

veti
2015-05-21, 05:27 PM
Have any clues, as to the whimsicality of the rules he's set up?

An absolute ruler of the type described is always whimsical from an external perspective, because they're not answerable to anyone and nobody can read their mind - therefore, whatever they do will seem arbitrary to anyone who's not them.

Ghost49X
2015-05-21, 11:18 PM
TLDR;
In response to the original post, I'd say he's Lawful Neutral. He doesn't see to rule for his own benefit but rather for the greater good, he only cheats and breaks the rules in order to get to where he can prevent others from doing the same. He is willing to commit evil acts to attain his goal but his end goal is far from selfish but rather the greater good of the majority.

hamishspence
2015-05-22, 12:26 AM
Deeds sometimes outweigh "goals". It's pretty common for a villain to believe sincerely that their goal is "the good of the majority".

Kriton
2015-05-22, 10:16 AM
An absolute ruler of the type described is always whimsical from an external perspective, because they're not answerable to anyone and nobody can read their mind - therefore, whatever they do will seem arbitrary to anyone who's not them.

Seeming arbitrary and being arbitrary, are two very different things, and his alignment should be based on what these rules are. Other than that, this("because they're not answerable to anyone and nobody can read their mind") can be said for any kind of absolute ruler, so all kings and emperors in DnD should be chaotic by that reasoning, also all gods.

Kriton
2015-05-22, 11:42 AM
Wrong. There is a world of difference between attacking simultaneously by arrangement and one person attacking and the other defending. Once the armies have moved to the battlefield, such an arrangement has been made.

If one army attacks people in their houses, then there's a clear aggressor/defender split. On the battlefield, that split is absent.

So, wars happen by armies attacking "simultaneously and by arrangement", and the moral element for the act of fighting for each of the said armies, is dependent on the geographical location of the combat. Also battlefields can't be residential areas.

Yet in this case:

This character's protection of the weak does not stem from altruism, respect for life, or concern for the dignity of sentient beings. We know that because the character would happily kill the weak if they stood in the way of his grand vision. Protecting the weak because protecting the weak is an item on the to-do list is not Good by D&D standards. Helping the poor because it is socially expected is also not Good by D&D standards.

The only thing this character values is that grand vision. Therefore, the only thing he could sacrifice that would be a personal sacrifice is that vision. If he never acts in any way against what is best for that vision, there is no personal sacrifice, and therefore, no Good acts.

The moral element of this character's actions, is dependent on the(woefully wrong) assessment you make, of the inner machinations of this character's mind(It's woefully wrong because it has been stated by his creator that he honestly wishes to help the weak, and improve the quality of life of his subjects; I will avoid quoting it again for now, I have already done so more than once).

You lost me in the part about sacrifice, I find it so "non sequitur" that I can't even comprehend where you are going with it.

On second thought, it seems to me that you imply that no good action can be made without self sacrifice. If that is indeed what you are saying, then no, it's not imperative, and a character can self sacrifice for "guilty" reasons as well.


If some of the tribe members are innocent, then the dungeon houses innocents. So it is entirely relevant whether or not some of the tribe members are innocent.

No it's entirely irrelevant. The question examined was weather killing and taking the stuff of a non aggressive community of dungeon dwellers is a neutral or evil act.

By your logic:
-The dungeon dwellers are attacked in their houses, therefore it's not a battlefield.

There's no "people who agree with you" clause on the concern for the dignity of sentient beings. There's not even an "innocent" clause on it. Goodness is concerned with the dignity of all sentient beings, even the most dastardly Evil ones.
-Unless they are murdered and robbed in a dignified manner, the act of murdering them, in order to rob them is evil no matter how "dastardly Evil" they are.

Lastly if there are indeed innocents, amongst the guilty what is the effective moral difference?(In regards to killing them in order to take their stuff)


A Neutral character can build an entire adventuring career on the basis of going to dungeons for loot, as long as they only pick dungeons that don't house innocents.

Is it that, if there are innocents oppressed by the guilty the neutral character can't attack this dungeon for loot?

And what kind of dungeon that acts as a habitat, can contain none of them:

All of them? There's no individual on the bottom who gets pushed around but can't or doesn't push back? There's not a single one of them who has decided to take a principled stand against the violence and oppression? There's no babies?

Reltzik
2015-05-22, 11:24 PM
This guy's definitely Lawful. He's leaning very strongly Evil, but a case could be made for neutral.

Intentions count for something, but so do actions. If someone intends to create a utopian society, and acts (in his mind) for the good of all, and instead creates a hell on Earth through his choices, he's evil. If he creates a place with a serious dark side but with quite a few good sides as well -- low crime rates, secure borders, friendly people, general prosperity, and secret police who disappear dissidents in the middle of the night -- well, then, things get blurrier and his intentions start counting for something. At some point intentions count enough to be a redeeming quality. So, yeah, a case could be made for LN.

