Chaotic or Lawful

[Conradine]

A tyrant loves to watch chaos spreading and burning outside the fortified walls of his highly protected and insulated village. He even likes to help chaos spreading between neighborhood populations a little, when he can do that without too much.

Yet he like order and safety in his domain. He's not a control manic but he wants no surprises and no threats. He doesn't value law in itself but recognize his utility as a control tool. He also doesn't value chaos but he find it funny and he thinks unorganized, anarchic populations to be a lesser threat than organized enemies.

Basically, he likes chaos outside the walls, order inside. Also he thinks that the constant external threat of chaos and violence helps him mantain control over his subjects. If given the opportunity to bring order to external chaos he would refuse.

Is he Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil?

[Mehangel]

I dont know if I personally would call him a tyrant. But to answer your question, I would probably give him a Chaotic Evil Alignment, although, it is also possible to be Lawful Evil. My reasons are based off of biased opinions of how "tyrants" behave. You dont have to be Lawful to appreciate organization or structure. Would you consider the leader of a thieves guild to be lawful?

[MisterKaws]

Honestly, that looks like a bona fide Neutral Evil to me. Liking order only when it suits you, yet spreading chaos if you can get something out of it is a common Neutral attitude, and putting yourself before others on matter what makes it an NE. Doing all of that just to see people suffer pushes it into Vile Evil, so N(V)E should be the correct answer.

Well, anyway, I think this requires a specialist.

Red Fel
Red Fel
Red Fel

[Deophaun]

He recognizes law as a good, therefore denying law to his rivals harms them.

He's a lawful ruler who wields chaos as a weapon.

[Seto]

What he likes or does not like matters a lot less than how he behaves. The definition of a tyrant is a ruler whose own person is above the law, and promotes his will as law for everyone else. Thinking you're above it is a typically Chaotic attitude towards the law. A Lawful ruler, Evil or not, would consider himself part of his own system, bound by something: laws, honor, tradition. Chaotic says: screw legitimacy, I am bound by nothing and answer to no one, because I have the power to do exactly that.
For that reason, I'd answer Chaotic, especially if his laws are an objectivation of his own desires. The rest, securing obedience with the threat of chaos etc., just means he's being smart. A case could be made for Neutral Evil if you put an emphasis on the "law as instrument of control, wants order and safety" thing.

[InvisibleBison]

I'd say he's Lawful Evil; he wants to live in a lawful society, which suggests that he's lawful. The fact that he's amused by chaos and enjoys using it as a tool to destabilize his enemies might tip him towards Neutral Evil, though.


You dont have to be Lawful to appreciate organization or structure. Would you consider the leader of a thieves guild to be lawful?

There's nothing inherently chaotic about a thieves' guild; I can imagine a Lawful thieves' guild fairly easily. They'd have rules about all their activities, basically. Who gets to operate in what areas, how much of the loot is given to the guild, what sort of benefits guild members are entitled to, etc.

[Zaydos]

A tyrant loves to watch chaos spreading and burning outside the fortified walls of his highly protected and insulated village. He even likes to help chaos spreading between neighborhood populations a little, when he can do that without too much.

This is indicative of Chaotic Evil.


Yet he like order and safety in his domain. He's not a control manic but he wants no surprises and no threats. He doesn't value law in itself but recognize his utility as a control tool. He also doesn't value chaos but he find it funny and he thinks unorganized, anarchic populations to be a lesser threat than organized enemies.

This is indicative of non-Chaotic behavior, possibly mildly Lawful (definitely values Evil over Law in that case), but well within the range of Neutral Evil and even mildly Chaotic.


Basically, he likes chaos outside the walls, order inside. Also he thinks that the constant external threat of chaos and violence helps him mantain control over his subjects. If given the opportunity to bring order to external chaos he would refuse.

This is indicative of Chaotic Evil. Neutral Evil would consider it if it could extend their power. Lawful Evil while happy to use the threat of chaos and violence, and happy to play other states against each other, wants them to have some stability, and will jump at the chance to bring their order to external chaos and either turn the surroundings into puppet states that serve as a buffer against further distant states, or part of their own state.


