Dictatorship in D&D, the moral implications

[EvilElitest]

Something that has been bothering me for a while


The Good camp of D&D is based upon 20th century Western ideals right?

Love, mercy, peace, protecting the innocent, resist the temptations to resort to zealotry are good

Torture, murderer, rape, brutality for what ever reasons are evil


And yet, monarchies and other form of dictatorships are tolerated in the average D&D worlds, even encouraged

And yet we all know the essential rule of any sort of dictatorship, might makes right. You enforce the rule of one person through might.

All dictatorships need to enforce their rules. Even an enlightened monarch

However a paladin can't tolerate evil regimes. Now i know that a paladin would have to fight against regimes that promote genocide or other such dictators, but wouldn't they also have to fight against dictators who served the best interests of their country?


If you served under Napoleon or some other despot of a similar nature, would you feel obligated to fight against their rule, even if they do bring stability
discuss
from
EE

[Collin152]

If I support my government, I'm Lawful.
If I rebel, I'm chaotic.
Good or Evil, they have the authority to govern me.
Whether I am good or evil will determine how I go about supporting or rebelling, but that's why most citezens are True Neutral.

As for monarchy's being inherantly evil...

Goverment is, in and of itself, Lawful Evil.

[tyckspoon]

Huh? Why are you assuming an autocratic government is necessarily evil? There is plenty of historical record showing that to not be the case. There is absolutely no reason for any given king or queen to be evil. The Good King is just as much a fantasy trope as the Evil King.

Edit: Basically, democracy has nothing to do with D&D Good. Especially where Divine Right may be a completely provable reason for a monarch to rule.

[EvilElitest]

Huh? Why are you assuming an autocratic government is necessarily evil? There is plenty of historical record showing that to not be the case. There is absolutely no reason for any given king or queen to be evil. The Good King is just as much a fantasy trope as the Evil King.

in order to enforce your will effectivly, goverments in history generally do rather nasty things.
from
EE

[Nebo_]

You make way too many assumptions here, including, but not limited to the fact that everything falls under good or evil. It's like you're just baiting for argument.

[tyckspoon]

in order to enforce your will effectivly, goverments in history generally do rather nasty things.
from
EE

Um. Yes? Not only is that not a necessity-there are governments that *don't* oppress everybody and don't do nasty stuff to those who disagree with them- it also happens regardless of the form said government takes. Hitler was elected, remember. And now that I've Godwinned this (it was inevitable, probably) I'll not bother any more.

[Frosty]

Actually, Paladins can and do lead resistance movements and are still perfectly Lawful. Paladins don't have to follow the rules of a non-legitimate authority.

[EvilElitest]

You make way too many assumptions here, including, but not limited to the fact that everything falls under good or evil. It's like you're just baiting for argument.

Um, everything in D&D does fall under Good evil or netural, look under the alignment system.


Um. Yes? Not only is that not a necessity-there are governments that *don't* oppress everybody and don't do nasty stuff to those who disagree with them- it also happens regardless of the form said government takes. Hitler was elected, remember. And now that I've Godwinned this (it was inevitable, probably) I'll not bother any more.
1. Except the D&D terms of "Good" seem to be more fitting to a democracy, not a dicatorship
2. Hitler gained power because the SA help Destory the opposition, Germany was desperate, and he was actually chosen by the president to be a successor.
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Actually, Paladins can and do lead resistance movements and are still perfectly Lawful. Paladins don't have to follow the rules of a non-legitimate authority.

oh i know that, i'm talking about the good part however. Lawful makes sense, but wouldn't good be against dicatorships in general?
from
EE

[Falconer]

Actually, Paladins can and do lead resistance movements and are still perfectly Lawful. Paladins don't have to follow the rules of a non-legitimate authority.

And "lawful" does NOT, repeat NOT necessarily mean that you follow the law.

[Collin152]

Actually, Paladins can and do lead resistance movements and are still perfectly Lawful. Paladins don't have to follow the rules of a non-legitimate authority.

Non-legitimate beign the key words.
Evil government can still be perfectly valid.
Hitler diddn't steal his position, the people wanted him to rule.
But no doubt was he evil.

[Nebo_]

Um, everything in D&D does fall under Good evil or netural, look under the alignment system.


*headdesk*

D&D works better without alignment. Try it some time.

[Collin152]

*headdesk*

D&D works better without alignment. Try it some time.

Rules as Written, my dear Nebo.
Unless stated otherwise.

[EvilElitest]

*headdesk*

D&D works better without alignment. Try it some time.

no you claim it works better. I like it ether way. However both can maintain shades of grey. D&D without alignment however i feel can lack some mystic. I prefer aligments personally, but i liked them to be well defined
from
EE

[Frosty]

oh i know that, i'm talking about the good part however. Lawful makes sense, but wouldn't good be against dicatorships in general?
from
EE

To be honest, in many ways the Church can be said to be a dictatorship. There is usually one highest priest/cleric who leads the affairs of the church within the nation (and whom in turn is given inspirations by one deity). The traditional DnD church hierachy for the lawful good gods is probably very top-down, so I think the Paladin is probably used to the idea of one guy in charge up top.

[Nebo_]

but i liked them to be well defined
from
EE

You define the alignments so that there is no wriggle room. I can't imagine playing a character in one of your games, it would be more like playing an alignment, instead.



Rules as Written, my dear Nebo.
Unless stated otherwise.

I will elaborate. It works better if the alignments are there for when they come up in the rules. Ignore them all other times.

[EvilElitest]

You define the alignments so that there is no wriggle room. I can't imagine playing a character in one of your games, it would be more like playing an alignment.

Except i've also stated taht right and wrong are different from good and evil. Good and evil are like two camps, your in one or the other (or neutral)
Right and wrong are subjective
from
EE

[Nebo_]

Except i've also stated taht right and wrong are different from good and evil. Good and evil are like two camps, your in one or the other (or neutral)
Right and wrong are subjective


What? That had nothing at all to do with what I said.



from
EE


If you put this in your sig, you would save a lot of time.

[EvilElitest]

What? That had nothing at all to do with what I said.

yes it does, you said alignments (IE good, evil,) are straight lined. Sure, they are objective. You don't have to play the alignment (and i've never made that claim) but you will fit into the alignment because aligments are objective, through right and wrong are subjective




If you put this in your sig, you would save a lot of time.
But it would lose all of it novelty
from
EE

[Nebo_]

yes it does, you said alignments (IE good, evil,) are straight lined.


No, I didn't. To me, alignments are far too blurry to assign to a character. There are cases where they fit, but I don't like to say a character is good or evil.



But it would lose all of it novelty
from
EE

You're already novel enough.

[EvilElitest]

No, I didn't. To me, alignments are far too blurry to assign to a character. There are cases where they fit, but I don't like to say a character is good or evil.

"You define alignments as if there is no wiggle room"
Pretty much, that i define evil as objective
Good and evil are objective. I find this to be a very interesting element to work with. People's ideals of right and wrong are subjective of course, so while a Napleon supporter could be LE, they wouldn't think themselves as moral wrong



You're already novel enough.
I'll take that as a compliment
from
EE

[Nebo_]

"You define alignments as if there is no wiggle room"
Pretty much, that i define evil as objective
Good and evil are objective. I find this to be a very interesting element to work with. People's ideals of right and wrong are subjective of course, so while a Napleon supporter could be LE, they wouldn't think themselves as moral wrong


This is exactly why I don't like alignment. That's why I think it's blurred.



I'll take that as a compliment


Good for you.

[NecroRebel]

It is true that a rule by monarchy or oligarchy could fit the criteria for a Good character, those being altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Enforcing rule does not have to imply martial law, nor does it have to imply overzealous enforcement of non-martial law.

Simply put, it is not a requirement for government to be oppressive.

That is probably the single biggest assumption that you are making, and if it was true it would follow that all governments would be non-Good or Evil by definition. Since it is quite demonstratably not true, though, as one can see if one examines such modern nation-states as the United States of America, Australia, France, Great Britain (also arguably a monarchy itself), and many others, it is impossible to deduce necessary non-Goodness or Evilness from the fact that government exists.

Do not say that those example modern nation-states are not applicable in a fantasy realm; the counterpoint holds, as rule of law exists in those regions without oppression to as much extent as possible, and thus it is possible to have non-Evil rule of law.

Might can make right, might did make right in premodern European and Asian societies, but that doesn't mean that might does make right in D&D societies. D&D societies are much more similar to modern societies than medieval ones.

I believe I mentioned this earlier, but you imply that enforcing law means oppression, and I feel I must disagree.

A Paladin would not have to rebel against a dictator who had the best interests of the state at heart unless the dictator's idea for "best interests" and means for attaining those interests were Evil, which enforcing rule of law is not.

In my case, I would probably choose to resist a dictator like Napoleon, but that is unrelated. That man was overly extreme in his actions; great wars are a Bad Thing IMO, and he sought them.

Now, to other points...
in order to enforce your will effectivly, goverments in history generally do rather nasty things.
from
EE
I think this is the problem. You use this case to infer a blanket statement about all governments. I provided a counterexample earlier, and that means that it is equally valid to infer the opposite. Just because governments generally do rather nasty things to enforce their will doesn't mean that they necessarily do rather nasty things.


Um, everything in D&D does fall under Good evil or netural, look under the alignment system.
While I'm inclined to agree with you here, I think his point was that you seem to be avoiding the neutral cases; that is, you've made many statements about Good and Evil, but none about not-Good and not-Evil. The vast majority of actions will not fall under the definitions of Good or Evil, so most will be not-Good or not-Evil, that is to say Neutral.


1. Except the D&D terms of "Good" seem to be more fitting to a democracy, not a dicatorship
2. Hitler gained power because the SA help Destory the opposition, Germany was desperate, and he was actually chosen by the president to be a successor.
from
EE
1. More fitting, yes. Necessarily not dictatorial, no. Your evidence for dictatorships being not-Good by definition thus far has been unsatisfactory.
2. Hitler is a good example as to why we should not blindly accept officials. With more oversight and less absolute power to the National Socialists, the tragedies of that era may have been avoided.


Non-legitimate beign the key words.
Evil government can still be perfectly valid.
Hitler diddn't steal his position, the people wanted him to rule.
But no doubt was he evil.
A Paladin must respect legitimate authority, but who determines what authority is legitimate? A Paladin is not, presumably, required to respect the authority of an enemy nation, for example. Also, a Paladin is required to punish those who harm or threaten innocents, so that may imply that they are required to punish a legitimate authority who does so. Respectfully punish, mind you, but still punish. Respect doesn't mean obey.



