Machiavellian Half-orc [Archive] - Wizards Community

Machiavellian Half-orc [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
thelordofbattle
06-06-07, 02:45 PM During a character creation session, me and a few players argued about a Machiavellian character's alignment. They said lawful evil because he lies, cheats, steals, kills, backstab etc... in order to gain more power.

However i said that he would be a chaotic Neutral because while he does the above it's always a means to an end, which is the good of his people.

Ex. Rand al'Thor form the Wheel of Time, He unites the world by the sword and fire in order to defeat the DO.

Any opinions?
Ensjak
06-06-07, 05:42 PM Now it's been about 4 years since I read Machiavelli's The Prince, but as I understood it, the original "ends" as presented in the work was maintaining power over a temporal state and population. In other words, the lying, cheating, and stealing was to increase or maintain personal power. In Machiavelli's instance, the answer is definitely lawful evil.

But, if you really mean ends to a mean where the end is anything at all, I would still say lawful evil. Even if the ends is a good thing such as food for everyone so no one goes hungry, the means in itself could overshadow or taint that goal. For instance, look at Stalin and Mao. When they had food shortages, they fixed it by letting millions starve. I've heared estimates of 7 to 12 Ukranians starving to death under Stalin and anywhere from 20-50 million Chinese under Mao. After they let these people starve, the rest of the population had plenty to go around.

Murdering a political opponent is evil even if it ensures that the more "good" politician who is planning revolutionary reforms that could save a people will come to power.

The D&D alignments are based on actions rather than goals. Read the alignment descriptions, each one says how a character of that alignment acts, not what they look to accomplish.

Also, in reference to your specific case. What he considers to be the good of the people, is only his opinion. Look at politics today. Opposing politicians present differing views. Each one considers his or her view to be for the good of the people and think that the opposing view will be harmful for some or all of the people. It's been said before, but it is more likely than not that evil people don't consider themselves evil. Your character may full well believe that what he is doing isn't evil because it's for a "greater good."

Here's an easy breakdown that I use to keep things simple:

Good= selfishness without harm towards another
Neutral= selfishness which causes unintentional or unavoidable harm
Evil= selfishness when causing harm towards others is an acceptable course of action
Terjon of the Blue Rose
06-07-07, 12:55 AM For the most part I agree with ensjak. Lying, cheating, and stealing are all evil acts and that makes you evil. Not neccessarily lawful though. Law in D&D indicates a sense of order and a plan. If your Machiavellian is the sort who will plan out a series of assassinations for the betterment of his nation he's lawful evil. If he's the sort who just kills anyone who he comes across and decides the nation would be better off without then he's chaotic evil.

Intent counts but not so much as Action. It largely comes down to are you justifying or are you really doing good and in some cases this can get iffy. For example what if a guard captain kills a number of people in the local thieves guild? He's definetly lawful but probably nuetral and maybe even good. He's not evil becuase he isn't really killing, but rather he is trying to protect the people. It's a subtle difference but its there. The guard would prefer to use the least force possible and would be happier if the thieves could be caught or dispersed without violence. The assassin is taking the most expedient route rather than the most moral. The guard has no choice when the battle starts while the assassin almost certainly has other paths to explore first.
Darth Syntax
06-07-07, 03:19 AM I would say that the potential Machiavellian alignments are any non-good and non-chaotic. The philosophy described in The Prince is a kind of ruthlessly pragmatic and systematic method of gaining and maintaining political power. Their are degrees of Machiavellian behavior, ranging from a grudgingly pragmatic person who understands why they need to dirty their hands, but doesn't like it, to those of us who see deviousness, plotting, and ruthless efficiency as not only useful, but the only legitimate means of securing power.

Given what you have said about your character, I would go with either LE or NE for you alignment; and remember, evil isn't always a bad thing . . .
thelordofbattle
06-07-07, 03:25 PM thanks you have given me a lot to think on.

I might mold my character something like a young Fidel Castro.
(good ideas, horrible circumstances)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thelordofbattle 06-06-07, 02:45 PM	During a character creation session, me and a few players argued about a Machiavellian character's alignment. They said lawful evil because he lies, cheats, steals, kills, backstab etc... in order to gain more power. However i said that he would be a chaotic Neutral because while he does the above it's always a means to an end, which is the good of his people. Ex. Rand al'Thor form the Wheel of Time, He unites the world by the sword and fire in order to defeat the DO. Any opinions?
Ensjak 06-06-07, 05:42 PM	Now it's been about 4 years since I read Machiavelli's The Prince, but as I understood it, the original "ends" as presented in the work was maintaining power over a temporal state and population. In other words, the lying, cheating, and stealing was to increase or maintain personal power. In Machiavelli's instance, the answer is definitely lawful evil. But, if you really mean ends to a mean where the end is anything at all, I would still say lawful evil. Even if the ends is a good thing such as food for everyone so no one goes hungry, the means in itself could overshadow or taint that goal. For instance, look at Stalin and Mao. When they had food shortages, they fixed it by letting millions starve. I've heared estimates of 7 to 12 Ukranians starving to death under Stalin and anywhere from 20-50 million Chinese under Mao. After they let these people starve, the rest of the population had plenty to go around. Murdering a political opponent is evil even if it ensures that the more "good" politician who is planning revolutionary reforms that could save a people will come to power. The D&D alignments are based on actions rather than goals. Read the alignment descriptions, each one says how a character of that alignment acts, not what they look to accomplish. Also, in reference to your specific case. What he considers to be the good of the people, is only his opinion. Look at politics today. Opposing politicians present differing views. Each one considers his or her view to be for the good of the people and think that the opposing view will be harmful for some or all of the people. It's been said before, but it is more likely than not that evil people don't consider themselves evil. Your character may full well believe that what he is doing isn't evil because it's for a "greater good." Here's an easy breakdown that I use to keep things simple: Good= selfishness without harm towards another Neutral= selfishness which causes unintentional or unavoidable harm Evil= selfishness when causing harm towards others is an acceptable course of action
Terjon of the Blue Rose 06-07-07, 12:55 AM	For the most part I agree with ensjak. Lying, cheating, and stealing are all evil acts and that makes you evil. Not neccessarily lawful though. Law in D&D indicates a sense of order and a plan. If your Machiavellian is the sort who will plan out a series of assassinations for the betterment of his nation he's lawful evil. If he's the sort who just kills anyone who he comes across and decides the nation would be better off without then he's chaotic evil. Intent counts but not so much as Action. It largely comes down to are you justifying or are you really doing good and in some cases this can get iffy. For example what if a guard captain kills a number of people in the local thieves guild? He's definetly lawful but probably nuetral and maybe even good. He's not evil becuase he isn't really killing, but rather he is trying to protect the people. It's a subtle difference but its there. The guard would prefer to use the least force possible and would be happier if the thieves could be caught or dispersed without violence. The assassin is taking the most expedient route rather than the most moral. The guard has no choice when the battle starts while the assassin almost certainly has other paths to explore first.
Darth Syntax 06-07-07, 03:19 AM	I would say that the potential Machiavellian alignments are any non-good and non-chaotic. The philosophy described in The Prince is a kind of ruthlessly pragmatic and systematic method of gaining and maintaining political power. Their are degrees of Machiavellian behavior, ranging from a grudgingly pragmatic person who understands why they need to dirty their hands, but doesn't like it, to those of us who see deviousness, plotting, and ruthless efficiency as not only useful, but the only legitimate means of securing power. Given what you have said about your character, I would go with either LE or NE for you alignment; and remember, evil isn't always a bad thing . . .
thelordofbattle 06-07-07, 03:25 PM	thanks you have given me a lot to think on. I might mold my character something like a young Fidel Castro. (good ideas, horrible circumstances)