Is he Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil?

He doesn't actually value law beyond pragmatism. Even Chaotic Evil creatures tend to value order within their own domain, but that order is simplistic and typically 'everyone does what I say because I said it'. From the description he doesn't strike me as that, but that he wants actual laws beyond random tyrannical decrees. Apparently no strict personal code either. Definitely not Lawful.

From just this I'd guess mildly Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil with Chaotic leanings. If judging by plane of afterlife he'd end up in Carceri, not Chaotic enough for the Abyss, but too Chaotic for the Gray Waste.

Also many thieves' guild leaders are LE, they're one of the classic examples of LE, that said they don't like chaos around them either.

[Seto]

Even Chaotic Evil creatures tend to value order within their own domain, but that order is simplistic and typically 'everyone does what I say because I said it".

Hah! Zaydos, I love how your one sentence makes the same point that my 5+ sentences, just as well :). Your post may have more nuance also, I took the term "tyrant" at face value.

[Name1]

He doesn't value law in itself but recognize his utility as a control tool.

This is the point where he lost his chance at being Lawful IMO. You have to have a code and a reason for it. Generally, a Lawful Evil character is Lawful Evil because he considers laws, even if they are only his laws, to be there for a reason and to be non-negotiable. This doesn't prevent him from unleashing Chaos on his enemies, because he knows that disorder is a bad thing (hence him choosing law) and giving something bad to his enemies tends to benefit him.

This guy doesn't seem to have the dedication for Law, so I'd say he's Neutral Evil, since he doesn't seem to have the lack of need for security required to be a CE Villain.

[Kyberwulf]

Yeah pretty much Neutral Evil. The first parts makes it, so he doesn't really actively go out do evil. I mean he will as long as he isn't put in Jeopardy. The second part as people have said. He doesn't value law, and he wants everything to work out so that he is still the only mouse with cheese.

[Conradine]

From the description he doesn't strike me as that, but that he wants actual laws beyond random tyrannical decrees.

Not totally random. He's mainly motivated by greed. He would not do things that could hamper his profit margins or start an insurrection against him. He uses bribe, threat, violence, intimidation, protection against outside enemies; whatever it takes, as long at the end of the day his village is stable under his control and he gets his share of riches.



This is indicative of Chaotic Evil. Neutral Evil would consider it if it could extend their power.


He is lazy and cowardly. He prefer a small, highly safe, highly predictable domain where he can dedicate himself to his interests ( increasing his power through magic research AND indulge in wine, women, partying and luxuries ) over building an empire that would be hard to mantain, less predictable and that would require him to travel ( giving up comfort ), do administration work ( giving up time ) and fight ( giving up safety ).


Chaos usually is relentless, hotblodded, impatient.

That character is basically a cold, lazy, greedy monster that sits idly on his pile of treasure, well hidden in his lair, letting time slowly increase his power.

[Zaydos]

He is lazy and cowardly. He prefer a small, highly safe, highly predictable domain where he can dedicate himself to his interests ( increasing his power through magic research AND indulge in wine, women, partying and luxuries ) over building an empire that would be hard to mantain, less predictable and that would require him to travel ( giving up comfort ), do administration work ( giving up time ) and fight ( giving up safety ).

This describes most orc chiefs (Chaotic Evil). Hedonism works for Neutral Evil as well, but this describes Chaotic-Neutral Evil pretty well.


Chaos usually is relentless, hotblodded, impatient.

It's usually hotblooded and impatient, doesn't like administration work, but is not any more relentless than Lawful Evil (the Terminator) or even Neutral Evil (the Xenomorph).


That character is basically a cold, lazy monster that sits idly on his pile of treasure, well hidden in his lair, letting time slowly increase his power.

You just described Red, and White Dragons (Black, Blue, and Green are noted as being more active schemers than the others).

[Conradine]

You just described Red, and White Dragons (Black, Blue, and Green are noted as being more active schemers than the others).


Red dragons are active, definetly not cold, prideful ( they would not do any compromise ), randomly violent, fierce and they don't care for a little ( or a lot ) of danger.