But I'd still lean LE in this case. It's hard to argue that you're caring for your people in general when you're so willing to sacrifice them for the greater good individually.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-05-23, 12:32 AM
This guy's goals aren't even particularly noble though. He thinks helping old ladies across the street and buying a beggar lunch is complete moral justification for putting himself in charge. This is basically Superman: Red Son if Superman didn't restrict himself to more honorable and just methods of governing. There would be some argument if he was trying to, say, stop a world-destroying threat (and even then, I know one example of such a person who's basically a Paladin of Tyranny before reform), but he's just going "everything would be better if I ran this place!".

Centik
2015-05-23, 02:48 AM
I'd wager it's Lawful Neutral leaning toward a more evil outlook with the sacrificial ideals. It's going to depend on how you play it.

theNater
2015-05-23, 12:22 PM
So, wars happen by armies attacking "simultaneously and by arrangement"...
Battles and wars are different. I'm not talking about a character starting a war, I'm talking about one joining an army.


...and the moral element for the act of fighting for each of the said armies, is dependent on the geographical location of the combat.
It's dependent on circumstance, not geography. Geography is used here as an indicator of circumstance.


The moral element of this character's actions, is dependent on the(woefully wrong) assessment you make, of the inner machinations of this character's mind(It's woefully wrong because it has been stated by his creator that he honestly wishes to help the weak, and improve the quality of life of his subjects; I will avoid quoting it again for now, I have already done so more than once).
The inner machinations of the character's mind are quite clear from his described actions. He's trying to use video game morality; feeding the poor is +2 alignment points, murder is -5 alignment points, etc, and the target is to stay sufficiently positive. The problem is that in so doing, he's reduced his subjects to numbers on a scorecard, and is not thinking of them as people.


On second thought, it seems to me that you imply that no good action can be made without self sacrifice. If that is indeed what you are saying, then no, it's not imperative, and a character can self sacrifice for "guilty" reasons as well.
It is explicit in the D&D rules that being Good entails making personal sacrifices to help others. Helping others without making a personal sacrifice is not Good, nor is making personal sacrifices that do not help others.


No it's entirely irrelevant. The question examined was weather killing and taking the stuff of a non aggressive community of dungeon dwellers is a neutral or evil act.
Okay, so this is a new question, inspired by, but not part of the "attacking dungeons without innocents" thing. I misunderstood.

To answer the question, slaughtering a tribe wholesale to take their stuff is Evil, because it shows an indifference to the individual variation within. It requires killing the innocent as well as the guilty. However, it is theoretically possible that with sufficient care, a character can identify those who are no longer protected by the innocence clause, kill only them, and claim any loot that no longer has an owner, all as Neutral behavior. That said, the deaths could end up terrorizing the survivors, which would push it into Evil territory. Without some way to be sure that won't happen, Neutral characters are probably best off steering clear.


And what kind of dungeon that acts as a habitat, can contain none of them:
That's what had me confused. Note that dungeons don't have to act as habitats; Neutral characters can raid tombs full of undead, hideouts of Evil cults, marauding war-bands, and the like with no problems.

Susano-wo
2015-05-23, 10:43 PM
This guy's goals aren't even particularly noble though. He thinks helping old ladies across the street and buying a beggar lunch is complete moral justification for putting himself in charge. This is basically Superman: Red Son if Superman didn't restrict himself to more honorable and just methods of governing. There would be some argument if he was trying to, say, stop a world-destroying threat (and even then, I know one example of such a person who's basically a Paladin of Tyranny before reform), but he's just going "everything would be better if I ran this place!".



It doesn't seem like he's trying to justify anything based on helping old ladies. He doesn't feel he has anything to justify. The old ladies, etc are just aspect of his character, and were mentioned to highlight that aspect(which indicated that he's not just gaining power for his own sake)

kyoryu
2015-05-23, 10:59 PM
It depends on whether you follow a generally Utilitarian viewpoint of morality, or concern yourself more with natural rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

From a Utilitiarian viewpoint, he'd be Lawful Good. If you buy into the concept of natural rights, he'd be Lawful Evil.

I'd personally argue that D&D morality, as written, is done from the perspective of natural rights (as it's pretty consistent if you look at it that way), but that's a personal interpretation.

AzraelX
2015-05-25, 12:12 PM
This guy's definitely Lawful. He's leaning very strongly Evil, but a case could be made for neutral.

Intentions count for something, but so do actions. If someone intends to create a utopian society, and acts (in his mind) for the good of all, and instead creates a hell on Earth through his choices, he's evil. If he creates a place with a serious dark side but with quite a few good sides as well -- low crime rates, secure borders, friendly people, general prosperity, and secret police who disappear dissidents in the middle of the night -- well, then, things get blurrier and his intentions start counting for something. At some point intentions count enough to be a redeeming quality. So, yeah, a case could be made for LN.

But I'd still lean LE in this case. It's hard to argue that you're caring for your people in general when you're so willing to sacrifice them for the greater good individually.
This is an accurate analysis, with the correct result. Good job.