The Morality of Leadership

[Magistrate]

So let's talk Leadership in D&D. No, I don't mean the Feat or in terms of leading a party. I mean on a big, big scale. Let me set up a scenario.

Let us say there is a village being routinely raided by Orcs. It is normally not of much importance but it now sits on the vital ley line of a caravan route and so has been given notice by the powers that be. Now let's say the lord-reagent of these lands, a generally well-to-do person who honestly believes in a just cause, stations troops there under advisory of his financial aide, who has a monopoly on trade coming through the area and is such a mercantile, soulless chap that he'd sell his own extended family into slavery ( Who knows? He probably did! ). You do get these kinds of individuals in settings, ones that are at least Neutral, if not leaning heavily in the Evil axis of the alignment, working for or with those leaning towards Good.

So let's stop for a moment; is this a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? Sending troops to stop Orcs killing innocents? Probably a good thing. But doing it also because a genuinely greedy, evil person advised you to do so? Is this a win-win or are their repercussions here?

Let's go on and further this tale. So the soldiers finally get there and have to be garrisoned in the peasant's homes till a bulwark can be constructed. Some of these soldiers are less the savory, a number of them mercenaries with 'colorful' histories -- but hey, they get the job done for the right price. Unfortunately, a bunch of them get a little too rowdy and some pretty bad things go down. Disciplinary action may or may not be taken, but that is not the concern of this post; what happens to the people, or in this case person, responsible for arranging these events? No, the lord-reagent did not march into their makeshift shelters and tell them to go hog wild on the local populace, but he is ultimately responsible for these questionable characters being there in the first place. So does our belove lord-reagent get any negative feedback from all of this? It's not like he conspired to cause an all ready suffering people to endure more misery, quite the opposite in fact! but do good intentions outweigh what's actually, literally taking place?

You can call him incompotent, deceived and what ever you wish, but sometimes good people make\have to make bad decisions. It could be lack of resources or manpower to pull it off, or just a poor understaff in leadership value beyond the major domo and my example is just a single lord or baron. Imagine what a King must endure or an Emperor. I imagine most people on this board are also aware of the inherent flaws in monarchies as well ( incompetent\tyrannical heirs ), and being that most D&D standard settings are still feudal how does this all apply to alignment? Our modern views ( and by extension D&D's ) of morality do not work that well within the confines of feudalism and other forms of government in a lot of classical settings.

So, what happens to the guy on top? Because you can wish well and mean the sweet things all you want but if all of your decisions ultimately turn to ill, causing more Evil than Good, how does that effect your alignment, if at all? The material effects are obvious; revolts and such, possibility of civil war, etc. and it's not like everyone can afford to have legions of trustworthy Paladins roaming about and 'purifying' the land. :smallannoyed:

PS: If you think about it, a lot of 'Good' factions are normally churches, all of which have a surprisingly large stranglehold on societies and governments at large. Makes you wonder whether or not they're really all that Good. :smallamused:

[Jasdoif]

So let's stop for a moment; is this a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? Sending troops to stop Orcs killing innocents? Probably a good thing. But doing it also because a genuinely greedy, evil person advised you to do so? Is this a win-win or are their repercussions here?Here's the thing. People benefit from Good acts. Good is described as being altruistic, after all, so there have to be those "others" to make an act altruistic. That an Evil person benefits from an act does not automatically make the act Evil.


So, what happens to the guy on top? Because you can wish well and mean the sweet things all you want but if all of your decisions ultimately turn to ill, causing more Evil than Good, how does that effect your alignment, if at all?Alignment is a description of your character and his/her/its decisions. Your alignment isn't at all affected by events that you could not have possibly known about, because there is no decision on your part about them.


PS: If you think about it, a lot of 'Good' factions are normally churches, all of which have a surprisingly large stranglehold on societies and governments at large. Makes you wonder whether or not they're really all that Good. :smallamused:Again, people benefit from Good acts. So people support the Good churches and governments, because they benefit from their leadership. It's not really that suspicious that societies support those organizations who benefit them, is it?

[technomancer]

D&D morality is not real-world morality.