[Zaydos]

Red dragons are active, definetly not cold, prideful ( they would not do any compromise ), randomly violent, fierce and they don't care for a little ( or a lot ) of danger.

The typical red dragon is far from active once it has a hoard and if it wants one at the moment a mate, and do not build kingdoms because they're too lazy to maintain them. It is true they are not cold, typically having a nasty temper, but as for random violence not really. They'll attack you if you disturb their lair, have something they want and are in their territory, or are a silver dragon in their territory, and while they will fight silver dragons they are hesitant to if the silver dragon is their age or older meaning they do care about danger.

The classic red dragon actions is 'acts like Smaug' who was a lazy monster that sat idly on his pile of treasure, well hidden in his lair, letting time slowly increase his power until someone came in and stirred him up.

So question: What's his reaction to a direct invasion? What about if someone stole from him? Or a would be assassin that got caught?

[Conradine]

So question: What's his reaction to a direct invasion? What about if someone stole from him? Or a would be assassin that got caught?


* Direct invasion: he would ponder the quickest, safest and less costly way to stop it, be it by bribe, diplomacy or militar force. He would not really care for his subject lives but for their value as working force; also, he would be worried that if he allowed too many of his subjects to be killed they would likely desert him or stop believing he protects them.

Anyway, he would have already an escape plan if thing gets nasty and would likely flee carring himself as much treasure as he can if facing imminent defeat.

When ( if ) the invasion is over, he would actively work to prevent that event to happen again. He would ever consider moving the settlement to a more remote, more hidden place.


* Someone stole from him: if it was an acrobatic thief that breaked in his palace, he would be very afraid ( " if a thief can enter, so can do an assassin! "). Unless the thief stole a very important tome or magical treasure, he would prioritize reinforcing his lair security; catching the thief would be secondary.
If it was corruption, he would ponder the circumstances and either publicly execute, secretly execute, imprison or blackmail the thief; whatever seems to bring him more advantages.

* An assassin is captured: more or less the same as the thief or the corrupted employee. He would use torture, drugs and / or domination to know who are his accomplices and / or employer, then dispose of him according to ruthless pragmatism. If the assassin got near him he would be quite afraid and reinforce security.


He would feel rage and resentment in all these situations, but his priority is always safety and profit , in that order. Revenge is a far third ( but if avaiable with no repercussion , it's welcome ).

[Strigon]

This could go either way. Just because someone realizes Chaos is a good weapon, doesn't make them Chaotic.
Just because someone realizes it's easier to control a Lawful society, doesn't make them Lawful.

Now, the fact that he likes seeing Chaos outside his borders is an indicator - not proof, just an indicator - that he would be Chaotic. In general, Lawful people don't particularly like Chaos anywhere, whereas a Chaotic person could easily enjoy a Lawful society, as long as they weren't burdened by it.

In the end, though, it depends on how you play him. Is he spreading the chaos primarily because it's entertaining (Chaotic) or because he realizes it's pragmatic to do so (Lawful)?

[Conradine]

In the end, though, it depends on how you play him. Is he spreading the chaos primarily because it's entertaining (Chaotic) or because he realizes it's pragmatic to do so (Lawful)?

I would say 10% entertainment, 90% pragmatism.
He actually found very convenient to use undead and summoned monster to wreack havoc upon the near small communities of semi nomadic herders. He hides the fact he controls the undead and pretend to "scare them with his divine powers" when they shamble near his village's walls, so the population is afraid to leave.

He would do it even without gaining anything, just for fun, IF and only IF:

1- it's 100% safe
2- it takes not too much effort
3- it does not waste resources he could reasonably acquire


If he was just a commoner, he would probably be quite harmless. But he's a level 7 Cleric ( idealist ) in a isolated settlement with no mages, clerics and a couple level 1 adepts, so he's the big frog in a small puddle.

[Red Fel]

Well, anyway, I think this requires a specialist.

Red Fel
Red Fel
Red Fel

S'up?

