PDA

View Full Version : What's the Alignment?



Icewalker
2007-11-25, 02:43 AM
I've got an interesting moral puzzle, and I'm not sure of the alignment.

The person is willing to go to any extent, including killing huge numbers of people, to stop the forces of evil and chaos from overrunning a world of every alignment.


Basically, the scenario: there is a (in terms of alignment) most standard dnd world, in that it has every alignment, it is no shining utopia, but no horrible corrupt world either. There are evil societies and good societies, as well as neutral societies. A complex alignment mosaic. Demons are coming to wipe out the world and expand their influence of evil and chaos. What would be the alignment of someone willing to kill their own people to win the war.

One key note here is that their goal is not to save the people, or in a way even save the world, it is to win the war at any cost.


In terms of the first portion of alignment (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) I think it would either be variable, or lawful. Lawful makes sense because the idea of doing anything to win seems like it would force one to follow logical rules, although this may be a weak enough connection that somebody following this idea would be able to be lawful, neutral, or chaotic, and that part doesn't matter.

The second part of alignment is the real problem. Good, Neutral, or Evil. This person has no qualms about sacrificing innumerable innocent people of any alignment to win a war against evil. This may make them good, for they are trying to defeat evil, but it also makes them evil in a way, for being unhesitantly willing to kill off anyone if it is the correct military decision.


And yes, it is not a coincidence that this post is made 50 minutes after the end of Battlestar Galactica: Razor.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-25, 02:47 AM
There is no way this character could possibly remain good aligned through the course of this. He couldn't be Lawful either, because that would imply having a problem with breaking the rules to get the job done.

So, I'd say he starts Lawful Nuetral or Nuetral, and ends Nuetral Evil.

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 02:48 AM
One issue: breaking what rules? Moral rules? That's good/evil, not lawful/chaotic, I'd say. In fact, if you look at it from a military point of view, he is being extremely lawful, by doing anything required for victory.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-25, 02:50 AM
Any rules. A lawful person lives by a code (of some kind). Which means there are things that a lawful person will not be willing to do. What they are depends on the character, but the OP described a character who would do anything to accomplish his goal of defeating evil. Which means he can't be Lawful (not by the end. He might be at the beginning).

Nerd-o-rama
2007-11-25, 02:57 AM
Necessarily Evil.

Really, probably Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil, if he's really willing to do anything. Killing the spiders to save the butterflies and whatnot.

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 02:58 AM
Well here's another note of mine, which makes the decision harder: no one into another. This is the alignment of a person who is willing to do this, which (IMO) means that it would have to meet with their alignment, whether they actually do it or not. So they don't change upon doing it, whether they do it or not doesn't change who they are, which is somebody who would.

Ok, that didn't make sense. What I'm saying, is I'm looking for one alignment, not somebody who comes in with one and leaves with another. If a person is willing to do something, then their alignment reflects that, whether they actually do it or not.


Well, the ruleset I would say they are following is winning the war, without letting morals get in the way. They will not do things which will be disadvantageous in the war effort.

Ganurath
2007-11-25, 03:02 AM
Methinks Lawful Evil, if only because I know that's what the Ordained Champion / Warpriest of Hextor simmering in the back of my brain would do. Whatever price for victory, make sure there's a world left to conquer, smite chaos...

Dhavaer
2007-11-25, 03:04 AM
Something neutral. Likely Lawful Neutral, that's generally a 'sacrifice the few for the good of the many' alignment.

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 03:06 AM
Of course, they aren't trying to take over afterwards or anything. In a way their lives have been boiled down to winning the war.

Lawful Evil is looking like the answer to me, although an unusual lawful evil.


Although I plan to vary this because it'd be very hard to do in dnd terms, the idea I'm taking from BSG: Razor is basically Razors are soldiers who give up their humanity to win the war. To make the right military decisions over the right moral decisions, and once the war is over, maybe, they will have the chance to try to reclaim their humanity, but if they don't do this, there won't be an after.

Xefas
2007-11-25, 03:08 AM
I'd go with Lawful Evil.

There's already a similar story about that. Asmodeus and his Archons had the task of defeating the primordial demon horde at all costs, so that the very existence of Good could be.

Since this is a far more righteous cause than saving the world, and doing so at any cost still made them Lawful Evil, that so would what this character is trying to do.

Doresain
2007-11-25, 03:13 AM
lawful good shadowbane inquisitor

Ganurath
2007-11-25, 03:14 AM
Although I plan to vary this because it'd be very hard to do in dnd terms, the idea I'm taking from BSG: Razor is basically Razors are soldiers who give up their humanity to win the war. To make the right military decisions over the right moral decisions, and once the war is over, maybe, they will have the chance to try to reclaim their humanity, but if they don't do this, there won't be an after.So... an Ordained Champion, which is essentially a Paladin of Hextor. That PrC is in Complete Champion, and goes great with Warpriest from Complete Divine.

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 03:18 AM
So... an Ordained Champion, which is essentially a Paladin of Hextor. That PrC is in Complete Champion, and goes great with Warpriest from Complete Divine.

I'll have to look into that. I don't have either of those books.

Talic
2007-11-25, 03:21 AM
The concept of victory at any cost is against a following of order. Order means rules, things you will and won't do. There is nothing this guy won't do to win. Period. That's inherently chaotic. Someone who will destroy everything in the world to stop the world from being destroyed is a bit off in the judgement, IMO, definately obsessed. Definately evil.

I would say Neutral Evil with chaotic tendencies, at best. The concept that the ends justify the means is an evil concept.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-25, 03:42 AM
What I'm saying, is I'm looking for one alignment, not somebody who comes in with one and leaves with another. If a person is willing to do something, then their alignment reflects that, whether they actually do it or not.

So what you are saying is that you don't believe moral backsliding exists. That is not the case.

Or perhaps what you are really asking is what alignment is this person (who is already sunken to the point of not caring about who he hurts to accomplish his goal). Evil. Probably nuetral evil.

Dhavaer
2007-11-25, 03:46 AM
So what you are saying is that you don't believe moral backsliding exists. That is not the case.

Or perhaps what you are really asking is what alignment is this person (who is already sunken to the point of not caring about who he hurts to accomplish his goal). Evil. Probably nuetral evil.

I think he's asking about the alignment of a person who has always been willing to do it, but never previously had an opportunity to express it.