Hmm... Probably gonna be a dozen more posts by the time I hit submit :smalleek:

[EvilElitest]

This is exactly why I don't like alignment. That's why I think it's blurred.


The greatest argument is against the concept (not execution) of alignment is lack of moral greyness. As i said, that is certainly around in alignment.



Good for you.

It certainly is
from
EE

Edit, ah missed you
yeah you missed a lot of posts but nothing important was really discussed other than my signature sign off

Anyways, good points but two questions
1. how can a D&D society that is normally shown as a monarchy typically manage to be as non oppressive as modern societies (which are generally constitutional monarchy or other forms of democratic goverment)
2. But even a monarch who believed in teh good of the state still might use ends justifies the means, i mean part of being a dictator is enforcing your will. Even if he does it for the good of the state, if he hurst innocents in any ways the paladin must oppose him

Agree with you on everything else
from
EE

[Revanmal]

It's due to negative media and propaganda that people think dictatorships and autocracies are inherently evil. In the age of democracy, where one is able to do almost anything they are guaranteed in their country's constitution as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, monarchies and the like are typically painted as horrid and inferior. Democracy gives people rights in exchange for a less efficient and slower form of legislation that can't get things done as quickly as a single ruler could.

[EvilElitest]

It's due to negative media and propaganda that people think dictatorships and autocracies are inherently evil. In the age of democracy, where one is able to do almost anything they are guaranteed in their country's constitution as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, monarchies and the like are typically painted as horrid and inferior. Democracy gives people rights in exchange for a less efficient and slower form of legislation that can't get things done as quickly as a single ruler could.

Actually the efficient of a single ruler is based solely upon that ruler. I mean Napleon did many great (and bad) things because of his single power, but Stalin and Nero were infamously incompetent (through the former was great at preserving his power)

Anyways, the D&D ideal of good is founded upon modern democaratic ideals so....
from
EE

[NecroRebel]

The greatest argument is against the concept (not execution) of alignment is lack of moral greyness. As i said, that is certainly around in alignment,
I'm in agreement with you here. Good and Evil are clearly defined in concept, and they leave a wide space that is neither, as well as a possibility for actions that are clearly both. That is probably the best definition of an objectively grey moral system I can think of easily.



Edit, ah missed you
yeah you missed a lot of posts but nothing important was really discussed other than my signature sign off

Anyways, good points but two questions
1. how can a D&D society that is normally shown as a monarchy typically manage to be as non oppressive as modern societies (which are generally constitutional monarchy or other forms of democratic goverment)
The same way as a modern non-oppressive government would, of course. Clear rules that are set out and followed closely, punishments for breaking those laws that are fair and balanced to the severity of the crime, definately ensure no arbitrary arrests or punishments for no, trumped-up, or minor crimes, little to no discrimination based on uncontrollable criteria like race or gender, and probably rights to a fair trial, too.

There is nothing stopping a dictatorship from having the same sort of legal system as a modern nation, though admittedly this would be significantly more difficult in an embattled society like are common in D&D than in selfsame modern societies.

In truth, though, most legal systems wouldn't go as far as the idealized modern one would (most real modern societies don't either to be honest; I'd personally call the US a LN nation), but again, oppression is not necessary to maintain law. Fairness and Justice are what we're looking for here, with as much freedom as is practical while maintaining the people's safety and the state's - in that order, and bear in mind that "people" is strictly plural. In a non-Good, non-Evil society, it may become necessary to punish a person for the people if that person would cause harm. This skirts dangerously close to Evil, but it doesn't have to fall into that zone.


2. But even a monarch who believed in teh good of the state still might use ends justifies the means, i mean part of being a dictator is enforcing your will. Even if he does it for the good of the state, if he hurst innocents in any ways the paladin must oppose him

Agree with you on everything else
from
EE
I concur, absolutely. Actually, I thought that was my point at the end there, but I think you said it better.

If a ruler uses Evil means or seeks Evil ends, the Paladins are obligated to punish.

[Jasdoif]

All dictatorships need to enforce their rules. Even an enlightened monarchAny government needs to enforce its rules. Even a democracy. A group consensus against theft is ultimately meaningless if none of the group will oppose a thief.


A dictatorship is a government ultimately led by one person. That's all it means. And a government is a social arrangement that allows groups of people to interact with each other in the context of an established set of rules, and (ideally) grants its members safety, security, consistency or whatever else that its individual members could not claim for themselves.

That's the key, there. In a setting where roving bands of demons/devils/orcs/etc. can terrorize the countryside, individual commoners have little to no chance of maintaining their own safety. Even if they band together, commoners don't have a lot of resources for handling problems of that scale. However a strong, personally powerful dictator can give them the protection they need.

[TehJhu]

Being on a board with well-moderated flame rules can be aggrivating sometimes.

[kpenguin]

I can't think of anything more political than systems of government, guys.

Tread carefully.

[Thinker]

Dear EvilElitest,
Monarchs do not have to maintain their power merely through force of arms. If they are governing justly there are few malcontents, making rebellion far less likely. You may want to look up "Divine Right" and what it means for hereditary rule. The king isn't the king because he has the largest army, he is king because God said so; the army is just a bonus :smallwink:

When a leader turns out to be bad, things change. Things change quickly if it is a sudden shift in quality like King Richard Lionheart to Prince John (see Magna Carta). A slow degrading quality will get people less worked up until an outside stimulus comes along (see French Revolution). Your ideas that a "good king" cannot exist in DnD stems from your misunderstanding of the alignment system.

To be blunt, you have no idea how alignment works. Being in power does not make someone evil. Maintaining power does not make someone evil. Enforcing the laws does not make someone evil. You seem to be completely disregarding neutrality in favor of stirring up debate when you are clearly either misinformed or completely wrong. Good does not care about dictatorships anymore than evil does, you're thinking of law and chaos.

[Tura]

Might can make right, might did make right in premodern European and Asian societies, but that doesn't mean that might does make right in D&D societies. D&D societies are much more similar to modern societies than medieval ones.
Umm... EE said something similar in the first post and apparently this whole thread is based on that assumption. But is it true? Debatable. I certainly agree that most players, sooner or later, let their own, modern values determine their character's morality.

That doesn't mean they should.

D&D societies, by definition, are not RAW that apply to all games. They are either described to some extent in specific settings or otherwise left to DM's discretion, with a couple of guidelines that don't even begin to address complicated situations. Most games are set up in a society with medieval elements and Iron Age elements, blended more (or less) successfully. "Dictatorship" shouldn't even be a word in such a world. Civil liberties have not been invented yet. The notion of "equal rights" is unheard of. When RAW gives you Commoners and Aristocrats, it effectively establishes a caste system.

For all those reasons, no, it makes no sense at all to assume that any kind of monarchy, dictatorship (or tyranny, to use a less modern and out of place word) or anything like that is Evil in D&D by default.

.........
Now, if someone wants to address similar issues in a game, he most certainly can. But he should do so by presenting them as the exception, the strange thought that occurs to the characters and confuses them, not like the established values of society. This was too vague actually, I'll illustrate with examples.

Say you want to play with the notion that even a benevolent monarch is in fact a tyrant, because no one has the right to object to him. Cool. Don't have peasants revolting and yelling "power to the people" and "constitution now" out of the blue, it makes no sense. Instead, show how the idea of a constitution (meaning, a written law that prevents even a King with Divine Right from doing anything he wants) begins to brew slowly. Maybe the benevolent King suddenly becomes mentally ill and talks to trees or is dominated by a dark power. His decisions are random or abominable, but his advisors know he's not evil, and still their Lawful King and Liege. Assuming they're lawful themselves, what do they do? And then a wacky scribe mumbles "hmm... you know... if we actually had a Law that addressed such situations...", and the King's men stare with wide eyes. "What a novel idea!"

Say you want to play with the notion that the established caste system is fundamentally unfair. Set up a situation where the Paladin realizes that no matter how much he protects "the weak", they'll always be the underdogs - and not because some people are Eeevil, but because that's how society works, his own Lawful Good church or other institution included. (He should fall after that. :smalltongue: ) But don't make this a known fact, make it an extraordinary revelation. "This is the third time I'm rescuing your child from the evil foreign slavers, my good man, how odd." "Well, now that you mention it m'lord, I've been tryin' to sell'im five months now. Y'see, the Law says that a peasant like me gives a fifth of his grain to the Baron and another fifth to the Church, but the rest of it can only feed a family of four, and we have thirteen children."

Slightly off topic as far as government is concerned, but regarding other modern values:
Say you want to play with the notion that racism (speciesism in D&D ) is a bad thing. With so many player races, plenty of options there. But don't have the whole society assume that people should be judged by their merit and not their race. Make it hard and complicated. If a Lord has lost his only son to an orc raid, he'll need some convincing that the party's orc barbarian is with the good guys.

Whatever you do, don't just apply modern values to D&D society as a whole, because they are generally incompatible.

[Kami2awa]

In the medieval era there would have been very few democracies. One reason is that democracy requires things like long-range communication (not necessarily high-tech, but medieval people would struggle to travel 50 miles) and also a strong concept of an overarching nation, which didnt exist until quite recently. It's a very simplistic (and dangerous) view to say "democracy is always good, dictatorship is always bad".

[hamishspence]

republics can exist, but it is likely that they will be more elitist and less inclusive than you would expect. City State republics, maybe.

[Riffington]

Read The Case for Democracy to understand why dictatorships will be evil. Important note: due to board rules we can only discuss the theoretical ideas (that apply to D&D kingdoms), not any actual Earth nations.

The crux is this: in any nation, people will disagree with the government's laws. In a healthy nation, there is freedom of speech. People will therefore know their neighbors' viewpoints. If a change is popular enough, it will eventually happen regardless of whether you have a democracy or a monarchy or other form. After all, even a mean king will be able to read the writing on the wall - and peasants collectively have power.

In an unhealthy fear-based nation, there is no freedom of speech. The government, which does not want to implement a popular change, decides to make the populace unaware of how popular that change really is - by preventing neighbors from communicating. Secret police are generally necessary. In D&D, Domination spells may also be used. If you are willing to violate basic human rights, you can keep power.

Therefore: a monarchy which allows freedom of speech and basic human rights can be a good form of government. On Earth, such monarchies often turn into democracies - but they need not (and certainly need not in D&D). A monarchy which denies these things and keeps the population in line via fear becomes a tyranny.