Okay. First, I'm going to parse each sentence individually. Then I'm going to completely disregard that parsing, because alignment is based on a complete person, not any individual act (barring truly life-defining acts, such as genocide), and ask a simple and, in my mind, determinative question. Let's get started!


A tyrant loves to watch chaos spreading and burning outside the fortified walls of his highly protected and insulated village.

Loves to see Chaos; tends Chaotic.


He even likes to help chaos spreading between neighborhood populations a little, when he can do that without too much.

Loves to spread Chaos; tends Chaotic.


Yet he like order and safety in his domain.

Likes safety in his domain, tends nowhere in particular.


He's not a control manic but he wants no surprises and no threats.

Not a control maniac, tends very slightly non-Lawful.


He doesn't value law in itself but recognize his utility as a control tool.

Doesn't value law in itself, tends nowhere in particular.


He also doesn't value chaos but he find it funny and he thinks unorganized, anarchic populations to be a lesser threat than organized enemies.

Finds Chaos entertaining and useful, tends nowhere in particular.


Basically, he likes chaos outside the walls, order inside.

Tends nowhere in particular.


Also he thinks that the constant external threat of chaos and violence helps him mantain control over his subjects.

Opportunistically controls subjects, tends nowhere in particular.


If given the opportunity to bring order to external chaos he would refuse.

Prefers Chaos to Order, tends non-Lawful.


Is he Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil?

Well, it's a very simple question. Does he enjoy the Chaos as a means to impose Law within his walls, or does he enjoy it on its merits? If the former, he could well be Lawful; a Lawful ruler can nonetheless see the value of Chaos in reinforcing his reign. If the latter, he could well be Chaotic, masquerading as a tyrant.

Let me start by noting that very little of what you have said suggests Evil. Further, you express a rather odd view of Lawful - you mention that he "doesn't value law in itself," but that has little if anything to do with whether someone is Lawful. Frankly, you really don't say much about the person, just about the situation in which he finds himself and of which he is choosing to take advantage.

Not every Chaotic character seeks to sow and further Chaos. Not every Lawful character craves order to such an extent that he snuffs out Chaos. The fact that this guy's neighbors throw wild parties says virtually nothing about him. The fact that he takes advantage of that says virtually nothing about him.

About all that's relevant is the fact that you say he likes Chaos, and likes to spread it. But even that, while it tends Chaotic, may nonetheless be a ploy by a Lawful tyrant to terrify his people into obedience - thus using Chaos to reinforce Law.

But overall? There's nothing here.

[Conradine]

Red Fel, usually when we read "an evil tyrant spread chaos" we don't think about wild parties.

The common stuff is acts of sabotage, terrorism, pludering, ransacking ecc.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel, usually when we read "an evil tyrant spread chaos" we don't think about wild parties.

The common stuff is acts of sabotage, terrorism, pludering, ransacking ecc.

I was being facetious. And it still says little or nothing about him.

Also, you didn't say "an evil tyrant spread chaos," you said "A tyrant loves to watch chaos." In fact, the only place in the OP where you mentioned Evil was the question - "Is he Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil?" And as I said, you've barely given me enough to determine whether he is, in fact, Evil, let alone Lawful or Chaotic.

[Kyberwulf]

You know, I wish people would do these Alignment questions in the first post then not "narrow" it down in subsequent posts. It's to easy to see which way posters are going with, then to add additional information to change the basest question.

[Mehangel]

You know, I wish people would do these Alignment questions in the first post then not "narrow" it down in subsequent posts. It's to easy to see which way posters are going with, then to add additional information to change the basest question.

I do agree that it seems like the OP already made up their mind as to what alignment the tyrant has, but wants others to confirm or agree. As Redfell mentioned, nothing in the OP specifically denotes Evil, yet still poses the question limiting answers to one of two.

[GreyBlack]

I was being facetious. And it still says little or nothing about him.

Also, you didn't say "an evil tyrant spread chaos," you said "A tyrant loves to watch chaos." In fact, the only place in the OP where you mentioned Evil was the question - "Is he Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil?" And as I said, you've barely given me enough to determine whether he is, in fact, Evil, let alone Lawful or Chaotic.

