what alignment does a soldier have?

[Shademan]

you know how wars were in medieval times. Soldiers burned and looted and killed and generally treid to debase the enemy economy, when the ywere not fighting each other.
Now, say that you have two nations at war in D&D. The soldier might be a wee bit lenient on the whole "rape and kill farmers" thingie, but they are still following orders, burning farms and looting, in short, debasing the life of innocents, which is considered evil.
So are all soldiers evil? Is the commander that orders them evil? the general who devised the strategy?

your thoughts please.

[BeholderSlayer]

They should obviously be lawful. I would say that the good/neutral/evil is dependent on many things and is inconclusive.

[Snake-Aes]

They should obviously be lawful. I would say that the good/neutral/evil is dependent on many things and is inconclusive.

Low Medieval Soldiers? Not lawful at all. Danes would give up on a raid as soon as it proved too difficult. Fyrds disband upon reaping season. Soldiers abandon duty all the time.

Burning&Looting is a staple and often beyond the leaders' capability to hold them back. CE.

[DabblerWizard]

Any soldiers you have in-game, are as evil or good as you want (or as evil or good as the DM wants).

I make that statement with the assumption that in-game soldiers don't have to be inherently evil. If you disagree, and believe that they do have to be inherently evil, in game, then that will noticeably impact how you represent those NPCs.

[Tiki Snakes]

Twice the length of the middle to the end.

Er, which is to say, I don't know, which soldier are we talking about?
You can't really generalise that broadly. Soldiers have people alignments. It varies.

I mean, you can't even guarentee that worshippers of an Evil God are Evil, I doubt we could comfortably come to an alignment for an entire career.

[Snake-Aes]

Any soldiers you have in-game, are as evil or good as you want (or as evil or good as the DM wants).

I make that statement with the assumption that in-game soldiers don't have to be inherently evil. If you disagree, and believe that they do have to be inherently evil, in game, then that will noticeably impact how you represent those NPCs.

Well, the guy came and opened a thread about something that can be defined as anything, everything and nothing at the same time. It's the quintessential alignment thread. With all the consequences that brings.

[WarKitty]

Depends. Is the army voluntary, or are most soldiers conscripted? If it's voluntary I'd say joining the army is a lawful act, but doesn't mean the person is lawful. Good/evil will govern what wars they fight in and how they behave.

[Gorgondantess]

From an absolutist sense, a medieval type soldier is CE (raping, pillaging, killing innocents wantonly, etc.)
From a relativist sense, as they're actually encouraged to do that kind of thing (killing means less of your enemy's people, raping means more of yours, pillaging means more wealth into your country, etc.), and in the heat of battle when everyone else is doing it, and you have adrenaline, and you're drunk on your own power, people tend to forget morality- however, still, no one raises a word about the atrocities, so they're generally neutral.

[dsmiles]

your thoughts please.

My thoughts:
Soldiers are, IMO, generally neutral. Ranging from Lawful through True to Chaotic, depending on the individual.
Some do it out of loyalty to their country/throne (LN or N), some do it for the pay (N or CN), some do it because they're sadistic bastards who like to rape, pillage, and torture villagers (CN, though these may indeed be NE, or even CE). I generalize the armies of my fantasy campaign worlds as mostly true neutral (the selfish version, not the balance version), primarily because they just follow orders (usually under pain of imprisonment or death). The "upper-level management (Company Commanders and above)," as it were, I will generally assign a basic individual personality to, but not the grunts (unless it happens to come up during play).

[Shademan]

note that I asked about soldiers in a rather generic D&Dverse where they might be ordered to to the pillagin and burning but MIGHT show restrain on the rapin' and killin'. Since people in D&D tend to have a slightly more modern outlook on morality.
well in some settings...

[Tiki Snakes]

note that I asked about soldiers in a rather generic D&Dverse where they might be ordered to to the pillagin and burning but MIGHT show restrain on the rapin' and killin'. Since people in D&D tend to have a slightly more modern outlook on morality.
well in some settings...

Soldiers don't have an alignment. They are just people. Just look at the number of different depictions of them in the various media. They will cover the same range of alignments as their base populations, no more, no less. Every single one of them will have joined for his own reasons, and act as his nature compells him.

If you need a short-hand to guess how they will react en-mass, that's another matter, but will still vary wildly, and boils down to how do you want them to act.

[Greenish]

All.

[jiriku]

There's room for all alignments in a typical army. People join for different reasons, they fight for different reasons, and your typical lord is more concerned about whether a new recruit will kill the lord's enemies than why the recruit is willing to do so. Unless you've got an atypical lord who screen out applicants based on their moral/ethical stance, you'll see all sorts.

Now some alignments may not be well represented; for example, if the lord is a tyrannical despot, few chaotic good individuals will choose to serve in his army (although some might, seeing it as the best way to protect home and family).

[WarKitty]

There's room for all alignments in a typical army. People join for different reasons, they fight for different reasons, and your typical lord is more concerned about whether a new recruit will kill the lord's enemies than why the recruit is willing to do so. Unless you've got an atypical lord who screen out applicants based on their moral/ethical stance, you'll see all sorts.

Now some alignments may not be well represented; for example, if the lord is a tyrannical despot, few chaotic good individuals will choose to serve in his army (although some might, seeing it as the best way to protect home and family).

A good-aligned lord would be more likely to screen out evil applicants than an evil lord would be to screen anyone. That's actually a fair test for the alignment of the nation, what kind of behavior is tolerated in their armed forced.

[Da'Shain]

As an easy shorthand, decide on the alignment of the army in general (i.e. its goals and methods fall in the category of ... what?), then simply say that the average soldier of that army can only deviate from it by one step (like a cleric and their god). There will be outliers, of course, but this'll make it slightly simpler, I think, while still retaining some realism.

If the army goes around slaughtering innocents and encouraging rape as a reward for its soldiers, it's most likely Evil. If it tends to avoid collateral damage but doesn't mind inflicting it when necessary or to make a point, and neither approves or punishes rape, it's probably Neutral. The Lawful/Chaotic aspect should be a little easier to define for an army, I'd say.

[Zen Master]

I'm not entirely convinced I buy the premiss in the first place. Sure, burning, looting, pillaging and rape took place in the middle ages, but I strongly doubt it was something that all soldiers of all armies in all wars of all ages did.

I rather suspect in many wars it was considered an ill omen to burn the farms on lands you kinda planned to support your troops in the future - and to rape, steal from or kill the people you wanted to remain loyal to the greater kingdom.

Now, on a raid, that's one thing. But a war of conquest? Yea sure, if the general is stupid or terminally evil or just determined to demonstrate the willingness to stomp all under the ironshow heels of his boots.

As for the soldiers? Well - 'tis a grey zone, no? If killing civilians is evil, does that make the pilot of a fighter-bomber evil? Of course target acquisition with a sword is generally more accurate than with bombs from 6000 feet, but still.

[Snake-Aes]

As for the soldiers? Well - 'tis a grey zone, no? If killing civilians is evil, does that make the pilot of a fighter-bomber evil? Of course target acquisition with a sword is generally more accurate than with bombs from 6000 feet, but still.

You're saying that it's less evil to kill from a distance. Or that it's okay to kill someone whose face you don't know.

[grimbold]

well theyre definetly chaotic maybe only neutral and evil. It is possible to be good i suppose but some of their acts are definetly on the evil side of the behavior spectrum

[Strawberries]

you know how wars were in medieval times. Soldiers burned and looted and killed and generally treid to debase the enemy economy, when the ywere not fighting each other.
Now, say that you have two nations at war in D&D. The soldier might be a wee bit lenient on the whole "rape and kill farmers" thingie, but they are still following orders, burning farms and looting, in short, debasing the life of innocents, which is considered evil.
So are all soldiers evil? Is the commander that orders them evil? the general who devised the strategy?

your thoughts please.

Too broad a category, I think. "The army" isn't an entity, the individual soldiers in it are. And you can't assume "the army" will act as one being. I don't think that's ever been the case, even in real life.
So, a soldier that rapes, kills and destroys? Evil. One that destroys, but tries to avoid killing innocents when possible? Neutral. One that goes out of his way to protect noncombatants, even if they are "the enemy?" Good. Sorry if I sound categorical, but I think it's as simple as that.

As for "following orders" as an extenuating circumstance (shiftinh the alignment from something/E to L/N)? Sorry but I can accept it, expecially in a black and white morality world like D&D usually is. Not even in a gray one, really.

[Zore]

I'm not entirely convinced I buy the premiss in the first place. Sure, burning, looting, pillaging and rape took place in the middle ages, but I strongly doubt it was something that all soldiers of all armies in all wars of all ages did.

I can't actually think of an example of a war where this didn't happen. It way pretty much ubiquitous up until very recently. Even now it still occurs more often than not. The burning, looting, raping and pillaging is an almost universal truth of war that is only overcome with extreme discipline and some way to hold people accountable for their actions. So it may happen less in a D&D setting with active Paladins and Clerics going around on battlefields..

[Telonius]

You're saying that it's less evil to kill from a distance. Or that it's okay to kill someone whose face you don't know.

I think the issue there is more collateral damage.

To the OP: depends on the setting. Just in general, spoils of war would typically be seen as neutral with regards to law/chaos. If you win, you get the other guy's stuff, including his farms, his land, his livestock, his food, his gold, his jewels, his slaves, his peasants, and his daughters. That's just how war worked up until a couple centuries ago. (To one of the previous commenters, yes, this is how nearly all wars, soldiers, and armies behaved up until around 1650-ish at the earliest). For good/evil? It would probably never be Good. Neutral at best, Evil at worst.

[Snake-Aes]

I think the issue there is more collateral damage.

Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".

[Greenish]

Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".

Bah, everyone knows collateral damage doesn't count, that's why it's called "collateral damage" instead of "slaughtered innocent civilians".

[true_shinken]

you know how wars were in medieval times.

You know how D&D is fantasy and does not take place in medieval Europe?

[Shademan]

You know how D&D is fantasy and does not take place in medieval Europe?

you know how to read the entire post?
and the rest of the topic?

[Coidzor]

A good-aligned lord would be more likely to screen out evil applicants than an evil lord would be to screen anyone.

I doubt that you'll find alignment screening without going into the realms that border on DP-PZ on the outskirts of the Tippyverses without having a paladin infestation.

That's actually a fair test for the alignment of the nation, what kind of behavior is tolerated in their armed forced.

Now this, on the other hand, y'know, makes sense.

Which leads to "You are saying it's less evil to kill someone you didn't intend to kill".

Uh... Yeah?

Because otherwise you, y'know, would have people turn evil from accidents.

And there's something about premeditation, y'know?

[Emmerask]

Any alignment the nation or nations people have will be in the army.
So a soldier may have any alignment

A drow (faerun) army will be almost exclusively evil.
A Solar army will almost exclusively be good (maybe a soon to be fallen angel will be in their midst?)

An army of say Baldurs Gate will consist of evil, good and neutral alignment soldiers.

[hamishspence]

If "survival" counts as a kind of "personal gain" then a soldier who debases and destroys the innocent because if he doesn't his bosses will kill him, still fulfills the typical behaviour of Evil characters.

Which is to say "debases/destroys the innocent for personal gain".

So "just following orders" doesn't really work.

[Chaelos]

As an average, I'd tend to say Lawful Neutral, especially in a professional, non-conscript military. The willingness to follow proper, lawful orders is one of the cornerstones of a professional soldier; now, you have room for both evil and good in that category, but the majority of full-time soldiers are probably going to be in the LN category.

Now, broaden the scope to encompass non-professional militaries, and I'd wager you get a lot more heterogenous in terms of moral outlooks.

[lsfreak]

I'm going to say that the alignment system is far too modern in its bias and can't be used to usefully evaluate pre-modern actions. If you forced me to even though it's highly anachronistic, I'd say they were, on the whole, Neutral Evil, with the vast majority of the people being True Neutral (you can't afford much else when the entirety of your life is spend working to survive).