What's this guy's alignment?

[atemu1234]

That's right, another alignment thread.

Alright, for starters. This guy is a king. He's in charge of a large government, and the main part of the government is lawful good.

But he also allows an evil organization, whose base existence is "the ends justify the means"- something that will do evil for the good of the government, and they assassinate those that need it. He knows they exist, but keeps them working with the government and a secret.

So what alignment is this king?

[Extra Anchovies]

LN, with a tendency towards evil. He'll go to Acheron or Baator when he dies (or maybe Mechanus if he accomplishes some really good stuff).

[Venger]

he knowingly commits evil acts by proxy, so Evil, and he's an authority figure, so Lawful. LE.

[Yora]

Maybe Neutral, or Chaotic Neutral. Or Lawful Neutral. Or any Evil.

Probably not good.

[Falcos]

I'd say either Lawful Neutral or True Neutral, with Evil tendencies.

[ExLibrisMortis]

How exactly does he 'allow' this organization?

Is he's spending resources to fight them, to aid them, both, or neither? Is he doing so because it's good for the kingdom, because it's good for him, or because he mistakenly believes either or both of those?

What I'm gaining from the brief description, is that the king supplies the organization, at least with information and potential targets. That the organization does evil things, is a mark against the king. Allowing the organization to do evil is evil, but if he uses them to carry out assassinations of capital Evil targets, that is a separate, non-evil act.

The king could well be LN, out for the good of his kingdom (not evil), rather than Good as a whole (not good). Or he could be LN, out for Good, but misguidedly using evil to support it. He could also be LE, out for his personal gain, which just happens to be served by a strong kingdom. He doesn't sound Evil, though.

[atemu1234]

The evil organization has been around for centuries before him and will continue to be for centuries after him. If he tried to stop them, it would take years, probably costing him his life, the lives of many of his men, and possibly cause the downfall of his kingdom. He has decided that it's better to keep them around, and he does profit from them, at least partially, because they eliminate his political rivals.

Given the choice, he would end them, if it was only his life on the line. In the end, he has chosen the pragmatic route that is most likely to keep his kingdom in one piece.

[Venger]

The evil organization has been around for centuries before him and will continue to be for centuries after him. If he tried to stop them, it would take years, probably costing him his life, the lives of many of his men, and possibly cause the downfall of his kingdom. He has decided that it's better to keep them around, and he does profit from them, at least partially, because they eliminate his political rivals.

Given the choice, he would end them, if it was only his life on the line. In the end, he has chosen the pragmatic route that is most likely to keep his kingdom in one piece.

since pragmatism is Evil in D&D, LE.

[Uncle Pine]

I'd say Lawful Neutral. To give a more accurate response we'd need a comprehensive lists of the targets assassinated by the organisation and the reasons behind the king's order, but unless the king blatantly decides to eradicate whoever slightly opposes him it looks to me like he's just keeping the organisation working for him as a mean to mantain order in the kingdom. This doubles as a way to keep the organisation from threatening the kingdom itself, which isn't a bad thing at all.

[Venger]

I'd say Lawful Neutral. To give a more accurate response we'd need a comprehensive lists of the targets assassinated by the organisation and the reasons behind the king's order, but unless the king blatantly decides to eradicate whoever slightly opposes him it looks to me like he just keeps the organisation working for him as a mean to mantain order in the kingdom. This doubles as a way to keep the organisation from threatening the kingdom itself, which isn't a bad thing at all.

since death is a slap on the wrist in D&D, not wanting to be killed by the shadow government isn't fear for hi own well being, it's just pure laziness.

[atemu1234]

since death is a slap on the wrist in D&D, not wanting to be killed by the shadow government isn't fear for hi own well being, it's just pure laziness.

You know, Thinaun isn't that expensive, nor is a Trap the Soul spell.

[Uncle Pine]

since death is a slap on the wrist in D&D, not wanting to be killed by the shadow government isn't fear for hi own well being, it's just pure laziness.