[Talya]

And yet, monarchies and other form of dictatorships are tolerated in the average D&D worlds, even encouraged

And yet we all know the essential rule of any sort of dictatorship, might makes right. You enforce the rule of one person through might.

All dictatorships need to enforce their rules. Even an enlightened monarch


Your cultural background is showing through.

Democracies are no better for preventing tyranny than any other form of government. The general populace can be just as tyrannical as any one person. And one person can be far better than the general populace, depending on that person. A monarchy is as evil or good as its monarch.

Look up the phrase Tyranny of the Majority.


What it comes down to, is morality in D&D is objective, not subjective like it is in real life. And monarchies are not objectively evil.

In either case, the question of whether there is a supreme law or constitution to protect the interests of individual freedom, above the dictates of either king or congress, is more important to freedom than the nature of the government itself. A King can be just as bound by constitution as a parliament or congress.

[Riffington]

Democracies are no better for preventing tyranny than any other form of government. The general populace can be just as tyrannical as any one person.

In the short run. But a majority doesn't need to do anything special to keep power - it's already the majority. So while that majority can be awful at any one moment, rational arguments by good men eventually move policies towards goodness. Provided that majority doesn't make the mistake of appointing a dictator or buro or something.

Whereas a single tyrant, once he starts losing the support of the majority, must do evil things to retain his grip. Rational arguments by good men turn into death sentences for those good men.

[Talya]

Whereas a single tyrant, once he starts losing the support of the majority, must do evil things to retain his grip.

Typically such issues happen across generations, not with single monarchs. This is the main problem with an autocratic government. Even if you get a benevolent ruler, he doesn't live forever, and his replacement might not be so nice.

As for the setting, also remember most fantasy nations are in a constant state of war (or at least frequent states of war, or threatened by external vicious orc tribes, etc.) Under such threat, even democracies end up becoming far more autocratic. War-measures Acts and States of Emergency, etc., tend to consolidate power in the executive. A monarchy is far better suited, as a general rule, to dealing with long periods of war, than a democracy. As well they tend to react more quickly when they occur.

[Hallavast]

In the short run. But a majority doesn't need to do anything special to keep power - it's already the majority. So while that majority can be awful at any one moment, rational arguments by good men (Might) eventually move policies towards goodness.


Fixed it for you.

[Riffington]

Fixed it for you.

Good point - I was being human-centric. In a society of hobgoblins or drow, arguments towards goodness have no advantage over arguments towards evil. Humans may ultimately prefer good to evil, but not all species do.

[Talya]

Humans may ultimately prefer good to evil, but not all species do.

In game terms, humans do no such thing. They are neutral, with equal good and evil among them.

In real life terms, "good" doesn't exist in nature, we humans both invented and continue to (re)define good and evil, so we of course we tend to define it whatever way makes ourselves seem "good", on an individual basis.

[Riffington]

Typically such issues happen across generations, not with single monarchs. This is the main problem with an autocratic government. Even if you get a benevolent ruler, he doesn't live forever, and his replacement might not be so nice.

As for the setting, also remember most fantasy nations are in a constant state of war (or at least frequent states of war, or threatened by external vicious orc tribes, etc.) Under such threat, even democracies end up becoming far more autocratic. War-measures Acts and States of Emergency, etc., tend to consolidate power in the executive. A monarchy is far better suited, as a general rule, to dealing with long periods of war, than a democracy. As well they tend to react more quickly when they occur.

Usually true, on both accounts. As a rule: if you're wondering if your country is appropriately passing emergency acts to defend against orc invasions, or whether it's turning into an evil dictatorship, the easiest way to tell is whether it's retaining a functional right to freedom of speech. As long as it has one, the will of the people will have some value.

[Talya]

In game terms, humans do no such thing. They are neutral, with equal good and evil among them.

In real life terms, "good" doesn't exist in nature, we humans both invented and continue to (re)define good and evil, so we of course we tend to define it whatever way makes ourselves seem "good", on an individual basis.

BTW, this actually shows why autocratic governments in D&D are necessary for good. With alignment being an objective, absolute thing, yet people still having their own opinions of good and evil independant of the "reality" of the setting, and the distribution of alignment running the gamut in every possible way, for a nation to be "good", good must be enforced. The public, given a vote, will balance toward true neutral as an average. Goodness will be outvoted every time, without a good monarch having the power to enforce it.

[Jayabalard]

in order to enforce your will effectivly, goverments in history generally do rather nasty things.
from
EEYes, but an autocratic government does not have to be any nastier than a democratic one.

Nor does having a king preclude the idea of rule by law wit ha fair and just legal system.

[AKA_Bait]

Look up the phrase Tyranny of the Majority.


Hooray for references to my third favorite philosopher!

Anyway, EE, as a few people have explained already, there are two different steps in government. Formation/legitimization and enforcement of law, neither of which need be evil.

A monarchy or other dictatorship may come into power by the willing consent of the people. It happened frequently in antitquity and continues to this day in less 'developed' nations. Don't forget that, had he wanted it, George Washinton would have been King of the United States of America, rather than the first President. That people would want an autoritarian government, or at least be able to tolerate one such that the natural right of rebellion (a modern concept in writing but not in practice historically) is not unusual in history, in fact, it's the majority of cases. Many of those governments were not evil. They used no D&D evil means to gain or keep power.

Enforcement of law is a function of any government. Like gaining power, it can be good or evil. IF the laws are just and justly enforced you will have a good, and probably lawful, country.

Also, you need to remember the trope that D&D is set in. King Arthur and Aragorn my friend. King Arthur and Aragorn.

[Riffington]

In game terms, humans do no such thing. They are neutral, with equal good and evil among them.


That's only applicable to personal actions with no witnesses (your "true" alignment). But when it comes to talking in the abstract, and making laws, even most evil humans prefer good to evil.

Think about it: lots of humans would keep a slave if they had one. But how many of those would argue we should start up slavery? None- they want to be seen as good, and want to see themselves as good.

Goodness tends to beat evil in human votes, even amongst evil voters. Almost all the bad laws we have were designed by good people who thought they were doing good.

[Hallavast]

Good point - I was being human-centric. In a society of hobgoblins or drow, arguments towards goodness have no advantage over arguments towards evil. Humans may ultimately prefer good to evil, but not all species do.

I see no reason to exclude humans from your "axis of evil". In democratic human nations, the masses are often swayed by either an ignorant loudmouth or a self-serving malcontent or both. People will believe what is easiest for them to believe. They don't care about the greater good; only what is good for their own group. An appeal to the fears of the common man will win out almost every time over an appeal to good conscience.

[Talya]

I see no reason to exclude humans from your "axis of evil". In democratic human nations, the masses are often swayed by either an ignorant loudmouth or a self-serving malcontent or both. People will believe what is easiest for them to believe. They don't care about the greater good; only what is good for their own group. An appeal to the fears of the common man will win out almost every time over an appeal to good conscience.

Indeed. Octavian became Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome, by means of convincing common plebians to rebel against patrician republicans Cassius, Marcus Brutus, and the like.

[AKA_Bait]

I see no reason to exclude humans from your "axis of evil". In democratic human nations, the masses are often swayed by either an ignorant loudmouth or a self-serving malcontent or both. People will believe what is easiest for them to believe. They don't care about the greater good; only what is good for their own group. An appeal to the fears of the common man will win out almost every time over an appeal to good conscience.

I actually disagree with you there. Demagogues are frequently sucessful but only if there are not equally talented and charismatic loudmouths on the other side to argue with them. Admittely, in history this has been all too rare. However, I still think that men, if given the choice and brought to understand that choice, will follow the better angels of their nature. That is something of a philosophical point about the real wold, so rather than derail this thread and potentially violate forum rules, I'll leave it there.

In D&D, like real life, humans can be of any alignment (although in real life I'd say they are not equaly distributed as the PBH implies). So, yes, you can have good and evil Human governments in D&D and mostly evil human societies (Thay) but you also have good ones in the same proportion, regardless of the construction of their governments.

[Hallavast]

However, I still think that men, if given the choice and brought to understand that choice, will follow the better angels of their nature.

Problem is most men will choose to not even look at the possibility of understanding that choice. It's much easier to simply rationalize your own jaded viewpoint so that you don't lose what you have already invested in your beliefs.

For example, you are a farmer living on the outskirts of some small town. You are coming home from a nice night of illegal gambling at the local underground gamehouse. You witness a murder, but nobody notices you or will guess that you were present for said murder. You see and distinctly recognize one of your neighbors as the murderer as he robs his victim of his valuables. You head home in a state of personal conflict over whether or not you should submit your testimony to the authorities or keep your mouth shut to keep your illegal activities quiet (and to avoid any retribution from your neighbor). You talk it over with your wife and she says you should speak up but she won't blame you if you don't. You discuss it with your priest at the local temmple in a hypothetical fasion (so as to avoid suspicion). He also advises speaking up.

What do you do? If you speak against your neighbor you risk imprisonment for your illegal activities, and you put yourself and your family at risk if the authorities fail to protect you from your neighbor. If you keep your mouth shut, nothing happens to you, and the death of a complete stranger goes un punished. Can you really sit there and tell me you'll go against your own interests for the sake of some concept of greater justice that you may or may not fully comprehend? I would wager the majority of people would keep their mouths shut. So if the majority of a populace is just as willing to ignore a greater sense of morality, then how is that system any better than a monarchy?

[AKA_Bait]

Problem is most men will choose to not even look at the possibility of understanding that choice. It's much easier to simply rationalize your own jaded viewpoint so that you don't lose what you have already invested in your beliefs.

That's where the loudmouths on the good side come in. :smallwink:

[Hallavast]

That's where the loudmouths on the good side come in. :smallwink:

See the addition to my previous post for my counter-example.

[Riffington]

Hallavast, the reluctance to "rock the boat" in your example is a strong argument for democracy. Your gambler who might ignore a murder if he thinks that speaking up will lead to his own death... well, he's just being fearful, not evil.

Just so, when a ruler issues a bad law, and demands people support it "or else", many people will obey for fear of punishment. But those same people don't really support that bad law, and if they had an uncoerced vote they would vote against it.

[hamishspence]

Dictator can be a constitutional office: in time of crisis, the elected leaders grant one of their number dictatorial authority, with careful limitations (a specific duration, for example)

Can a king be a Paladin: yes, in Faerun certainly (King Gareth Dragonsbane of Damara)

If tapping into Roman and Greek system, you are probably going to get some concepts of limitations of authority, correct use of power, etc. Its not an entirely modern thing.

I get the impression that pure democracy (no-one having more authority than another in community, all decisions made by consensus) would be exceptionally rare, very small sized communities, and at the large scale power would tend to be vested more in the few than the many.

Machiavelli's theory in The Discourses was that there should be multiple power groups: a good republic should blend elements of aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy (elected consuls as de-facto monarchs, Senate as aristocracy, tributes as representatives of the commons: democracy)

in general, same rule should aply in D&D societies: there should be competing political groups, and no ruler is powerful enough to completely ignore them.

[sikyon]

Indeed, as people have said before, a dictatorship will enforce its rule through might of arms but so does a democracy. People get caught people go to jail, etc.

[hamishspence]

Shall we all get out our various sourcebooks for D&D races?

Races of the Wild stresses that elves society has monarchs, but they tend not to be hereditary, with monarchs chosen by acclamation, on merit. Monarch has advisors, and tends not to rule by fiat. And the monarchs of each settlement are independant: no one Overking. Does this fit in with "usually Chaotic Good?"

[Hallavast]

Hallavast, the reluctance to "rock the boat" in your example is a strong argument for democracy. Your gambler who might ignore a murder if he thinks that speaking up will lead to his own death... well, he's just being fearful, not evil.

Just so, when a ruler issues a bad law, and demands people support it "or else", many people will obey for fear of punishment. But those same people don't really support that bad law, and if they had an uncoerced vote they would vote against it.

They would support that bad law if it protected their own interests. That was the point I was trying to make. Yes, people are fearful. That fear drives them to ignore good conscience. That voice of good or ill can come from a democracy or a dictator. Neither a democracy nor a dictatorship inherently facilitate good or evil. Both have little bearing on whether people will behave for good or evil. Evil democracies are just as plausible and likely as evil monarchs. It all comes down to the people in power. 100 people are just as likely to be evil as one person is.

[Yahzi]

The reason autocratic governments always wind up evil (no matter how good they start) is because the way people maintain their moral sensibilities is by being held accountable. Indeed, being held accountable is almost the definition of morality. An benign king might start out by holding himself accountable to his conscience, but given enough time without any other constraint he will probably slip into autocracy (this is what they mean by "absolute power corrupts absolutely"). It's not even his fault; it is simply the fact that humans monitor and adjust their behavior and sense of morality by their interactions with others. (That's what it's for, after all: morality is about how you behave with others. If you corrupt that relationship with absolute power, it's like hiring someone to do your exercise for you - eventually your muscles will atrophy.)

But, in D&D, priests can objectively monitor the king's moral behavior, and the king can be held accountable to the gods. Thus, the poisonous effect of having no one to answer to is mitigated; when the King gets out of line, the High Priest of Good is going to gate in a Solar to have a little talk with him. It's this feedback from above that would allow D&D Paladins to run a hereditary monarchy.

(For example, witness Miko's rather immediate feedback in OotS.)

Now, what keeps the gods good if they aren't accountable to anyone? That's easy. They're held accountable to the RAW. :smallbiggrin:

[Tsotha-lanti]

Races of the Wild stresses that elves society has monarchs, but they tend to to be hereditary, with monarchs chosen by acclamation. Monarch has advisors, and tends not to rule by fiat. And the monarchs of each settlement are independant: no one Overking. Does this fit in with "usually Chaotic Good?"

Certainly sounds like Chaotic to me; the Good part depends on how they rule. A similarly organized society could be Chaotic Evil. (In fact, drow cities are ruled by a non-hereditary ruler, usually advised by a council, and usually chosen because they have fought their way up top and could crush many of their rivals at the same time. There's a lot of codification that implies Lawfulness, but in the end, it's all about "Can I get away with it?" and "Is it good for me?")

But yeah, assuming said elven society's laws are generally "Good" - a fair system of justice, punishments aren't arbitrary and harsh, the rulers aren't self-serving, etc. - it's very Chaotic Good.

Edit:
Yahzi, you seem to ignore the fact that even kings and other autocrats are held accountable. In a feudal system, the nobility command the military, and can depose a ruler they see unfit (usually easily finding someone else with claim to royal blood to take the throne). If there's an organized church, they can usually influence many nobles, and therefore also help keep the ruler accountable. Rich people can afford mercenaries... the commoners can even pose a threat, especially when backed by some discontented nobles.

Dictators and "autocrats" are held accountable. In D&D, you can get situations where a ruler can't be held accountable by anything short of gods, and the applicable gods may happen to be evil themselves. (A high-level spellcaster can pretty much quell rebellions by nobles on his or her own. See R. E. Howard's Hour of the Dragon for some examples. "Oh no, my liege, we can't rebel, the wizard will destroy us all in a heartbeat." "****e, you're right.")

[hamishspence]

Robert Heinlen said the converse of authority is responsibility, and they do need to be balanced.

[hamishspence]

One of the problems is people keep seeing the codification and assuming that makes drow LE, but that is a pretty good analogue.

[hamishspence]

Fiendish Codex 2 had a list of traits one might expect of a strongly LE society, ones the devils attempt to make by subtle influence.

Unquestioning Deference to Authority
Worship of Strength (and despising benevolence)
Strict Rules
Intrusive Control
Harsh Punishments
Bureaucratic Precision
Exemptions for Rulers
Expansionist Aims

[Ossian]

Well, perhaps drawing examples from far history would still be ok. I agree that bringing contemporary politics to a 3d will be begging for a 3dlockage. This said, there's plenty of space to discuss and elaborate if it is for the sake of discussing and why not, to provide good material for ongoing fantasy campaigns.

What stops me most of the time from making too many parallelisms between D&D and real world (however remote in the past its history might be) is the simple difference in scale. D&D Paladinhood was designed and engineered, with some tweaks and some fluff, on King Arthur's Camelot. Not even the paladinhood of Charlemagne. That was already too "modern". What I am saying is that camelot was in turn an idealized and gloryfied version of the otherwise cruel and "real" world of XII to XIV century europe, from the lower middle ages through renaissance. So, those ideals could have worked just in Camelot, a world outside of time, sparsely populated compared to the real world, where small villages live their secluded lives ready to be pillaged by the erring band of marauders from the north and to be rescued by good willing paladins. We're talking small communities and a world that is oblivious of its past, and does not have a cyclical vision of it, which is exactly what makes most people a bit cynical and a lot bitter about what goes on the real world. That history repeats itself, that there is no golden age, and that given the inherent tendency of human beings with power to prevaricate, richness and wealth in a country will come at the expenses of another's.

Well, that might sound OT, given the trend of the other posts, but it's what I felt I could contribute, lacking an edge in history of political doctrines.

O.

[hamishspence]

A point to remember is D&D systems tend to be more feudal: there are several steps in the chain between king and general populace. and the larger a system grows, while still being somewhat decentralised, the more likely it is that things can go wrong while king is not aware of it. Especially with the new Points of Light flavour: a noble might turn into a tyrant ruling his vilage and the news might not get back to the ruler for a while.

[Yahzi]

is the simple difference in scale.
That is an excellent point. As Frank Trollman pointed out, D&D is really set in the Iron Age of Greece, with isolated city-states, random monsters in the wilderness, and small bands of heroes. Not the huge political structure of medieval Europe or the Three Kingdoms period of China.


We're talking small communities and a world that is oblivious of its past, and does not have a cyclical vision of it, which is exactly what makes most people a bit cynical and a lot bitter about what goes on the real world.
Another excellent point - people in pre-modern times had a different idea about how life was supposed to be than we do.



Yahzi, you seem to ignore the fact that even kings and other autocrats are held accountable.
Over the long term, yes; but not necessarily over the short enough term to keep them personally moral. Eventually wicked, corrupt empires collapse, but history is replete with dynasty that took generations to lose power.


In D&D, you can get situations where a ruler can't be held accountable by anything short of gods,
I've mentioned this before. In the real world, republican armies could eventually oust the power of the aristocrats - because 100 peasants armed with cheap pikes, discipline, and a ideal to believe in can defeat 10 knights armed to the teeth and trained from birth to fight.

But in the D&D world, they can't. Even if they could, they would be stupid to do so - because that pike square cannot defeat Shadows, or any of the other thousands of monsters that can only be slain by heroes. In the D&D world, democracies don't exist, because equality doesn't exist. There are commoners and there are heroes, and they might as well be separate species. They live by different rules and different laws. And D&D is about playing one of those special people. Which is what I'm always going on about, because I don't like playing an aristocrat.

[hamishspence]

not many settings are built up from the beginning with the assumption that heroes will be majorly important and magic will be prevalent. I'm told that is what 4th ed will try and do. Remains to be seen how well it will succeed.

How important will recent (100 years before) collapse of a major empire be to the system: breakdown into small communities, or attempt to prop it up again? Will an element of one person leadership tend to be present in most communities?

[Tsotha-lanti]

Fiendish Codex 2 had a list of traits one might expect of a strongly LE society, ones the devils attempt to make by subtle influence.

Unquestioning Deference to Authority
Worship of Strength (and despising benevolence)
Strict Rules
Intrusive Control
Harsh Punishments
Bureaucratic Precision
Exemptions for Rulers
Expansionist Aims

That sounds like a very accurate description of a LE society. Fascism, essentially.

[GoC]

but wouldn't they also have to fight against dictators who served the best interests of their country?
As you yourself said you're going by western ideals. And if there's one thing we can't accept it's that systems of government other than democracy actually work (and are even better in places).

Also you can quite easily have freedom of speech in a dictatorship. For a fictional example look at Ankh-Morpork.

EDIT: I also think many of you are forgetting that the idea of the government managing the economy is a fairly recent one. In ancient times the king might do nothing more than collect taxes, defend the people against bandits and negotiate with other countries.
The king will only be unpopular if he's not doing his job properly and when that happens he won't have the power to suppress the revolt anyway and will most likely be replaced by a more competent uncle/brother/nephew/son/other aristocrat. Anyway what people want most in a country with roaming hobgoblin armies is their life not free speech.

EDIT2: Democracies also limit freedom of speech. There was a time in the US where it was illegal to burn the US flag.

[Jack_Simth]

Um. Yes? Not only is that not a necessity-there are governments that *don't* oppress everybody and don't do nasty stuff to those who disagree with them- it also happens regardless of the form said government takes. Hitler was elected, remember. And now that I've Godwinned this (it was inevitable, probably) I'll not bother any more.

