PDA

View Full Version : What would be the alignment of Brutus?



EvilElitest
2008-10-12, 07:48 PM
I watched the old film version of Julius Caesar (here is the best speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNRoeMvzMVo)) a week and a half ago when i wondered what the D&D alignments of the characters would be? I recently wrote an article on Brutus on my blog, and i wanted to know what you thought (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/aligniment-of-brutus.html)


I also wanted to know what the rest of the cast would be? For the purpose of this thread, it is only the play that is under dicussion. I'd think Mark Anthony would be NE. While he is loyal to his master and makes that great speech to rally the people against Brutus, he also wants power for himself.
Cassius is also NE, as he generally works for his own benifit.
Caesar doesn't do enough in the play to get an alignment
What do you think?
from
EE

BRC
2008-10-12, 07:56 PM
Personally, I would put brutus as NG, with Lawful motivations but Chaotic methods.

He wants what is best for Rome above all (Good), and he wants to keep the current legal system (Lawful). However, he is convinced to go outside that system (Chaotic). Ergo, I call him LG, for while he would have liked to remain Lawful, he was able to be convinced to use Chaotic methods.

EvilElitest
2008-10-12, 08:14 PM
Personally, I would put brutus as NG, with Lawful motivations but Chaotic methods.

He wants what is best for Rome above all (Good), and he wants to keep the current legal system (Lawful). However, he is convinced to go outside that system (Chaotic). Ergo, I call him LG, for while he would have liked to remain Lawful, he was able to be convinced to use Chaotic methods.

he isn't good through, for two main reasons

1) he uses evil methods. Murder is not a solution, particularly when Brutus never made any attempt to find out if Caesar was actually going to be a tyrant nor actually attempted any other possibility. True a single evil action won't change your algniment but i think this shows something about hsi character
2) He never really uses any of the good virtues. He isn't about kindness, empathy or forgiveness, he is more about roman honor
from
EE

drengnikrafe
2008-10-12, 08:17 PM
I would have to agree more with EE on the not-good thing. I think he started out Lawful-Good, and over the course of the story changed either to LN or LE, leaning more towards LN. Either that, or he started LN and remained so. One act does not an evil man make.

BRC
2008-10-12, 08:25 PM
he isn't good through, for two main reasons

1) he uses evil methods. Murder is not a solution, particularly when Brutus never made any attempt to find out if Caesar was actually going to be a tyrant nor actually attempted any other possibility. True a single evil action won't change your algniment but i think this shows something about hsi character
2) He never really uses any of the good virtues. He isn't about kindness, empathy or forgiveness, he is more about roman honor
from
EE
True. I would say his Motivations are LG, but his actions probably bring him down to TN.

EvilElitest
2008-10-12, 08:31 PM
Pretty much yeah. He starts out, in the play at least, a good person (through there is a mix of Roman and Good standards of a good person). But anyways, he has good intentions, but fails because of his actions, so N, LN, LE would be his alignment possibilities i think.
from
EE

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-12, 08:53 PM
Lawful Stupid. Honorable intentions, sloppy execution. Literally.

TS

EvilElitest
2008-10-12, 09:01 PM
would that make Anthony Neutral smart?
from
EE

kpenguin
2008-10-12, 09:04 PM
would that make Anthony Neutral smart?
from
EE

Given Julius Caesar's sequel, I'd say no.

EvilElitest
2008-10-12, 09:04 PM
Given Julius Caesar's sequel, I'd say no.

touche, touche
from
EE

Chronos
2008-10-12, 09:11 PM
Remember that Brutus was also a personal friend of Caesar's. That backstabbing wasn't just a violation of the law; it was a personal violation as well.

EvilElitest
2008-10-12, 09:13 PM
through it does show that he puts honor before friendship, and yet he never tried any other method before resorting to violence
from
EE

bosssmiley
2008-10-13, 04:13 AM
LE - he was part of an oligarchic cabal devoted to the perpetuation of their own power who connived at the assassination of a man who was both the constitutionally elected ruler of the Roman Republic and the Pontifex Maximus of the state religion. So treason, sacrilege and rank ingratitude to the man who had both advanced his career and previously showed him clemency.

(Marcus Junius) Brutus then tried to justify his actions on the grounds of liberty and historic precedent. I'm with Dante in my opinion of Brutus: the man was a git. :smallamused:

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 07:35 AM
Now, the first Brutus might fit into LN: overthrower of tyrants, but so devoted to the law of the free city, that willing to have his own sons executed for conspiring against it.

Brutus, killer of Caesar? Depends how tyrannical you think Caeser was: Machiavelli felt that tyrants were effectively outlaws, enemies of humankind. At least, thats what he wrote in The Discourses and he felt Caesar was the one who wrecked republicanism in Rome, leaving way open for Octavian.