Also, D&D morality is action-based, not consequence- or intent-based. If I run across a group of kobolds, I am fully expected to condem them to death. This is a Good act, because kobolds are Evil. If I nuke them for 10d6 fiery death via fireball, I'm a good guy. However, if I tag even one of those little buggers with a Death Knell so that I can more efficiently dispose of the rest of the vermin, I am Evil. Similarly, if I summon a Fiendish Bat to hunt down a couple of stragglers with no risk to my cronies, that is Evil, but if I instead possibly condem a follower to possible horrific death at the hands of a kobold ambush, that is Neutral with Good leanings. Chasing down the wounded and cutting them down myself would be Good.

So, if the Regents direct actions were intending to protect life (i.e. sending a garrison of troops to protect against raids), then he is Good. If that garrison falls in with the orcs and murders the entire town in it's sleep, thems the breaks, results don't count. Oh, wait, intent doesn't count either. So I guess it would be Neutral, because the regent didn't actually do anything himself.

[Freshmeat]

It's probably best to ignore the concept of 'alignment' entirely if you want to move to a discussion of morality.
Like many others, I loathe the black/white alignment system, which simply doesn't fit in with a 'grey' world.

You can either try to apply 'D&D morality' and try to estimate where something is 'good' and where is has become 'evil', or you can apply real-world morality to it and - depending on your person - that might turn out to be an easier method of evaluating morality.
Of course, it messes the entire paladin concept up most.


As for your question: In D&D terms, you can't really call someone evil for doing 'the right thing', even if this attempt is unsuccesful, or even contraproductive. A doctor who tries to save someone but accidentally administers a wrong medicine (which ends up killing the patient) doesn't turn into an evil fiend overnight.

[Skjaldbakka]

I would say that if the leader is LG, and he finds out about the greedy self-serving bastard, he is going to be very angry with said bastard. Likewise, if he finds out about the trouble his troops caused, he is going to feel bad about it, and try to make amends.

[philippos]

I'm not sure I understand, is this a question of; morality, the alignment system, or how they tie together? I'm not sure this is a question for alignment in the first place, as the intent of the actions was for good, but

if a palidan makes an evil sound in the forest, do they fall?

sorry got distracted.

is one of these three the question
1 is the government (king, lord whatever)totally responsible for the misdeeds of those working within that system?
I think they are not, but they are responsible for taking the "best" actions based on the "best" information (all inlightenment philosophy style).

2 can there actually be a "good" ruler that is also effective?
there was an Italian that wrote a body of essays on this subject called The Prince I tend to read it as saying: You sometimes have to be evil to do good.

3 aren't alignments kinda goofy?
aren't they just guidelines to help us play games, lets not harp on it too much without keeping that in mind.

[bosssmiley]

Sometimes good people need to use unsavory allies to further the greater good. Like Wellington said of his own men: "Scum of the earth; but look what we made of them!"

Ok, so some soldiers the lord sent in to drive out the orcs throw their weight around. That doesn't mean you have to let these looters, brawlers, killers and all-round bad guests billeted on families get away with their crimes. It just means you hang 'em high after a fair and open court martial trial. That sends the unambiguous message that "Orcs do things like this, the soldiers sent to protect you do not."

If hanging 'em high is too vengeful for the paladin then you give them some other kind of exemplary punishment. Say, reducing the guilty to the ranks, flogging him, making the guilty party do all the crappiest duty details for the rest of the campaign, assigning him to the forlorn hope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope) ("A chance to redeem by valour the honour your unworthy actions have stained."), requiring payment of weregild, fines and the like, public penance and a period of bonded service to the church, crown or offended parties.

In either instance, the original unjust behaviour is punished, and hopefully the guilty are put to some publicly beneficial use. The desired outcome: that the people have confidence in the rule of law and the sense that their lord has their interests in mind. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done (that's why courts have public galleries).

The world really is very simple when you look at it through the eyes of John Wayne. Welcome to the 'cowboy justice' world of D&D. :smallwink:

[Prometheus]

Some would see it as a sign of evil, to presume you know better than others when you really do not - your arrogance cause harm and oppression. But leaders must presume they know better or are least the best for the job, and to know this and do this is a sign of good. The line gets grey when insecurity and arrogance make it more about a personal battle than what is done.