Just to piggyback for a moment, Red Fel, but I'd also like to remind folk that the Greek root of the word Tyrant, tyrannos only means ruler or one who brings law. In fact, paradoxical to our modern understanding of the word, tyranny could be understood as a GOOD thing, as it kept the populace safe and secure.

Again, food for thought. There is very little in this section that can really represent any major alignment except maybe True Neutral. He doesn't really care about anyone or anything around him, wants to keep the people around him safe, but really doesn't care how.

"A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil-after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way."

[Zanos]

The OPs example sounds neutral with respect to law and chaos to me, since he only values either so much as they increase his power. The fact that he's willing to spread chaos and violence outside of his domain to keep his people under his thumb seems Evil. So Neutral Evil.

@GreyBlack, if any means are acceptable to fulfilling a characters goals, that character is 100% full stop Evil. Good and even Neutral characters have lines they will not cross.

[Red Fel]

You know, I wish people would do these Alignment questions in the first post then not "narrow" it down in subsequent posts. It's to easy to see which way posters are going with, then to add additional information to change the basest question.

Very much so. It's why I generally try to focus on the original post, as opposed to subsequent clarifications. Just give all of the information upfront, please.


I do agree that it seems like the OP already made up their mind as to what alignment the tyrant has, but wants others to confirm or agree. As Redfell mentioned, nothing in the OP specifically denotes Evil, yet still poses the question limiting answers to one of two.

Yeah, I strongly dislike threads like that. If you want to ask an A or B question, that's fine. If you want to say, "I think this is A, but I'm not sure, what do you think?", that's fine too. But couching a question as A or B, when you really just want people to agree that it's A, strikes me as disingenuous.


Just to piggyback for a moment, Red Fel, but I'd also like to remind folk that the Greek root of the word Tyrant, tyrannos only means ruler or one who brings law. In fact, paradoxical to our modern understanding of the word, tyranny could be understood as a GOOD thing, as it kept the populace safe and secure.

You know I love tyrants. But seriously, there is such a thing as a "benevolent dictator." In fact, you could easily see that emerge in an LG society - an absolute ruler who issues unimpeachable edicts for the common benefit and the good of all.


@GreyBlack, if any means are acceptable to fulfilling a characters goals, that character is 100% full stop Evil. Good and even Neutral characters have lines they will not cross.

If.

[Conradine]

You know, I wish people would do these Alignment questions in the first post then not "narrow" it down in subsequent posts. It's to easy to see which way posters are going with, then to add additional information to change the basest question.


The character is Evil. That is not negotiable. He raid harmless settlements , he murder people in secret, he sacrifices goblins and other disposable prisoners to the dark powers.

The only question is CE, NE or LE. And I answered specific questions when asked.




I do agree that it seems like the OP already made up their mind as to what alignment the tyrant has, but wants others to confirm or agree.


I honestly don't know if appreciating ordered and working structures is enough to be Lawful, and if appreciating inflicting chaos upon others but not on yourself is enough to be Chaotic.


Although if you ask my opinion I would say "borderline NE - CE".



Again, food for thought. There is very little in this section that can really represent any major alignment except maybe True Neutral.

A ruler that actively keeps his population in fear of outside threats ( real or imaginary ) to have a stronger grasp on them is Evil, and that is in the OP. Also, actively "spreading chaos" ( which I thought obviously means terrorism and sabotages ) for fun and profit is Evil.



Yeah, I strongly dislike threads like that. If you want to ask an A or B question, that's fine. If you want to say, "I think this is A, but I'm not sure, what do you think?", that's fine too. But couching a question as A or B, when you really just want people to agree that it's A, strikes me as disingenuous.


It is an A, B or C question.

LE, NE or CE.

I will not debate over the "a ruler that uses chaos and fear to rule may not be Evil" subject.



But seriously, there is such a thing as a "benevolent dictator." In fact, you could easily see that emerge in an LG society - an absolute ruler who issues unimpeachable edicts for the common benefit and the good of all.


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.


There is no such a thing as a "benevolent dictator", although there are smart and efficient dictators.

