Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lamrar 11-16-07, 06:27 AM	Our campaign is happening in an area divided between diffrent warlords. They rule diffrent city-states and fight eachother whenever the opportunity arises. One of these warlords want to unite all the city-states under his rule, to bring peace and stability to the region. To minimize innocent bloodshed he will hire the PCs to assasinate the other warlords. He has also started a school for government-officials so that he has people to fill the power vacuum. He will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent people of the land, but he is also willing to kill the innocent families of the warlords to prevent civil wars when their kids grow up. As such he qualifies for both good and evil. And he wishes to establish his own rules in the land, which he believes will benefit the people, but he will also remove som the traditions of the land, which he believes are unhealthy. Example: It's okay for families to take revenge when some of their blood are harmed. My question is: what is his alignement? I appologize if this post is incoherent, I have a fever :P
Eightbitmage 11-16-07, 07:51 AM	Anyone even evil people have others they would die for, but good people don't kill innocents ever. This is actually one of the few times I would say that someone who wants to kill innocents isn't actually evil either, I would go with lawful neutral.
Ikyotojin 11-16-07, 09:36 AM	I agree. Lawful Neutral. He wants an end to the chaos and if some people have to die so that others might live without the instability, so be it.
LSMFT 11-16-07, 10:16 AM	It’s all opinion here. LN seems pretty good, but LE is probably more accurate. He will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent people of the land, but he is also willing to kill the innocent families of the warlords to prevent civil wars when their kids grow up. As such he qualifies for both good and evil.This seems to be the real crux of the issue. The thing for me is, Evil people still do Good things from time to time, but Good people never willingly or knowingly want to do something Evil. So, basically, what you have here is a guy who is willing to murder innocents to accomplish a goal that he considers good. He has the image of an ideal state, which is good, but to accomplish it he is willing to commit mass murder. Sound familiar? Neutral will work, but Evil is a bit more accurate. Of course, it all depends on how you, the DM, define Evil.
Centor 11-16-07, 10:17 AM	Actually, he could still be Lawful Good, even though he is killing "innocents" he is doing it for the greater good and Alignment is not meant to be a hard coded thing anyway. Sometimes Good does bad things, sometimes evil does good things. The way you tell is a) the motivations and b) the frequency in which he does them. OR you could have him start off Lawful Good and descend into the depths of his search for "the greater good" and become evil. That provides some real depth to the character and allows you to have it both ways. Another way you could get around this is have him kidnap them instead to be brought to his school for training. What better way to keep out civil war than teaching the future opposition at a early and suggestible age that you are right. This could be really cool good luck and I’m sure no matter how you decide to handle this it'll be a fun game.
lamrar 11-16-07, 10:21 AM	LN semms to be the right alignement. These issues always arise when there is a conflict between the means and the end. Thanks for your advice.
Kaede 11-16-07, 10:21 AM	OR you could have him start off Lawful Good and descend into the depths of his search for "the greater good" and become evil. That provides some real depth to the character and allows you to have it both ways. Yes, that's my vote... But if you want something more simple, just take the LN that fit's OK.
kelvinaw273 11-16-07, 10:25 AM	He's Lawful Evil trying to be Lawful Good and just not getting it. Not in the EVIL side of evil, but evil enough through ruthlessness: when the innocent die for the greater good (in this case to prevent possible and not actual strife), evil is being done. The truly good would take on the children and try to teach them differently to their forefathers.
temparus2000 11-16-07, 10:28 AM	In my campaign: LG means you uphold the law with a desire to promote the welfare of the people. LE means you uphold the law with a desire to exploit the people LN means you uphold the law, regardless of how it affects others, but you don't have an incentive to promte welfare of others or exploit them. From the OP, the NPC would definately be LN in my campaign.
Kaede 11-16-07, 10:32 AM	The truly good would take on the children and try to teach them differently to their forefathers. That may lead the children that have an inflexible anger towards the NPC and his government a way to get inside the lines to start a revellion knowing the weaknesses of the government... In future could be a great plot...