The modern theory of democray would say that the people know whether or not enough is being done or the right thing is being done. But many leaders rise from going against the grain. In feudalism, the people need the leader for protection whether or not they like it. In my campaigns, an evil leader exploits this for personal gain, a good leader goes above and beyond this service to the people.

[Emperor Tippy]

Good people shouldn't be running kingdoms in D&D. They can't make the decisions necessary and stay good. The best you can hope for on the good/evil axis is a neutral guy with good tendencies. The best for the kingdom as a whole is a neutral evil guy who will do whatever is necessary to protect the kingdom.

Government is and always has been a dirty business, those who can't make the tough choices inevitable cause a lot of problems for their nation.

[MrNexx]

So let's stop for a moment; is this a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? Sending troops to stop Orcs killing innocents? Probably a good thing. But doing it also because a genuinely greedy, evil person advised you to do so? Is this a win-win or are their repercussions here?

Good for the lord, IMO. He is acting out of genuine concern for his people. His adviser may have ulterior motives, but that doesn't change the intention of his actions.


Let's go on and further this tale. So the soldiers finally get there and have to be garrisoned in the peasant's homes till a bulwark can be constructed. Some of these soldiers are less the savory, a number of them mercenaries with 'colorful' histories -- but hey, they get the job done for the right price.

The soldiers are responsible for their own actions. While the Good king may feel some remorse for not checking his mercenaries carefully, and he bears some legal responsibility (if he so chooses), it's not like he hand-picked these men. His sergeant-of-arms likely did. But it goes back to the soldiers taking actions that are wrong, which the king couldn't prevent. I'd put a very minor responsibility on the king, moreso on their commanders who didn't pay closer attention, but the bulk on the men, themselves.

[Saph]

So let's stop for a moment; is this a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? Sending troops to stop Orcs killing innocents? Probably a good thing. But doing it also because a genuinely greedy, evil person advised you to do so?

Who cares who advised you to do it? Of course the beneficiaries for good deeds are going to include evil people. Most people aren't all that bothered about this.


So, what happens to the guy on top? Because you can wish well and mean the sweet things all you want but if all of your decisions ultimately turn to ill, causing more Evil than Good, how does that effect your alignment, if at all? The material effects are obvious; revolts and such, possibility of civil war, etc. and it's not like everyone can afford to have legions of trustworthy Paladins roaming about and 'purifying' the land. :smallannoyed:

I think the only answer to that is that governing a country is not a fun job. Things will go wrong, and you will get blamed for them. That's just how it is.


PS: If you think about it, a lot of 'Good' factions are normally churches, all of which have a surprisingly large stranglehold on societies and governments at large. Makes you wonder whether or not they're really all that Good.

So you're saying we should assume that they're evil because they're religious and powerful? Doesn't sound a very good approach to ethics to me.

- Saph

[PnP Fan]

"So let's stop for a moment; is this a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? Sending troops to stop Orcs killing innocents? Probably a good thing. But doing it also because a genuinely greedy, evil person advised you to do so? Is this a win-win or are their repercussions here?"

This is a win-win. Suppose there is an evil mercant in the area that doesn't have the king's ear. He still benefits from this action (and the intent of the good king) whether he influences the act or not. Even if the king is being influenced to steer troops away from more troubled lands, that just means he's not very wise, nothing to do with his intent or the purpose of the action (to defend peasants).

"he is ultimately responsible for these questionable characters being there in the first place. "

Sure, he's responsible for the questionable character being there in the first place, but he's not responsible for that questionable character's questionable character, assuming he had no foreknowledge of the questionable character. Foreknowledge complicates things, but it's probably reasonable to assume that a king/baron probably doesn't know the thousands of men under his control personally. I would say that responsibility for the acts lies on the head of y'know the people who performed the evil acts. I know here in the States this sometimes seems like a strange idea. . . criminals responsible for crimes, but the king did not give them orders to rape/pillage/etc. . . so he can hardly be responsible for their actions. "It's not my fault I'm here and chose to rape/pillage, it's the king's fault!" Works to some degree in America, but not likely in a feudal kingdom. However, disciplinary action, or the existence of a discipline system lies squarely on his shoulders. Are people going to blame the king? probably. That's public relations for you. Unless the people can recognize that the soldiers are not acting on the king's wishes, they probably will blame the king. Blame is not the same as responsibility.

