Anarchist Sorcerer, What Alignment? (3.5)

[The Anarresti]

In my IRL game, we are playing a homebrewed urban setting, based on the Nazi occupation of Paris. There are two human cultures, the "Germans"- Slavic-esq industrialized, fascist (not noble-ruled) empire that conquered half a continent, and the "French" - Welsh/Scandinavian-esq culture that has been conquered, once ruled by nobility, now deposed. There are two human racial languages, etc. The setting is based off of the political turmoil of 1848 and the 1930's. The nobility was in charge, but waning in power, until about 30 years before start of game, when with the rise of Eberron-esq magitech and new ideas the nobility was overthrown in "Germany," replaced by a totalitarian oligarchy of high-ranking military and industrial officials.
I am playing a brooding "German" sorcerer who is an anarchist, disillusioned by the ultra-nationalist craze sweeping his nation. This doesn't mean that he is a promoter of chaos, or random acts of violence: quite the opposite. It means that he believes that the key to a near-perfect society is to elimiate the state entirely. His goal is to bring down all forms of governement, with violent force if necessary (he does consider it necessary in most cercumstances). He does not enjoy violence, or killing people, although he will do so if necessary. He does believe in "for the greater good:" he will not hesitate to kill, torture, die or be tortured if he thinks that such action could bring about the stateless society. Although he avoids harming innocents, if he has to he will dispose of them as quickly and painlessly as possible, hopefully using nonleathel force, but will resort to leathal force.
My question is, what is his alignment by RAW 3.5? He isn't working for personal gain, but is instead making many sacrifices for the good of others. On the other hand, he is not hesitant to use unethical means to achieve his good-intentioned ends. For the law/chaos axis, his whole being is about elminating legitimate authority, but he lives by a strict ideal, dedicating himself to an ideal and a group larger than himself (although he is not the only anarchist in the setting, and was in a cell of them, the rest of the part aren't anarchists)

Disclaimer: I in no way am endorsing or criticizing the ideal of Anarchism. I do not intend for this to be a discussion about what constitutes right or wrong action, just what this character's alignment would be.

[Ernir]

If you can see valid arguments for both, default to neutral.

Looks like True Neutral here.

[hamishspence]

Evil acts toward good ends tend to lead to an evil alignment- if you go with Champions of Ruin.

Even with the PHB "harming innocents" is a possible symptom of an evil alignment- while neutral characters generally "have qualms about harming the innocent" doing it enough may mean Evil alignment.

Torture is said in several sourcebooks (FC2, BoED) to be an Evil act- not just a "neutral act that Good people don't generally do".

So- a strong case can be made for Evil alignment- though more like one of the Champions of Ruin variants of Evil character, than the traditional PHB evil type.

An obsession with bringing down government may be a sign of Chaotic alignment- in PHB it implies Chaotic people have a "compulsion to rebel" Lawful people a "compulsion to obey" and Neutral people have neither.

So he may be Chaotic with some mild Lawful traits.

Chaotic Evil seems, so far, to be the most probable alignment.

[Telonius]

I'd peg this guy as CN (Chaotic Nietzsche).

Seriously though, Chaotic Neutral sounds about right to me. Law/Chaos is not just about following a code, otherwise a Paladin of Freedom would be impossible. This particular guy goes out of his way to disrupt society and destroy all authority. It sounds like he really resents any rules that he didn't make.

As for good/evil, this sounds like a clear case of Neutral, with mildly evil tendencies. Evil goes out of its way to harm innocents; for this guy, they're more like collateral damage. If he starts getting reckless about it, then it's a quick trip to Evil.

[hamishspence]

Evil goes out of its way to harm innocents; for this guy, they're more like collateral damage.

This depends on the interpretation. Even PHB suggests there are evil characters who harm innocents if it's convenient, rather than specifically going out of the way to do so.

If you're going with a more detailed interpretation, like with BoVD or Champions of Ruin, then even doing evil deeds only to noninnocents, may eventually be enough for an alignment change.