However, some might say it was already wrecked, in the time of Sulla and Marius, and Caesar was trying to fix it.

So, depends what authors you read.

Telonius
2008-10-13, 08:49 AM
As presented in the play ... wants to be LG, but is TN.

Subotei
2008-10-13, 10:42 AM
Lawful Neutral - as I would class most political chancers. They are not moving in a moral world, but playing a game for power.

However I would agree he's naive, and if theres one thing worse than a politician, its a naive politician.

snoopy13a
2008-10-13, 10:49 AM
More interesting would be a discussion of Caesar's alignment. Is he a LG benevolent dicator, a LE tyrant or somewhere in between?

JMobius
2008-10-13, 10:55 AM
Alternatively, the alignment system is simply not sufficiently expressive to describe these figures. The fact that its difficult to decide whether they are good or evil should indicate this...

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 11:03 AM
simplest answer is to assume anyone who does lots of evil for a "Good" cause is evil, but doesn't have to show the classic traits. the "Well Intentioned Extremist" can be far more frightening than someone who is just vicious.

bosssmiley
2008-10-13, 02:52 PM
More interesting would be a discussion of Caesar's alignment. Is he a LG benevolent dicator, a LE tyrant or somewhere in between?

Ceasar - LN(E)

He crucified several hundred pirates over a personal affront, enslaved and killed (possibly) millions of Gauls, divorced his 3rd wife to shore up his political position ("Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" (http://www.answers.com/topic/caesar-s-wife-must-be-above-suspicion)), and bought the 500 year-old Roman Republic crashing down in a staggering piece of political brinkmanship.

Up until he crossed the Rubicon Caesar seems to have been punctilious in his observance of the proper social, legal and political forms. When it came down to it though ambition trumped principle in a spectacular manner.

So, I'd say he was LN (good governance, legality in all things) tinged with LE (the ends justify the means, vae victis)

Oslecamo
2008-10-13, 03:05 PM
So, I'd say he was LN (good governance, legality in all things) tinged with LE (the ends justify the means, vae victis)



Specially when the end means that you get to keep your head over your shoulders.

Seriously, Caesar proves to be a mighty general and gets plenty of riches and power for his nation, and how do they thank him? They want to execute him!

I think that he simply let the killers get him. He was just tired of being hated by everyone around him. He did his best to make Rome grow, and nobody ever thanked him for that.

This is, what is the chance of Caesar, mighty general and politician, don't seeing such a cabal trying to kill him or at least doesn't go everywhere with a dozen trustworthy bodyguards? If he was really evil, he would have cared more for his safety.

LN trough and trough.

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 03:37 PM
the problem is you are equating selfish with evil. Well Intentioned Extremists can commit spectacular atrocities in the name of a "cause" and still believe themselves to be paragons of virtue. not all evil people focus on themselves.

In D&D, at least.

Closet_Skeleton
2008-10-13, 04:25 PM
Alternatively, the alignment system is simply not sufficiently expressive to describe these figures. The fact that its difficult to decide whether they are good or evil should indicate this...

Not really. The problem is never that Alignment isn't deep enough, it's that Alignment is too broad.

Alignment has nothing to do with personality, it's about where your allegiance lies in a cosmic game between supernatural entities.

I'd say Brutus was LN (honour and laws above all else, LG would be laws to protect people) but didn't always live up to his ideals.

A LG character can slaughter babies and won't turn evil unless he starts enjoying it. A person's ideals and personality aren't always perfectly reflected in their actions.

Oslecamo
2008-10-13, 07:10 PM
A LG character can slaughter babies and won't turn evil unless he starts enjoying it. A person's ideals and personality aren't always perfectly reflected in their actions.

Why is he slaughtering babies then?

If he's taking orders from someone evil, he's definetely isn't good.

If he's slaughtering just for slaughtering, then he definetely isn't lawfull.

JMobius
2008-10-13, 07:16 PM
Alignment has nothing to do with personality, it's about where your allegiance lies in a cosmic game between supernatural entities.

Well now, I wouldn't really agree with that.

But then, the fact that no one can ever agree on anything in regards to any definition of any aspect of alignment is why threads like this are so damn pervasive. :smallsmile:

EvilElitest
2008-10-13, 08:22 PM
Alternatively, the alignment system is simply not sufficiently expressive to describe these figures. The fact that its difficult to decide whether they are good or evil should indicate this...
Not at all, the system is actually quite in depth in terms of good and evil. Law and Chaos are the larger problems


Ceasar - LN(E)

He crucified several hundred pirates over a personal affront, enslaved and killed (possibly) millions of Gauls, divorced his 3rd wife to shore up his political position ("Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" (http://www.answers.com/topic/caesar-s-wife-must-be-above-suspicion)), and bought the 500 year-old Roman Republic crashing down in a staggering piece of political brinkmanship.