"Our modern views ( and by extension D&D's ) of morality "

I'm not entirely sure that something as cut and dried /black and white as d&d morality in any way reflects modern moral philosophies. It's functional for a game, and helps as an RP tool, but Monte Cook is not E. Kant. (first one that came to mind)

The guy on top? He suffers or succeeds at the will of the people. If they like his rule, then he does well. If people starve/raided by orcs/raped by soldiers often enough, then they may rise up in revolt, or perhaps migrate to a better ruler (regardless of the kings alignment). A moral king, may have a just kingdom, but if he's incompetent, then he loses his kingdom. An immoral king can lose his kingdom in the same fashion. I'm not sure that morality plays into the economic/political success of a kingdom (except that good guys really have to be three or four steps ahead of the bad guys to prevent being put into those moral grey areas).

A couple of intellectual notes:
The italian's name is Machiavelli, and he wrote The Prince. Interesting historical note, he was a FAILED ruler. He controlled a city state or something, and he was eventually ousted because he sucked at ruling. So I wouldn't rely on his advice tooooooo much.

I applaud your consistency, but the word is regent, not reagent.

[Emperor Tippy]

Machiavelli never actually ruled. He was exiled though.

[Yahzi]

Machiavelli never actually ruled. He was exiled though.
"The Prince" was actually a job application.

You think it's hard to get a job now... try getting a job as a political advisor in those days.

:smallbiggrin:

[Emperor Tippy]

"The Prince" was actually a job application.

You think it's hard to get a job now... try getting a job as a political advisor in those days.

:smallbiggrin:

I know. I did a 4,000 word essay on the ways in which to rule and Machiavelli's views in particular for my IB extended essay. It was quite interesting actually.

[Goober4473]

I find morality impossible to discuss in terms of D&D alignment. I'm personally very philosophical, to the extent that I can no logner run games with normal D&D alignments. I've switched to a no-alignment system, where smite and such work based on concepts of evil and wrong, and what the user believes as opposed to what his/her target(s) believe(s). Someone who would be evil in the eyes of your religion, philosophy, or outlook on life are called abominations. Therefore, abilities are renamed smite abomination, detect abomination, etc.

As for the guy at the top in that situation, he did nothing wrong by either real or D&D standards. He listened to the advice of a morally corrupt person, but that doesn't mean the advice is inherrently bad. If a demon tells you to help someone, and you do it, it's still good. Just like the best lies are almost entirely true, so too are the worst villains often doing something right. Like a priest who helps people all the time, and has changed many peoples' lives for the better, but molests children. Sure, he's hideously evil, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done anything good, and you should just ignore everything he's ever said.

Just because it turned out bad and the idea came from someone evil doesn't mean the decision itself was wrong.

[Paragon Badger]

If you ever read the book 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms', you'll come out if it seeing three distinct leadership styles.

Cao Cao, who is probably Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral in D&D talk (I think he gets a bad rep from all the propoganda though. :()

Cao Cao institutionalized a nation-wide agricultural system which brought much needed food to a starving civilization. But he was not above commisioning...ie: forcing, peasants to do labor. One particular antecdote, before he began to lead armies... Cao Cao was on the run, being a wanted traitor for attempting to assasinate the UBER evil tyrant Dong Zhuo. He and a friend enter his uncle's house. The uncle has his family prepare a meal for Cao Cao, while he goes out to fetch something. Cao Cao overhears the family saying "Bind before killing, eh...?" from the next room. He talks it over with his friend, and they both come flying into the room, and murder the whole household. They find out, later, that the family was talking about a pig...which was for dinner.

Cao Cao and his friend flees the scene, but meet his uncle on the road. Cao Cao lets the uncle go back to his home, pauses for a moment, then strikes down his uncle. After escaping enemy territory, Cao Cao raised a coalition to put an end to Dong Zhuo's tyranny. Now...had he been a nice guy and allowed his uncle to live, he surely would have taddled, and Cao Cao would not be around to use his charisma to bring together all the warlords to stop Dong Zhou. ;-)

Next, is Liu Bei... who is probably Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good.