Voran 11-16-07, 08:54 PM	Our campaign is happening in an area divided between diffrent warlords. They rule diffrent city-states and fight eachother whenever the opportunity arises. One of these warlords want to unite all the city-states under his rule, to bring peace and stability to the region. To minimize innocent bloodshed he will hire the PCs to assasinate the other warlords. He has also started a school for government-officials so that he has people to fill the power vacuum. He will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent people of the land, but he is also willing to kill the innocent families of the warlords to prevent civil wars when their kids grow up. As such he qualifies for both good and evil. And he wishes to establish his own rules in the land, which he believes will benefit the people, but he will also remove som the traditions of the land, which he believes are unhealthy. Example: It's okay for families to take revenge when some of their blood are harmed. My question is: what is his alignement? I appologize if this post is incoherent, I have a fever :P NE all the way. He's only concerned for the well-being of 'his vassal's and isn't even willing to get his own hands too dirty, willing to contract out multiple 'murder for hire' services from the PCs. Note that he's NE will delusions of 'goodness'. He wraps himself in the rhetoric of necessity and 'doing the right thing' but he's just serving his own desires.
temparus2000 11-16-07, 11:41 PM	NE all the way. He's only concerned for the well-being of 'his vassal's and isn't even willing to get his own hands too dirty, willing to contract out multiple 'murder for hire' services from the PCs. Note that he's NE will delusions of 'goodness'. He wraps himself in the rhetoric of necessity and 'doing the right thing' but he's just serving his own desires. I highly disagree based on these principles of the NPC: "will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent" "to unite the city-states under his rule, to bring peace and stability to the region" Both of these ideals represent Good, and the second one Law as well. But he is willing to use non-good methods to maintain the law. But only as a function of maintaining the law, not for personal reasons (the difference between LN and LE). I don't see anything in the OP that would even suggest NE.
Varia 11-17-07, 03:32 AM	NG. Good goals, and the ends justifies the means. Good never kills innocents? Please. Good tries not to kill innocents, but sometimes its necessary. Hiroshima, for-instance. Remember, these are warlords tearing up the country. Lots of people are suffering and dying. The rules have ALWAYS been different among the royals- assassination and power plays are the norm among royalty. Due to the rules of succession basically no member of a royal family that can ascend the throne is off limits. And as a technical note, what he's planning is multiple murder, not mass murder.
Galaktia 11-17-07, 03:37 AM	Chaotic good, most certainly. He is a big picture individual, He sees that a civil war will tear the country to shreds and cause death and destruction a million times what he will cause in preventing civil war. A good person can be willing to kill innocents to save greater. It is a truely good person who takes the difficult decisions such as that onto themselves to save others the need to do so. For instance, A goblin has a knife to a girls throat, Another goblin has a fireball ready to toast a hundred civilians, You can stop one, Is it evil to stop the goblin with the fireball cause the girl dies? no And yet you have sacrificed an innocent for the good of the greater number. To qoute startrek in all the nerdyness. The Needs Of The Many Out Way The Needs Of The Few. He is chaotic because the methods he gets to the end by are of no concern to him, but he is good because he is hoping and working towards the saving of the greater number and protecting and stabalising of the country.
Galaktia 11-17-07, 03:40 AM	In my campaign: LG means you uphold the law with a desire to promote the welfare of the people. LE means you uphold the law with a desire to exploit the people LN means you uphold the law, regardless of how it affects others, but you don't have an incentive to promte welfare of others or exploit them. From the OP, the NPC would definately be LN in my campaign. You don't have to uphold the law as a LN or LE character, or even a LG character. You merely have to uphold your own set of values and code of behaviour and ethics. Laws have nothing to do with it. While most lawful characters, especially those of a LG alignment have part of their code of ethics being that they uphold and honor the laws of the land such a provision isn't needed in any Lawful alignment, technically,
kelvinaw273 11-17-07, 08:31 AM	To qoute startrek in all the nerdyness. The Needs Of The Many Out Way The Needs Of The Few. I think you miss the point: he is killing innocent people not because they will turn out badly, but because they may threaten his later stability. This is killing the innocent not because it will save lives, but because not to do so could cause later inconvenience. This is not good, it's evil, and the logical reasoning implies a lawful mindset. Evil is never so seductive as when it is convenient, after all. As for arguing that he would sacrifice his life to save his people, this is not necessarily good, under the circumstances it sounds more lawful - he does it because his sense of pride and honour require it of him, not because he loves them. He may have lawful good intentions, but you can say that about any fallen paladin - half the blackguards in the world are still convinced they are lawful good ...