Up until he crossed the Rubicon Caesar seems to have been punctilious in his observance of the proper social, legal and political forms. When it came down to it though ambition trumped principle in a spectacular manner.

So, I'd say he was LN (good governance, legality in all things) tinged with LE (the ends justify the means, vae victis)
Well if we are talking historical Caesar, LE. He wouldn't even border LN, once you slaughter possibility a million people your firmly LE. That doesn't diminish his sheer awesomeness however, but recall that the Roman idea of good and evil is not the D&D one, by D&D standards the Roman empire would be evil.



Specially when the end means that you get to keep your head over your shoulders.

Seriously, Caesar proves to be a mighty general and gets plenty of riches and power for his nation, and how do they thank him? They want to execute him!

I think that he simply let the killers get him. He was just tired of being hated by everyone around him. He did his best to make Rome grow, and nobody ever thanked him for that.

This is, what is the chance of Caesar, mighty general and politician, don't seeing such a cabal trying to kill him or at least doesn't go everywhere with a dozen trustworthy bodyguards? If he was really evil, he would have cared more for his safety.

LN trough and trough.
whilte that is an accurate understanding of Caesar's personality, it doesn't change the fact that he still committed a massive amount of evil actions over the course of his life, far too many to stay LN. That being said, he isn't any less awsome



A LG character can slaughter babies and won't turn evil unless he starts enjoying it. A person's ideals and personality aren't always perfectly reflected in their action
thats not true, a good person can't commit evil actions without turning evil. Because good and evil are absolute in D&D, a person's beliefs doesn't change the fac they are committing evil actions.


But then, the fact that no one can ever agree on anything in regards to any definition of any aspect of alignment is why threads like this are so damn pervasive
that isn't the fault of the system so much as the presentation of the system
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-13, 08:32 PM
that isn't the fault of the system so much as the presentation of the system
from
EE

I would say the problem stems from trying to present a world with an objective moral system to the real world were morality is largely subjective (save for the absoulte extremes i.e. Genocide=evil, saving a bus full of nuns=good)

EvilElitest
2008-10-13, 09:55 PM
I would say the problem stems from trying to present a world with an objective moral system to the real world were morality is largely subjective (save for the absoulte extremes i.e. Genocide=evil, saving a bus full of nuns=good)

thats actually not quite the case, and absolute system can work if properly handled (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html)
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-13, 11:15 PM
thats actually not quite the case, and absolute system can work if properly handled (http://evilelitest.blogspot.com/2008/10/alignment-part-one.html)
from
EE

I have to say that I agree with you that an absoulte alignment can work (in systems and worlds where the gods are close), but it can be dificult for people who live in a world with ever changing values (and where there are many interpritations of the God/Gods as well as questions of whether he/she/it/they actualy exist). So I guess I do agree that the problem isn't so much alignment as its presentation.

Lord Herman
2008-10-14, 01:18 AM
I would say the problem stems from trying to present a world with an objective moral system to the real world were morality is largely subjective (save for the absoulte extremes i.e. Genocide=evil, saving a bus full of nuns=good)

But what if they're evil nuns?

Draco Dracul
2008-10-14, 01:21 AM
But what if they're evil nuns?

Okay genocide=bad(there is no way an entire race people can be completely without redemtion),saving a bus full of ordinary non-evil nuns=good.

Talya
2008-10-14, 07:12 AM
From Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

Caesar: LG. Does what's best for Rome at all times, including turnin down the crown, and knowingly walking into an assassination attempt, knowing a stronger Rome will rise from the ashes. His flaw of pride isn't enough to drop him a step.

Mark Antony: True Neutral. Loyal to his friend, not above political intrigue for personal gain, but not a bad man.

Cassius: CE. Ambitious, disloyal murderer.

Brutus: Very difficult. He wants what is best for Rome, and I believe he starts well, but you cannot commit murder, especially against a friend who thought you loyal, and wakl away unscathed. I think he starts off LG, and moves down to true neutral or even CN by the end.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 07:21 AM
Whats best for the people of Rome may not be whats best for the people around it. Even if we stick with personality traits of Play version, play takes place after Caesar's various acts in Gaul: we can't disallow those acts from a consideration of his alignment.

The main criterion isn't what you were intending, its how much harm (or good) you did. OOTS.

Same principle tends to apply in D&D: intent is relevant, but, those who do great evils "for the good of Rome" are still evil, using D&D system.

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-14, 07:47 AM
While I'm not going to comment on Brutus's alignment in the play (have only read it once, and that years ago) I will comment on those attempting to apply D&D alignment to real world figures.