Liu Bei is routinely too good for his own good... no pun intended. He refuses help so many times it's not even funny. Tao Qian begged Liu Bei to take control of his lands, instead of Tao Qian's sons. Liu Bei refused, not wanting to insult the sons. For the longest time, Liu Bei had no base of operations, and since his ultimate goal was to restore the righteous Han Dynasty, he was setting himself back. And it was clear that Liu Bei, when he governed, made the world a better place. Later on, Liu Bei is forced to flee a city as he is pursued by Cao Cao. The entire city's population packs up their bags to follow him, because they love him so much. He slowed down his troops for them, and left himself open to Cao Cao's attack. He could have surrendered, sparing the civilians from being slaughtered in the attack, but he would sacrifice his endgame: restoring the Han Dynasty. He didn't surrender though... so Liu Bei moved 5 points towards evil, but 20 points towards good. ;-)

Then there is Sun Quan, who is probably a True Neutral character, mainly because the novel overlooks him as being the 'third wheel' in the whole Cao Cao vs. Liu Bei plot. :smallfurious: :smallfrown:

He brings great economic and agricultural boom to his lands, and while he did attack Cao Cao and Liu Bei, I did not get the impression that he ever let himself get into a possession where he would need to sacrifice something in order to do it. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, he is extremely selective about who he hires. He makes sure that he does not appoint anyone who is corrupt.

Unfortunately, one of his heirs is the most corrupt person of all the book. >_>

You can Wikipedia the three characters here for more info. All in all, it's a great book if you want to read up on leadership styles.

[Dervag]

D&D morality is not real-world morality.

Also, D&D morality is action-based, not consequence- or intent-based. If I run across a group of kobolds, I am fully expected to condem them to death. This is a Good act, because kobolds are Evil.Actualy, there's a lot of argument over this point. Most people here would contend that it is not necessarily a Good act to kill an Evil creature, or, presumably, vice versa.


So, if the Regents direct actions were intending to protect life (i.e. sending a garrison of troops to protect against raids), then he is Good. If that garrison falls in with the orcs and murders the entire town in it's sleep, thems the breaks, results don't count. Oh, wait, intent doesn't count either. So I guess it would be Neutral, because the regent didn't actually do anything himself.Who says intent doesn't count? Or, for that matter, results?


2 can there actually be a "good" ruler that is also effective?
there was an Italian that wrote a body of essays on this subject called The Prince I tend to read it as saying: You sometimes have to be evil to do good.I'd say that there can be an effective good-aligned leader- one whose motivations are benevolent and whose tactics are essentially clean. Machiavelli was writing a strategy guide for dictators, and he was writing in a society where it was widely accepted that the strong would do what they wanted to the weak. So the generalizations he makes about statesmanship are not necessarily true.


Good people shouldn't be running kingdoms in D&D. They can't make the decisions necessary and stay good.I suspect that this view is based on a conflation of the paladin code with the code required to maintain good alignment, and on the philosophical assumption that there can be situations where it would be D&D-evil to carry out any of the available courses of action.

I would argue that the conflation is a mistake- the fact that a paladin isn't allowed to do something doesn't mean that a generic good-aligned character isn't, or that they will immediately become neutral or evil for doing such a thing occasionally.

And I would argue that the philosophical assumption is also a mistake, because it breaks the duality of good and evil, which is a fundamental assumption in D&D. The idea that a person can be in a situation where they cannot choose to do anything but good seems rather silly (if nothing else, they can spitefully choose the option that does the least good). And in D&D, where good and evil are mirror images (or, for that matter, in any philosophical system where evil is anti-good and vice versa), if you can always choose evil you can always choose good.


The best you can hope for on the good/evil axis is a neutral guy with good tendencies. The best for the kingdom as a whole is a neutral evil guy who will do whatever is necessary to protect the kingdom.More or less by definition, a neutral evil character is one who will hurt the large for the sake of the small. This is not compatible with good government; taken to its logical conclusion it leads to kleptocracy or mad despotism.

I would say that it is possible to rule a country fairly well by being a good-aligned person who commits a variety of neutral acts, and perhaps, but by no means necessarily, a very rare evil act.

Of course, this is not the norm. Many politicians become morally neutral or evil over time, simply because it is expedient for them to do so. Politics is corrosive to the soul.

[Stephen_E]

D&D morality is not real-world morality.


This statement is one of the biggest red herrings in DnD alignment discussions.