He was sort-of elected.

See, his party got about 44% of the popular vote, which gave his party about 44% of the seats in the house.

To suspend the constitution, he needed 2/3rds of the house present, and 2/3rds of those preset to vote for it.

2/3rds of 2/3rds is just a hair over 44%. He arranged for a day when exactly the right number of his opponents were gone, and all of his supporters were present, and had his party vote the country into suspending the constitution, and placing him as the dictator for the duration.

Other than the methods by which he arranged for the right number of his opponents to not be in attendance, he took over the country completely legally under the law of the land at the time. Classic Lawful Evil behavior.

[Talya]

I don't know where this "Drow act LE" thing keeps popping up. Drow as written (in FR, the only place where much is written about their society) have very few laws, break those few they have with impunity, and essentially act as one big social-darwinian experiment, killing and backstabbing at whim, slaughtering each other in the streets, etc. Following the few laws that exist is no guarantee of not being executed on a whim, and breaking them doesn't get you in trouble, so long as you're stronger than whoever saw you. There's no strict heirarchy, caste system, or chain of command. It's one giant free-for-all slaughter, essentially.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I don't know where this "Drow act LE" thing keeps popping up. Drow as written (in FR, the only place where much is written about their society) have very few laws, break those few they have with impunity, and essentially act as one big social-darwinian experiment, killing and backstabbing at whim, slaughtering each other in the streets, etc. Following the few laws that exist is no guarantee of not being executed on a whim, and breaking them doesn't get you in trouble, so long as you're stronger than whoever saw you. There's no strict heirarchy, caste system, or chain of command. It's one giant free-for-all slaughter, essentially.

Yeah. It's CE - but there is a lot of codification (or staleness, maybe; the same kind of chaos repeated over and over?), and the accusation of Lawful tendencies is sort of legitimate. It's what caused the Silence of Lolth, sort of, isn't it? "Those dumbasses are getting too set in their ways - better shake it up with more Chaos!"

I think the War of the Spider Queen books, despite being the worst kind of examples of D&D books where you can "hear the dice as you read", do a good job of portraying this dilemma.

[Talya]

Yeah. It's CE - but there is a lot of codification (or staleness, maybe; the same kind of chaos repeated over and over?), and the accusation of Lawful tendencies is sort of legitimate. It's what caused the Silence of Lolth, sort of, isn't it? "Those dumbasses are getting too set in their ways - better shake it up with more Chaos!"

I think the War of the Spider Queen books, despite being the worst kind of examples of D&D books where you can "hear the dice as you read", do a good job of portraying this dilemma.

Well, the silence of Lolth was primarily because she was using all of her power to raise the Demonweb Pits out of the Abyss to become their own plane. The additional chaos it caused was just a bonus.

[Ponce]

I don't understand the issue. In DnD, rulers use a system of objective morality defined by the rules of the game. In Medieval times, rulers used a system of objective morality they themselves defined. When we shift to the DnD world, rulers lose the ability to pick and choose what morality IS, so why is it logical to assume that they will use the same tyrannical methods to rule their nations? I mean, does not not make sense for the king himself to be a Paladin or high cleric of a good deity? Why should he lose his conviction just because he is the ruler?

[EvilElitest]

I'm in agreement with you here. Good and Evil are clearly defined in concept, and they leave a wide space that is neither, as well as a possibility for actions that are clearly both. That is probably the best definition of an objectively grey moral system I can think of easily.

Thank you, we think alike


The same way as a modern non-oppressive government would, of course. Clear rules that are set out and followed closely, punishments for breaking those laws that are fair and balanced to the severity of the crime, definately ensure no arbitrary arrests or punishments for no, trumped-up, or minor crimes, little to no discrimination based on uncontrollable criteria like race or gender, and probably rights to a fair trial, too.

There is nothing stopping a dictatorship from having the same sort of legal system as a modern nation, though admittedly this would be significantly more difficult in an embattled society like are common in D&D than in selfsame modern societies.

fair enough, so all "Good" governments in D&D would have to have some sort of constitutional code and rights for its citizens. Which would make such society very unique in the adverage middle age world, but this is D&D




In truth, though, most legal systems wouldn't go as far as the idealized modern one would (most real modern societies don't either to be honest; I'd personally call the US a LN nation), but again, oppression is not necessary to maintain law. Fairness and Justice are what we're looking for here, with as much freedom as is practical while maintaining the people's safety and the state's - in that order, and bear in mind that "people" is strictly plural. In a non-Good, non-Evil society, it may become necessary to punish a person for the people if that person would cause harm. This skirts dangerously close to Evil, but it doesn't have to fall into that zone.
i wonder how a good society could be maintained without any evil acts being commited




I concur, absolutely. Actually, I thought that was my point at the end there, but I think you said it better.

If a ruler uses Evil means or seeks Evil ends, the Paladins are obligated to punish.
Thank you





Dear EvilElitest,
Monarchs do not have to maintain their power merely through force of arms. If they are governing justly there are few malcontents, making rebellion far less likely. You may want to look up "Divine Right" and what it means for hereditary rule. The king isn't the king because he has the largest army, he is king because God said so; the army is just a bonus

When a leader turns out to be bad, things change. Things change quickly if it is a sudden shift in quality like King Richard Lionheart to Prince John (see Magna Carta). A slow degrading quality will get people less worked up until an outside stimulus comes along (see French Revolution). Your ideas that a "good king" cannot exist in DnD stems from your misunderstanding of the alignment system.

that isn't a misunderstanding of the alignment, it is a deep look into the alignment system.
Here is what i'm wondering however, all dictatorships work under the idea of one person enforcing his will on the people. This ideal doesn't seem to fit with the description of good. A constitutional monarchy maybe, or one that works under hte idea of everybody having rights.



To be blunt, you have no idea how alignment works. Being in power does not make someone evil. Maintaining power does not make someone evil. Enforcing the laws does not make someone evil. You seem to be completely disregarding neutrality in favor of stirring up debate when you are clearly either misinformed or completely wrong. Good does not care about dictatorships anymore than evil does, you're thinking of law and chaos.

With all due respect, i think that
1) your being very rude
2) your not actually thinking this through
Because i think you are the one who isn't actually isn't understanding the aligment system. I am questioning the nature of good (as defined by modern western ideals of thought) as applied to a middle age society



Talya, Hemishspence, Tura, i think you misunderstand, i'm not saying Dictatorships are bad Democracies are good. I am aware of the appeal of Dictatorships, i'm writing a paper on the rise of Napoleon compared to the rise of Fascism/Stalinism.

however, the D&D definition of "Good" is one who's values don't mesh will with most dicatorships, which is odd considering it takes place in a middle age society (Remember, Book of Exalted Deeds on being ahead of your time)




Anyway, EE, as a few people have explained already, there are two different steps in government. Formation/legitimization and enforcement of law, neither of which need be evil.

A monarchy or other dictatorship may come into power by the willing consent of the people. It happened frequently in antitquity and continues to this day in less 'developed' nations. Don't forget that, had he wanted it, George Washinton would have been King of the United States of America, rather than the first President. That people would want an autoritarian government, or at least be able to tolerate one such that the natural right of rebellion (a modern concept in writing but not in practice historically) is not unusual in history, in fact, it's the majority of cases. Many of those governments were not evil. They used no D&D evil means to gain or keep power.

Enforcement of law is a function of any government. Like gaining power, it can be good or evil. IF the laws are just and justly enforced you will have a good, and probably lawful, country.
fair enough, however good would have to always be on the watch for corruption within a dicatorship



Also, you need to remember the trope that D&D is set in. King Arthur and Aragorn my friend. King Arthur and Aragorn.

True, but not every king can be Aragorn, they are few and far between


What do you do? If you speak against your neighbor you risk imprisonment for your illegal activities, and you put yourself and your family at risk if the authorities fail to protect you from your neighbor. If you keep your mouth shut, nothing happens to you, and the death of a complete stranger goes un punished. Can you really sit there and tell me you'll go against your own interests for the sake of some concept of greater justice that you may or may not fully comprehend? I would wager the majority of people would keep their mouths shut. So if the majority of a populace is just as willing to ignore a greater sense of morality, then how is that system any better than a monarchy
Evil- Don't do it, it is too dangerous
Neutral-Varies
Good- do it for the sake of justice

from
EE

[Saihyol]

This is a strange debate let's examine the definitions from the OP:


Love, mercy, peace, protecting the innocent, resist the temptations to resort to zealotry are good

Torture, murderer, rape, brutality for what ever reasons are evil

Good Player does the first but not the second, good king does the first not the second, good democracy does the first not the second.

Could a King not rule that "Torture, murderer, rape, brutality" are wrong and "Love, mercy, peace, protecting the innocent and avoiding zealotry" are right?

Could a democracy not decide that torture and brutality are okay?

These decisions are made by people (one or many) and people can be good or evil therefore neither system is inherently evil or good.

Enforcing laws does not = brutality.

[Roderick_BR]

*headdesk*

D&D works better without alignment. Try it some time.
*face palm*

Doesn't work better. Only different. Maybe better for you. It's all the same to me. But without it, it's not D&D. I'll play with alignment any time, thanks.

For the OP: Monarchies are not necessarily evil. Dictatorships are usually, evil, and it's the kind of things the PCs are encouraged to fight.
Depends on how you view alignment, and how you play your campaign.

In my stories, "L/G" monarchies are often lead by a just monarch, supported by a a group of "L/something" group of nobles. People is encouraged to take up residence, and work for themselves and their family, and to help the town's market improve, thus improving the quality of life.
Then we have the usual problems, of course, because nothing works 100% perfectly. What often leads to the PCs having to step in.

Now, if the problem starts directly with the monarch or the nobles, then it starts to become some sort of dictatorship.
In a worst case scenario, to see how a "perfect" society works, check of those old Disney "princesses" movies :smalltongue:

[Thinker]

that isn't a misunderstanding of the alignment, it is a deep look into the alignment system.
Here is what i'm wondering however, all dictatorships work under the idea of one person enforcing his will on the people. This ideal doesn't seem to fit with the description of good. A constitutional monarchy maybe, or one that works under hte idea of everybody having rights.
Monarchies do not necessarily work by having one person oppressing others. Once a nation is founded with a monarch, whether it be through alliances or brute force by a warlord, etc. there need not be more oppression. Like ancient Egypt, the people could easily believe the king is the king because the Gods say so. It is a common theme in monarchies from Ancient Egypt all the way through the imperial age.