The simple fact is that you can't. Torture, murder, slavery, genocide, none are inherently evil (nothing is). And trying to apply current morality to historical figures is an even greater hubris than attempting to define evil.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 07:49 AM
"Nothing is inherently evil" thats a philosophical position, as hard to prove as its converse "some acts are inherently evil"

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-14, 08:01 AM
"Nothing is inherently evil" thats a philosophical position, as hard to prove as its converse "some acts are inherently evil"

Inherent evil presupposes an entity capable of deciding good and evil in the first place.

To prove inherent good or evil one has to prove one of the following: 1) That under no circumstances is the act not good or evil (if something is inherently good or evil is is always good or evil in every imaginable circumstance) or 2) that an omniscience entity exists and has stated definitively that the act in question is good or evil.

Neither of those criteria has ever been met.

That nothing is inherently good or evil has to be the default assumption as it presupposes nothing at all.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:05 AM
Actually, some atheistic philosophers still believe in Good and Evil: objectivists. Their main Evil act, is unprovoked attack- theft. and Murder is theft of life.

True, they can't prove that acts are evil, only presuppose it. Or ask question: what would happen if everyone did it. They place life as highest value.

Point to be made is, doesn't require belief in ominicient entity to believe some acts are evil.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:07 AM
Getting back to Brutus, topic is about: if a D&D charcater did the acts Brutus did, in a D&D world otherwise identical to Roman history, would such a character be evil, by D&D rules?

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-14, 08:18 AM
Actually, some atheistic philosophers still believe in Good and Evil: objectivists. Their main Evil act, is unprovoked attack- theft. and Murder is theft of life.

True, they can't prove that acts are evil, only presuppose it. Or ask question: what would happen if everyone did it. They place life as highest value.

Point to be made is, doesn't require belief in ominicient entity to believe some acts are evil.

I never said that it required a belief in an omniscience entity to believe that a certain act was evil, I said it required one of the two previously listed options to believe that any act was inherently evil (evil in all circumstances, i.e. that there is no possible circumstance in which murder is not evil).

How good or evil an individual views an act to be is also entirely dependent upon they society that they were raised on (and more specifically their life experiences). The acts that are generally considered to be good or evil are only considered to be so because the majority of society currently views them as such, generally because they are either conducive to the prosperity of the societies individuals or destructive to said prosperity.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:26 AM
again, there are people who believe that some acts are, under no circumstances, anything but evil.

The point is, not everyone believes the way you do. Nor are we obliged to- we must make up our own minds on the issue. Its entirely possible that if we read more we will come to the same conclusion. However, thats a conclusion we must make on our own.

While there is an element of hubris in believing a modern morality is superior to an ancient one, that doesn't mean that belief is wrong.

Again, for some, its not "We may not judge" but "We judge, and expect to be judged in return"

So, in the Context of D&D, my conclusion is that Caesar was evil by D&D standards. Brutus? Not sure: what was his life like: what deeds did he do before the murder of Caesar?

Emperor Tippy
2008-10-14, 08:49 AM
again, there are people who believe that some acts are, under no circumstances, anything but evil.
That is a belief that has to be proven, and it hasn't ever been.


The point is, not everyone believes the way you do. Nor are we obliged to- we must make up our own minds on the issue. Its entirely possible that if we read more we will come to the same conclusion. However, thats a conclusion we must make on our own.
I never said one had to believe as I do, just that the belief that any act is inherently good or evil just shows either a lack of imagination, an inability to divorce ones self from ones own beliefs and look at something objectively, or an unwillingness to apply logic to the problem.


While there is an element of hubris in believing a modern morality is superior to an ancient one, that doesn't mean that belief is wrong.
If one wants to put forward the position that modern morality is superior to ancient morality than one has to prove the position. Similarly if one wants to put forward the position that modern morality is inferior to ancient morality than one also has to prove the position. The one position that doesn't need to be proven is that neither is superior to the other because it doesn't suppose or assume anything.


Again, for some, its not "We may not judge" but "We judge, and expect to be judged in return"
It's not "we may not judge", it's "we may only judge individuals upon the beliefs of their own society". One can judge a society as a whole by comparing it to ones own society, but not the individuals in that society (one is assuming that said individual had access to information and a culture that they never had access to).


So, in the Context of D&D, my conclusion is that Caesar was evil by D&D standards. Brutus? Not sure: what was his life like: what deeds did he do before the murder of Caesar?

Why was Caesar evil?

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:55 AM
Again, beliefs of own society? Why must we judge only by those beliefs? We can have a lot of societies with radically different beliefs, yet, we often condemn behaviour that shows a tendency to cause a lot of suffering. Whether that society itself condemns it or not.

Even Caesar's own people considered his behaviour toward the Gauls a reprehensible wealth-grab, causing huge amounts of suffering.

They also felt he was overriding the rules that built the Roman republic.

Talya
2008-10-14, 09:37 AM
Whats best for the people of Rome may not be whats best for the people around it. Even if we stick with personality traits of Play version, play takes place after Caesar's various acts in Gaul: we can't disallow those acts from a consideration of his alignment.