Our information confirms that the king isn't concerned by the fact that he might get killed. He's just not sure whether the extermination of the organisation is worth the death of many of his subjects and doesn't want to take the risk.

[Hrugner]

It's beneficial to a ruler for his subjects to be good and respect authority, maintaining this is purely pragmatic. Likewise, allowing the evil group permits the ruler a way out of obeying the laws of the land makes him certainly not lawful. I think he could be anything, but neutral evil is pretty likely; his kingdom doesn't reflect him, but supports his desires and he enforces his pet country with impunity.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Well, in that case LN with LG leanings, or just a very unlucky LG. If the king can't see a clever way to rid the kingdom of this group, and commune and such haven't gotten him anywhere, I can see the king simply being LG in a bad spot. In my opinion, having unrealistic expectations is Stupid behaviour, and at some point, it's justified for a king to stop chasing evil, if it's taking too much out of the people's lives. Benefiting on the side makes it more painful, but not more evil.

He may be curbing the group's assassinations, by using their services in moderation. That is, if he didn't guide them, they might decide for themselves who to kill. And their standards are - most likely - not as strict as the king's. It's not really a great way to fight evil - it's very hard to sell to the top guys, Heironous et al. - but you can't be picky as a mere human, in a world where CR 20 demons are but a candle away.

[Drork]

It really depends on his interaction with the Evil organisation. Are they allowed or encourage. Are they really EVIL or are they chaotic organisation where the ends justifies the means as apposed to the lawful of the main body of government. I can see the kings alignment anywhere between lawful/chaotic good/neutral/evil depending on what he knows and what he encourages. No one would consider Ray evil for associating with Belkar because he pushes his actions towards good.

I always find using the selfish scale is a really good indicator for evil vs good action/person. The more selfish the action the more evil it is, this scale works for comparing tricky questions of morality most of the time. Does he use the group for the good of the people, the good of the kingdom, the good of himself. Those three things push him between good neutral and evil.
With your second post I think it is fairly clear for the good of the people the organisation should be removed so he isnt good. For the good of the kingdom is questionable with what he knows I am assuming he thinks it is not, if this is true or not is the issue(aka risk of civil war). If it is true then he his neutral, if its not then it is for the good of himself he isnt acting and thus evil.

Another question is does the king know that he is actively being aided by the evil. Do they come to him and ask if he has any issues and who should be removed. Lawful vs Chaotic neutral vs evil can change based on knowledge and control. If he is active in their actions Chaotic evil (example this guy is giving me trouble deal with him). In the position where he does actively work against the organisation like trying to protect political rivals against the murder death squad but fails (this could be in letting them know or giving them help, look to the selfish scale), even though he doesnt try to root out the organisation himself he could again push himself back towards good but probably not make it. The interesting question is how Lawful/Chaotic is he.

[Shackel]

Well he's the king of a Lawful Good nation, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of others despising him or something along those lines, so it's safe to assume that, besides this, he is considered Lawful Good. If such a thing is true, then the reason he's letting the evil organization exist is simply because he thinks that is the best thing for his nation, a pretty Chaotic action. While he would give his own life, if necessary, he would not be willing to surrender the lives of others to do so: this implies a belief of individual rights surpassing even the "rights" of his kingdom and law, even more Chaotic.

Frankly I'm surprised no one proposed that he might be Chaotic Good. If he orders them to kill his rivals, however, that is _certainly_ falling towards Chaotic Neutral, leaning towards Good. Not enough evil to outweigh his acts as king, but certainly enough to bring him down from CG.

However, if it's just that they've done this on their own and he's perfectly fine with it, that's just internal thoughts: frankly he still can't do anything about it. Being happy about something terrible happening to a rival isn't enough to boot him from CG, though he'd be leaning Neutral then.