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 04:17 AM
Yeah. I understand the possibility for moral change, Dhavaer has it right, I'm looking for somebody who would be willing to do this, not somebody who makes the decision and warps his alignment.

Jannex
2007-11-25, 04:30 AM
My initial impulse was to say Lawful Neutral, because axiomatic goal-orientedness without regard for compassion or decency is very much how I see the Lawful Neutral alignment (and which is why it scares the crap out of me, to be honest). The mission-based ideology is a Lawful Neutral one. Because of this, I don't see the notion that the ends justify the means as an inherently Chaotic or otherwise non-Lawful idea; there is a single overriding rule being followed with that sort of attitude, a rule to which everything else is secondary. "The mission comes first." It comes before the individual, before morality, before the welfare of a fleet of fifteen civilian ships.

On the other hand, some of the acts that may be required in pursuit of that mission would be decidedly Evil in nature, and a sufficient number of them, or even a single sufficiently heinous incident, could push any given individual over the line into Lawful Evil. At the same time, however, the goal is not Evil. The goal is the Mission. The Mission is an amoral, rather than an immoral, ideology; it doesn't care either way about Good or Evil, and if the only way to accomplish the same ends was to donate to charity and save the lives of innocents, it would do that--in pursuit of the Mission.

As such, I would call the philosophy of the Razor a Lawful Neutral one, though the people who follow it may be Lawful Evil. I will say, though, that a Razor is something that one becomes, sometimes gradually, sometimes all at once, but I don't think most of them start out that way. And the line between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil is thin, and can get so very blurry at times...

The_Werebear
2007-11-25, 04:40 AM
Depends on what you mean by "sacrifice innocents"

If you mean literally "use blood to summon extraplanar horde" then Evil.

If you mean "give them all arms and herd them onto the battlefields, that could be practically anything depending on if they are willing or not.

If you mean "You have broken the enemy's code, and learn of two plans. One involves sacking one of your cities, the other involves a troop shift two weeks later that would allow you to attack and sack their capitol city, winning the war. If you defend or evac the city, they know you have broken the code and will not perform the shift. If you don't defend or evac the city, though, the populace is doomed. You can't reinforce the city at all, or you will lose an amount of troops that would make taking their capitol impossible, not to mention the tipping off. Do you sacrifice this city to win the war for the rest of your country?" -
Sacrificing the city to win the war is Lawful Neutral to a tee.

Wraithy
2007-11-25, 05:40 AM
Do you sacrifice this city to win the war for the rest of your country?" -
Sacrificing the city to win the war is Lawful Neutral to a tee.

Well, now we know Winston Churchill's Alignment.


I would say this character is Lawful Neutral too, the person isn't enjoying the decision (or at least it didn't sound like it from your description).
I'd say the line between LN and LE is defined, not by action, but enjoyment of the action. If you sacrifice the city for the greater good, you almost certainly aren't good, if you feel remorse for the sacrificed and hope you never have to let it happen again, you're probably LN, if you regret none of it, would do it again, and maybe enjoyed it a little, that's LE.
so it all depends on how the character feels about the decision, and wether they want to be faced with such a decision ever again.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-25, 05:44 AM
If you mean "You have broken the enemy's code, and learn of two plans. One involves sacking one of your cities, the other involves a troop shift two weeks later that would allow you to attack and sack their capitol city, winning the war. If you defend or evac the city, they know you have broken the code and will not perform the shift. If you don't defend or evac the city, though, the populace is doomed. You can't reinforce the city at all, or you will lose an amount of troops that would make taking their capitol impossible, not to mention the tipping off. Do you sacrifice this city to win the war for the rest of your country?" -
Sacrificing the city to win the war is Lawful Neutral to a tee.

No, it isn't. This is what we call a moral dilemma. A good aligned character might make the call that sacking the capital and ending the war would be worth the lives of the people in the city (greater good and all that). An equally good aligned character might defend the city, because sacrifices are not something that should be imposed on others.

Similarly, a lawful character might choose to save the town. Or he might not. The only alignment for which sacrificing the town is the obvious better choice is evil (especially D&D evil).

Corinthus
2007-11-25, 07:13 AM
My initial impulse was to say Lawful Neutral, because axiomatic goal-orientedness without regard for compassion or decency is very much how I see the Lawful Neutral alignment (and which is why it scares the crap out of me, to be honest). The mission-based ideology is a Lawful Neutral one. Because of this, I don't see the notion that the ends justify the means as an inherently Chaotic or otherwise non-Lawful idea; there is a single overriding rule being followed with that sort of attitude, a rule to which everything else is secondary. "The mission comes first." It comes before the individual, before morality, before the welfare of a fleet of fifteen civilian ships.

On the other hand, some of the acts that may be required in pursuit of that mission would be decidedly Evil in nature, and a sufficient number of them, or even a single sufficiently heinous incident, could push any given individual over the line into Lawful Evil. At the same time, however, the goal is not Evil. The goal is the Mission. The Mission is an amoral, rather than an immoral, ideology; it doesn't care either way about Good or Evil, and if the only way to accomplish the same ends was to donate to charity and save the lives of innocents, it would do that--in pursuit of the Mission.

As such, I would call the philosophy of the Razor a Lawful Neutral one, though the people who follow it may be Lawful Evil. I will say, though, that a Razor is something that one becomes, sometimes gradually, sometimes all at once, but I don't think most of them start out that way. And the line between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil is thin, and can get so very blurry at times...

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. On the subject of "This city or the war", this lawful neutral/evil would sacrifice the city, this being consistant with their code and/or previous actions. Other Alignments may make the same decision, but for different reasons, or make the other decision.
But this particular moral dilemma is one with a clear answer for a lawful neutral/evil dedicated to winning the war

Project_Mayhem
2007-11-25, 07:37 AM
Kinda sounds similar to a WH40K Inquisitor to me, and they're *sort of* good; like having to blow up a planet to prevent ultimate evil spreading.

As for the Dnd alignments, I dunno really - bit too gritty for a black and white view. If I had to choose, depending on the context, and the extent to which it is necassary, I'd say probably Lawful Neutral with good tendancies - even for good reasons, all that death on your hands has got to eventually dehumanise you

Mr.Moron
2007-11-25, 07:37 AM
I've got an interesting moral puzzle, and I'm not sure of the alignment.