[Name1]

There is no such a thing as a "benevolent dictator", although there are smart and efficient dictators.

...I'm pretty sure Aristoteles and Polybios would like a word with you on that one...

[Strigon]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.


There is no such a thing as a "benevolent dictator", although there are smart and efficient dictators.

Oh, nonsense. A dictator is simply someone who rules with absolute authority; that is in no way mutually exclusive to wanting the best for your countrymen.

[Conradine]

Laws are tools of command, made by the powerful and privileged to keep their place and prevent others to reach them. Useful for self benefitting tyrants, not for the masses.
Yes , a person can believe - more or less honestly - that imposing his view through laws is the best thing for everyone but in my opinion, he's just justifing his self righteousness ( at best ).

In the end anyway it doesn't matter so much. Might makes right is the only true law and even anarchy eventually devolves into multiple fragmented micro-tirannies.

[Red Fel]

Laws are tools of command, made by the powerful and privileged to keep their place and prevent others to reach them. Useful for self benefitting tyrants, not for the masses.

By D&D logic, false. Law - that is order, structure, honor, and tradition - is lacking in moral charge. Laws can therefore be for the public good, or designed to oppress, either or.

"Laws are Evil and useful only for tyrants" is not a statement that resonates in D&D, by default.


Yes , a person can believe - more or less honestly - that imposing his view through laws is the best thing for everyone but in my opinion, he's just justifing his self righteousness ( at best ).

Except when, according to D&D morality, he is objectively right. A law outlawing slavery (in D&D, an objective Evil) is objectively Good. As is a law outlawing murder or rape, both objectively Evil acts. A ruler with absolute power who imposes such laws is still LG.


In the end anyway it doesn't matter so much. Might makes right is the only true law and even anarchy eventually devolves into multiple fragmented micro-tirannies.

As much as I love your logic, that's... Not inherently true, under D&D rules.

It seems that you have made certain assumptions about certain words and concepts (e.g. tyrant, laws, chaos) which others don't appear to share. And while you can certainly define terms as you like at your table, when you bring those terms here, they will be defined in a vacuum.

In a vacuum, while a "tyrant" sounds Evil, he is not inherently so, absent demonstrated acts. In a vacuum, "laws" are not purely the instruments of despots, unless shown to be otherwise. In a vacuum, "chaos" is not only pillaging, fires, and destruction, unless explicitly stated to be so.

You've made these assumptions, and seem disappointed when we respond based on the words you use as opposed to the concepts you believe they express. What I think is happening here is a miscommunication, and one which would benefit from clarification.

Here's an idea. Try re-writing the OP - not editing that post, but writing a new post below this - but making absolutely explicit what you mean. When you say "watch chaos spreading", give specific examples. When you say "tyrant," give a specific explanation of what that looks like. When you describe his laws, actually describe them - show just how despotic they are, if at all.

Because as it's written right now, the OP shows none of those things you've emphasized in subsequent posts.

[Name1]

As is a law outlawing murder or rape, both objectively Evil acts.

Murder isn't Evil in D&D. You can murder most fiends and undead without getting an alignment hit.

[Red Fel]

Murder isn't Evil in D&D. You can murder most fiends and undead without getting an alignment hit.

It's a bunch of nested caveats.

Killing something isn't inherently Good or Evil.
- Caveat: Murder (that is, killing a helpless victim outside of a combat situation) is usually Evil.
- Caveat: Killing an Evil Outsider or Undead is never Evil.

So, yeah. Caveats within caveats. Or, to put it differently, "It's not murder if it's an Evil Outsider or Undead." Solved!

[Psyren]

Murder isn't Evil in D&D. You can murder most fiends and undead without getting an alignment hit.

"Murder" is not the same as "killing", both in real-world legal terms and in D&D terms. Even focusing purely on the latter, murder is specifically defined in D&D and your example doesn't fit:


Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like.

The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although it’s not a good act), because it still stops the creature’s predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons

[Name1]

*BoVD example*

But... but that doesn't make any sense! Chromatic dragons are redeemable, BoED FEATURES a redeemed chromatic dragon...