Why?

Because while DND morality isn't identical with RL morality it is based of RL morality, taking in the circumstances of the society people are playing in.

RL warzone morality is different from RL non-warzone civilian morality, but they work from the same rules, and so does DnD. They can't do anything else because DnD is made by and played by, humans, and our morality systems are largely inherent to us. They're patterned on how we approach things.

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

It's probably best to ignore the concept of 'alignment' entirely if you want to move to a discussion of morality.
Like many others, I loathe the black/white alignment system, which simply doesn't fit in with a 'grey' world.

You can either try to apply 'D&D morality' and try to estimate where something is 'good' and where is has become 'evil', or you can apply real-world morality to it and - depending on your person - that might turn out to be an easier method of evaluating morality.
Of course, it messes the entire paladin concept up most.


Gahhh...
DnD isn't a black/white alignment system!
Aside from having this whopping big zone called NEUTRAL, which by the way is ussually described as the most common alignment for humans, it also has huge variability within the various alignments. There isn't ONE way of been LG, and there is varying degrees within LG or any other alignment. And since single acts don't switch your alignment (unless we're talking about putting on a helm of opposite alignment) there is no particular need to get bent out of shape about attaching alignments to single acts (unless we're talking about Paladins, and they occupy a zone all of their own in discussions). For general purposes you attach a general alignment zone to a situation (act + intent) + (result+ response to result).

As for applying RL morality to these sitiations. Works fine so long as you make some minor allowances for differences in cultural/society.
As far as I can see one of the major problems people have mixing RL morality with the DnD alignment system is that a significant chunk of the posters here are "evil". They don't consider themselves "evil". They don't cackle over conquering the world and can be ok guys and decent friends, but they're "evil". They don't like to consider they're evil but by DnD morality AND RL morality they're "evil". If you don't like taking a hard look at yourself and what you support and accepting that you may do small evils or support big evils then I suggest you either change your actions and what you support or suck it up and face what you are. (of course a feature of evil is to insist that it's not really "evil").

The only time DnD gets black/white over evil is with the detection spells, and those who take the time to read the damned things would be well aware that even those are so far from black/white it isn't funny.

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

Good people shouldn't be running kingdoms in D&D. They can't make the decisions necessary and stay good. The best you can hope for on the good/evil axis is a neutral guy with good tendencies. The best for the kingdom as a whole is a neutral evil guy who will do whatever is necessary to protect the kingdom.

Government is and always has been a dirty business, those who can't make the tough choices inevitable cause a lot of problems for their nation.

This old hoary. I swear the original pusher of this line must of been a politician.

"Good" doesn't equal "wishywashy"

Making tough decision requires fortitude. Has nothing to do with Good/evil. The reason leaders tend not to be good has more to do with Acton's quote "Power tends to corrupt" (I won't bother with the 2nd part of the quote because no leader has absolute power). Good leaders generally need more fortitude than evil leaders because they have tougher decisions, but that doesn't mean they can't make them.

Stephen

[PnP Fan]

My apologies, it's been at least 10 years since I'd cracked open my copy of The Prince, and indeed, he was a leader, of soldiers, not of a city state. He was in fact ousted, but not (necessarily) for leading poorly. He happened to be on the losing side in a war. And indead, as Yazhi points out, it was a job application of sorts. oops!

Interestingly enough, he published another work before he died that doesn't seem to get nearly as much press as The Prince, called "Discourse on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy", or sometimes just the Discoursi. Apparently the Discoursi, from the brief clippings one can get off of Wiki, entails a somwhat more humane, democratic form of government that is preferrable to one run by the Prince. So, my guess is that Machiavelli wrote the Prince in an appeal to the Medici sense of rulership. Though I don't think he got the job, since he finished out his life in exile. I may have to go read this Discoursi thing.

Oh, and for those of you interested, there are some nice bits of prose attributed to Machiavelli in the wiki article.

[Emperor Tippy]

Discorsi is an interesting read but it and the prince are not mutually exclusive. They deal with different forms of government and different ideas. The Prince focuses primarily on personal leadership and how to run a country when you are an absolute monarch. Discorsi deals with setting up a functional republic and the benefits of it.