With all due respect, i think that
1) your being very rude
2) your not actually thinking this through
Because i think you are the one who isn't actually isn't understanding the aligment system. I am questioning the nature of good (as defined by modern western ideals of thought) as applied to a middle age society
1) Do not mistake frankness for rudeness. I'm not going to dress up my words to make them easier for your ego.
2) Good is defined in DnD as: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
This is the definition we work with. A monarch can simply abolish any death penalties and ensure the people are treated fairly to the best of his ability. This works very well within a framework of being descended/appointed/anointed by gods. Next are you going to say that merchants cannot be good in DnD because they increase their wealth by trading with others and don't offer the best prices possible?

Not every good creature needs to only act in a good way, just as every lawful creature can break the laws when necessary.

[Wardog]

Regarding what sort of society (good/neutral/evil/other) would develop among humans, given that - by the rules - humans cover all alignments equally:

This is something I thought about when the "Why are Orcs innately evil?" thread came up a little while back, but didn't post at the time.

Evil people will go out of their way to harm others (for material gain and/or pleasure).

However, there will be an equal number of Good people who will go out of their way to oppose the Evil people, so they should balance each other out. That leaves the Neutrals with the deciding vote.

Now, Neutrals will not generally go out of their way to oppose Evil just for the sake of it. However, they still don't want to be robbed, murdered, beaten up, etc, so they have very straight-forward, self-interested reasons for assisting Good keep Evil in its place.

Even some of the Evil people will probably join in: a Mr Burns-style LE businessman won't want gangs of NE/CE thugs roaming the country pillaging his monopolies.

So IMO, a society that has an equal number of Good, Neutral and Evil people is very likely to gravitate towards an overall Good-ish nature.


I may have good slightly off-topic there, so just to make this relevant to what others have said:

1) For those reasons, a democracy will tend to be more good than non-democratic systems, because (among other reasons), more people will benefit from a "good" system than from a "neutral" or "evil" system.

2) As has been mentioned by others, all governments have to enforce their laws and decisions. IMO, a democracy is less likely to come up with Evil laws/decisions than a non-democratic system (for the reasons I gave above, and because it is easier for a small ruling elite to agree to do something evil than it is to convince everyone to go along with it). However, that doesn't make democracies automatically Always Good, nor does it make non-democracies Always Non-Good.

Further more, there are quite a few different forms of government that are "not a democracy", even if you stick with a quasi-medieval setting.

* Most medieval kings were crowned in a religious ceremony, and were (supposedly) supported by and servants of their God/gods/church. In D&D, these gods have a real, provable presence, so if the state church is Good-aligned, that would have a strong chance of ensuring the King and government act in a Good manner.

* Bad kings often provoked rebellions, and sometimes these rebellions forced the king (or his successor) to accept certain limits on his power. (And even limits as basic as "don't tax the barons without their permission" could benefit everyone, as the barons would pay for these taxes by taxing their peasants. Also, restrictions on the king's ability to gather taxes would restrict his ability to spend them on unnecessary wars, etc).

* Not all medieval kings/rulers were hereditary. Some were elected (admittedly by the aristocracy from the aristocracy), which could help prevent the worst form of evil / unwittingly destructive absolute despots obtaining the throne.

3) In the specific case of the farmer witnessing a murder, he would have to weigh up the risks of:
* Getting punished for illegal gambling (assuming he can't give an alternative explanation for being there).
* Living next door to a murderer.
* Punishment for not reporting a murder (depending on how likely it is the murder will somehow be discovered anyway).
* Getting caught up in a revenge-attack by the victims' friends/relatives. (Such feuds were common in some ancient/medieval societies, and lynch mobs generally don't demand the same standard of proof as the law does).
* Divine punishment for the sin of not reporting the crime (a real risk, in many people's minds, in real medieval societies; and potentially an actual risk in D&D and other fantasy settings).

Also, I'm rather skeptical that a primitive/medieval society would have laws against gambling. A society advanced enough to make and enforce such laws would IMO have an advanced enough police/justice system to mean the murder probably would get found out whatever you did. (Although whether that means you can keep quiet, because you don't need to report the crime, or ought to, because you will just look more suspicious when they find out, is another dilemma).


(I hope that wasn't too much of a ramble).

[EvilElitest]

Monarchies do not necessarily work by having one person oppressing others. Once a nation is founded with a monarch, whether it be through alliances or brute force by a warlord, etc. there need not be more oppression. Like ancient Egypt, the people could easily believe the king is the king because the Gods say so. It is a common theme in monarchies from Ancient Egypt all the way through the imperial age.

however it does work under the assumption that one person is enforcing his will over a mass. Which doesn't seem to fit with the theme of D&D good. A constitutional monarchy maybe, or an oligarchy



1) Do not mistake frankness for rudeness. I'm not going to dress up my words to make them easier for your ego.
2) Good is defined in DnD as: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
This is the definition we work with. A monarch can simply abolish any death penalties and ensure the people are treated fairly to the best of his ability. This works very well within a framework of being descended/appointed/anointed by gods. Next are you going to say that merchants cannot be good in DnD because they increase their wealth by trading with others and don't offer the best prices possible?

Not every good creature needs to only act in a good way, just as every lawful creature can break the laws when necessary.

1) I wouldn't make accusations of egomania using arrogance as a justification actually.
2) With a dictatorship, you need to have one person controlling all of the power in the nature (gods appointing him is possible, but not absolute). Opposition to a dictatorship doesn't make sense. Using hte logic of D&D Good one, good people would very much want a voice in the goverment. So all good governments would have to at least constitutional monarchies.
3) Why? Wealth isn't a crime in D&D. Don't confuse interest in the nature of good with stupidity
from
EE

[Saihyol]

however it does work under the assumption that one person is enforcing his will over a mass. Which doesn't seem to fit with the theme of D&D good.

This seems a very strange viewpoint given your early definitions of good and evil. Using those this is a neutral action (at worst).

Also on the idea of 'Enforcing' his will: While the government does this to me on a daily basis in the sense of laws and instructions I wouldn't say this was (necessarily) evil.

[EvilElitest]

This seems a very strange viewpoint given your early definitions of good and evil. Using those this is a neutral action (at worst).

Also on the idea of 'Enforcing' his will: While the government does this to me on a daily basis in the sense of laws and instructions I wouldn't say this was (necessarily) evil.

I'll expand

Dictatorships at their core aren't evil, (or monarchies) but it certainly is a system that easily slides into evil ways. So while the normal idea of a monarchy could work, it could slip into evil ways fair easier.

from
EE

[Saihyol]

Agreed.

Given the number of times I've considered the rack to get co-operation from my subjects...sorry players...

[Riffington]

They would support that bad law if it protected their own interests. That was the point I was trying to make. Yes, people are fearful. That fear drives them to ignore good conscience. That voice of good or ill can come from a democracy or a dictator. Neither a democracy nor a dictatorship inherently facilitate good or evil. Both have little bearing on whether people will behave for good or evil. Evil democracies are just as plausible and likely as evil monarchs. It all comes down to the people in power. 100 people are just as likely to be evil as one person is.

This is at odds with Earth history. People rarely ignore their conscience when they vote - even those people who ignore their conscience when they have a chance to steal/cheat/etc. Just look at the political arguments you hear in [whatever democratic country you happen to live nearest]. How many focus on evil arguments "this minority has X, which we can take"? And how many are focused on things they genuinely (but perhaps incorrectly) believe to be good?

[Thinker]

however it does work under the assumption that one person is enforcing his will over a mass. Which doesn't seem to fit with the theme of D&D good. A constitutional monarchy maybe, or an oligarchy
Or that one person is passing laws in the interests of good. A good person will not pass intentionally evil laws. You concede Constitutional Monarchy and Oligarchy.
> How about Divine Right? The gods of good appointed a family or person as the good. The person is good and wouldn't be there if he wasn't. There is no DnD way for him to be evil, everyone would know it and he would be deposed by his people and sponsors.
> What about champions of righteousness? The ancestors of the king's dynasty were in a position of authority due to their acts against evilness. The family is raised with virtue across the generations. Their goodness is maintained because if it were not everyone would know it.


1) I wouldn't make accusations of egomania using arrogance as a justification actually.
2) With a dictatorship, you need to have one person controlling all of the power in the nature (gods appointing him is possible, but not absolute). Opposition to a dictatorship doesn't make sense. Using hte logic of D&D Good one, good people would very much want a voice in the goverment. So all good governments would have to at least constitutional monarchies.
3) Why? Wealth isn't a crime in D&D. Don't confuse interest in the nature of good with stupidity
from
EE

1) Ego isn't arrogance. It is your own sense of self-confidence and your ability to distinguish yourself from things that are not yourself.
2) You've already conceded that monarchies can exist in DnD and be good (see your own statements above). Are you saying that one person cannot be good simply because he has power? Its more often that people start to freak out while trying to maintain that power, which would not happen if people were content. If the laws are just and good, no one would care if they had "a say" in the government. People don't complain unless they know there is something to complain about.
3) Wealth isn't a crime, but gaining it at the expense of others would show selfishness. He wants more money, so obviously its all self-interest and not the interest of others.

Kings can be evil, but not necessarily anymore so than anyone else. If he is evil, everyone knows about it. You've already admitted to this so there is no point in debating it further.

[Jayabalard]

Dictatorships at their core aren't evil, (or monarchies) but it certainly is a system that easily slides into evil ways. So while the normal idea of a monarchy could work, it could slip into evil ways fair easier. The same is true of democracies; l there's nothing special in the potential for evil in monarchies or dictatorships compared to the potential for evil in democracies.

[EvilElitest]

Or that one person is passing laws in the interests of good. A good person will not pass intentionally evil laws. You concede Constitutional Monarchy and Oligarchy.
> How about Divine Right? The gods of good appointed a family or person as the good. The person is good and wouldn't be there if he wasn't. There is no DnD way for him to be evil, everyone would know it and he would be deposed by his people and sponsors.
> What about champions of righteousness? The ancestors of the king's dynasty were in a position of authority due to their acts against evilness. The family is raised with virtue across the generations. Their goodness is maintained because if it were not everyone would know it.

1. I conceded constitutional Monarchy and possible Oligarchy at the first page actually
2. Divine right isn't absolute in D&D, because the gods are not infallible. Also if it is a divinely ruled nation, then the idea of freedom of relgion comes into question
3. Champions of righteousness yes, but how well would that work with running the country effectively
4. You can claim to be a champion of righteousness and not be, family isn't an excuse. paladins yes, but would a paladin ruled nation work effectively?


1) Ego isn't arrogance. It is your own sense of self-confidence and your ability to distinguish yourself from things that are not yourself.
2) You've already conceded that monarchies can exist in DnD and be good (see your own statements above). Are you saying that one person cannot be good simply because he has power? Its more often that people start to freak out while trying to maintain that power, which would not happen if people were content. If the laws are just and good, no one would care if they had "a say" in the government. People don't complain unless they know there is something to complain about.
3) Wealth isn't a crime, but gaining it at the expense of others would show selfishness. He wants more money, so obviously its all self-interest and not the interest of others.
1. True, but being frank doesn't mean being rude. Also you claim of my not understanding the alignment system is flat out wrong. you could make a claim i don't understand its relationship with government, where you would have more credence
2) But i'm doubtful it would work that way. i mean call me a Machiavellian cynic, i don't think such a system would easily work. A good king isn't always an effective one and people could very well demand their rights
3) depends on his methods. Hard Bargaining is just doing his job, slave labor or cheating however...



Kings can be evil, but not necessarily anymore so than anyone else. If he is evil, everyone knows about it. You've already admitted to this so there is no point in debating it further.

1. Why would everybody know it? paladins but not everybody
2. And some people wouldn't care as long as he is effective. napelon did good things for France and he was definently LE by D&D standard
from
EE

[Thinker]

1. I conceded constitutional Monarchy and possible Oligarchy at the first page actually
2. Divine right isn't absolute in D&D, because the gods are not infallible. Also if it is a divinely ruled nation, then the idea of freedom of relgion comes into question
3. Champions of righteousness yes, but how well would that work with running the country effectively
4. You can claim to be a champion of righteousness and not be, family isn't an excuse. paladins yes, but would a paladin ruled nation work effectively?
I don't know why you keep on increasing the number of talking points, its almost as though you have an insatiable urge to be "right", by which I mean make other people bored with the discussion.
1. Then your post's main point is moot.
2. The gods may or may not be infallible in DnD, that is based on campaign setting. If a god is a god with good in his portfolio, he will work in the interests of good regardless of setting. Religious freedom may or may not be there in a good setting. It doesn't matter.
3. Champions implies some sort of leadership experience, not just a soldier in the army of good. It could work just as well as any leader running anything.
4. Detect Evil is on how many spell-lists? Groups of good people would certainly inform people about the evil person. In DnD its not so easy to hide alignment or motives, or to even lie effectively. Spells make it happen!



1. True, but being frank doesn't mean being rude. Also you claim of my not understanding the alignment system is flat out wrong. you could make a claim i don't understand its relationship with government, where you would have more credence
2) But i'm doubtful it would work that way. i mean call me a Machiavellian cynic, i don't think such a system would easily work. A good king isn't always an effective one and people could very well demand their rights
3) depends on his methods. Hard Bargaining is just doing his job, slave labor or cheating however...
1. Of course you're not going to think you misunderstand anything. Your basis for reality is that you know what is going on. Your know what you see, you hear what you hear, but do you really understand everything you've seen? I'm not impressed by people who think they know everything.
2. Its not that hard for a king to be good. Essentially he just has to respect life. He doesn't have to be good enough to be a paladin, just do things in the interests of the people. Its not the best way to maintain power, but it will suffice in a world with spells where you can know of any immediate threats to authority. Since you are good, the only people that would target you must be evil.
3. "Just doing his job"...I think I heard that one somewhere before. DnD is an objective based alignment system. You're falling into the trap of assigning motive to action, which does not matter. Killing an orphan is still evil even if doing so stops a demon from entering and destroying the world.




1. Why would everybody know it? paladins but not everybody
2. And some people wouldn't care as long as he is effective. napelon did good things for France and he was definently LE by D&D standard
from
EE
1. Spells, they're everywhere. What good characters wouldn't check out people in authority if something looks fishy?
2. If they don't care are they being oppressed? I would think Napoleon would be LN, not LE. He did plenty of good with the bad.

[LibraryOgre]

A monarchy is not inherently evil. Now, a monarch is quite likely to have to do things that are unpleasant, but there are many insulators from keeping him from being evil, and autocratic.

Remember, in most monarchies, the king rules somewhat at the pleasure of the nobles. He is stronger than any of them individually, but he is not stronger than all of them together. He has some who will support him because he is the king, and some who will support him because he is their friend and/or ally, but the rest he must woo politically. He doesn't have to have all the nobles love him, but he has to have enough tolerate him that dethroning him is against their best interests (too expensive in lives, money, or political capital, or too likely to fail).

Nobles (including the king, who owns certain holdings outright), likewise, rule somewhat at the pleasure of their peasants and middle classes. If taxes are too burdensome, then your peasants will be too unhealthy to do the work, and the middle classes will abandon you for better pastures. Without peasants, you have trouble feeding your knights/soldiers, and without the middle classes, you have trouble making the things you need, or raising money.

Now, D&D changes this a bit, but not too much. If you introduce spellcasters who enforce the monarch's will, then they have to be courted and kept happy like nobles. The church was always a power player in medieval life; D&D churches, however, can produce some very effective results, and have some very powerful ways of showing their displeasure.

Ruling a monarchy is a matter of balancing everyone's enlightened self-interest. A Good monarch will work towards the betterment of everyone... he'll lay taxes somewhat lightly to ensure that his peasants have plenty to eat, make sure that roads are kept up so trade can take place quickly and easily, sponsor clerics or healers in remote villages for the health of his people, and quickly see to bandits that are preying on his people. An Evil monarch may not do these things. He'll lay taxes at a level that suits his wants... if he's smart, it will still be sustainable, but it might be just above starvation level. His soldiers will be as a bad as bandits, taking what (and who) they want, and the punishment for interfering with them will be harsh. If he sends healers to deal with things, its because its threatening the monarch's comfort, wealth, or power, not because of what it's doing to his power.

[Sleet]

in order to enforce your will effectivly, goverments in history generally do rather nasty things.

Historically, yes. D&D isn't terribly good at historical roleplaying.

It does, however, model heroic fantasy fairly well. The "Good King" is a common heroic fantasy archetype.

[Yahzi]

The same is true of democracies; l there's nothing special in the potential for evil in monarchies or dictatorships compared to the potential for evil in democracies.
Except that in democracies you have to pretend to care about the interests of others, whereas the whole point of a dictatorship is that you don't.

[Ryusacerdos]

I'm going to say that Democracy reflect the alignment of the governed people, while Monarchy/Dictatorships reflect the alignment of the ruler. Neither is inherently good or evil.

There is one piece of the picture all of you are missing though, and that is Separation of Powers.

The United States hasn't kept its freedom simply because its a democracy, but because our founding fathers were wise enough to realize that any government where all power was concentrated in one person or lawful body would inevitably tread on the freedoms of the people. The simple fact that no one person or group can take complete control of the government is what has kept as free. "Ambition must be made to counteract Ambition" and "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. " (James Madision, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._51) are as much founding principles of the United States as "All men are created equal."

Essentially, America was founded on the principle that all men are created equally untrustworthy to be placed into power. Of course, not everyone is evil, but its a good assumption to make in creating a government that is suppose to uphold the common good.

Monarchies and Dictatorships tend towards evil because such checks and balances are non-existent for an absolute ruler - all an evil man has to do to assume complete control is take that one position for himself, and then keep everyone else from doing the same.

Even so, I wouldn't classify the United States as "good" - it has committed its fair share of atrocities (Slavery, the relocation/extermination of Native Americans, Fire Bombings and Nuclear Bombs targeting civilians in WWII). I would have to say "True Neutral," as that is the average and most natural alignment in D&D.

[snoopy13a]

I suppose the OP has never heard of the concept of the good king or benevolent dicatator?

Granted there are few examples of rulers who were considered "good" but there are some. Anyway, the philosopher Plato believed that the ideal government was a city-state ruled by a wise philosopher-king:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher-king

The philosopher Voltaire was a proponent of a sort of government called enlightened absolutism. This is basically an absolute ruler being concern with the needs of the citizens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_Absolutism

Overall, if great minds such as Voltaire and Plato believed that it was possible to have a good absolute ruler, who am I to argue?

[SimperingToad]

This one is really getting into borderline territory...

Firstly, let's nip one glaring misconception in the bud. The United States is not a Democracy. It's a Republic. There is a huge difference. Read what the Framers wrote about the subject. And...

"The United States [the Federal Government] shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall..." - The Constitution of the United States, Article 4 Section 4 (emphasis added)

Anyway, more on topic. There is a difference between those who work in government to serve, and those who work to rule. That is where the issue of morality and government rests. If you have a government which serves, it is ruled by the populace and can be considered 'good' (though 'just' is a better term IMHO). That is where the U.S. (as an example) began. A government which rules over the populace is invariably unjust (evil), which is where the U.S. (again for example) currently finds itself, though the Law has not changed.

Dictatorship in all forms is evil (unjust), regardless of individual or collective figurehead(s). For 'It' considers itself to be lord and master over the population. If 'It' is the master, then the population becomes the slave.

Can we see good and just kings in a fantasy setting? Sure. I think the game needs such things. Just remember - it's your fantasy.

Regards,
theToad

[Thinker]

Anyway, more on topic. There is a difference between those who work in government to serve, and those who work to rule. That is where the issue of morality and government rests. If you have a government which serves, it is ruled by the populace and can be considered 'good' (though 'just' is a better term IMHO). That is where the U.S. (as an example) began. A government which rules over the populace is invariably unjust (evil), which is where the U.S. (again for example) currently finds itself, though the Law has not changed.

Dictatorship in all forms is evil (unjust), regardless of individual or collective figurehead(s). For 'It' considers itself to be lord and master over the population. If 'It' is the master, then the population becomes the slave.
You are bringing subjectiveness and motive into DnD alignment where it has no place. Alignment is based solely on actions, regardless of motivation. Because of this dictatorship can be good. The actions the leadership can and often are good.

[Yahzi]

Dictatorship in all forms is evil
Only in our world. In the D&D world you have Gods of Good. Those guys didn't get elected; they are dictators (at least on their own planes); and yet we know they're Good because it says so in their stat block.
:smallbiggrin:

[Khanderas]

Dictatorship in all forms is evil (unjust), regardless of individual or collective figurehead(s). For 'It' considers itself to be lord and master over the population. If 'It' is the master, then the population becomes the slave.