The main criterion isn't what you were intending, its how much harm (or good) you did. OOTS.

Same principle tends to apply in D&D: intent is relevant, but, those who do great evils "for the good of Rome" are still evil, using D&D system.

The Gauls were wicked barbarians! Rome tried to bring them civilization and enlightenment!

Seriously, though, it's war. There's no good or evil in D&D absolute-alignments, about fighting in a war. War is not murder. Conquest and imperialism are not inherently evil.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 11:10 AM
War isn't. Unprovoked war is (by Exalted Deeds), Though, Caesar did claim Gauls attacked first.

Lord Herman
2008-10-14, 11:50 AM
War isn't. Unprovoked war is (by Exalted Deeds), Though, Caesar did claim Gauls attacked first.

Which they did. Granted, it was 300 years earlier, but the Gauls did actually sack Rome.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 11:51 AM
Now 300 years is a big gap. I was thinking closer to time: caesars claim that one tribe was aiding his enemies, which he used to justify expanding further and further.

Talya
2008-10-14, 12:04 PM
I think that he simply let the killers get him. He was just tired of being hated by everyone around him. He did his best to make Rome grow, and nobody ever thanked him for that.



I think you're right on the action, wrong for the reason.

Republics do not last. "Enlightened," "free," societies are as transitory as seasons. All initial attempts at just and benevolent government of the people eventually turn to tyranny. Dictatorship is neither good or evil, and in fact, has a greater potential for either of them than a more democratic government (based on the intent of the dictator, vs. the average of the teeming masses.) I believe Caesar saw the move to a monarchy to be essential. I also believe Caesar knew that it would never be himself that sat on the throne, that the ensuing chaos from his assassination (which is easy to see he knew about in advance) would eventually create a stronger Rome.

It's also worth pointing out that Caesar was appointed "dictator" by the senate, but this was not the same position as we generally think of when we think of a "dictator." Dictator was an official position inside the Republic of Rome that did not have that the same level of power.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 12:14 PM
By Caesar's time Rome has already gone through the dictatorships of Sulla and Marius, which were...prolonged.

"our loyalty is to the senate, not to the chancellor, who has managed to stay in power long after his term should have expired"

I suspect the similarities are not entirely coincidental.

EvilElitest
2008-10-14, 03:44 PM
I have to say that I agree with you that an absoulte alignment can work (in systems and worlds where the gods are close), but it can be dificult for people who live in a world with ever changing values (and where there are many interpritations of the God/Gods as well as questions of whether he/she/it/they actualy exist). So I guess I do agree that the problem isn't so much alignment as its presentation.
ok, through it is worth remembering that while Good and evil in D&D are absolute, right and wrong are still subjective


Okay genocide=bad(there is no way an entire race people can be completely without redemtion),saving a bus full of ordinary non-evil nuns=good.

one should try to save the nuns even if they are evil (not demon nuns through thats something else) because life is important in D&D


From Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

Caesar: LG. Does what's best for Rome at all times, including turnin down the crown, and knowingly walking into an assassination attempt, knowing a stronger Rome will rise from the ashes. His flaw of pride isn't enough to drop him a step.

Caesar as shown in the play? Not evil certainly but i woudln't say good, he doesn't display any of the good values (through apart from pride none of the evil ones). He could very well be LE, LN or LG, though the latter two are the most likely because the play never confirms weather or not he is actually going to take the crown for himself. So your intereptation isn't wrong certainly, but it isn't absolute

But knowingly walking into an assassination attempt? When is that made Alar?


Mark Antony: True Neutral. Loyal to his friend, not above political intrigue for personal gain, but not a bad man.

NE, while he is loyal to his friends (loyalty is not a good only trait) he also starts a civil war for personal gain and tries his best to take over rome from teh other two leaders. while he is certainly loyal and does love his friend, he is certainly a master of self interest and after his totally badass speech he allows an angry mob to form and kill innocents.


Cassius: CE. Ambitious, disloyal murderer.
Meh, i'd say NE. Your points are right but this seems to point at self interest more than chaos, he doesn't really act in a chaotic or lawful manner and he does stay somewhat loyal to brutus



Brutus: Very difficult. He wants what is best for Rome, and I believe he starts well, but you cannot commit murder, especially against a friend who thought you loyal, and wakl away unscathed. I think he starts off LG, and moves down to true neutral or even CN by the end.
Pretty much, through in the end i'd say he was ether N or LN



The simple fact is that you can't. Torture, murder, slavery, genocide, none are inherently evil (nothing is). And trying to apply current morality to historical figures is an even greater hubris than attempting to define evil.
yeah you can, within the definition of a game's morality you can make any definition of good and evil you want. i could make a game where killing babies is good and smiling is evil is a different interpretation. Under D&D rules this must be considered


Whats best for the people of Rome may not be whats best for the people around it. Even if we stick with personality traits of Play version, play takes place after Caesar's various acts in Gaul: we can't disallow those acts from a consideration of his alignment.

The main criterion isn't what you were intending, its how much harm (or good) you did. OOTS.

Same principle tends to apply in D&D: intent is relevant, but, those who do great evils "for the good of Rome" are still evil, using D&D system.
true through because this is Shakespeare interpretation we can't really take the historical context into that much consideration, so i'd assume LN.


The Gauls were wicked barbarians! Rome tried to bring them civilization and enlightenment!
Horray. Wait


Seriously, though, it's war. There's no good or evil in D&D absolute-alignments, about fighting in a war. War is not murder. Conquest and imperialism are not inherently evil.
War is like killing in D&D. THe action is evil, but can be made neutral with proper justifications. I'm not saying Caesar is any less cool, but the domination of Gaul wasn't a proper justification. A "just" war by D&D standards might be the war of the ring in LOTRS. Also imperialism can be inherently evil, if we are talking the roman version of it

however this is rather moot because this isn't the historical events just what the bard wrote, and if he made it a just war then Caesar isn't evil. He claims that they attacked him first and within the plays reality this might be true we don't know...


I think you're right on the action, wrong for the reason.

Republics do not last. "Enlightened," "free," societies are as transitory as seasons. All initial attempts at just and benevolent government of the people eventually turn to tyranny. Dictatorship is neither good or evil, and in fact, has a greater potential for either of them than a more democratic government (based on the intent of the dictator, vs. the average of the teeming masses.)
Dictatorship and tyranny is inherently evil by D&D terms, but monarchy or absolute rule is not. So the idea of an "enlightened" monarch is possible in D&D, because Democracy isn't inherently good any more than monarchy in D&D. however in the same way Republics don't last, monarchy are worst in taht sense.


I believe Caesar saw the move to a monarchy to be essential. I also believe Caesar knew that it would never be himself that sat on the throne, that the ensuing chaos from his assassination (which is easy to see he knew about in advance) would eventually create a stronger Rome.
personally i think Caesar is the type who would prefer being on the throne himself, as he would be most effective there, same as Napoleon a mix of ambition and awareness of his own qualifications. I really don't see him letting himself die for the good of the republic, his character is far to, i want to say selfish but the negative connotation isn't right, confident in his abilities to let that happen. Also his choice to ignore the warning is more a sign of hubris (oh badass, whatever you want to say) in ignoring the seer's warning, not sublime enlightenment. It is worth noting that after his death rome became an empire and that didn't work out well....
[QUOTE[
It's also worth pointing out that Caesar was appointed "dictator" by the senate, but this was not the same position as we generally think of when we think of a "dictator." Dictator was an official position inside the Republic of Rome that did not have that the same level of power.
[/QUOTE]
True but he hadn't been used in a long time and he was thinking of expanding the time period, for better or for worst
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 03:51 PM
and remember the post of Dictator had already been abused by Sulla and Marius.

snoopy13a
2008-10-14, 03:59 PM
and remember the post of Dictator had already been abused by Sulla and Marius.

They just didn't make them like Cincinnatus anymore.

The late republic turning into an empire was inevitable. I think the two main factors were:

1) Middle class farmers, who formed the backbone of the militia legion, losing their land while off fighting wars in places such as Greece. This shifted lands towards the upper classes and made it more difficult to raise militia armies.

2) Marius' reforms which turned the legions from a militia made up of farmers loyal to the Roman state into a professional army from the lower classes loyal to their general.

The Gracchi tried to institute land reforms in order to preserve the middle class farmers but they failed.

Caewil
2008-10-15, 03:46 AM
Hrm. A strong middle class seems necessary to the functioning of any prosperous society. I'd say Brutus was LG but bloody stupid. He was essentially 'tricked' into believing Caesar was evil and conspiring to destroy the Republic for his own ends. I'm not sure whether the claim that he was more devoted to Roman Law than to Good can stand, since he believed, justifiably, that upholding the former was necessary for the latter. (LG in other words) His main flaw was that he did not have the power 'detect evil' to actually be certain. However, I'm pretty sure that if you gave a party of PC's a similar situation, they would probably agree that assassination was on the table since anything else might have tipped him off and gotten them killed and bringing him to trial wasn't really an option.

Ragabash
2008-10-15, 10:21 AM
I feel a bit compelled to point out that a lot of the history around Brutus and the other assassins was written by their supporters, who compromised the conservative faction of the Roman Senate, people opposed to Julius Caesar and his allies in the populist faction. Thus the historical record should be regarded as heavily biased at best (as should all history, from the most ancient to the most recent).

However, to look at it from a D&D perspective, Brutus aided in the assassination in order to preserve the existing order of the Senate, which at best puts him at Lawful Neutral. Ratpacking an unarmed man is not the act of a Good alignment, doubly so if it's an ambush.

BardicDuelist
2008-10-15, 10:53 AM
I'd just like to point out that at this time, Rome did not have the Judeo-Christian morals that the D&D alignment system is at least partially based on.

Murder was an acceptable means to deliver a political coup. Death was a rather common penalty for crimes that we would consider petty. There were many reasons where killing could be justified (a father could kill his son if his son too disobedient). I know the play is a Romanticized version, written by a Christian writer a couple millennia after it happened, but if it is based, at least partially, on historical events, these things need to be taken into account.

Based on that, I would say that nearly everyone in the play is N on the good evil axis, at least by the standards of the time. Cassius, I would venture to say, was Evil. Brutus was probably Good, but too stupid to realize that he was being manipulated.

BardicDuelist
2008-10-15, 11:07 AM
...It is worth noting that after his death rome became an empire and that didn't work out well....



Actually, EE, the Roman did last for a very long time (technically until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century). It was prosperous, and many of the barbarians became Romanized. When Rome fell, it was as much from external factors as it was internal ones. Caesar died in 44 BC, and and the Republic became an Empire around 27 BC. What we probably would consider Rome proper fell apart in 476 AD (note that this is approximately twice as long as the period of time since the American Revolution), and the Eastern or Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, almost a thousand years later. Note that the Byzantine empire, was still "Roman" and a direct extension of the Roman empire and political system.

I'd say that an empire that lasted for a millennium and a half did, in fact, "work out well."

Talya
2008-10-15, 11:09 AM
I'd just like to point out that at this time, Rome did not have the Judeo-Christian morals that the D&D alignment system is at least partially based on.

Murder was an acceptable means to deliver a political coup. Death was a rather common penalty for crimes that we would consider petty. There were many reasons where killing could be justified (a father could kill his son if his son too disobedient). I know the play is a Romanticized version, written by a Christian writer a couple millennia after it happened, but if it is based, at least partially, on historical events, these things need to be taken into account.

Based on that, I would say that nearly everyone in the play is N on the good evil axis, at least by the standards of the time. Cassius, I would venture to say, was Evil. Brutus was probably Good, but too stupid to realize that he was being manipulated.

The beauty of the D&D alignment system is that it's simple and absolute, not relative, not affected by the accepted beliefs of society. Furthermore, Rome's philosophies on good or evil is based on ancient greece (it was a very hellenistic empire)...which, like it or not, shares the same philosophical base as modern society.

EvilElitest
2008-10-15, 11:09 AM
I'd just like to point out that at this time, Rome did not have the Judeo-Christian morals that the D&D alignment system is at least partially based on.

Murder was an acceptable means to deliver a political coup. Death was a rather common penalty for crimes that we would consider petty. There were many reasons where killing could be justified (a father could kill his son if his son too disobedient). I know the play is a Romanticized version, written by a Christian writer a couple millennia after it happened, but if it is based, at least partially, on historical events, these things need to be taken into account.

Based on that, I would say that nearly everyone in the play is N on the good evil axis, at least by the standards of the time. Cassius, I would venture to say, was Evil. Brutus was probably Good, but too stupid to realize that he was being manipulated.
I would like to point out that this is irrelevant through, because D&D's moral values are absolute within the game, cultural values make no difference. Through it is worth noting good and evil don't equal right and wrong in terms of D&D.



Hrm. A strong middle class seems necessary to the functioning of any prosperous society. I'd say Brutus was LG but bloody stupid. He was essentially 'tricked' into believing Caesar was evil and conspiring to destroy the Republic for his own ends. I'm not sure whether the claim that he was more devoted to Roman Law than to Good can stand, since he believed, justifiably, that upholding the former was necessary for the latter. (LG in other words) His main flaw was that he did not have the power 'detect evil' to actually be certain. However, I'm pretty sure that if you gave a party of PC's a similar situation, they would probably agree that assassination was on the table since anything else might have tipped him off and gotten them killed and bringing him to trial wasn't really an option.
Well i don't think murder without proper justification is right, so i'd peg him LN, or TN. But your right, he is bloody stupid
from
EE
edit




Actually, EE, the Roman did last for a very long time (technically until the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century). It was prosperous, and many of the barbarians became Romanized. When Rome fell, it was as much from external factors as it was internal ones. Caesar died in 44 BC, and and the Republic became an Empire around 27 BC. What we probably would consider Rome proper fell apart in 476 AD (note that this is approximately twice as long as the period of time since the American Revolution), and the Eastern or Byzantine Empire fell in 1453, almost a thousand years later. Note that the Byzantine empire, was still "Roman" and a direct extension of the Roman empire and political system.