[The Anarresti]

Seriously though, Chaotic Neutral sounds about right to me. Law/Chaos is not just about following a code, otherwise a Paladin of Freedom would be impossible. This particular guy goes out of his way to disrupt society and destroy all authority. It sounds like he really resents any rules that he didn't make.

Well, not quite. He doesn't resent all authority, or intentionally try to disrupt society: it's not a personal matter for him. He believes that governments by their nature are poison to society: a society without government is what he hopes to shoot for. Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, it simply means lack of central authority. He believes that removing the central authority will bring about a more stable, ethical society.

[Lysander]

Here's a question. Does he feel guilt? After shooting a baby and a puppy, does he cry himself to sleep for weeks or does he stoically tell himself it was for the greater good and their sacrifice was necessary, because he really needed that puppy fur and baby skull for a spell component. If he's evil he disregards the value of human life and wouldn't really be haunted by it, even if intellectually he believes that killing innocents should be avoided when possible.

As for law/chaos, he's definitely chaotic. He's trying to overthrow the established order and replace it with anarchistic freedom.

[hamishspence]

Here's a question. Does he feel guilt? After shooting a baby and a puppy, does he cry himself to sleep for weeks or does he stoically tell himself it was for the greater good and their sacrifice was necessary,

I figure even evil characters can feel guilt (though it may be rare)- the presence of guilt does not prove a non-evil alignment.

And some evil characters might feel extreme guilt about their rare evil deeds against the innocent, but no guilt about their evil deeds against the "non-innocent".

[Telonius]

Well, not quite. He doesn't resent all authority, or intentionally try to disrupt society: it's not a personal matter for him. He believes that governments by their nature are poison to society: a society without government is what he hopes to shoot for. Anarchy does not necessarily mean chaos, it simply means lack of central authority. He believes that removing the central authority will bring about a more stable, ethical society.

Hm, so more of a relationship-, tradition-, and ethics-based source of authority, than a "free your mind from all fetters" sort of anarchism? That is a little bit more towards the Neutral side of things (and also much less common than the other - it's nice to see a different variation on the theme).

[Magdela]

Lawful Neutral:
Lawful: He abides by his own set of rules and ideals which he (probably) will refuse to break.
Neutral: He has qualms in harming others, but if force is needed, he will apply it.

[hamishspence]

Hm, so more of a relationship-, tradition-, and ethics-based source of authority, than a "free your mind from all fetters" sort of anarchism? That is a little bit more towards the Neutral side of things (and also much less common than the other - it's nice to see a different variation on the theme).

The Diaboli in Dragon Compendium (CG [Chaotic] subtype outsiders from the Plane of Nightmares) do have a bit of this.

They build their societies around the belief that since they canot provably define any one form of government as better than any other, they must simply live without governments.

Despite their chaotic natures, diaboli strongly believe in traditions and ancient mores that continue to maintain their societies. Along with these strong and repeatedly proven customs, diaboli hold together their otherwise free-willed societies with a mixture of traditions, taboos, customs and a strong sense of fair play.

"Do what thou wilt but harm none" unifies the diaboli and acts as the great truth from which all traditions and taboos grow.

[The Anarresti]

Here's a question. Does he feel guilt? After shooting a baby and a puppy, does he cry himself to sleep for weeks or does he stoically tell himself it was for the greater good and their sacrifice was necessary, because he really needed that puppy fur and baby skull for a spell component. If he's evil he disregards the value of human life and wouldn't really be haunted by it, even if intellectually he believes that killing innocents should be avoided when possible.

As for law/chaos, he's definitely chaotic. He's trying to overthrow the established order and replace it with anarchistic freedom.

In the rare case that he would have to harm or kill an innocent, he would feel terrible guilt. He would cry himself to sleep for weeks in that situation.
However, given that situation (a spell that would destroy a government, but requires unethical spell components), he would first try and see if he could make do with more humane components. If that would be impossible, he would use the puppy fur and baby skull, however, one the ritual was complete, he would be stricken with guilt and would take on some kind of massive penance. He possibly would kill himself, with the explanation that a
monster such as himself has no place in the golden anarchy.

However, I haven't actually played him yet, I'm just making the character, so I don't fully know what he would do (I haven't gotten in character and put myself on the spot).

Hm, so more of a relationship-, tradition-, and ethics-based source of authority, than a "free your mind from all fetters" sort of anarchism? That is a little bit more towards the Neutral side of things (and also much less common than the other - it's nice to see a different variation on the theme).

Exactly. Thank you . A slight elaboration: his nation overthrew their old kings, which were bad enough, in favor of a totalitarian military regime. He intends to eliminate the regime, and he also is intelligent enough to know that unless he educates the populace, another one will just arise in it's place. So, the new-found "Pseudo-German" tradition of militant nationalism wouldn't have a place in his vision of the stateless society. However, the institution of marriage, or religions that do not engage in theocracy, would have a place.

I figure even evil characters can feel guilt (though it may be rare)- the presence of guilt does not prove a non-evil alignment.

And some evil characters might feel extreme guilt about their rare evil deeds against the innocent, but no guilt about their evil deeds against the "non-innocent".

The one argument I have against an evil alignment is that evil people are defined as supremely selfish. This man has sacrificed his place as a lawful citizen in order to bring the world one step closer to the stateless society. He is willing (but uninclined) to sacrifice the lives of others, preferably others at fault for the creation of the government, but is even more willing to sacrifice himself. If he saw his death as way to bring about the sateless society, he would kill himself without a second thought.

[Dirty n Evil]

I'm another who's going for the Chaotic Neutral alignment on this character.

A lawful character is more likely to believe strongly in the laws of government and appreciate the natural orderliness it provides to a society. While not exactly "Chaos", a chaotic individual is more likely to emphasize a system in which personal freedoms are considered over the demands of government. It sounds to me like his reliance on the individual as a concept puts him at CN.

Consider that there are at least two different points of view that lead to the Chaotic alignment. There's the whole "rules are for other people" person... the rebel, the non-conformist. He bucks against the system because he enjoys the freedom of working outside of it. Then there's the "these rules don't work" person. They're the ones who sees that laws more often interfere with justice than promote it. He focuses on individual freedoms over the power of the state... and that, to me, sounds much more like the character you're describing.

[hamishspence]

The one argument I have against an evil alignment is that evil people are defined as supremely selfish.

Where? Even the PHB does not state "Anyone who is not supremely selfish cannot be evil aligned".

"Evil and altruistic" is not an impossibility, even in D&D. Characters who are sufficiently ruthless in "ends justify means" methods, can be evil even if they are willing to sacrifice themselves, and make many sacrifices toward their end.

[KillianHawkeye]

Selfishness is neutral, not evil. Selfishness is basic human nature. (See the quote in my sig.)



Anyway, this guy sounds like Lawful Evil to me. He's got a strict code of conduct. He's willing to do horrible, evil things "for the greater good." He's picky about the class of people that he targets (i.e. noncombatants). He acknowledges that the finished society will have no place for a "monster" such as himself.

Basically, he sounds pretty much like the Operative from the movie Serenity. (Except the Operative didn't care about harming civilians.)

[NeoVid]

As an anarchist in RL, I would say it's a CG philosophy, but this guy's methods would put him at CN.

[BRC]

You use the word "When Neccessary" alot, so I guess my question is, how frequently does he declare such action "Necessary".
For example, if a state official (who he want's dead) is going to be on a boat full of innocent people. I understand that he would first try to kill the official without harming the innocents, but if the only way to take out the official was to destroy the boat and all it's passengers, would he say "No, I can't do this, too many people will get hurt" or will he say "It's the only way to kill that official, it is sadly necessary that they die".

It really depends where he draws the line, if he's willing to attack an enemy in the middle of a crowded street using rays, magic missles, and other such spells, even though innocents might be caught in the crossfire, I would call that CN. If he's willing to use Fireballs to guarantee he hits his target, I would call that CE.

[Icewraith]

He's definitely chaotic. Even if he's not as "I hate all order" as some archetypal chaotic people, his inherent distrust of any centralized government pegs him squarely along that side.

where he is on law-chaos will depend on how you play him and may evolve over the course of the game.