Galaktia 11-17-07, 09:39 AM	Not from the OPs post, from the OPs post what I read was ""He will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent people of the land, but he is also willing to kill the innocent families of the warlords to prevent civil wars when their kids grow up. As such he qualifies for both good and evil."" This suggests he knows for a fact that civil war will be caused, this isn't a hard thing to know for a fact, with acess to divining magics, and knowledge of the natural human reaction to someone killing your dad and robbing you of your birthright as a leader.
lamrar 11-17-07, 11:45 AM	As for arguing that he would sacrifice his life to save his people, this is not necessarily good, under the circumstances it sounds more lawful - he does it because his sense of pride and honour require it of him, not because he loves them. He may have lawful good intentions, but you can say that about any fallen paladin - half the blackguards in the world are still convinced they are lawful good ... I feel that you are presuming to much when when you say that he does this only because his sense of pride and honour require it of him. I guess that I should have been more specific, but I envisage that he really loves his people, and sees his questionable methods as the lesser evil. I wouldn't call him good though. My question in the first post is perhaps: To what degree should the end justify the means?
Marcus Majarra 11-17-07, 11:50 AM	My recommendation is: lawful evil. This is the typical behavior of a dictator, which easily falls under the lawful evil mentality.
Slayer_of_Gellcor 11-17-07, 12:10 PM	I could easily see LN if he really doesn't want to kill these people, but he will. I agree with a lot of these people that a good person wouldn't sacrifice innocents, no matter how much it might serve the person's conception of the greater good. Or maybe they would, but in my book: they wouldn't stay Good for long. LE could fit too, if somewhere along the lines the character sort of liked the idea of killing these people. It doesn't have to be overt, or even that the character is aware of it, but I think evil people like the pain, death, and suffering of others. So, my vote's for LN.
kelvinaw273 11-17-07, 12:38 PM	Not from the OPs post, from the OPs post what I read was ""He will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent people of the land, but he is also willing to kill the innocent families of the warlords to prevent civil wars when their kids grow up. As such he qualifies for both good and evil."" This suggests he knows for a fact that civil war will be caused, this isn't a hard thing to know for a fact, with acess to divining magics, and knowledge of the natural human reaction to someone killing your dad and robbing you of your birthright as a leader. Actually that sounds more like a recipe for a self-fulfilling prophecy - he takes the divination and as a result turns into a ruthless, evil dictator, and one of his attempted victims escapes and vows revenge, returning to claim his birthright and leading the people in a mass revolt against the tyrant who now rules them! The problem is, divinations can be self-fulfilling, like the story of Oedipus. If he was truly good he would refuse to harm the innocent regardless, and thus escape the prophecy. This also implies that he does not realise the power of education - take a child at a young enough age, and you can educate them of almost anything. Instead of killing the children he could adopt them, convert them to his cause as they grow up and return them to their rightful places as his legitimate allies (not an uncommon tactic, actually).
lamrar 11-17-07, 12:43 PM	This also implies that he does not realise the power of education - take a child at a young enough age, and you can educate them of almost anything. Instead of killing the children he could adopt them, convert them to his cause as they grow up and return them to their rightful places as his legitimate allies (not an uncommon tactic, actually). IMO that sounds a lot like kidnapping and brainwashing innocent children. It would probably be the lesser evil, but it wouldn't be good.
Etarnon 11-17-07, 12:47 PM	He's lawful evil. He's got a plan, he doesn't care if he kills kids to keep his position. He's hiring mercenaries to do assassinations, a treacherous form of ambush. He's lawful evil. Good show for him to sacrifice himself, if need be. but He's also willing to sacrifice others for his goals. LE, Period.
temparus2000 11-17-07, 01:53 PM	While most lawful characters, especially those of a LG alignment have part of their code of ethics being that they uphold and honor the laws of the land such a provision isn't needed in any Lawful alignment, technically, Actually, according to the PHB, it prettty much does. Lawful people "respect authority", and being lawful implies "obediance to authority", and the believe "only lawful behavior creates a society where other people can depend on each other." For your definition to work, you would have to conclude that the law-making bodies of a land do not count as an "authority". Which brings me to another point: I was quite careful to begin my post with "In my campaign." The alignments are intentoinally worded very vaguely so that a DM can define them as necessary according to the needs of the campaign. Any comments that try to put any alignment into a concrete, all-inclusive definition (such as your comment) are meaningless, since there is no definie "right" or "wrong" definiation of alignments, they are intended to vary from campaign to campaign.
Legdiwena 11-17-07, 03:35 PM	Split personality LG/LE
Voran 11-17-07, 06:17 PM	I highly disagree based on these principles of the NPC: "will sacrifice his life to protect the innocent" "to unite the city-states under his rule, to bring peace and stability to the region" Both of these ideals represent Good, and the second one Law as well. But he is willing to use non-good methods to maintain the law. But only as a function of maintaining the law, not for personal reasons (the difference between LN and LE). I don't see anything in the OP that would even suggest NE. Its one thing to say you'll sacrifice yourself for the good of your people, or the innocent, but its another to then say "yeah, but the only innocents are the ones I call innocents. And btw, the best way for me to bring peace, is to have the PCs kill all the other leaders" He's a warlord, someone who uses force and death to get what he wants. Cmon.
temparus2000 11-17-07, 08:19 PM	Its one thing to say you'll sacrifice yourself for the good of your people, or the innocent, but its another to then say "yeah, but the only innocents are the ones I call innocents. And btw, the best way for me to bring peace, is to have the PCs kill all the other leaders" He's a warlord, someone who uses force and death to get what he wants. Cmon. You are right. And what he WANTS is a society that is beneficial to the citizens, even at the cost of his own life if need be. LN all the way (speaking as if this guy lived in my campaign, of course)
Etarnon 11-18-07, 01:20 AM	Beneficial by whacking young kids that are threats to him in a purge?
kelvinaw273 11-18-07, 04:54 AM	IMO that sounds a lot like kidnapping and brainwashing innocent children. It would probably be the lesser evil, but it wouldn't be good. Not brainwashing, but re-educating. And you teach people to be Good by setting a good example. You are right. And what he WANTS is a society that is beneficial to the citizens, even at the cost of his own life if need be. LN all the way (speaking as if this guy lived in my campaign, of course) As long as HE is the person running the show - that's pure ego, even if it is justifiable. "We will create the perfect society, and there will be much happiness and rejoicing on pain of death."
Varia 11-18-07, 11:51 AM	Beneficial by whacking young kids that are threats to him in a purge? The few kids of opposing rulers, who have line of succession claims that either they, or other people manipulating them for their own ends, might pursue, thus unleashing another round of civil strife which, even if it ends merely in strife and not full-blown civil war, will still claim more lives than killing those particular kids? Certainly. 3200 people died in the battle of Worcester, who would have lived if Charles II had been pre-killed before Charles I was captured and executed by Cromwell in 1649, forinstance, and, while not exact match to the OP's situation, is certainly close enough to be noticeably relevant. 3200 dead, because 1 person was spared.
eof 11-18-07, 12:05 PM	LE.
kelvinaw273 11-18-07, 12:08 PM	The few kids of opposing rulers, who have line of succession claims that either they, or other people manipulating them for their own ends, might pursue, thus unleashing another round of civil strife which, even if it ends merely in strife and not full-blown civil war, will still claim more lives than killing those particular kids? Certainly. 3200 people died in the battle of Worcester, who would have lived if Charles II had been pre-killed before Charles I was captured and executed by Cromwell in 1649, forinstance, and, while not exact match to the OP's situation, is certainly close enough to be noticeably relevant. 3200 dead, because 1 person was spared. Yes ... and for all we know, some other WORSE person might have come along and killed 6400 people instead ... all those deaths, because one murderous fool thought that good would come of infanticide. And before you quote divination, I will point out the 'self fulfilling prophecy' is meat and drink of such tools, and that even in D&D, divination is NOT fool-proof. Evil is as evil does.
lamrar 11-18-07, 12:16 PM	Tahnks everyone for your advice! I'll go with LN. The reason I'm not giong with LE or NE is that (the way I picture this guy, hes my npc after all :P), he does more to protect innocent life than to kill, destroy or debase it. As I side note I'm getting more and more convinced that the alignement system is fundamentally flawed, and I think I'll start using the taint system instead.
kelvinaw273 11-18-07, 01:18 PM	Tahnks everyone for your advice! I'll go with LN. The reason I'm not giong with LE or NE is that (the way I picture this guy, hes my npc after all :P), he does more to protect innocent life than to kill, destroy or debase it. As I side note I'm getting more and more convinced that the alignement system is fundamentally flawed, and I think I'll start using the taint system instead. You are correct, which is why I prefer Eberron: in Eberron alignment is all related to how you behave, and not about what you believe in - so a chaotic evil psychopath can be trying to build a lawful good society, if you want. I'd still call this guy evil, myself, because that is how he acts. This does not mean that he is doing good in the long term, some feudal rulers did, in spite of being grade-A egotistical murderers! For example King John of England (yes, the Robin Hood one, there has only been one!) who in spite of everything else laid out the principals of modern justice and democracy with the signing of the Magna Carta.
Palin the Wizard 11-18-07, 03:18 PM	Someone who is killing innocents -- that is, people who have nothing directly to do with a war -- cannot be Good. Lawful Neutral.
Legdiwena 11-18-07, 03:39 PM	Not that King John had much of a choice with the Magna Carta.
Varia 11-18-07, 09:52 PM	Someone who is killing innocents -- that is, people who have nothing directly to do with a war -- cannot be Good. Lawful Neutral. I point out again, that merely by virtue of being royal (in the line of succession), EVERY SINGLE ROYAL is inherently a potential cause of war as long as theyre alive (and, occasionally, even if theyre not). They want their rights restored, or a group the old king supported or empowered want that power and position back and use the royal as a figurehead in an armed movement to get it back, etc. HISTORY IS RIFE rife with fighting and death caused by heirs or near-heirs of various factions trying to gain or regain position. Thats not idle speculation of things that could happen, thats stuff that DID happen. It is PROOF that stray living royals from defeated lines ARE trouble and death waiting to happen. Not every single one of them, but far FAR too many to safely ignore, especially in a wild-westish dueling warlords kinda setting like the OP has. If you will not learn from history, then, well, you know the rest of that saying, and you are a fool. More will die than needed while you sit and self-righteously wring your hands saying to yourself "I'm a good person, really", because you will not do what needs to be done. I'm sure your good opinion of yourself will be a great consolation to the dead and their grieving families. Its not nice, no, but "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" IS AN AXIOM FOR A REASON. It is far better for the new ruler that the old royal lines be extinguished. If you can do that by killing all the successors of a line before the current head of that line is destroyed, so much the better and (on average) cheaper in lives. That says nothing about whether the new ruler is overall a good or bad person; it just addresses whether or not killing a ROYAL child is cheaper in lives in the long run, on average, or not. In the OP case the ruler is certainly intending to be beneficial. Whether he is actually beneficial or not depends on how he implements things, his political and legislative skill, handling of the population etc, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Alignment has always been an issue, because nobody seems capable of understanding it the same way as the next person. I will say that there seems to be WAY too much of the "he committed a single evil act, therefor he's not good" mindset in this thread. It has been stressed over and over again in various threads that, unless youre a paladin, A SINGLE (or even a few) EVIL ACTS DO NOT CAUSE YOU TO BECOME NON-GOOD. It is the overall longterm AVERAGE that determines your alignment. (and paladins merely fall if they commit an evil act, not change alignment). But some people just WILL NOT GET IT, and so we get this. Again. I should note that just because its tactically sensible to remove the heirs, that doesnt mean that its easy to do. The opposing rulers and heirs know it too, and so theyre guarded. You cant just walk in and stab them just because you've decided you want to. You must also bear in mind that trying to assassinate a royal is causus belli- try it and you probably have a war on your hands, and, moreover, a war that other warlords are more likely to join in on the enemies side, because theyre not gonna like the idea of letting the new guy get away with a general assassination policy because they may be next. Thats not a recipe for success. Which means theres politicking to keep the other warlords neutral or friendly while you do your thing, which takes time, care and skill. You have to use stealth, misdirection and uncertainty to ensure the assassinations cant be traced back to you, to eliminate the possibility of war before youre ready, and to weaken the resolve of other warlords to rally against you if war does come, and that makes successful assassination much harder and thus slower and more time consuming. It can be the work of a decade or more to slowly destroy an opposing royal family by stealth without provoking premature war, and thats probably fast. And its very much harder in a D+D world given resurrections and divination magics. In the real world you can have a tragic hunting accident, bogged in confusion. The prince is dead, mistaken for a stag and shot. Nobody is sure who fired the arrow, the public doesnt know if it was an accident or not, there are multiple possible suspects if it wasnt, and whatever suspicion there is is weakened and diluted by uncertainty into ineffectiveness. In a D+D world they just resurrect the prince, and use divination on arrow or death scene to learn the truth. And if they cant ressurect the prince, or divination doesnt work, or the area shows signs that divination may have been tampered with to interfere with the results then that in itself is proof that it wasnt an accident, which strengthens suspicion and the security of remaining royals. The point being that assassination is sensible in itself, but not necessarily practical, and certainly not fast, at least not till youre down to only 1 or 2 remaining opponents and a mass combined reaction against you is no longer a major concern. Kelvinaw- "Dont use the divination excuse?" I never mentioned divination, and, due to experiences with a railroad-prophecy-mad DM am almost certainly more rabidly anti-prophecy/fate than you are. History, however, is a sure guide to the future in general terms, and that I DO believe in. And it unequivocally says that deposed/disenfranchised royals are likely trouble. "For all we know some other worse person may have come along and killed 6400"? And what if death rays from Mars kill that worse person before he can? You can say "what if" that about anything/one, with however ridiculous or unlikely a premise you like; its an unfair and dishonest arguement. What is fair, is to say that history shows the odds of a stray royal causing strife is pretty good, because he is a rallying point for the disaffected, the opportunists, and old loyalists. What is also fair to say is that non-royals are weaker rallying points for disent, and that the weaker the rallying point, the weaker the disent movement. The weaker the movement, the less strife and the less lives lost. Thus, from the point of view of future stability and the success of the new regime, its sensible and beneficial to remove or neutralise all the best rallying points for the opposition, of which surviving royals of the old line are by far the best examples. Its mathematically *possible* for someone worse to come along, but its certainly NOT the way to bet, because unless the new ruler has made a serious mistake in judgement, the new person will NOT have as much support as a royal would, and thus cannot, all other things being equal, cause as much strife and damage as a royal could. Is it possible? Yes. Is it at all reasonable or likely? No, not if the new ruler has correctly identifed all the major players regarding his terget kingdom. To suggest otherwise with nothing more than "what if?" smacks of willful blindness or dishonesty. Open-mindedness is a good thing. But take care that you arent so open minded that your brains fall out.
lamrar 11-19-07, 04:09 AM	You make some very good points Varia. My PCs wanted more choices, so the thought behind this campaign is that they get the mission of assasinating the royals while leading suspicion away from our LN npc.
Palin the Wizard 11-19-07, 08:02 AM	I point out again, that merely by virtue of being royal (in the line of succession), EVERY SINGLE ROYAL is inherently a potential cause of war as long as theyre alive (and, occasionally, even if theyre not). They want their rights restored, or a group the old king supported or empowered want that power and position back and use the royal as a figurehead in an armed movement to get it back, etc. HISTORY IS RIFE rife with fighting and death caused by heirs or near-heirs of various factions trying to gain or regain position. Thats not idle speculation of things that could happen, thats stuff that DID happen. It is PROOF that stray living royals from defeated lines ARE trouble and death waiting to happen. Not every single one of them, but far FAR too many to safely ignore, especially in a wild-westish dueling warlords kinda setting like the OP has. If you will not learn from history, then, well, you know the rest of that saying, and you are a fool. More will die than needed while you sit and self-righteously wring your hands saying to yourself "I'm a good person, really", because you will not do what needs to be done. I'm sure your good opinion of yourself will be a great consolation to the dead and their grieving families. Its not nice, no, but "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" IS AN AXIOM FOR A REASON. It is far better for the new ruler that the old royal lines be extinguished. If you can do that by killing all the successors of a line before the current head of that line is destroyed, so much the better and (on average) cheaper in lives. That says nothing about whether the new ruler is overall a good or bad person; it just addresses whether or not killing a ROYAL child is cheaper in lives in the long run, on average, or not. In the OP case the ruler is certainly intending to be beneficial. Whether he is actually beneficial or not depends on how he implements things, his political and legislative skill, handling of the population etc, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. There are other options. Being willing to pre-emptively kill them is not the Good option. It's the Neutral option; specifically, the Lawful Neutral option. That is, as long as it is only done for the sake of avoiding a long, drawn-out civil war. The saying 'the good of the many outweighs the good of the few' has nothing to do with the Good alignment. It's a Lawful point of view. A Lawful Good character would not allow those few to actually come to harm, though he would be willing to make the sacrifice for himself. A Lawful Neutral character would follow it literally. A Lawful Evil character would follow it but not apply it to himself. You are making my point for me. You said: "It is far better for the new ruler that the old royal lines be extinguished." I agree. It's simply not a Good point of view, it's Neutral. It is not a Good act to weigh a life against a number of