Ugh, D&D and alignment...

[Zaydos]

But... but that doesn't make any sense! Chromatic dragons are redeemable, BoED FEATURES a redeemed chromatic dragon...

Ugh, D&D and alignment...

BoEDs came out later and introduced the stuff to redeem irredeemable creatures through abducting them, keeping them away from outside contact, and depriving them of any chance to escape until they come to your way of thinking. It also said that ability damage poison is an evil act because it causes suffering but new and improved Evil only poisons are perfectly alright despite doing the same thing :smallsigh:

BoEDs is about the worst source on alignment in any edition that I've seen. And I've seen Gygax's rants that include that a god who strictly does his deific duty and then watches disinterested because it's his job is Chaotic because he said so :smallconfused: (this is staying out of the real world myths he mangled in making gods invoked for the makings of laws Chaotic because... they like booze :smallconfused:).

[Psyren]

But... but that doesn't make any sense! Chromatic dragons are redeemable, BoED FEATURES a redeemed chromatic dragon...

Ugh, D&D and alignment...

BoED says it's theoretically possible to do so, but you can be forgiven for not trying since the chance is so vanishingly small. Chromatic dragons fall into that category. Basically, leave it to the Cadderlys of the world because you'll just be throwing your life away or get duped, generally.

The exact quote is:


Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope.


Based on BoED I've concluded there are a few categories of evil creature:

1) Impossible to redeem (Evil gods, Archfiends, Abominations, Lovecraftian entities.)
2) All but impossible to redeem (Fiends and intelligent undead.)
3) Extremely difficult to redeem, but possible (Chromatic Dragons, Aberrations like Mind Flayers, Unseelie Fey etc.)
4) Difficult to redeem but more possible (evil monstrous humanoids like hags and trolls, non-surface-dwelling humanoids like Drow and Duergar)
5) Decent chance of redeeming (surface-dwelling evil humanoid races like Orcs and Goblins.)
6) Good chance of redeeming (evil specimen of generally non-evil race/culture, e.g. an evil Halfling.)

I would say a paladin would not be penalized for making no attempt at categories 1-3, and 4 would depend on pragmatism and circumstance. 5 and 6 is where I'd start expecting them to try and frowning at them if they go straight for their longsword instead without even attempting parley or mercy.

Sidenote: I get that the cool thing to do is rag on BoED nonstop, but at least it made an effort to get players who'd been lopping the heads off goblin children for generations to stop and think about whether that was the right thing to do or not. The execution was unpolished but I can't fault them for trying.

[Name1]

*stuff*

Ok, but do me a favor and answer me two questions:

1. At what point in time is 100% considered "vanishingly small"? On the top of my head I can think of 4 spells and 1 power that can immediately turn an evil creature good without a chance of failure beyond the initial save, 3 of which are [Good], one that is [Good] and [Evil] and... granted, one that's just flat out [Evil]. That's still 3 Spells that you can use where it's nearly guaranteed. Can't cast spells? Moral dillemas man, they make Paladins fall.

2. Why can you target a Fiend with Sanctify the Wicked if you can't apply the template to it in the first place?
“Sanctified creature” is an acquired template that can be added to any evil creature except for outsiders with the evil subtype (referred to hereafter as “base creature”). The sanctified creature retains its creature type. Outsiders gain the good subtype and lose any of the following subtypes: baatezu (devil), tanar’ri (demon), and yugoloth.

[Psyren]

Ok, but do me a favor and answer me two questions:

1. At what point in time is 100% considered "vanishingly small"? On the top of my head I can think of 4 spells and 1 power that can immediately turn an evil creature good without a chance of failure beyond the initial save, 3 of which are [Good], one that is [Good] and [Evil] and... granted, one that's just flat out [Evil]. That's still 3 Spells that you can use where it's nearly guaranteed. Can't cast spells? Moral dillemas man, they make Paladins fall.