What I can say for certain is that I'm highly unsure if he could be considered Lawful. Even Neutral kind of pushes it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If such a thing is true, then the reason he's letting the evil organization exist is simply because he thinks that is the best thing for his nation, a pretty Chaotic action. While he would give his own life, if necessary, he would not be willing to surrender the lives of others to do so: this implies a belief of individual rights surpassing even the "rights" of his kingdom and law, even more Chaotic.

They mentioned that taking on the organization puts the entire kingdom at risk.

I would vote Lawful Neutral, possibly Lawful Good. His tolerance of an evil organization would keep him from exalted status, but he acts in the best interest of his predominately good population.

[Shackel]

They mentioned that taking on the organization puts the entire kingdom at risk.

I would vote Lawful Neutral, possibly Lawful Good. His tolerance of an evil organization would keep him from exalted status, but he acts in the best interest of his predominately good population.

My apologies, that's what I meant: the king quite specifically would stop it... if it weren't for putting other people in danger; essentially stealing their rights for his and his nation's beliefs and laws. Individual rights over the collective is a big chaotic thing.

[ZamielVanWeber]

My apologies, that's what I meant: the king quite specifically would stop it... if it weren't for putting other people in danger; essentially stealing their rights for his and his nation's beliefs and laws. Individual rights over the collective is a big chaotic thing.

A chaotic king would do it. The worst case scenario being the loss of a strong central authority is not something that would stop a chaotic character.

[nyjastul69]

If the king allows a non-lawful group(that he utilizes) to exist, he isn't very lawful. If the king allows an evil group to exist (that he utilizes), he is not good. The king can't be lawful good. I don't think he can be good at all. His alignment would be non-lawful/non-good IMO.

[Red Fel]

It depends heavily, I think, on the government's relationship with, and legitimization of this organization.

Think about it this way: If there was a lone fanatic royalist who committed "ends justify the means" acts for the good of the kingdom, the king would have no obligation to stop this individual, unless he violated the kingdom's laws. Lawful Good does not mean the ruler has an obligation to force all of his inhabitants to be Lawful Good; it does mean, however, that none of this organization's actions can be sanctioned by the crown, and he cannot knowingly accept the benefit of its actions.

Which leads us to this point:


The evil organization has been around for centuries before him and will continue to be for centuries after him. If he tried to stop them, it would take years, probably costing him his life, the lives of many of his men, and possibly cause the downfall of his kingdom. He has decided that it's better to keep them around, and he does profit from them, at least partially, because they eliminate his political rivals.

Given the choice, he would end them, if it was only his life on the line. In the end, he has chosen the pragmatic route that is most likely to keep his kingdom in one piece.

I'd like to focus on the third sentence: "He has decided that it's better to keep them around, and he does profit from them, at least partially, because they eliminate his political rivals."

Re-read that for a moment. He keeps an organization around - an organization which commits Evil acts because "the ends justify the means" - because they eliminate his political rivals. As a rule, anyone who is fond of the phrase I italicized in the preceding sentence is decidedly non-Good. There is nothing that is justified by "eliminating my political rivals." If they're Evil, you stop them because they're Evil, not because they're the competition; if they're not Evil, a truly LG ruler would at the very least heed their views, even if he didn't agree, and do what was right for the people, even if that meant stepping down. No LG ruler would be okay with bad guys because, "Hey, at least I don't have to run in the next election."

Here's another point, and one others have raised: A truly Good person puts Good above himself. If he cannot in good conscience work with them, but as king he must tolerate them, then there is only really one obvious solution: Abdicate the throne. Give it up, so that your actions do not harm the kingdom, and so that your conscience will rest easy that you weren't abetting or permitting Evil. Then go on your personal crusade to end them. A Good character does not permit Evil to be committed in his name simply because giving up the throne would be inexpedient.

If the kingdom suffers in your absence? Finish your crusade, then return and reclaim your throne. This is fantasy; it happens all the time. If the kingdom prospers? Perhaps you can do more good as a warrior for justice than as a king.

Point is, I can't see how he'd remain LG in this position. If the organization commits unlawful acts and he fails to control them, I similarly question whether he can remain truly Lawful; a Lawful ruler does not grant his imprimatur to a Chaotic organization.

[Drork]

Lawful good does not mean lawful stupid. Turning a blind eye to chaotic actions is common place in literature. The question is more how Chaotic and evil is the organisation. An example some of you might know is Root from Naturo. This is an organisation that is evil it is lead by an evil person, however they are trying to do "good" things for their nation. To the people/leadership they present a chaotic good front. It is only once you dig deeper do you find out evil the inside CAN be (not is always) and find out that it is more lawful evil in its actions. Not everyone in the organisation is evil in fact many good people go into the organisation because they know in war time purity is not the be all and end all of good.

There is no argument that if this guy was a paladin he wouldnt have some very serious questions to answer to a DM to keep his paladin hood, but you do not have to be the same as a paladin to maintain a lawful good alignment. Look at the OotS strip around 400 where the paladin takes issue with the lawful good king highers mercenaries (the party) to do some "dirty" work he cant get paladins to do.

I think if you really want to work out the alignment of the king work out the organisation in detail and what face they present to the king and what information the king might know from other sources. I think that his lawful is more in question than his good. That is not to say his good is off the hook depending on what he knows of the evil and their actions. It sounds like the king is stuck between a rock and a hard place more than willingly letting chaos and evil run around his kingdom. Sometimes a leader needs to act against their personal views for the betterment of their kingdom. Also it depends which version of alignments you are using on a sliding scale he might be sliding towards chaotic evil slowly. If fixed alignments he may just be bending his views until he is pushed to far to snap back to start the conflict.

[Extra Anchovies]

I agree with Fel; the fact that this king is benefiting directly from this organization's activities makes him LE (unless by "political enemies" you mean the cult of Tharizdun). If it were more of a "it's good for the kingdom, I'll let them stick around so they aren't replaced by something worse", he'd be a somewhat evil-leaning LN.

Also, people seem to have the impression that the organization is chaotic; that isn't necessarily the case. An organization can be Lawful as long as it has its own internal structure; it doesn't need to obey anyone else's laws, just its own. The mafia is a Lawful organization, despite breaking basically every law they can.

[Artillery]

since death is a slap on the wrist in D&D, not wanting to be killed by the shadow government isn't fear for hi own well being, it's just pure laziness.

That is true, but there are fates worse than death. It is why in D&D most assassination attempts aren't really assassination attempts. They are "beating you unconscious then stuffing your body in a vat of quintessence in a portable hole then adding a bag of holding" attempts. You aren't dead and are lost forever.

The organization is basically lawful-evil. The King is definitely on the lawful part of the scale by his actions, its the good-evil part that is unclear. I'm leaning toward Lawful-Neutral.

[OldTrees1]

So what alignment is this king?

Unknown. You have not given enough information to eliminate any of the 9 options.

[Aleolus]

Wow. A loot of you guys seem to think that tolerating and using evil to help accomplish your own goals makes it to where you cannot be good. I would like to prove this wrong by pointing out that Roy (very well established as LG) makes use of and associates with Belkar (all but outright stated as CE) all the time and his LG nature is only called into question once, when he is being interviewed about getting into Celestia, and the possibility of being something else is quickly dropped by his justification of it. This king is clearly not a Paladin, but there is no good reason he can't be Good

[Ger. Bessa]

If his name is Sarutobi Hiruzen, he's Loyal Good.

Unless you're ready to qualify every american president (or any real chief of state really) EVIL. "They allow evil acts so they're EVIL".

Unless, course your universe has a monochromatic country where everybody has a BoED mentality. (Protip : you can have one with the redeemery, or something like that).
Notice that FR has no such nation, neither has Eberron or OA Rokugan. I have no idea for any other setting.

But yeah, Sarutobi is LG.

[Andreaz]

You guys keep messing up with "tendencies"...there's no point in that.

He's an ordained ruler, he embraces it, and he supports an evil organization. He's most likely Lawful Evil. There's not much to think through there.

Wow. A loot of you guys seem to think that tolerating and using evil to help accomplish your own goals makes it to where you cannot be good.Of course it does. No one said Good is easier to follow than Evil. also there's nothing wrong with him being evil and wanting the best for his people. Hells, there's nothing wrong with him being evil from the players' perspective.
I would like to prove this wrong by pointing out that Roy (very well established as LG) makes use of and associates with Belkar (all but outright stated as CE) all the time and his LG nature is only called into question once, when he is being interviewed about getting into Celestia, and the possibility of being something else is quickly dropped by his justification of it. This king is clearly not a Paladin, but there is no good reason he can't be GoodRoy leashes belkar and doesn't let him perform evil deeds. The aforementioned king does not do that. On the contrary, he lets them work their evil whenever he deems necessary.

[Red Fel]

Wow. A loot of you guys seem to think that tolerating and using evil to help accomplish your own goals makes it to where you cannot be good. I would like to prove this wrong by pointing out that Roy (very well established as LG) makes use of and associates with Belkar (all but outright stated as CE) all the time and his LG nature is only called into question once, when he is being interviewed about getting into Celestia, and the possibility of being something else is quickly dropped by his justification of it. This king is clearly not a Paladin, but there is no good reason he can't be Good

If I recall correctly, the Giant has distinguished between the alignments of his characters and actual D&D alignments. I'm not recalling the exact quote, but he refers somewhere to their alignments as more like a starting perspective than a hard descriptor.

The fact is, and I have said this too many times before, one of the defining traits of Good is a refusal to accept an "ends justify the means" position. Because, in Good's mind, they don't; there are some means that cannot be justified, some acts that cannot be accepted, some lines that cannot be crossed.

It's one thing when an ally performs these acts without your knowledge, or when you know of them but refuse to accept any benefit from them. It's quite another when they perform these acts for your benefit and with your knowledge; your refusal to prevent these acts or to disclaim them means that the ally has your tacit approval. When a character offers tacit approval of Evil acts, he is effectively complicit in those acts. This is a decidedly non-Good position.

A Good character cannot use Evil means to achieve his goals and remain Good. Nor can he do so through an intermediary. Having someone do Evil on your behalf does not remove moral responsibility for the act; it is still Evil being performed at the behest of, with the knowledge of, for the benefit of the King. That is non-Good.

It doesn't mean he's necessarily Evil. He sounds pragmatic, which isn't Evil, and torn, which may be non-Evil. But even though it benefits the kingdom and preserves his throne, he cannot simply sit and tolerate Evil being committed in his name; he must do something.

The argument about Law and Chaos is admittedly shakier. I agree that he could be LN, LE, etc. He is unlikely to be Chaotic, but could possibly be Neutral on the L-C spectrum. But he is most certainly non-Good.

Bottom line: It's one thing to be unable to prevent crime in your kingdom. Almost every kingdom has crime. (Except the LE ones. Go team Evil!) It's quite another thing to allow crimes to be committed in your name. Step up or step down, but a King can't do nothing in that case and keep the G on his sheet.

[Extra Anchovies]

If I recall correctly, the Giant has distinguished between the alignments of his characters and actual D&D alignments. I'm not recalling the exact quote, but he refers somewhere to their alignments as more like a starting perspective than a hard descriptor.

The fact is, and I have said this too many times before, one of the defining traits of Good is a refusal to accept an "ends justify the means" position. Because, in Good's mind, they don't; there are some means that cannot be justified, some acts that cannot be accepted, some lines that cannot be crossed.

It's one thing when an ally performs these acts without your knowledge, or when you know of them but refuse to accept any benefit from them. It's quite another when they perform these acts for your benefit and with your knowledge; your refusal to prevent these acts or to disclaim them means that the ally has your tacit approval. When a character offers tacit approval of Evil acts, he is effectively complicit in those acts. This is a decidedly non-Good position.

A Good character cannot use Evil means to achieve his goals and remain Good. Nor can he do so through an intermediary. Having someone do Evil on your behalf does not remove moral responsibility for the act; it is still Evil being performed at the behest of, with the knowledge of, for the benefit of the King. That is non-Good.

It doesn't mean he's necessarily Evil. He sounds pragmatic, which isn't Evil, and torn, which may be non-Evil. But even though it benefits the kingdom and preserves his throne, he cannot simply sit and tolerate Evil being committed in his name; he must do something.

The argument about Law and Chaos is admittedly shakier. I agree that he could be LN, LE, etc. He is unlikely to be Chaotic, but could possibly be Neutral on the L-C spectrum. But he is most certainly non-Good.

Bottom line: It's one thing to be unable to prevent crime in your kingdom. Almost every kingdom has crime. (Except the LE ones. Go team Evil!) It's quite another thing to allow crimes to be committed in your name. Step up or step down, but a King can't do nothing in that case and keep the G on his sheet.

Exactly. If he weren't knowingly benefiting from the organization and using that as a reason to keep them around, he'd be LN, but that's enough to push him to LE.

[MukkTB]

Chaotic Neutral. He obviously has no regard for the rule of law or he would keep a spy organization that was properly vetted and authorized.

Actually T/N might fit too.

In reality the alignment system is terrible. Is the king lawful because he is an authority figure? Is he chaotic because he fosters an illegal organization? Does he have a divine mandate to rule and therefore represents a legitimate authority capable of investing the secret organization with legitimacy? Is he evil because he allows their activity, or merely a neutral not totally disinterested party? The United States of America has a very complex and similar problem. How much spying is too much? What about spying on our own citizens? What about the times our armed services kill our enemies? What about the consequences of doing nothing? Trying to get that right is hard. Being a sovereign nation does not make for easy moral choices.

The alignment system serves some mechanical purpose that is highly flavorful. A good cleric can't call on the forces of hell to melt his enemies, and that is great. However the alignment system is really awful in that it hands the DM authority over a absolute morality system. A good DM mostly ignores it. A bad DM uses the power to enforce his morality system on the players. This is absolute garbage because if you ask and student of philosophy, he will tell you that we have not rigorously proven any particular system of morality to be the correct one. Given a differential equation, you can prove the answer, (worries about the foundations of mathematics aside.) Given a moral quandary you have to make your best judgement. And for many judgments, some people will legitimately have beliefs that that the other choice(s) would have been better. I won't claim that everything is relative, excusing terrible behavior with a shrug, but claiming that everything is absolute is equally bad.

Even if you turn to religion as an ultimate authority on morality things can get pretty bad.

As closing I'll leave you with this.
(http://s20.photobucket.com/user/strangething/media/batman-alignment-chart.jpg.html)

[MukkTB]

The king is L/G. His country does not have a constitution declaring a popular mandate, or legal rights for citizens and non citizens. In a world where gods exist and regularly tamper with events, he therefore enjoys a de-facto divine mandate until it is revoked. His choices and rulings are legitimate within the country as long as he holds power because he is not usurping any other legitimate authority such as constitutional authority. He therefore has every right to institute or authorize a secret branch of government as a legitimate enterprise. This is good because if evil people knew about them they would be less effective at stopping evil actions. He directs this secret organization to kill evil wizards, necromancers, monsters such as goblins, worshipers of deities intent on destruction and ruin, and various less magical evil people such as criminals, bandits, assassins and so on. Note that all of these targets are totally acceptable for a good adventurer to slay during the normal course of business. Even a good deity would not cause one of their paladins to fall for slaying an evil wizard, necromancer, monster, ect, ect, ect.

By taking the actions that he does, the King insures the safety of his subjects. To be a good King he has a responsibility to act in such a way. If he allows citizens to be killed when he could have acted otherwise, he is failing his divine mandate. Furthermore the prosperity of the kingdom ensures higher standards of living for all citizens. More healing can be provided, along with adequate food, and living conditions. Keeping monsters from destroying the productivity of the kingdom, and keeping bandits and criminals from doing the same, is a responsibility of the King.

By its very definition, legitimate authority, authority allowed to govern and tax citizens, must provide protection to those citizens from internal and external threats. A government that simply taxes, demands obedience, and does nothing for the welfare of those suffering underneath it, is a stationary bandit. It is not a legitimate authority. The King, to be acting in good conscience, must take reasonable measures for the good of his kingdom, even if some members of the aristocracy would object.

Furthermore it should be understood that humanoids favor a neutral alignment. This means that any government comprised of mortals will have bad apples on occasion. This can result in police brutality, graft, corruption and other unpleasant abuses of authority. The King must act to insure that government officials are held responsible for misbehavior. He must provide guidelines, legal methods for handling supposed misbehavior such as trail by ordeal or trial by court, (military or civilian). He must do his best to insure that justice is truly observed. However if he meets this criteria, he cannot be held morally responsible for the moral character of men in his government.

[Hellborn_Blight]

I'd say, first off, no where near enough info to go on has been given. Alignment isn't a checklist of your varying alignment biased acts. It is far more about purpose, limits, and justification. Of course, I don't think enough information can be given for anyone not running the character or writing the game world to make a decision about this. Most of the time, if the king is supposed to be a good king, you play them that way. If the king is evil, the same. They don't spontaneously find their alignment in the middle of a story (unless that is the plot twist), so if they are supposed to be of a specific ideal set, then there you go.

Some questions I'd ask are, is this organization actually committing evil, and does he specifically know about it? Plausible deniability is a thing. If his political opponents are evil and legitimate threats (and seeing as how he is KING, any political rivals are already usurpers) why would it be evil to kill them? From a lawful respect alone, anybody trying to depose a king is gonna go to the chopping block. For that matter, is the organization breaking the law? Just because they are secretive doesn't mean they are operating outside the bounds of some ancient law or pact. Them being unlawful is an assumption made with nothing to back it up so far.

I'd also like to point out that letting a sleeping dragon lie can be considered a good act, even if the retarded Paladin wants to smite evil it, as awakening them can cost many innocent people their lives. Good takes many forms. I know it is a common adventuring hook, but hiring adventurers to go kill a dragon that occasionally eats a farmer that goes snooping to close to it's lair, but that leaves the city alone is a bad idea, because if they fail, the dragon will most certainly take revenge. Now if said dragon was going out of it's way to attack the bulk of the population, then different means are are needed. Same for this organization. Do the merits of dismantling this organization outweigh not just the risks, but the actual cost of life? Someone said that pragmatism is evil in D&D, but pragmatism is about the reality of a situation, and if the reality is lots of good people are gonna die if I do this, then you have to be evil to ignore to that.

The fact is, many of the traits described as lawful, chaotic, good and to a lesser extent, evil are present here.

Good: "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."
Neutral:"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."(He lacks this, but doesn't necessarily lack compassion)
Evil:"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." This, only through inaction, and by proxy.

Lawful: "“Law” implies... obedience to authority, and reliability."
Neutral:"She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." Like not talking about a secret organization.
Chaotic: "Chaotic characters follow their consciences..."

So by math he's true neutral? That seems to lack much of the basis for having an alignment at all and at least to me ends with a very, "threw the baby out with the bathwater" sort of conclusion. But by the system, I think that is the only alignment he could be.

One of the biggest problems with a rigid alignment system is the removal of nuance. Good people act selfishly from time to time. People meant to enforce the law take it into their own hands. Incredibly evil people have soft spots. It's an ok system in theory, but it is isn't representative of all but the most rigid characters. So in game terms, I think you have to paint NPCs with broad strokes, in hues of their base desires. Does the king want to do right by his people? Then he is probably good. Does he want to rule unopposed people's lives be damned? Well, he is evil. Law and chaos is harder of course, but should still be derived by personal mantra. And if he seems pulled in many directions, not committing to any ideal, then he is neutral.