The person is willing to go to any extent, including killing huge numbers of people, to stop the forces of evil and chaos from overrunning a world of every alignment.


Basically, the scenario: there is a (in terms of alignment) most standard dnd world, in that it has every alignment, it is no shining utopia, but no horrible corrupt world either. There are evil societies and good societies, as well as neutral societies. A complex alignment mosaic. Demons are coming to wipe out the world and expand their influence of evil and chaos. What would be the alignment of someone willing to kill their own people to win the war.

One key note here is that their goal is not to save the people, or in a way even save the world, it is to win the war at any cost.

Based on your description:

Lawful-Chaotic Axis:

Unknown. Probably somewhere between Neutral and Lawful, depending on how goes about "Sacrificing" these people. If he feels bound to do so by some code or tradition he is lawful. It's on account of some long-standing hatred or personal grudge, it's probably in neutral territory. If it is just because he wants to, and doing so will make him a glorious lord of battle you're in chaotic territory.

In most cases this kind of stuff tends to fall near the Lawful Side of neutral though, especially since it's the "War" he wants to win which shows at least some connection to the forces fighting it.

Good-Evil Axis

Evil, easily. He isn't down at the super pure-evil end of it, but he is solidly evil. He is willing to sacrifice massive amounts of people for no real reason other than to satisfy his own goals. If there was some other motivation behind his wanting to win the war, besides him just wanting to win it he might be able to squeeze into neutral. However, just using lives as tools to achieve what you want is evil.

dfpiii
2007-11-25, 07:48 AM
D&D doesn't distinguish means from ends in terms of good / evil alignment. There's actually a bit about that in one of the goody-goody source books. Basically if your paladin kills one baby to save two babies then he loses his paladin status - no ifs, ands or buts. The act itself was evil.

So your guy is definitely evil.

If he's prepared to do anything to win, then he has no regard for laws - and therefore can't be considered lawful. He's not winning the war for himself - he's just winning it - and pursuing one goal exclusively could be part of any alignment. But if he's not doing it for personal gain, then he's unlikely to be neutral (evil).

I would say chaotic.

Chaotic evil.

And if you wonder who he can organise an army and fight such a war, well, the demons have been doing it forever. :smallbiggrin:

Felius
2007-11-25, 07:49 AM
I'd rule that his actual alignment is decided by his intent and enjoyment of said acts. Before you starting flaming me, let me say that it's not necessarily like everyone else, the world and the gods see him, just as he actually is, and as he would read to spells that read alignment.

Depending on how easy it have became to do evil acts (As in, "I hate myself for it, and my sadness know no bounds but it must be done" compared to "I wish I hadn't to do this, but it must be done" compared to "Ok, another genocide in my account. Ah, who cares." compared to "YAY! Another city to destroy. Who rape, pillage and burn? I do, I do.") and why he wants to win the war above all else (As in, "I want to prevent even more suffering in the long run" compared to "I hate them, I want them ALL dead.") I would rule him from Lawful Neutral borderline good to Fully Lawful Evil, although the Lawful Evil alignment would just be assumed if he likes what he does, or if he he doesn't care and his desire to destroy them comes from hate.

Sorry for the not very readable post. :smallfrown:

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-25, 07:51 AM
He's evil no doubt.
I would say he isn't lawful and putting all your efforts in that non chaotic thing doesn't seem chaotic evil.
So neutral evil.

Kioran
2007-11-25, 08:15 AM
Lawful Evil. He does impose on himself a discipline - Being willing to subject yourself to the same sacrifice as the others, if necessesary, sounds lawful to me. He has made an evil decision, but heīs willing to follow it through till the end, and not even for personal gain(a reason for a chaotic person to follow through), but because it is the goal, reason and justification for all the madness.

That is, if I understood this right. Would he continue with the plan even if succes was not guaranteed? Or if he could very well die in the process?

If the answer to these two is a yes, he is evil. He didnīt ask the sacrifices for their opinion and "tyranically" send them to their death, but heīs abiding by his own twisted rules.

Neon Knight
2007-11-25, 09:25 AM
Lawful Evil. His law? To win the war at any cost.

Satyr
2007-11-25, 10:58 AM
I would base this question on his feelings towards the sacrifices - and the presumption that there is little to no alternative. If he enjoys or just doesn't care about the killed civilians - that's evil. If he thinks about the pros and cons and comes after some long and intensive thinking to the result that the sacrifice is worth the consequences - that's neutral. And if he sacrifices them full of pity and regret and is a self loathing warleader who can't sleep with the decision, even if he knows that it was the only way and he would do it again - than he is good.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-25, 11:36 AM
The really easy way to answer this:

Look at Watchmen's Ozymandias. He's an antivillain who commits the horrific act of killing millions to unite Earth in a more or less permanent way. In my opinion, doing horrible things for a good goal is NOT evil. It implies you can change for good since you're doing it for a good thing in the first place (Unless you use Exalted Good ideas, which are skewed to think of LG as ultimate good, and CE as ultimate evil, and are basically BS). If anything, this guy would be N with an NE bent. Or CN, but NOT Evil outright.

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 03:53 PM
I'd say his opinion falls into one of the categories mentioned by Felius:

"I wish I hadn't to do this, but it must be done"

They are willing to sacrifice morals for victory, so it is basically that idea, except unhesitantly.

They would certainly sacrifice their own life for the cause, and would continue with a plan whether or not success is guaranteed as long as the plan will have a positive outcome in terms of the war, regardless of loss of life.

Burrito
2007-11-25, 05:03 PM
"I wish I hadn't to do this, but it must be done".

How hard is this dude searching for alternatives to what must be done? There is almost never just choice A or B. Lets say I'm a cop, so my job is to keep the public safe and to stop crime. I have more choices than A do nothing, or B immediatly execute anybody I see commit a crime. Lawfulness is not based on personal codes, it is based on societys codes. Doing everything by what you feel is right is chaotic. If you justify it to yourself as "My personal code of lawfullness", that just means you are lawful to youself, everyone else around you will see a lunatic.


"They are willing to sacrifice morals for victory, so it is basically that idea, except unhesitantly.".

Sacrificing morals is what leads to evil. That is why society has morals, to stop evil acts. Besides, ask all the people he is willing to sacrafice, what they think of his plan and goal. I doubt they would approve. I am pretty sure they would be willing to give the bad guys a chance. "Hmmm, die now or maybe die later? I think later."


"They would certainly sacrifice their own life for the cause, and would continue with a plan whether or not success is guaranteed as long as the plan will have a positive outcome in terms of the war, regardless of loss of life.

Sacrificing everyone in town, to save the town.
My vote for this dude, is Chaotic Evil. If his only goal is to win the war, and nothing else that happens matters, as long as he wins. Then most definatly, Chaotic Evil.

And as a post script, this is just my opinion, and just like, uhh ... rectums ... everybody has one, and most people don't really want to see or hear it.

You asked for opinions...on an alingment thread! :) So everything everyone says will be different, even 180 degrees different, and there will be no consensus. My final advice is this. What alignment will work best for this guy in terms of the Story, Campaign, Setting, Whatever? Find what YOU think will work best and go with it.

It kinda sounds like you have an idea of what you want the alingment to be anyway, and just want to try and justify it. Don't. Just do it. Write the dude how you want to write him, and don't worry if he doesn't fit perfectly into one of the "alingment slots".

VanBuren
2007-11-25, 05:33 PM
Now I know there's some hate for NWN2 on this board, but overall I like it. But anyway, there was a character in the game kinda like this.

His name was Ammon Jerro. He's a Warlock. Now, he's set himself against the primary antagonist, the King of Shadows. The King of Shadows is this man who sacrificed his very being to became a human link to the Weave in order to protect Illefarn, but when Karsus broke the Weave, he switched to the Shadow Weave in order to protect Illefarn. Of course then his people saw him a a threat, and he fought back and was imprisoned and defeated twice. The second time by Ammon and his army and the Sword of Gith--which shattered.

Anyway, Ammon reasoned that he had to do anything to stop the King of Shadows. This entailed several things.


Imprisoning several Demons and Devils to empower himself
Selling his soul to a devil in exchange for both power and the location of the Silver Sword
Killing the Githyanki who were after him and all the shard-bearers
Killing all the shard-bearers in order to take thier shards
Killing his own granddaughter when she began releasing the imprisoned fiends (granted, he didn't know her blood relation)


In short, he was willing to sacrifice whoever he needed to--including himself--if it meant stopping the King of Shadows and preventing him from harming a greater number of people.

His alignment? According to the Devs, Neutral Evil.

Jannex
2007-11-25, 05:46 PM
Sacrificing everyone in town, to save the town.
My vote for this dude, is Chaotic Evil. If his only goal is to win the war, and nothing else that happens matters, as long as he wins. Then most definatly, Chaotic Evil.

I certainly don't dispute the Evil descriptor, but I'm kind of curious as to why you would describe a character with this sort of ideology as Chaotic. My opinion, anyway, is that the sort of absolutism the OP describes, without regard for specific circumstance, is a fundamentally Lawful position... So I'm curious as to how you see it.

Nermy
2007-11-25, 06:51 PM
Am I the only one who noticed that the OP almost perfectly describes a Baatezu that's fighting in the Blood War? (Lawful Evil for the record)

Burrito
2007-11-25, 07:01 PM
I certainly don't dispute the Evil descriptor, but I'm kind of curious as to why you would describe a character with this sort of ideology as Chaotic. My opinion, anyway, is that the sort of absolutism the OP describes, without regard for specific circumstance, is a fundamentally Lawful position... So I'm curious as to how you see it.


It is fundamentally Lawful, but ONLY to the character in question. To just about everyone outside of that characters way of thinking it would be pretty chaotic. It may be methodical, and efficient, but that doesn't preclude it from being Chaotic.

Lawful means following laws, and laws are set up by societies, deities, pantheons, kings, village councils, what-have-you. He is following the laws he set up for himself, by himself (it sounds to me anyway), but it also sounds as if he is disregarding everyone and everything else, simply because he has the power to do so. It sounds like the characters "lawfulness" is simply a means to justify his actions, not to serve any other purpose.

Lawfulness is following the same sets of rules as just about everyone else. If everyone had their own absolutism towards following their own sets of beliefs, then the world would be nothing but chaotic anarchy.


"Supreme executive power is derived from a mandate from the masses. Not some farcical aquatic ceremony."

Icewalker
2007-11-25, 07:42 PM
Lawful means following laws, and laws are set up by societies, deities, pantheons, kings, village councils, what-have-you. He is following the laws he set up for himself, by himself (it sounds to me anyway), but it also sounds as if he is disregarding everyone and everything else, simply because he has the power to do so. It sounds like the characters "lawfulness" is simply a means to justify his actions, not to serve any other purpose.

Lawfulness is following the same sets of rules as just about everyone else. If everyone had their own absolutism towards following their own sets of beliefs, then the world would be nothing but chaotic anarchy.

Ah, theres the problem. Not true necessarily.

There is a WotC article, which I don't have a link to, about how being lawful or chaotic is actually removed from societies laws, they are just an easy way to see the persons alignment reflected, sometimes.

in very very short what the article says is that being lawful means that to an extent you prefer order, and will repeat an action in the same circumstances, while chaos is being more wild, varying what you do because thats how you like it.

It is just another possible view, and I'm sure it says it slightly differently and much better than that, but I'd say one can be lawful without obeying the laws of society.

Jannex
2007-11-25, 07:55 PM
It is fundamentally Lawful, but ONLY to the character in question. To just about everyone outside of that characters way of thinking it would be pretty chaotic. It may be methodical, and efficient, but that doesn't preclude it from being Chaotic.

Lawful means following laws, and laws are set up by societies, deities, pantheons, kings, village councils, what-have-you. He is following the laws he set up for himself, by himself (it sounds to me anyway), but it also sounds as if he is disregarding everyone and everything else, simply because he has the power to do so. It sounds like the characters "lawfulness" is simply a means to justify his actions, not to serve any other purpose.

Lawfulness is following the same sets of rules as just about everyone else. If everyone had their own absolutism towards following their own sets of beliefs, then the world would be nothing but chaotic anarchy.

Ah. We just have different understandings of what it means to be Lawful. From what you've said here, it sounds like you consider "Lawful" to mean "behaving in accordance with existing laws, rules, etc." I, conversely, take "Lawful" to mean "orderly, systematic, methodical, absolutist, holding an abstract principle or idea in the highest value and without regard for the individual or specific circumstance."

I see Law and Chaos as questions of philosophy and of methodology; I think that a Chaotic person can abide by laws, and that a Lawful person can break laws, as long as their actions are consistent with the philosophy that drives them.

VanBuren
2007-11-25, 08:00 PM
It is fundamentally Lawful, but ONLY to the character in question. To just about everyone outside of that characters way of thinking it would be pretty chaotic. It may be methodical, and efficient, but that doesn't preclude it from being Chaotic.

Lawful means following laws, and laws are set up by societies, deities, pantheons, kings, village councils, what-have-you. He is following the laws he set up for himself, by himself (it sounds to me anyway), but it also sounds as if he is disregarding everyone and everything else, simply because he has the power to do so. It sounds like the characters "lawfulness" is simply a means to justify his actions, not to serve any other purpose.

Lawfulness is following the same sets of rules as just about everyone else. If everyone had their own absolutism towards following their own sets of beliefs, then the world would be nothing but chaotic anarchy.

To this I pose the question: What becomes of a Paladin who finds himself in Thay?

Burrito
2007-11-25, 08:21 PM
Ah. We just have different understandings of what it means to be Lawful. From what you've said here, it sounds like you consider "Lawful" to mean "behaving in accordance with existing laws, rules, etc." I, conversely, take "Lawful" to mean "orderly, systematic, methodical, absolutist, holding an abstract principle or idea in the highest value and without regard for the individual or specific circumstance." I'd call that Obsessive Compulsive :smallbiggrin:


I see Law and Chaos as questions of philosophy and of methodology; I think that a Chaotic person can abide by laws, and that a Lawful person can break laws, as long as their actions are consistent with the philosophy that drives them.

Which is why I Love/Hate alingment threads ;) It is like a bunch of people trying to describe the color of a patchwork quilt to a blind person. My best hope is to simply try and get my point across without making myself look like an ass.


To this I pose the question: What becomes of a Paladin who finds himself in Thay? Sorry, but I don't know what/where Thay is. I don't read splat books, and haven't bought a TSR/WotC book for myself since the mid '90's. I'd love to try and answer it for you anyway, but I think this thread is getting hi-jacked enough.

A big "Sorry!" to Icewalker! :smallredface:

Jannex
2007-11-25, 08:34 PM
I'd call that Obsessive Compulsive :smallbiggrin:


Right, so Lawful Neutral. :smallwink:

puppyavenger
2007-11-25, 08:45 PM
It sounds like how I imagine formains in war.

Thane of Fife
2007-11-25, 09:00 PM
To this I pose the question: What becomes of a Paladin who finds himself in Thay?

Well, we should remember that, in addition to the laws of the nation, the paladin is also bound by the code of his faith (or whatever else he's sworn to). In any given situation, I'd say he needs to serve the stricter of the two. For example, Thay may permit nobles to torture insubordinate servants, but the paladin's code says that that's wrong, so he needs to stop it. Should his code conflict with the local laws, such that he can obey only one, he would be obliged to obey the one which qualifies as Good. If possible he should try to have the laws changed - in a lawful manner - so that they become acceptable.

Assuming that Thay doesn't have any laws like "Thou shalt kill babies whenever thou findest them," the paladin should be okay.

Just my opinion.

puppyavenger
2007-11-25, 09:02 PM
Assuming that Thay doesn't have any laws like "Thou shalt kill babies whenever thou findest them," the paladin should be okay.


Alignment wise at least.

MCerberus
2007-11-25, 09:11 PM
My views on this - Winning the war at any cost... well considering that he would use any method open to him, it would start out neutral and slip down to evil as the "cost" rises.

Now, it looks like this is a personal vendetta. He's not out to protect the world, it's just his goal. He'll do anything for HIS GOAL. That's pretty NE to me.

If you'll excuse the KotoR reference, this sounds like a Darth Reven to me. Started out good, and he turned evil in order to secure a victory against the Mandalorians.

Porthos
2007-11-25, 09:54 PM
Ah, theres the problem. Not true necessarily.

There is a WotC article, which I don't have a link to, about how being lawful or chaotic is actually removed from societies laws, they are just an easy way to see the persons alignment reflected, sometimes.

in very very short what the article says is that being lawful means that to an extent you prefer order, and will repeat an action in the same circumstances, while chaos is being more wild, varying what you do because thats how you like it.

Here ya go. :smallsmile:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Gungnir
2007-11-25, 10:01 PM
I'd say his opinion falls into one of the categories mentioned by Felius:

"I wish I hadn't to do this, but it must be done"

They are willing to sacrifice morals for victory, so it is basically that idea, except unhesitantly.

I think feeling guilty keeps him from being Evil. Most of the time you see the "Lesser Evil for the Greater Good" thing as just an excuse from the antagonist to justify his own greed and ambition. Your guy seem thinks that this must be done to preserve Good, else it will perish.

Epiphany:
http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/701/701650/serenity-2-20060413021803366-000.jpg
You mean this guy, right? Definitely Lawful Good.

Jannex
2007-11-25, 10:40 PM
I think feeling guilty keeps him from being Evil. Most of the time you see the "Lesser Evil for the Greater Good" thing as just an excuse from the antagonist to justify his own greed and ambition. Your guy seem thinks that this must be done to preserve Good, else it will perish.

Except that while he was in the process of destroying the enemy, all the Good might have ended up as collateral damage.


Epiphany:
http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/701/701650/serenity-2-20060413021803366-000.jpg
You mean this guy, right? Definitely Lawful Good.

...Sarcasm, right?

Gungnir
2007-11-25, 10:58 PM
Except that while he was in the process of destroying the enemy, all the Good might have ended up as collateral damage.

True, a real Good character with the choice between A)100% Collateral damage and B) Evil takes over the world is going to take an option along the lines of C) Defend loved ones all long as possible or maybe even D) Provide mercy where needed and desired (if the Great Evil is that horrible) 80% of the time (and does something else without collateral damage another 15% of the time).

Hmm. My trains of thought have been rather disjointed lately, and the time isn't helping right now (I completely forgot where I was going with above paragraph), so I'm going to exit stage left here. However, I will leave you with this:

Let's say whatever tactic the character is using just plain wipes everyone out. Both sides, Good and Evil. For the Good character who cannot save the world from Evil without it, isn't Neutral (nothing) better than Evil?

Edit: Oh, and if collateral damage wasn't 100% (let's say it was 50-50), what do you think the survivors of the war would think of the character? (I swear, if I could get my thoughts together, this would have been an Epic post. I don't know what's wrong with me.:smallfrown: )

Jannex
2007-11-25, 11:16 PM
Let's say whatever tactic the character is using just plain wipes everyone out. Both sides, Good and Evil. For the Good character who cannot save the world from Evil without it, isn't Neutral (nothing) better than Evil?

I'm going to let my Chaotic sympathies show through here, and say, "that depends." What does the Evil plan to do once it takes over? Will it kill everyone? Subject them to vicious, painful, and fatal experiments, or force them to live on as a twisted mockery of their former selves--a fate worse than death? Or will it enslave and oppress them, but keep them alive, with the hope that they might someday be able to rise up and throw off the tyranny of their Evil masters?


Edit: Oh, and if collateral damage wasn't 100% (let's say it was 50-50), what do you think the survivors of the war would think of the character? (I swear, if I could get my thoughts together, this would have been an Epic post. I don't know what's wrong with me.:smallfrown: )

This would, again, depend on a number of things--and would probably vary significantly within the population of survivors. Some would hail him as their savior, while others would condemn him as a monster as heinous as that which he "saved" them from.

Kompera
2007-11-26, 12:18 AM
I've got an interesting moral puzzle, and I'm not sure of the alignment.

[snipped all save the (slim) descriptors]

The person is willing to go to any extent, including killing huge numbers of people, to stop the forces of evil and chaos from overrunning a world of every alignment.

What would be the alignment of someone willing to kill their own people to win the war.

One key note here is that their goal is not to save the people, or in a way even save the world, it is to win the war at any cost.

This person has no qualms about sacrificing innumerable innocent people of any alignment to win a war against evil.I think we need a whole lot more context to make the call. Who is this person? A King? A General? A gifted but independent Wizard who owes no one any particular fealty? What is their social status? What is their caste, if applicable? What is their role within their own society? To whom do they owe fealty? Whom to they care about, and why?

The amount of impact any given situation can have on a person's Alignment is very relevant to all of the above.

If you can't decide based on these, then it's safest to assign their alignment as Chaotic Evil. The "will do anything" and "willing to kill their own people" (which people you'd also need to define a bit better. 10,000 nuns and orphans sacrificed on a bloody altar in an orgy of bloodletting to appease the Demons and convince them to go home? Or more like sacrificing 10,000 volunteer soldiers in order to achieve a hard won victory on the battlefield?) makes CE an easy call. Saving the world, which includes your own life, is not an intrinsically Good act if all you care about is your own survival.

So, absent any other mores or motivations for the character, I pick CE as his alignment.

Jannex
2007-11-26, 01:08 AM
I think we need a whole lot more context to make the call. Who is this person? A King? A General? A gifted but independent Wizard who owes no one any particular fealty? What is their social status? What is their caste, if applicable? What is their role within their own society? To whom do they owe fealty? Whom to they care about, and why?

The amount of impact any given situation can have on a person's Alignment is very relevant to all of the above.

If you can't decide based on these, then it's safest to assign their alignment as Chaotic Evil. The "will do anything" and "willing to kill their own people" (which people you'd also need to define a bit better. 10,000 nuns and orphans sacrificed on a bloody altar in an orgy of bloodletting to appease the Demons and convince them to go home? Or more like sacrificing 10,000 volunteer soldiers in order to achieve a hard won victory on the battlefield?) makes CE an easy call. Saving the world, which includes your own life, is not an intrinsically Good act if all you care about is your own survival.

So, absent any other mores or motivations for the character, I pick CE as his alignment.

Since the OP implied that this question was inspired by the events of Battlestar Galactica: Razor, I think I can take a stab at answering some of these questions.

The character in question is a military leader, whose command survived the demons' first, devastating attack. As far as he knows, the government to which he answered has been completely, or nearly, wiped out. As far as he knows, he is the highest-ranking surviving officer. He cares about the lives and morale of the men under his command, and he cares about his Mission: to destroy the demons that did this, or make life as hard for them as he can for as long as he can.

To that end, he is willing to be ruthless, even brutal, to innocent civilians. He will strip an escaping civilian caravan for supplies and talented personnel, and he will execute their families if they refuse. He will order his own troops into battle against impossible odds for merely the chance at a minor victory--and he will execute any subordinate who is unwilling to carry out his orders. He will issue orders mandating the torture and degradation of captured enemies--including war crimes of a sexual nature.

Idea Man
2007-11-26, 02:05 AM
I believe a good or evil alignment is defined by the actions of the person. Evil actions, especially ones defined by "sacrifice" and "at any cost", are going to reflect in a detect evil spell as such. If he started as a good person, but became so desperate to stoop to such levels that he would perform heinous acts, he would still become evil by carrying out his plans.

Lawful is concerned with order and control, whereas chaos is focused on freedom and choice. I'm...too tired to make any meaningful correlation. Sorry. :smallfrown:

I'd say he's evil, lawful if he's part of the society he's trying to "save", chaotic if he's not and doesn't try to be.

graymachine
2007-11-26, 02:27 AM
This person would easily be Neutral Evil. The argument against Lawful, which seems to be a predominant opinion on this thread, is simply that this person is prefaced with the willingness to do anything; a Lawful character completely lacks this quality given that they, of necessity, must operate within a structured ethical system that has limits. Chaotic is immediately ruled out because this individual has an ultimate goal; way too structured for the Chaotic mind. Thus, Neutral. Law and Chaos don't matter, just the goal.

Evil is a given; this individual obviously operates under the axiom, "The ends justify the means", which is a traditionally evil standpoint, for philosophical reasons that would be a digression of the topic at hand. Keep in mind that an Evil character, from any of the three evil alignments available, can be evil for the best of reasons. To be pastoral, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

graymachine
2007-11-26, 02:44 AM
I think we need a whole lot more context to make the call. Who is this person? A King? A General? A gifted but independent Wizard who owes no one any particular fealty? What is their social status? What is their caste, if applicable? What is their role within their own society? To whom do they owe fealty? Whom to they care about, and why?

The amount of impact any given situation can have on a person's Alignment is very relevant to all of the above.

If you can't decide based on these, then it's safest to assign their alignment as Chaotic Evil. The "will do anything" and "willing to kill their own people" (which people you'd also need to define a bit better. 10,000 nuns and orphans sacrificed on a bloody altar in an orgy of bloodletting to appease the Demons and convince them to go home? Or more like sacrificing 10,000 volunteer soldiers in order to achieve a hard won victory on the battlefield?) makes CE an easy call. Saving the world, which includes your own life, is not an intrinsically Good act if all you care about is your own survival.

So, absent any other mores or motivations for the character, I pick CE as his alignment.

Actually, all of this information is irrelevant: what you are postulating is a subjective morality (the individual's interpretation of their actions quantifies whether something is "good" or "evil"), which D&D is very much not. While it is not objective morality (10,000 lives lost to save 10,001 lives would be a "good" act since there is a measurable gain), the morality of D&D looks has a set of standards outside of the individual that determine alignment; this is the only way in which an alignment system, if such an artificial set of mental constructs could exist with such real world applications, could function.

As a side note, this hypothetical person couldn't be Chaotic in the way that you describe since, given his goal, he would require a high level of healthy functionality in society to achieve his stated goal, which the CE alignment is notoriously lacking in. Also, the fact that he has a tangible goal precludes the CE alignment.

Xuincherguixe
2007-11-26, 03:58 AM
Strangely enough as it sounds, it could probably be nearly any alignment.

Good unlikely.

How far is "by any means necessary"? That can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. Most of the people who say it don't ever consider diplomacy to be a possible method either. If your character considers diplomacy, probably chaotic because it's outside the box :P (I'm being kind of sarcastic here. Diplomacy is probably alignment free... maybe slightly towards the good end.)

Is the limit that he would sacrifice himself? That would be good, with not a lot of leaning towards either Law or Chaos. If he is willing to sacrifice aspects of himself those acts are Good, but may lead him to become Evil.

Sacrificing the lives of those on his own side? Evil, but not especially so. It's war, they have chosen to fight. Consequences are inevitable. Sacrificing the enemies lives is Evil to a similar degree, and smart. Which if you go by the book means Lawful as Chaos as written is stupid. I'd say it'd depend on the situation. It'd make a Paladin fall, but probably not quite enough to change alignment. Getting close though.

Sacrificing the unwilling involved counts as the above if you aren't aware of it. Forcing people to become involved in the war is atrociously evil.

Sacrificing those who don't want to be involved in the war is very evil.

The level of sacrifice has a lot to do with things to. Minor sacrifices aren't particularly bad (Hair, Blood). Taking peoples limbs? Pretty bad, but at least they get to live. Murder is naturally quite awful. Mixing torture in makes things worse, as does causing psychological trauma. Forcing a bunch of prisoners, who are all friends, to fight to the death extremely evil (chaotic too almost certainly, since there's little point here)

Using a spell which alters dimensions and compels the person to eat their own brain? Extremely Evil. And probably pointlessly evil too... so chaotic again.


So I think I know how to decide on how Lawful or Chaotic to go. Is it really any means? Or are there limits to how far they will go. With limits, the character is probably going to be Lawful Evil. Without, Neutral. If they go way beyond what is actually necessary to accomplish the goals, Chaotic Evil.

For Law/Chaos, the characters own code is all that matters.

Kompera
2007-11-26, 04:56 AM
As a side note, this hypothetical person couldn't be Chaotic in the way that you describe since, given his goal, he would require a high level of healthy functionality in society to achieve his stated goal, which the CE alignment is notoriously lacking in. Also, the fact that he has a tangible goal precludes the CE alignment.Being Chaotic does not at all mean that an individual can not function within a society. They may be considered quirky, or unreliable, but there are plenty of people who have those qualities who function quite well within ordered environments.


Chaotic is immediately ruled out because this individual has an ultimate goal; way too structured for the Chaotic mind.Again, being Chaotic does not preclude the pursuit of any goal. You'd have all Chaotics be completely incapable of any rational thought or action, and that's well beyond the restrictions of the alignment. I know of many Chaotic people who hold down jobs, have aspirations and dreams and work hard to fulfill them. That doesn't make them Lawful, or even Neutral.


Actually, all of this information is irrelevant: what you are postulating is a subjective morality (the individual's interpretation of their actions quantifies whether something is "good" or "evil"), which D&D is very much not. While it is not objective morality (10,000 lives lost to save 10,001 lives would be a "good" act since there is a measurable gain), the morality of D&D looks has a set of standards outside of the individual that determine alignment; this is the only way in which an alignment system, if such an artificial set of mental constructs could exist with such real world applications, could function. I'll disagree here also. Faced with losing 10,000 lives to save 10,001, the Good person seeks a third option, if one is at all possible. The Neutral person or the Evil person may decide to make this call based on cold numbers or selfish considerations, but not the Good person.

And alignment is completely subjective based on where the person stands with regards to all the points I said the OP needed to clarify. The King who sadly orders 10,000 troops to their deaths against an advancing Demon army, knowing that they have dedicated their lives to saving civilian lives, is obviously not evil. The Necromancer Lord who summons Devils and offers them a blood sacrifice of 10,000 nuns and orphans to go and fight the Demons is evil. The Military commander who detonates a nuclear reactor to destroy an advancing Demon army is evil if there was a civilian city surrounding the reactor and he did nothing to attempt to evacuate the innocents. All actions are judged subjectively based on who you are and what your goals and responsibilities are. Some actions may be evil regardless of who you are and what your intents are, but other actions are not evil even if they involve the deaths of others, also depending on who you are and what your intents are.

Finally, the game of D&D is not an episode of '24', where the players should be faced with impossible moral dilemmas designed to cause them to take some actions which the GM can use to force an alignment change or the loss of class status. If the players are faced with such situations, they need to have an OOC discussion with the GM and ask him straight up if he intends that they be forced to decide between two paths which both seem to cause such consequences, or if he feels that they should seek an alternative to the two "lose/lose" options they are faced with choosing between.

Ryver
2007-11-26, 01:16 PM
I'm gonna throw out Lawful Neutral.

Just based on how I interpret the OP:

Guy is bound by sense of duty. Rules of Engagement dictate that sometimes, innocent people have to die. Doesn't like it, but has no choice. Either innocents die, or, as was said, "All Good Will Perish".

To me, that's Lawful. It may not be legal, (note the difference) but it's orderly and structured.

Guy is trying his best to do Good. He does Good when he can, but realizes that sometimes, Evil acts are necessary to further good. In other words, he prefers to do Good things, but has no moral objections about unsavory things, if he must. Because he's in the middle, and "goes both ways" (no idea how often he has to do Evil, but the important part is that he accepts it as a possibility), I call him Neutral.

Describe the colors of a quilt to a blind person? Sounds about right.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-26, 06:36 PM
Necessarily Evil.

Really, probably Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil, if he's really willing to do anything. Killing the spiders to save the butterflies and whatnot.

So Knives (from Trigun) was Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil?

But yeah, that alignment fits the guy talked about in the OP.

Subotei
2007-11-26, 06:47 PM
I'll say Chaotic Evil.

Reasoning - going to any lengths to accomplish the goal - he is willing to break his own moral code - hardly the actions of a lawful aligned individual. Can't be a good actions as many will die, so therefore probably Evil - leave neutral out of the Good/Evil axis as you're either good or evil (to me). War sometimes creates monsters out of necessity.

Sucrose
2007-11-26, 07:08 PM
I'd argue Lawful Neutral, because he lives for only one purpose. He is, in essence, an Inevitable with the directive "Win the War" rather than "Punish those who resurrect people" or "Destroy those who break their oaths."

Jannex
2007-11-26, 07:17 PM
I'll say Chaotic Evil.

Reasoning - going to any lengths to accomplish the goal - he is willing to break his own moral code - hardly the actions of a lawful aligned individual.

Conversely, it's arguable that part of his code is that the goal--the mission--must take precedence over all other considerations, and thus it is out of that very same Lawful sense of duty and obligation that he feels himself compelled to violate his other moral considerations in pursuit of it.

puppyavenger
2007-11-26, 07:21 PM
I'm assuming someone who's basicly trying to act like a computer and calculate risk vs. reward you/them causility ratios. So LN the alignment of AI's everywhere

Burrito
2007-11-26, 07:28 PM
So LN the alignment of AI's everywhere


Unless you are this guy http://benderc.net/Bender.jpg

Nonanonymous
2007-11-26, 08:24 PM
Lawfulness is following the same sets of rules as just about everyone else.

If this were the case, how did we ever develop rules which others would follow? And wouldn't this mean that a small religion or country with its own rules that it strictly observed would be chaotic rather than lawful just because it doesn't act like everyone else in the world?

Kompera
2007-11-26, 09:05 PM
And wouldn't this mean that a small religion or country with its own rules that it strictly observed would be chaotic rather than lawful just because it doesn't act like everyone else in the world?Not at all, which is why Lawful is subjective, just as is nearly every other aspect of the alignment system. If one country has a law against jaywalking and another does not, that does not mean that either country is ruled by anarchy.

Subotei
2007-11-27, 03:28 PM
Conversely, it's arguable that part of his code is that the goal--the mission--must take precedence over all other considerations, and thus it is out of that very same Lawful sense of duty and obligation that he feels himself compelled to violate his other moral considerations in pursuit of it.

Mmmm - possibly, but I prefer to think of someone who would usually be obeying all the rules of society (ie your upstanding defender of whatever) puts everything aside to pursue a mission that he know will entail the deaths of others in that society as chaotic. I guess it could come down to whether he is a maverick - has he come up with this goal himself (Chaotic) or whether he's following orders (probably some Lawful automaton then).

I can't see goal orientation as a good guide to someones lawful or chaotic nature - both lawful and chaotic people have goals - the difference is how they get there. If the goal is 'I must get some M&Ms before the shop closes' and to do this a supposedly lawful guy stabs a grandmother in the queue ahead of him just so he can make payment before the shop closes, would you call him lawful? No - he's crossed the accepted boundaries of his society to achieve his aim.

Jannex
2007-11-27, 03:52 PM
Mmmm - possibly, but I prefer to think of someone who would usually be obeying all the rules of society (ie your upstanding defender of whatever) puts everything aside to pursue a mission that he know will entail the deaths of others in that society as chaotic. I guess it could come down to whether he is a maverick - has he come up with this goal himself (Chaotic) or whether he's following orders (probably some Lawful automaton then).

I think, in this case, he is following his own extrapolation of his previous standing orders, in the sudden absence of anyone higher on his chain of command to whom he might appeal.


I can't see goal orientation as a good guide to someones lawful or chaotic nature - both lawful and chaotic people have goals - the difference is how they get there. If the goal is 'I must get some M&Ms before the shop closes' and to do this a supposedly lawful guy stabs a grandmother in the queue ahead of him just so he can make payment before the shop closes, would you call him lawful? No - he's crossed the accepted boundaries of his society to achieve his aim.

What we're talking about here, though (or at least, what I was trying to describe), is more than simple goal-orientedness. Anyone can have goals; they can be important or they can be trivial. In this case, however, the goal is one of supreme, overriding importance, and touches on his every sense of duty, responsibility, honor, and even survival. This is a Mission.

Jayabalard
2007-11-27, 04:04 PM
Conversely, it's arguable that part of his code is that the goal--the mission--must take precedence over all other considerations, and thus it is out of that very same Lawful sense of duty and obligation that he feels himself compelled to violate his other moral considerations in pursuit of it.Nope.... if your code is "get the goal at all costs" that's a chaotic, not lawful in the slightest.

Chaotic individuals can feel duty and obligation.

Ganurath
2007-11-27, 07:22 PM
Nope.... if your code is "get the goal at all costs" that's a chaotic, not lawful in the slightest.

Chaotic individuals can feel duty and obligation.Haley agrees the the latter point, but I disagree with the first. The "at any cost" mentality has always gone to MTG black with me, which could be argued as being synonomous with D&D Evil. So, Evil + Duty = LE.

Jannex
2007-11-27, 07:28 PM
Nope.... if your code is "get the goal at all costs" that's a chaotic, not lawful in the slightest.

Chaotic individuals can feel duty and obligation.

Again, I'm talking about something far more significant than just a "goal" here. I'm talking about a rigid and non-negotiable set of priorities.