2. Why can you target a Fiend with Sanctify the Wicked if you can't apply the template to it in the first place?

1) Those are generally 9th-level spells, at which point your character is able to take on cosmic threats and pretty much ignore the laws of reality anyway. I was more talking about "the risks a typical paladin should take, or not take, to try redeeming someone given the resources they likely have available to them" - of which 9th-level spells aren't really reasonable to assume.

So in other words, you can usually be forgiven for taking a "slay first, debate later" approach to chromatic dragons. If you don't have the mystic muscle to restrain them long enough for a protracted conversation on their misdeeds, it's the next best solution.


2) Why does Dragon Disciple self-disqualify? Bad editing does happen. (It's worth noting that the spell description as written won't work on ANY outsiders - it talks about tearing their soul from their body, but for an outsider those things are one and the same.)

[Name1]

1) Those are generally 9th-level spells, at which point your character is able to take on cosmic threats and pretty much ignore the laws of reality anyway. I was more talking about "the risks a typical paladin should take, or not take, to try redeeming someone given the resources they likely have available to them" - of which 9th-level spells aren't really reasonable to assume.

So in other words, you can usually be forgiven for taking a "slay first, debate later" approach to chromatic dragons. If you don't have the mystic muscle to restrain them long enough for a protracted conversation on their misdeeds, it's the next best solution.


2) Why does Dragon Disciple self-disqualify? Bad editing does happen. (It's worth noting that the spell description as written won't work on ANY outsiders - it talks about tearing their soul from their body, but for an outsider those things are one and the same.)

Wouldn't the best solution to 1) be to talk to your superiors about it? I mean, you can kill a lot of redeemables if you really don't want to walk all the way back to church, but it doesn't strike me as very Good...

To 2... Yeah, I suppose I can see that. Basically an Ice Assassin-style spell.

[Psyren]

Certainly you could consult. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) But I'm saying that, as a GM/deity, my answer would usually be "Paladin, you don't have a practical means of restraining or otherwise forcing that Adult Green Dragon to parley, so he's made his choice. If you let him escape, he'll just end up ravaging another countryside miles away. Feel free to take him out and feel no guilt for doing so."

And I think BoED would back up that judgement, so long as you didn't take Vow of Peace or something.

[Name1]

Certainly you could consult. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) But I'm saying that, as a GM/deity, my answer would usually be "Paladin, you don't have a practical means of restraining or otherwise forcing that Adult Green Dragon to parley, so he's made his choice. If you let him escape, he'll just end up ravaging another countryside miles away. Feel free to take him out and feel no guilt for doing so."

And I think BoED would back up that judgement, so long as you didn't take Vow of Peace or something.

I guess, but your category 5 and 6 could be argued the same way, in which case we'd be back to killing Orc children. Nvm actually, you could just imprison them until they can be cleansed, so I guess it's fair...

[hamishspence]

I get that the cool thing to do is rag on BoED nonstop, but at least it made an effort to get players who'd been lopping the heads off goblin children for generations to stop and think about whether that was the right thing to do or not. The execution was unpolished but I can't fault them for trying.

Indeed. I wonder how much influence it had on OOTS?

[Mehangel]

Indeed. I wonder how much influence it had on OOTS?

I was going to say the same thing about Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.org/).

[Zanos]

Laws are tools of command, made by the powerful and privileged to keep their place and prevent others to reach them. Useful for self benefitting tyrants, not for the masses.
Yes , a person can believe - more or less honestly - that imposing his view through laws is the best thing for everyone but in my opinion, he's just justifing his self righteousness ( at best ).

In the end anyway it doesn't matter so much. Might makes right is the only true law and even anarchy eventually devolves into multiple fragmented micro-tirannies.
Would you like some shoulder with your chip? Seriously hope that isn't your actual outlook.

[2D8HP]

Red Fel, usually when we read "an evil tyrant spread chaos" we don't think about wild parties.Since I lived too long with "20 something's" as neighbors, I classify wild parties as not just "Evil", but "Vile" as well!

:furious:


Laws are tools of command, made by the powerful and privileged to keep their place and prevent others to reach them voters. Useful for self benefitting tyrants, me not for the masses. the kids on my lawn!
Fixed it for you.

:amused: