What would be the alignment of Brutus?

[EvilElitest]

I watched the old film version of Julius Caesar (here is the best speech) 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


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lawful Stupid. Honorable intentions, sloppy execution. Literally.

TS

[EvilElitest]

would that make Anthony Neutral smart?
from
EE

[kpenguin]

would that make Anthony Neutral smart?
from
EE

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

[EvilElitest]

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

touche, touche
from
EE

[Chronos]

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]

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]

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.

[hamishspence]

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]

As presented in the play ... wants to be LG, but is TN.

[Subotei]

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]

More interesting would be a discussion of Caesar's alignment. Is he a LG benevolent dicator, a LE tyrant or somewhere in between?

[JMobius]

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]

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]

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"), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[EvilElitest]

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"), 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]

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]

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
from
EE

[Draco Dracul]

thats actually not quite the case, and absolute system can work if properly handled
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]

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?