Discorsi is much more idealized than The Prince and both are still relevant today. Anyone who wants to be a halfway decent politician should read and remember The Prince and anyone in power in a republic should know the Discorsi.

IM me and we can have a more nuanced discussion on this but it involves to much real world politics to be debated/discussed here.

[philippos]

PS: If you think about it, a lot of 'Good' factions are normally churches, all of which have a surprisingly large stranglehold on societies and governments at large. Makes you wonder whether or not they're really all that Good. :smallamused:

wasn't there a line in one of the OOTS strips talking about azure city that went something like this "you didn't think a lawfull good kingdom meant free speach did you" only cooler....

my point being, in a world with tangible good and evil, a good group could be tremendously oppresive in an attempt to keep people on the right path. but most donkey-cratic (buro in spanish hehe) systems there is plenty of room for evil or neutral people.

also the ruler's alignment would best be shown in how he/she/it dealt with the new problem of having a group of terrible humans messing up his villages. and of course a Good lord isn't always a good lord. yesno?

[earlblue]

An alignment discussion thread! Alignment arguements has bugged DnD for it long history simply because eveyone tend to forget one basic thing: DnD is written by gamers for gamers and not by a bunch of shrinks.

Of course alignment don't fit into real life because we want to have games, not a lecture or a debate for a degree course.

Given the leader who listen to evil people... who cares if he/she/it can be termed good or evil? Why even bother? Does the king change his alignment because he listen to evil people? Why? Because it is an evil act the people wants him to do or because it is an act wanted by an evil person? Does the king even know that he is talking to an evil person?

If your player characters is casting spells to check alignment, just state whatever alignment you like for the king. You can justify it anyway you like. You can even don't justify it if you like.

In real life, the shrinks can analyze all they like, but even then they can't give you a definite answer as to whether the various leaders of the world can be categorized within the 9 'alignments'. I say, don't bother!

There is also perceptions of the masses. You will be surprise how incompetence can be viewed as 'evil', while competence as 'good'. Or vice versa. If you think that the Law is 'just'... you had another thing coming when you read Law.

Usually, when you called a king 'evil' you are talking about the king and his government. Given that most confused the two as one, and blame (or praise) everything on the king...

The three kingdoms as mentioned before... Cao Cao is indeed a ruthless leader, but under him, his was the largest of all the three kingdoms at the time of his death. Is he evil? Maybe. But his people prosper under him.

And was Liu Bei really too good for his own good? Maybe. But he is also the most shameless of the three - in his earlier years he served under many masters and left them when it befits him. He even surrendered to Cao Cao and later betrayed Cao Cao when it suits him. Hardly what you call a man of integrity. His kingdom prospered as well, but due to his government headed by Zhuge Liang - believed to be the best strategist in China. Was it Liu Bei who was good, or his prime minister, Zhuge Liang?

Sun Quan was not the third wheel, he was the equal of the likes of Cao Cao and Liu Bei. Just because the stories don't write about him, he was not important. He is not as ruthless as Cao Cao, nor as without integrity as Liu Bei, yet he can maintain his kingdom while many others fell before the three. Neutral? Maybe. But he allied with both Cao Cao and Liu Bei (at different times), and betrayed them when it benefits him. Neutral? Hardly.

The qualities of a great leader is difficult to define. Most of the time, you need a bit of ruthlessness, a bit less integrity, need not be the most intelligent but probably has a good dose of charisma. The leader usually strive for 'the greater good'.

Unfortunately, even 'Good' and 'Evil' is not really defined. It changes with time, and the general perception of the people. Even Hitler was hailed as a hero in his heyday.

So why bother to set alignment? Well, for starters, it is for those gamers that just what something simple so that they can just 'state' it, get it done with so that it does not slow the game. It is also for people who just started gaming to have an illusion that the make believe world is black and white (and not the dreadful greyish world we lived in).

It is also a wonderful subject for debates for those who love to argue for the sake of arguing.

It also save a lot of time to write (or type) 'evil' then 'abominations'... :smallbiggrin:

O'BeQuiet UWannabe.

If I kill evil, I'm good. If I kill good, I'm evil. If I kill both good and evil, I must be neutral. If I kill the same number of good and evil, I should be lawful. If I kill without counting... Chaotic Neutral? Aww Nuts!:smallmad: