Help with alignment

[Hukkle]

Hello, I need some help with an alignment :

My new character will be part of a noble family, but this family based its wealth on selling counterfeits goods such as fur or luxury furnitures. My character bas no qualms with it (and is sort of proud of it) however he does it for the good of the people that depend on his family to be able to live. And he would do anything for his people (such as murder and so on).

What would be the alignment that goes with this ? Would lawful neutral be ok with the "breaking the law" of the counterfeits goods ? But also the part about him wanting to do anything for his people makes me think he'll tend towards good alignments which is directly counterbalanced by the fact that he can go up to kill somebody who threatens them.

tl;dr: My character may as well do something at one time and something else directly after that are opposed alignment-wise. How do I know which alignment he is ?

Thank you.

[Newtonsolo313]

sounds like a paragon of chaotic good to me, dnd relies on the assumption that killing for a good cause is not evil and they also explicitly break the law

[Keravath]

Chaotic Good?

Chaotic goes with little respect for the law while Good goes along with generally wanting to help his people. Attacking someone who threatens your people in a significant way could be considered self-defence which can be consistent with a good alignment. Good doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist.

I think Robin Hood got slotted into the Chaotic Good category if you want an example.

[hamishspence]

Generally, if the character is OK with murder (as opposed to killing an aggressor, to defend others from that aggressor), then they're Evil. "Lawful" doesn't have to mean "follows the law" - it can mean "extremely fond of order".

And Evil doesn't have to mean "incapable of doing good" - only that they do Evil acts routinely.

So LE is at least possible, and maybe the best fit.

[nickl_2000]

MHO: Don't bother setting an alignment. Alignment is an abstraction that really no longer has a bearing on the game (certain classes used to have an alignment requirement, it doesn't anymore). If you don't have a clear idea of the alignment then play the character and see how it plays out. You can assign a value as you play the character, or have the DM assign on for you.


If I had to assign a value though I would say Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. You are breaking the law (chaotic) for a good reason (good).

[Man_Over_Game]

An easier way of understanding alignments is to direct it away from the obvious bonds in your life. Even a Chaotic Evil psychopath might still zealously protect what little family he might have left. Just because you have a narrowminded view that you perceive as "good", that doesn't necessarily mean that's your alignment.

Rather, determine your character's values to those who he considers "average".

Does he care about the laws of "average" people? No. In fact, he's proud of the fact that his family breaks them. A Neutral character (on the Law-Chaotic) scale would break the law out of necessity. What you're describing is a career by choice, so you're definitely Chaotic.

Does he care about sacrificing or abusing the "average" people? Not really in either case. He cares about those he has a reason to care about, but he doesn't go out of his way to help anybody else, which is a very Neutral mentality.

Your guy is Chaotic Neutral, unless he's willing to sacrifice for the common folk, which would put him closer to Chaotic Good.

Don't feel bad about that. Han Solo was Chaotic Neutral, too, and he still ended up a hero.

[Malifice]

Chaotic good till you got to the murder bit.

Now CN at best.

[Unoriginal]

Advice one: don't worry about it. It doesn't matter much.

Advice two: Alignment is a description of your *typical* behavior. Being willing to kill in *exceptional* circumstences isn't taken into account.

Advice three: first, determine how "willing to kill for the people you protect" is your character. Are we talking about "kill bandits who are attacking" or more "kill the cops if they find out your counterfeiting business"?

Advice four: people who are not particularly benevolent nor malevolent, and who aren't particularly lawful nor chaotic , are neutral.

[Hukkle]

Thank you everyone for your insights ! I can see more clearly in it now. I think I'll go with Chaotic Neutral then.

[hamishspence]

Thank you everyone for your insights ! I can see more clearly in it now. I think I'll go with Chaotic Neutral then.

Just don't be surprised if the DM changes your alignment at some point after the second or third murder.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just don't be surprised if the DM changes your alignment at some point after the second or third murder.

OP's mention was directly related to his family.

How often was your family threatened by someone you weren't already going to kill in a DnD campaign?

[hamishspence]

OP's mention was directly related to his family.

And the "people who are dependant on" the family:


he does it for the good of the people that depend on his family to be able to live. And he would do anything for his people (such as murder and so on).


If he "murders anyone who tries to bring down the crime ring"


Are we talking about "kill bandits who are attacking" or more "kill the cops if they find out your counterfeiting business"?

because the collapse of the crime ring will impoverish his family's employees, then he's probably closer to Evil than to Neutral.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah, there is a world of difference between "will kill to protect if your people are threatened with death" and "Mafia hitman who handles whoever threaten the family's business".

[Hukkle]

It actually was "In last resort if nothing else will work". He doesn't actively search to break the law outside of his family buiseness.

[Unoriginal]

It actually was "In last resort if nothing else will work". He doesn't actively search to break the law outside of his family buiseness.

That doesn't actually tell us anything. Is your character going to murder people who find out about that illegal business and want to stop it or not?

[Man_Over_Game]

It actually was "In last resort if nothing else will work". He doesn't actively search to break the law outside of his family buiseness.

It's important to note that most people don't actively try to break the law. But a Chaotic person might see a chance to steal an unassuming object if nobody's around to see it, a Neutral person would consider it but probably decide against it, and a Lawful person wouldn't even think about it in the first place.

[hamishspence]

a Chaotic person might see a chance to steal an unassuming object if nobody's around to see it, a Neutral person would consider it but probably decide against it, and a Lawful person wouldn't even think about it in the first place.

With flexible alignment, even LG people can be a little greedy, and occasionally tempted into theft.

(3rd ed gave Tordek the LG dwarf as an example of someone who, despite their Goodness, is greedy enough that might he be tempted to steal under the right circumstances).

[Whit]

Your definitely not lawful by perhaps neutral.
Ask yourself. Does he obey some laws and not others.
Do you use the laws that help you and ignore or skip around the laws that will help others.?
Also just because your chaotic doesn’t mean u turn a blind eye to all laws. U respect laws as long as they don’t tread on what u need to help the greater good.
As for murder. Ask yourself. Would u kill a sheriff or anyone else who would try to stop u or tell on u. If so possible neutral or evil.
Depending on how many version would u kill over trying to not kill and persuade those people.
I would say no to lawful going lawful neutral or lawful evil.
Possible neutral good or chaotic good chaotic neutral. Based on how far would u murder non evil people

[Nifft]

Selling counterfeits is a type of dishonesty, so I'd rule out lawful.

Feeling responsible for (some) people and being willing to go out of your way for them rather than abusing them for your own benefit means you're probably not Evil.

You support some order, but you subvert other order. You help some people, but you also rip off other people. You're out for your friends & allies, and you're not above hurting strangers to benefit your allies & friends. But you're not trying to hurt strangers, you just don't care much about them relative to people you know.

This character seems like a true Neutral to me.

[hamishspence]

You're out for your friends & allies, and you're not above hurting strangers to benefit your allies & friends.

That's pretty compatible with some Evil characters in some editions. They aren't all "purely selfish" after all.

From Savage Species:

An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way - this merely reflects the way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups - brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

[Aimeryan]

Dragging this from my post in another thread - here is what the alignments mean as my group plays with them:

Good-Evil

Good means to desire a world with in which there is as much pleasure and joy and as little pain and misery as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Good will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pain and misery, and/or, attempt to increase overall pleasure and joy.

Neutral (Good-Evil) means to either have no desire in particular for a world full of pleasure and joy, or pain and misery, or has the desire to keep these in as equal balanced as possible. Someone who is Neutral in this regard will make no actively consistent attempt to drive the world towards one or the other, although they may passively or inconsistently do so.

Evil means to desire a world with in which there is as much pain and misery and as little pleasure and joy as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Evil will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pleasure and joy, and/or, attempt to increase overall pain and misery.


It should be noted that such alignments refer only to how such an entity treats the world and other entities in general. Those that the entity considers themselves personally close to may get very different treatment - this is why most people would not be Good, because while most people want pleasure and joy for themselves and their family and friends, they generally don't care enough to actively and consistently desire and take action to bring this about for everyone.

If the scale was instead continuous, most people would fall somewhere between Neutral and Good since most do have some desire and take some action to help others find pleasure and joy and avoid pain and misery.

It should probably also be noted that actions that bring about pleasure and joy or pain and misery without desire would not in itself make for a Good/Evil entity; an example here would be a wild animal looking to survive - it may kill and eat villagers, but it is not Evil unless it also desires the pain and misery that it causes. Of course, as desire can be difficult to determine while actions are usually more obvious, it tends to be only practical to make decisions about such an entity from its actions alone. However, learning what motivates the entity often leads to a solution that is more Good in the long term (in this case, providing a natural habitat for the animal that is sectioned off from population centres, rather than hunting the animals into extinction).



Lawful-Chaotic

Lawful means to be strongly ordered, to strongly follow patterns and structures, to have a routine and remain disciplined enough to keep to it, to have a code. It does not mean necessarily to follow the laws of the land, although most Lawful entities will likely attempt to do so if they have no particular reason not to out of respect for the general principle. Someone who is Lawful will not easily change their actions once they have committed themselves to following through if it follows their code, even if they currently dislike it.

Neutral (Lawful-Chaotic) means to generally have order and routine, however, such things remain flexible and breakable with some motivation. Someone who is Neutral in this regard likes and sees the benefit of being organised and having plans, but also sees the benefit of being adaptable to the situation at hand. Someone who is Neutral in this regard will tend to think somewhat ahead and make some consideration of possible future outcomes, but will not dedicate themselves to doing so.

Chaotic means to be lack order and routine, to do whatever seems best at the time without taking the time or effort to think ahead. Someone who is Chaotic will easily break oaths and promises, probably without thinking about it.


It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that someone who is Lawful will be strongly disciplined, and with such ordered minds they must be someone who thinks far ahead and sees the big picture, forming grand plans and strategies and coming up with the best solutions. However, someone who is Lawful can very easily be closed-minded and refuse to consider other opinions - strong-willed and adamant are words that come to mind. Hence, a Lawful entity can be a master strategist, but they need not be.

Likewise, it is easy to think someone who is Chaotic would always be very unpredictable, however, since they will generally do what they think is best in the moment it is possible to make them very predictable - as long as you know what they would consider is best at any particular juncture. This means leading a Chaotic entity a specific path through a cleverly-crafted maze could be easier than that of a Lawful entity, who may think things through and consider it is being lead. Similarly, with propaganda. However, for the most part, lacking a specific routine means a Chaotic entity will be unpredictable.

~~~

For your character, I would go with True Neutral:


Good-Evil scale: He does not desire the spreading pleasure and joy to everyone, just those he considers close. This is typical behaviour for most people, although the number of people he considers 'close' may be larger than it would for most people. This means he wouldn't really fit into Good. He does not desire pain and misery for anyone or most everyone in particular, which means he wouldn't really fit into Evil. Like most people he is Neutral on this scale.


Lawful-Chaotic scale: He has long-term plans and seems capable of following them - he is probably not Chaotic, although there is not enough information to say for sure. He is possibly Lawful, given that he seems to have some code, however, you suggest he may be changeable in his behaviour and in either case you don't describe him as being routine and particularly apt to following the code to the letter. Like most people he is Neutral on this scale.

[Nifft]

That's pretty compatible with some Evil characters in some editions. They aren't all "purely selfish" after all.

From Savage Species:

An evil character or creature can be a loving parent (such as Grendel's mother) a faithful spouse, a loyal friend, or a devoted servant without diminishing their villainy in any way - this merely reflects the way in which people compartmentalize their lives and the fact that they behave in different ways toward different groups - brutalizing those they consider beneath them but treating their peers and loved ones with respect and affection.

Technically I guess you have a point, but I'd draw a big thick line between selling overpriced merchandise to strangers vs. brutalizing strangers.

I think the degree of harm is a factor which must be considered when you're talking about Evil.

[hamishspence]

Evil means to desire a world with in which there is as much pain and misery and as little pleasure and joy as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome. Someone who is Evil will actively and consistently attempt to limit overall pleasure and joy, and/or, attempt to increase overall pain and misery.
Personally I think this is far too narrow.

Very few evil characters believe that Bad Is Good and Good Is Bad (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadIsGoodAndGoodIsBad), or actively seek to create a Dystopia (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DystopiaJustifiesTheMeans).


Technically I guess you have a point, but I'd draw a big thick line between selling overpriced merchandise to strangers vs. brutalizing strangers.

Murdering strangers who are trying to prevent you from selling fake merchandise, is pretty brutal.

[Man_Over_Game]

Determining Good vs. Evil in DnD terms became a lot easier for me once I thought about it in terms of Sacrifice vs. Abuse.

Do you tend to sacrifice for strangers (either with gold, time, work)? Is the common man someone you have hope for, that you're willing to invest in? Then you're Good!

Do you tend to abuse strangers (either by extortion, theft, blackmail)? Is the common man a resource for your gains, nothing more than something to benefit your life or something in your way? Then you're Evil!

Are neither of these two beliefs true? Then you're Neutral!


For the Law vs. Chaotic argument, just replace Common Man with Common Law, and you're golden.

[Unoriginal]

Very few evil characters believe that Bad Is Good and Good Is Bad (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadIsGoodAndGoodIsBad), or actively seek to create a Dystopia (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DystopiaJustifiesTheMeans).

The questions are "good for whom?", and "dystopia for whom?"

Most D&D bad guys know they are bad persons. They just think it's the best thing for them, as in the thing that bring them the most pleasure and benefits.


Hobgoblins have no illusion they're brutal slavers. Yuan-ti in doomsday cults know they're ruining the world for others. Liches eat souls and (un)live it well.

[hamishspence]

Most D&D bad guys know they are bad persons. They just think it's the best thing for them, as in the thing that bring them the most pleasure and benefits.

They generally don't see "increase in overall pain and misery" or "reduction in overall joy and happiness" as desirable ends in themselves, unless they're followers of deities that do.

A cleric of Loviatar (sworn enemy of Lliira, goddess of joy), might seek to "reduce joy and happiness overall, even their own joy and happiness" but not an average villain.

[Unoriginal]

They generally don't see "increase in overall pain and misery" or "reduction in overall joy and happiness" as desirable ends in themselves, unless they're followers of deities that do.

Well, no, they want "increase in their personal joy and happiness, even if it includes increase in their opponents' pain and misery", like most everyone.

Even demons aren't going to destroy you just to augment the level of pain and misery. They migth destroy you to advance their goals, or because it provide them momentary pleasure, or because they're curious, or angered, or ... but in the end they still think doing it will benefit them if they do it.

[hamishspence]

Well, no, they want "increase in their personal joy and happiness, even if it includes increase in their opponents' pain and misery", like most everyone.

Even demons aren't going to destroy you just to augment the level of pain and misery.


But what was being argued (and I was arguing against) was:


Evil means to desire a world with in which there is as much pain and misery and as little pleasure and joy as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome.

[Naanomi]

Gehenna and Carceri are the Outer Planes most often associated with organized crime; leads me to look at NE with LE or CE possible. Just from the description though it sounds like CN (of the ‘chaotic, but sometimes Good and sometimes Evil’ variety)


MHO: Don't bother setting an alignment. Alignment is an abstraction that really no longer has a bearing on the game (certain classes used to have an alignment requirement, it doesn't anymore).
Not exactly true... http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[hamishspence]

Gehenna and Carceri are the Outer Planes most often associated with organized crime; leads me to look at NE with LE or CE possible.

In 5e, the archdevil Glasya ran the biggest crime ring in the Nine Hells.

It was, if I remember rightly, a gold counterfeiting ring, no less - with her making vast amounts of fake (magically altered, eventually transforming back into original lead form) coins.

[Aimeryan]

Personally I think this is far too narrow.

Very few evil characters believe that Bad Is Good and Good Is Bad (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadIsGoodAndGoodIsBad), or actively seek to create a Dystopia (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DystopiaJustifiesTheMeans).

In the real world, I would agree - there would be very little 'Evil' since most people who would be considered evil are just selfish and willing to harm even if they didn't particular have a desire to do so. The uncaring CEO who greedily cons entire populaces out of what little resources they have wouldn't particular desire to create pain and misery, they simply don't care that they do. Pretty much as close to evil as we get in this world, however.

In D&D, this is pretty much exactly what Evil means. It is so narrow, yet entire races still fall into it. There is even energy specific to the function. D&D is that black and white.

[hamishspence]

In D&D, this is pretty much exactly what Evil means.

Which book states that, or states that it is impossible to be evil without holding the aforementioned desire to "make the world worse"?

Given the number of D&D books that have had Evil "well-intentioned extremist" characters - I think it's highly atypical of D&D in general.

[Unoriginal]

But what was being argued (and I was arguing against) was:


Evil means to desire a world with in which there is as much pain and misery and as little pleasure and joy as possible, and to take action to achieve this outcome.

I didn't disagree with that, I just wanted to make an addendum.



In 5e, the archdevil Glasya ran the biggest crime ring in the Nine Hells.

She STILL runs it. In fact she is Hell's premier criminal mastermind and mob boss.



It was, if I remember rightly, a gold counterfeiting ring, no less - with her making vast amounts of fake (magically altered, eventually transforming back into original lead form) coins.

That was just one time.

She used a loophole in Hell's law: as long as the gold was minted into coin legally, it is legal money. So she used it to buy a ridiculous amount of souls before it turned back into lead.

[hamishspence]

She STILL runs it. In fact she is Hell's premier criminal mastermind and mob boss.

Which may be a good reason:


Gehenna and Carceri are the Outer Planes most often associated with organized crime; leads me to look at NE with LE or CE possible.

to add Baator to "planes most often associated with organized crime".

[Naanomi]

Baator has many mobsters, but tends to attract the leadership... those who profit by exploiting the systems of organized crime. Ghennah has always been the main home of the ‘anything for ‘the family’; no matter the cost to outsiders’ rank-and-file mob family guys; whereas Carceri has the common criminals who fall into such groups as a place to profit from their violent urges and depravity but without much real loyalty to the group.

Of course, all of the Lower Planes (and likely many others) are homes to criminals of this kind; I was talking in generalities not absolutes

[Nifft]

In the real world, I would agree - there would be very little 'Evil' since most people who would be considered evil are just selfish and willing to harm even if they didn't particular have a desire to do so. The uncaring CEO who greedily cons entire populaces out of what little resources they have wouldn't particular desire to create pain and misery, they simply don't care that they do. Pretty much as close to evil as we get in this world, however.

In D&D, this is pretty much exactly what Evil means. It is so narrow, yet entire races still fall into it. There is even energy specific to the function. D&D is that black and white.

Mmm, not so sure that real life would lack evil.

We see plenty of people who troll, which is to say they seek to incite negative emotions for no personal gain other than enjoying the unhappiness of others. We have no lack of bullies, no shortage of sadists, no absence of abusers. You talk about the banality of apathy, but in real life there are those who push others down intentionally, because harming others is how they feel better.

We see plenty of people who say they want to see more ________ tears, where ________ is some group of people. Not acting in spite of those tears, but specifically to cause them.

Even by a strict definition -- acting only to immiserate others -- we'd have evil in real life.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Your family's lifestyle involves deceiving people, which is dishonest and probably illegal. And you're proud of that. You're also willing to commit murder to protect your family's lifestyle. Not killing in self-defense or defense of others from imminent harm, but murder. That's also usually illegal. Now, Lawful can also mean adherence to internal codes and principles, but that doesn't seem to be a central aspect of your character. I'd have trouble describing you as anything other than Chaotic.

Counterfeiting harms the economic wellbeing of those you con; it's basically theft. It may also harm society as a whole (what happens to the economy if you can't trust the person you're doing business with?). And, again, murder - see above. You're ending someone's life as a means to your own ends. Given that you're not apparently interested in finding a less harmful way to make a living, I'd say that makes you more Evil than Neutral. I agree with Hamishspence - you don't have to be a cackling moustache-twirler to be Evil.

So: Chaotic Evil. Not that there's anything wrong with that. My most recent character was Lawful Evil and she was a hero. Well, a protagonist. I mean, she cared about her party members. Look, compared to Strahd, she looked pretty good, OK?

[Nifft]

And he would do anything for his people (such as murder and so on).

I missed this the first time through.

Have you actually murdered others to protect your family's interests?

[Lunali]

Build the character, decide the motivations and how the character will behave, decide alignment based on what happens after the game starts.

[Malifice]

OP's mention was directly related to his family.

How often was your family threatened by someone you weren't already going to kill in a DnD campaign?

If you're prepared to murder someone who has threatened your family (and I'm talking murder here, not lawful killing in self defence), then yes, you're evil.

Good and Neutral people dont respond to threats with murder, torture and rape.

If there was an imminent threat to your family, and that threat required the appliation of force (inlcuding lethal force) to stop, then sure.

But If I threaten your sister, and you respond by breaking into my home at night, and stabbing me to death, you're an evil man, and you will go to prison.

[Malifice]

Im somewhat reminded of Arya Stark.

Winterfell Arya was very much CG. A rebel against her family and expectations of society who is otherwise a good and caring person.

Arya slowly matures into a very different alignment. Her interactions with the Hound, the loss of her father, mother and brother and her training with the Faceless men change her.

Post Faceless men training in GoT, she's clearly NE.

She still likes her family (Jon Snow in particular; Bran and Sansa less so), and is protective over them, but she is consumed by vengance and will mercilessly murder (and worse) anyone who has harmed her or slighted her in the past (inlcuding slaughtering their whole house if need be).

She is now cold, merciless, pscyhopathic and evil. She murdered two brothers, cut them into little pieces, cooked them into a pie, and fed that pie to their father, simply to cause him suffering as he died (she murdered him). She then arranges for his entire family to attend a feast, and murders them (also mocking them coldly as they died).

If you've wronged her (or even if you're simply related to someone who has wronged her) she will murder you with no compassion or remorse. If (in her eyes) you're innocent she'll leave you alone.

[Nifft]

She is now cold, merciless, pscyhopathic and evil. She murdered two brothers, cut them into little pieces, cooked them into a pie, and fed that pie to their father, simply to cause him suffering as he died (she murdered him). She then arranges for his entire family to attend a feast, and murders them (also mocking them coldly as they died).

I don't remember that from the books -- was that an HBO innovation?

Either way, that's Cartman levels of evil.

[Unoriginal]

I don't remember that from the books -- was that an HBO innovation?

Either way, that's Cartman levels of evil.

To be 100% fair, that dude, his sons and most of his family had slaughtered her family and their bannermen in frong of her while under the rules of hospitality. The only reason they hadn't been destroyed yet was because they had powerful allies, and even them thought the old man was scum.

She made sure of not hurting one hair of the ones who weren't involved in the slaughter, even if they were part of the family.

[hamishspence]

I don't remember that from the books -- was that an HBO innovation?


It was - sort of.

The books made allusions to the same basic event (boys have disappeared, pie has been served, though the reveal about the nature of the pie has not yet taken place) however, the person behind that, is strongly implied to be Lord Manderly. At the moment, Arya is still in Braavos.

Lame Lothar and Black Walder (adults) were the ones cooked in the series, but the ones who disappeared and are implied to have been cooked in the book, if I remember rightly, were children.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're prepared to murder someone who has threatened your family (and I'm talking murder here, not lawful killing in self defence), then yes, you're evil.
Nope. That's standard defense of heath and home. This "lawful killing in self defense" fantasy you have is such a narrow edge case that you seem to Have To Let The Aggressor Strike First. It's not even a universal position: you are pretending that your opinion is a universal truth. It is not.

1. I don't think you have thought through this far enough, even though I am aware of what you do and what your general attitude is on such things.
2. In D&D, more often violent conflict resolution is acceptable than IRL. D&D isn't reality.


Im somewhat reminded of Arya Stark.. What Arya did was both Revenge and Justice, for the unanswered atrocity/massacre that happened at the Red Wedding. Remember: the World of Westeros no longer has law and order.
It is beyond the wild west. There isn't a court to appeal to, nor a cop to arrest Walder. Justice thus comes in different forms.

Will she get a come uppance? No idea, Martin will probably never finish the damned books.

In your moralizing, try not to pretend that Westeros is 2018, Sydney Australia. It isn't.

[Nifft]

To be 100% fair, that dude, his sons and most of his family had slaughtered her family and their bannermen in frong of her while under the rules of hospitality. The only reason they hadn't been destroyed yet was because they had powerful allies, and even them thought the old man was scum.

She made sure of not hurting one hair of the ones who weren't involved in the slaughter, even if they were part of the family.


It was - sort of.

The books made allusions to the same basic event (boys have disappeared, pie has been served, though the reveal about the nature of the pie has not yet taken place) however, the person behind that, is strongly implied to be Lord Manderly. At the moment, Arya is still in Braavos.

Aah, those guys.

I suspect their deaths could be framed as the enactment of lordly justice.

Not sure how the pie thing could be framed as non-wicked, but the murder appellation might be inappropriate at least.

[hamishspence]

Nope. That's standard defense of heath and home.

Killing somebody that is on the brink of "uncovering your criminal enterprise" is not standard defense of health and home.

Murder has, throughout D&D editions, been consistently defined as Evil. However, some editions have blurred the definition of murder.

[Unoriginal]

Killing someone for interfering with your family's illegal enterprise is on the "Goodfellas" category, not the "Robin Hood" one.

Basically, when you're watching as Robert de Niro and Joe Pesci are murdering the man in your cat's truck and you're narrating about how you always wanted to be a gangster, you're clearly on the evil side.

[hamishspence]

What Arya did was both Revenge and Justice, for the unanswered atrocity/massacre that happened at the Red Wedding.

Justice might be killing him quietly. Feeding his children to him, and then letting him know it, goes way beyond justice.


Apparently three of the "disappeared Freys" were adults (Jared, Symond, Rhaegar), at least - it's not confirmed if Little Walder Frey was killed by Manderly, or was in the pie.