Can we see good and just kings in a fantasy setting? Sure. I think the game needs such things. Just remember - it's your fantasy.
Well dictator does not have to mean opressive tyrant. Dictator is just that no options are allowed (or even thought of, in the ages of kings, there is no other leadership considered. Either the current king, or though court backstabbing and murder, get a different king).

Considering the kingdom itself above the needs of its populace (such as fairly heavy, but not crushing, taxes to keep the army in shape enough to keep out warring pillaging barbarians) can objectivly still be Good, even if he personally don't care at all for the serfs as long as they are productive.

Being in control as the only viable option, does not have to mean you rule with an iron fist. It can be as simple as the royal family has "always" been the rulers, by devine decree or not, and unless some king or prince screws up royally and repeatedly that is not subject to change.

[hamishspence]

Dictator, king, lord, first among equals, or simply Guy In Charge, it is rare to find a system that isn'tcentred around one being, even if said being theoretically has no more power than the others. Maybe it has to do with the idea that people need someone to look up to.

Generally, it should be up to the dM how big the disparity between ruler and ruled is, and how much opportinity ordinary people have to become the ruler.

A system with no clearly visible person in charge may be a bit unsatisfying, even if the prson is very replaceable. the Replacable Leader concept can be used well though: pirate captain, for example.

Terry Pratchett was good at playing up the theme of the visible leader not necessarily being the real guider of the group: D-Regs and their "leader" being really just the guy who yells Charge, but the elders being the real guides. Or, druids and the King of the Bean ceremony, where the king gets...disposed of if he isn't up to the job in time of crisis. And so on.

[Rumpus]

in order to enforce your will effectivly, goverments in history generally do rather nasty things.
from
EE

Yes, but that is true of all governments, whether hereditary or elected. Even in the happiest democracy, guys with guns and clubs will still kick down your door if they think you're breaking the law inside. Democracy just makes it more likely that the alignment of the ruler matches the people.

Plus, an evil ruler doesn't neccessarily mean that the average citizen's life is miserable. If he practices a bizarre religion and occassionally sacrifices an innocent to dark gods, he may still do a good job of managing the kingdom. It probably doesn't affect you much unless you or someone you know happens to be the unlucky victim. If there is enough bread and circuses, people will be happy to endure unjust rule (or even elect it to office).

On the same note, a good and just ruler may have miserable citizens if his kingdom has fallen on hard times. A bad economic cycle, reavers attacking your borders, or just plain being ugly and poorly-spoken (ie low CHA) could make a righteous leader incredibly unpopular.

[RukiTanuki]

I'm trying to follow this discussion, but it seems like there's logical potholes at every turn. Here's the OP's case as I see it (which may or may not be accurate):

1. D&D's alignment of Good is based on generally peaceful, benevolent gestures.
2. D&D worlds often have many governments ruled by one person.
3. All governments need to enforce rules.
4. There are many examples in history of governments (especially those ruled by one person) who have enforced rules through measures that would be regarded as Evil in the D&D alignment.
5. Therefore, governments ruled by one person in D&D would inevitably use these measures.
6. In conclusion, governments ruled by one person are Evil.

I'm just attempting to organize this; let me know if I have it wrong. In particular, most of the responses seem to be in two categories: those that refute point 5 and 6 (one-man governments must be evil) as an inevitable conclusion to point 4 (there have been evil one-man governments in history), and responses that reiterate that 4 is true, so 5 must be, ergoe 6.

I'm not following this form of logic. I haven't seen a good case for why a government must drift towards Evil acts. Anecdotal listings of historical cases doesn't really show any causation. There are many cases of benevolent governments in history, but let's face it, "and everyone got along" doesn't get much coverage in the history books. Unless the government built something really big out of stone or metal, most people (in my opinion) take interest in its history at the point where everything starts going wrong. :)

The only other argument that caught my eye was the use of a quote: namely, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is this logic or a catchphrase? It's not inherently true just because it's well-known. (In addition, the lesser-known end to that quote is "Great men are almost always bad men." Emphasis mine.) Lord Acton was unavailable to comment on the influence that detect evil spells and active deities would have on his analysis.

Any form of government can do the wrong things for the right intentions (and that's not even getting into the ones that will do the wrong thing with bad intentions). If the government is ruled by the many versus the one, all that changes is the method. It is possible for one person to rule by improving the welfare of all (isn't that the definition of a benevolent dictatorship?), just as it's possible for a democracy or republic to kill millions for misguided ideals. There are real-world examples for each scenario, dictatorship or democracy, moral or immoral.

In the D&D world, where lizards fly, and men shoot fireballs out of their hands and stop time, and kobolds can become gods, I don't have to strain my suspension of disbelief to pretend that someone can rule over an area and protect the interests of the people who live there.

But then, the OP acknowledges later in the thread that good rulerships can exist in D&D, given obvious archtypes (like paladins) who can't easily be represented as inherently corruptible. As such, I'm not even sure what we're discussing. :) Perhaps the real theory is that rulership in D&D would inevitably turn any Good-aligned person into an Evil dictator, by the sheer virtue of power?

[Yahzi]

The only other argument that caught my eye was the use of a quote: namely, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is this logic or a catchphrase?
It's logic, because the essence of morality is accountability; and the essence of absolute power is lack of accountability.

To be moral is to be accountable to others. Without feedback one will invariably lose one's bearings and drift off course. An absolute ruler becomes evil without even trying, simply because what keeps us moral is the constant feedback of others; and an absolute ruler does not have that feedback.


Perhaps the real theory is that rulership in D&D would inevitably turn any Good-aligned person into an Evil dictator, by the sheer virtue of power?
The D&D world is the only place that doesn't happen, because even the highest ruler is accountable to the Gods.

Now, what keeps the Gods moral? That's easy... the RAW! :smallbiggrin:

[GoC]

An Evil monarch may not do these things. He'll lay taxes at a level that suits his wants... if he's smart, it will still be sustainable, but it might be just above starvation level. His soldiers will be as a bad as bandits, taking what (and who) they want, and the punishment for interfering with them will be harsh. If he sends healers to deal with things, its because its threatening the monarch's comfort, wealth, or power, not because of what it's doing to his power.

Such a king would not survive very long in the D&D world.
In fact anyone who doesn't do a good job will soon find some sympathetic heroes knocking on his doors to either kill him and steal his stuff or to "advise".
And a very powerful good church makes most real-world comparisons moot.

[RukiTanuki]

The D&D world is the only place that doesn't happen, because even the highest ruler is accountable to the Gods.

Wait, so the OP argument is moot, as no power in D&D is held unaccountable? :)

[Citizen Joe]

Even so, I wouldn't classify the United States as "good" - it has committed its fair share of atrocities (Slavery, the relocation/extermination of Native Americans, Fire Bombings and Nuclear Bombs targeting civilians in WWII). I would have to say "True Neutral," as that is the average and most natural alignment in D&D.

Try chaotic neutral. We love our freedoms too much and every 2 years we change at least part of our government.

[hamishspence]

certainly a more inclusive concept of chaotic neutral compared to 2nd ed, where it simply meant nutty.

Another interpretation of the power corrupts thing is "power attracts the corruptible"

in a Tom clancy novel, one of ryans advisors quips "Power corrupts and absolute power is actually pretty neat: so said a staffer for one of your predescessors"

[Wardog]

Anyway, more on topic. There is a difference between those who work in government to serve, and those who work to rule. That is where the issue of morality and government rests. If you have a government which serves, it is ruled by the populace and can be considered 'good' (though 'just' is a better term IMHO). That is where the U.S. (as an example) began. A government which rules over the populace is invariably unjust (evil), which is where the U.S. (again for example) currently finds itself, though the Law has not changed.

Dictatorship in all forms is evil (unjust), regardless of individual or collective figurehead(s). For 'It' considers itself to be lord and master over the population. If 'It' is the master, then the population becomes the slave.


If we were talking about Real Life, I'd more or less agree with you (although any further discussion about that would probably risk breaking forum rules).

However, this is D&D we're talking about, and as I understand it, in D&D "ruling over the populace" is neither Good nor Evil, but Law.

[Dode]

The problem with the premise of the op is that it presumes that imposing an effective democracy is possible in an era before the printing press was widely available.

Simply put, without a way of distributing massive amounts of information to the populace and distributing it across vast distances, there is no way that the populace is going to be informed enough or educated enough in order to make those decisions. This is why the first democracy (Athens) beyond a tribal system was merely a city and it never got beyond that stage for thousands of years. I think we as a people grossly underestimate the advantages of a global information distribution system we were born into and our responsibility as citizens to be well-informed.

[nagora]

Something that has been bothering me for a while

The Good camp of D&D is based upon 20th century Western ideals right?

Well, not really, no. Good is what improves life for the maximum number of sentient creatures. That's a very general point and not really a C20th thing.



Love, mercy, peace, protecting the innocent, resist the temptations to resort to zealotry are good

I don't think the last point belongs on that list, but otherwise, yes.



Torture, murderer, rape, brutality for what ever reasons are evil

The first two are not so clear-cut. If the city is under seige by orcs, a LG person might resort to torture to find out the location of the attacking general's tent. They'd feel pretty bad about it, but if all other avenues had been tried, then I think it would be acceptable as non-evil. Similarly the assassination (murder) of an evil dictator is not in itself automatically an evil act.



And yet, monarchies and other form of dictatorships are tolerated in the average D&D worlds, even encouraged

"Monarchies and other forms of dictatorships". Nice one.

The modern usage of those terms indicates two different things, and dictatorship is definately a loaded term. In ancient times, "dictator" wasn't even regarded as a negative term - like "tyrant" it simply indicated one of many possible forms of government.


And yet we all know the essential rule of any sort of dictatorship, might makes right. You enforce the rule of one person through might.

All government is "might makes right". What distinguishes any government from any other bunch of people moaning about the state of the world is that it has the power to enforce its decisions. Who makes those decisions is of no consequence - king, oligarchs, mayor, talking goat, the mob, priests, whatever. If they can't enforce their decisions then they ain't the government, and ultimately that means physically putting down those who refuse to accept the decisions.

I think basically at that point your argument is dead.

Good/Evil in AD&D, at least, is totally unrelated to Law/Chaos, and is in RL too. You can have a good dictator and an evil democracy; an evil theocracy and a good king. All of them using the machinery of the state to enforce their morals on those who oppose them.