[The Anarresti]

You use the word "When Neccessary" alot, so I guess my question is, how frequently does he declare such action "Necessary".
For example, if a state official (who he want's dead) is going to be on a boat full of innocent people. I understand that he would first try to kill the official without harming the innocents, but if the only way to take out the official was to destroy the boat and all it's passengers, would he say "No, I can't do this, too many people will get hurt" or will he say "It's the only way to kill that official, it is sadly necessary that they die".

It really depends where he draws the line, if he's willing to attack an enemy in the middle of a crowded street using rays, magic missles, and other such spells, even though innocents might be caught in the crossfire, I would call that CN. If he's willing to use Fireballs to guarantee he hits his target, I would call that CE.

The line may waver and change throughout the course of the game, such is the nature of roleplaying. As it stands, he would not sink a boat full of innocent civilians just to get one high-ranking official. He might, however, sink a ship full of high-ranking officals that has a few innocents on it, although he would first try to remove the innocents from the boat. Failing that, he would attempt to rescue their corpses for resurrection (on his own dime), or at least a decent burial.
He has a practice of proforming atonement for every innocent killed or harmed. Some kind of behind-the-scenes aid to kin, or to the innocent if they survived. Whether it is leaving gold on their porch, scrounging up a cleric to cast a regenerate spell pro bono, or just passing the word along to his buddies that family X deserves protection.
Because of his squeamishness about harming civilians, he has no lethal area attack spells (at least not yet, maybe when I get more spells known). His only lethal options are rays, to snipe important targets with. He tends toward enchantment and illusion, to sow confusion in enemy ranks. He has no qualms about using Suggestion on an innocent civilian, in fact, if he is about to blow up a building, he will take the time to Suggest to the civilians that they have a pressing appointment elsewhere, even if this means one or more of his targets might get away.
Note that although he believes he is willing to hurt innocents for the greater good, he has never actually done so: killing of innocents is conspicuously absent from his backstory. When push comes to shove, he may delay his plans a few months.

So, in conclusion, by BRC's argument, he is CN: he would go with the less-certain option in order to decrease collateral damage.

[KillianHawkeye]

Okay, so maybe not Evil. But I still think being anti-government doesn't necessarily make you Chaotic.

[Blue Ghost]

So his definition of "innocent" is anyone not working for the government, and anyone involved with government at all is fair game? That sounds pretty evil to me. I'd peg him as CE.

[Raistlin1040]

Well we are talking a fascist nation. It's most likely LE, and while there is no rule that says Evil and Evil are always best buddies, Anarchy-Man is very against the government, on many ethical and moral grounds that a CE character wouldn't be concerned with. He's not building a new dystopia, he's working towards a utopia. Granted, the lines can get blurred, and he is not going about it in the most Good way possible, but in my opinion, he seems like a CN character.

[Quellian-dyrae]

I'd go with CN. Although obeying the laws isn't the one and only aspect of the Lawful alignment, it is pretty clearly there, and dedication to a cause is not inherently Lawful. Dislike of authority is a pretty clear-cut Chaotic trait, and if that's this guy's driving motivation, it would take a whole lot of Lawful to even balance it out.

As far as good-evil goes, he doesn't want to hurt others, but it sounds like his cause is more important to him overall than helping and protecting others. Here's a question: forget killing innocents, what if he learned of innocents who needed to be saved, say some blood magic sacrifice was going on right then. He could save them, but doing so would mean missing out on completing a major goal for his cause (say, a powerful noble is giving a speech at the time and he plans to use his magic to trick him into revealing his corruption).

Trying to save the innocents would be at the cost of his goal and at personal risk. If he would save them anyway, you have a strong case for CG. If he'd keep to his own task, you're probably talking CN. I don't think there's much of a chance for CE, unless he does start making it a habit of killing innocents when it is convenient for his goals, or if as was suggested above, he goes around killing people just because they happen to serve a bureaucracy (killing people because you just don't like them/what they are/what they do is pretty textbook evil).

[hamishspence]

If you're going with "evil is about deeds at least as much as victims" (as Champions of Ruin does) a case can be made for evil if he has done a lot of evil deeds to "non-innocents"- torturing government members, and so on.

So, he wouldn't be required to "harm innocents, either for fun or to further his cause" to be evil aligned.

The fact that his goal is "bring down all forms of government" does suggest he's not going to limit himself to this one LE government.

[Psyx]

CE. The man is scum, who deludes himself into believing that he has some kind of moral authority to commit the crimes he does, and who is lying to himself with the false constraints he puts upon himself. Having a single redeeming feature does not make one neutral. A fair few mass murderers have been vegans who were nice to their mothers. Many serial killers would never harm a priest or doctor because that would be 'wrong'.

Anarchy is chaotic in nature. That's the point. It puts the individual above any authority, and recognises no authority. Freedom is the only thing that matters; even to the point of utter impracticality.

Evil firstly because he is willing to use torture and almost freely murder. It doesn't matter that he still tries to have a semblance of decency by slightly staying his hand as regards innocents: He is happy to use extreme measures and use fear as a weapon to get what he wants. Torture is pretty much as low as humans can go. The constraint against innocents is really just a bit of self-justification: 'I'm a murdering terrorist, but I'm a good one, because I don't kill innocents'. Most importantly and crucially though:

"The one argument I have against an evil alignment is that evil people are defined as supremely selfish. "

He IS completely selfish. He is willing to murder and kill because HE thinks it's aright. He is willing to bring down a government because HIS moral compass tells him it's fine. Like all terrorists, he is a minority who is attempting to force HIS ideas upon society, because HE thinks that it's 'right', regardless of what anyone else says. He 'knows' that he is right. If you oppose him, you are 'wrong' and become a target. That's a selfish scum-bucket right there.

Looking at it from the perspective of society; is a person who kills and tortures to get what HE wants anything but a selfish individual, who puts his own desires ahead of anyone else's? Of course not. It doesn't matter if you seek to kill and destroy and torture to instigate a 'good' society against the desires of everyone else: Doing so is evil.

Jack Bauer is an evil SOB. 'The greater good' is poor justification for the individual's actions.

Example: If a peaceful minority religion contained a tiny percentage of supporters who were willing to murder, torture and kill in order to enforce their moral codes against the will of the majority of the population, would you consider them 'neutral'?

Of course not. They are selfish, and they are failing to recognise that they have no more right to decide these things that anyone else.

[hamishspence]

While I tend to agree with most of the above- I must point out that the PHB doesn't really say much that supports it- it suggests those who "harm the innocent" are likely to be evil and those who "have qualms about harming the innocent" are neutral.

Similarly, it doesn't say what acts are "evil regardless of the fact that their victims are Not Innocent".

The splatbooks, however, do- with BoED and FC2 both stating that torture is an evil act regardless of the intent, and Champions of Ruin saying that people who repeatedly commit evil acts, regardless of their "good intentions" will usually be evil aligned.

Heroes of Horror does allow for Neutral people who commit mild evil acts toward Good ends (casting evil spells, maybe, or rebuking undead). However the character in the OP's post may be a bit worse than that.

On selfishness- if a person genuinely believes their acts are for the good of the many, and make sacrifices (not just of other people, but acts of self-sacrifice as well) toward that end, can they fairly be called "selfish" or are they, at least in part "altruistic" despite their acts and possibly their alignment being evil?

Ozymandias in Watchmen is a good example. Sure, his acts, by most D&D standards, are evil, but are they meaningfully "selfish"?

[Psyx]

...Heroes of Horror does allow for Neutral people who commit mild evil acts toward Good ends (casting evil spells, maybe, or rebuking undead). However the character in the OP's post may be a bit worse than that.

On selfishness- if a person genuinely believes their acts are for the good of the many, and make sacrifices (not just of other people, but acts of self-sacrifice as well) toward that end, can they fairly be called "selfish" or are they, at least in part "altruistic" despite their acts and possibly their alignment being evil?

Ozymandias in Watchmen is a good example. Sure, his acts, by most D&D standards, are evil, but are they meaningfully "selfish"?

In the first case; I too think that they are way beyond that. They use terror, murder and torture as the primary weapons in their armoury. Regardless of good intent (which the person doesn't have anyway), that's evil.

As regards selfishness... yes, they are. They can genuinely believe as much as they like that the ideal they strive for is for everyone's good. Just as a nut-case can believe their god wants them to kill women with blonde hair. It doesn't make it morally correct.

Additionally, many who see themselves as martyrs to a cause break down as typically selfish people. They strive to be seen as doing great deeds for 'everyone'; but to be identified with the cause, as a martyr, and to self-actualise themselves on that level is actually an internal and selfish act.

I used the word selfish, because I was responding to a point made by another using that word. I don't think it's entirely incorrect: They see their own morals and ideals as over-riding anyone else's. Self-centred or ego-maniacal might be better descriptors. There's an element of psychopathy in there as well, in that they are failing to identify with others as anything like equal creatures.

Dictating your will forcefully upon others via violence, torture, intimidation and fear is evil; no matter what those ideals are.

[hamishspence]

True- but sometimes the line between genuine selfishness and extremely warped altruism can be a bit blurry- hence my point that just because intentions are altruistic- even genuinely, doesn't make the acts non-evil.

Additionally, many who see themselves as martyrs to a cause break down as typically selfish people. They strive to be seen as doing great deeds for 'everyone'; but to be identified with the cause, as a martyr, and to self-actualise themselves on that level is actually an internal and selfish act.

I used the word selfish, because I was responding to a point made by another using that word. I don't think it's entirely incorrect: They see their own morals and ideals as over-riding anyone else's. Self-centred or ego-maniacal might be better descriptors. There's an element of psychopathy in there as well, in that they are failing to identify with others as anything like equal creatures.

Good generalizations- but there might be a few exceptions- people who have no interest in being identified with a cause.

There's also the character who believes that doing evil deeds to evil people, publically, deters crime- which has been quite a common belief throughout the ages- though generally those who propound it will not call their acts evil, and instead say "Torturing really evil criminals in order to deter crime should not be considered evil".

[The Anarresti]

If you're going with "evil is about deeds at least as much as victims" (as Champions of Ruin does) a case can be made for evil if he has done a lot of evil deeds to "non-innocents"- torturing government members, and so on.

So, he wouldn't be required to "harm innocents, either for fun or to further his cause" to be evil aligned.

The fact that his goal is "bring down all forms of government" does suggest he's not going to limit himself to this one LE government.

The one important thing, that I already pointed out is that in this circumstance the character hasn't actually tortured anyone, harmed innocents, or killed anyone except for in a straightforward fight (in standard adventurerer style) or a planned assassination of a diabolical fascist government official. So, although he thinks he is capable of such action, he might not be (probably won't be: I don't like playing evil characters.)

The other thing to bear in mind is that this character has never been exposed to a decent form of government. First, his nation (although he was only a baby at the time) was ruled by an aristocracy, with all the usual aristocratic flaws: a small minority living in castles while the majority of people starves in straw huts. A lord is allowed to take whatever they want from their populace, up to and including raping them. Only the conscious of the individual lord prevents a lord's land from turning into a despotic earldom.
This was then replaced with a fascist oligarchy, where now in addition to peasants there are throngs of urban poor who labor in dangerous conditions for slave wages, with laws passed to keep them in place. In the new system, gladiatorial combat is a common form of entertainment for the rich and powerful.
Lastly, the nonhuman races that seem the best off, the elves, barely have any government to speak of.
All in all, what evidence is there to this character that a government can be anything but a despotic rule of the few over the many? If he actually found a genuine LG government, he might have to give his (fundamentally CG) views a thorough think-through.

[Psyx]

We're straying onto morality and ethics here, but -to my mind- pulling the fingernails off someone, and other less pleasant things is evil: Be it be done for fun, or revenge, or -possibly worse- in order to instil fear in the population. Nobody sane could witness such an occurrence and in good conscience declare it was anything other than the pit of human depravity.

Any moral justification for it fails fairly rapidly. Essentially it makes the State that sanctions such acts no better than the criminals that it seeks to punish. Answering fire with fire removes the moral high ground from the equation.