I'd say that an empire that lasted for a millennium and a half did, in fact, "work out well."
But while it was still powerful (because Rome is badass) it always suffered the problem of all monarchies, mis-management, bad rulers who aren't suited to the throne, slopy system ect ect. Julius Caesar did bring an end to the republic, through we don't know how history might have been changed if he hadn't
from
EE

Talya
2008-10-15, 11:13 AM
I would like to point out that this is irrelevant through, because D&D's moral values are absolute within the game, cultural values make no difference. Through it is worth noting good and evil don't equal right and wrong in terms of D&D.




Ph34r my 1337 ninja-pirate skillz!

But yeah. What he said.

On the other hand...


Dictatorship and tyranny is inherently evil by D&D terms, but monarchy or absolute rule is not. So the idea of an "enlightened" monarch is possible in D&D, because Democracy isn't inherently good any more than monarchy in D&D. however in the same way Republics don't last, monarchy are worst in taht sense.

Monarchy is dictatorship. Dictatorship simply means one person has authority of decree. It is not inherently evil in D&D or else there could be no enlightened monarchies. And the definition of Tyranny I'm going for here is "a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler." Also monarchies. (At least, prior to constitutional democratic monarchies, like modern England, which we're not referring to here.)

snoopy13a
2008-10-15, 11:24 AM
But while it was still powerful (because Rome is badass) it always suffered the problem of all monarchies, mis-management, bad rulers who aren't suited to the throne, slopy system ect ect. Julius Caesar did bring an end to the republic, through we don't know how history might have been changed if he hadn't
from
EE

Caesar didn't bring an end to the republic, Octavian (Augustus) did. Caesar was dictator for life not emperor or king. He was killed because the Senate feared he would proclaim himself king not because he actually did. Anyway, as I said before, the beginnings of the end of the Republic were caused by Marius' reforms causing soldiers to shift loyalties from Rome itself to their generals. The militia soldiers fought for Rome since being landholders they had an important stake. The professional soldiers fought for the general as the general was the ones who would provide them land after their service. Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Antony, and finally Octavian were all symptoms of that.

The Empire was much stronger than the Republic and for the vast majority of the people, the difference between the Republic and Empire was minimal. Under the Republic, a group of 100 or so Senators ran things with some checks on their power (tribunes). Under the Empire, one man theorectically ran things with various unofficial checks dependent on how strong he was. For the average citizen, there isn't much difference between an oligarchy and and dicatorship.

EvilElitest
2008-10-15, 11:39 AM
Ph34r my 1337 ninja-pirate skillz!

But yeah. What he said.

On the other hand...

Damn ninjas, you strike again



Monarchy is dictatorship. Dictatorship simply means one person has authority of decree. It is not inherently evil in D&D or else there could be no enlightened monarchies. And the definition of Tyranny I'm going for here is "a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler." Also monarchies. (At least, prior to constitutional democratic monarchies, like modern England, which we're not referring to here.)
Depends. There is the definition of dictatorship which means single ruler, and there is the other which says a single ruler who rules without the consent of the governed.

So let me reiterate this. A system where a single person runs everything isn't evil by D&D, through it is more likely to become so. A system where the people aren't directly represented isn't evil either. A tyrant under the definition of an unjust ruler, IE oppression is evil by D&D terms, which the Roman Empire was (to be fair, the Roman Republic was evil by D&D standards as well). Julius Caesar in the play never became a tyrant, through it is hinted he might have been, so Brutus is not being good in killing him. However i don't think you can make the claim he is doing a good dead in becoming a king, through you can't find an evil one


Caesar didn't bring an end to the republic, Octavian (Augustus) did. Caesar was dictator for life not emperor or king. He was killed because the Senate feared he would proclaim himself king not because he actually did. Anyway, as I said before, the beginnings of the end of the Republic were caused by Marius' reforms causing soldiers to shift loyalties from Rome itself to their generals. The militia soldiers fought for Rome since being landholders they had an important stake. The professional soldiers fought for the general as the general was the ones who would provide them land after their service. Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Antony, and finally Octavian were all symptoms of that.

fair enough, but Caesar certainly helped the process and might have done it himself if he hadn't died.




The Empire was much stronger than the Republic and for the vast majority of the people, the difference between the Republic and Empire was minimal. Under the Republic, a group of 100 or so Senators ran things with some checks on their power (tribunes). Under the Empire, one man theorectically ran things with various unofficial checks dependent on how strong he was. For the average citizen, there isn't much difference between an oligarchy and and dicatorship.
The empire had more land, but we also had to put up with those absurd inheritance wars and the many bad emperors, with Nero and Caligulia only being the worst of the lot (supposedly). Would a rebulic have served better? I don't know, but the Empire had a lot of faults
from
EE