other lives, unless the one life is actively threatening the others. I encourage you to read George R. R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice series. This particular issue comes up in A Game of Thrones. Alignment has always been an issue, because nobody seems capable of understanding it the same way as the next person. I will say that there seems to be WAY too much of the "he committed a single evil act, therefor he's not good" mindset in this thread. It has been stressed over and over again in various threads that, unless youre a paladin, A SINGLE (or even a few) EVIL ACTS DO NOT CAUSE YOU TO BECOME NON-GOOD. It is the overall longterm AVERAGE that determines your alignment. (and paladins merely fall if they commit an evil act, not change alignment). But some people just WILL NOT GET IT, and so we get this. Again. "Unless you're a paladin" is just wrong. Paladins do not act under a different alignment system. It is not the "overall longterm average" that determines your alignment. It is a combination of your motivations, what you are willing to do, and what you are doing. A person who is willing to commit the most atrocious acts for money yet has not done so because the opportunity has not come up is still Evil, even if he has never committed an Evil act. Capitalizing words does absolutely nothing for your point. It merely makes you look frustrated (not to mention it's annoying to read). If you wish to use emphasis, bolding or italicizing your words is a better option.
kelvinaw273 11-19-07, 08:24 AM	Varia you make some valid points. The most valid point you prove is that any committer of genocide can do so with the noblest of aims and ideals, and still believe they are right and good, merely doing what they deem 'necessary'. There is a reason we have a judicial system now that says 'innocent until proven guilty' rather than 'guilty until proven innocent' which is effectively what you advocate. You say that any of these people could be a threat, well let's be logical: who else could threaten the peace? Any political figure not allied with the ruler could do the same, therefore those that do not swear fealty, or who fail to obey, must die along with their families. Guild masters, mayors, aldermen - all have to be loyal or die. Anyone with military knowledge likewise, so those not allied with the ruler must also die (along with their families). Heads of mercenary troops, retired generals, adventurers - croaked! Anyone who speaks out against the ruler; agitators, columnists, diarists - all can disrupt the peace, spark revolt and stir discontent - so they must die. Anyone with arcane knowledge also could cause mayhem. Kill 'em all, if they aren't on the ruler's side, because one fireball could wipe out a company of soldiers and what (gasp) if they directed this at the unarmed populace? They must die before they are allowed to do this. Is this sounding familiar? Yes, it is a crushing, evil tyranny. But then tyrants don't always start out evil ... they start out wanting the best for their people. Only later do they extend their best to crushing and oppressing those people - all in the name of the greater good, of course. History is full of these examples as well. Many of the uprisings against rulers by scions of other lines were popularly supported BECAUSE those rulers behaved in just this way. Once you start killing innocent people because of what they might do one day, you have created a tyranny. There isn't a dictator in the world who hasn't justified the oppression they wielded in just this way - 'maintaining order', 'keeping the peace' and 'detaining possible disruptive elements' are all the excuses they use. It was Robespierre who said in the reign of terror after the French revolution, one of the bloodiest episodes in that nation's history: "It is better to guillotine a hundred innocent men than let one guilty man go free." Isn't that the ethic this NPC is espousing here, in essence - except of course that even the 'guilty' man in your case has not actually done anything yet. So maybe this lord is LN now ... but he won't stay that way. As soon as the order is given to kill the innocent, the line has been crossed, and it is a very steep, slippery slope. Like Robespierre, their policy will sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Varia 11-19-07, 08:48 AM	There are other options. The saying 'the good of the many outweighs the good of the few' has nothing to do with the Good alignment. It is not a Good act to weigh a life against a number of other lives, unless the one life is actively threatening the others. I encourage you to read George R. R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice series. This particular issue comes up in A Game of Thrones. "Unless you're a paladin" is just wrong. Paladins do not act under a different alignment system. It is not the "overall longterm average" that determines your alignment. It is a combination of your motivations, what you are willing to do, and what you are doing. A person who is willing to commit the most atrocious acts for money yet has not done so because the opportunity has not come up is still Evil, even if he has never committed an Evil act. Capitalizing words does absolutely nothing for your point. It merely makes you look frustrated (not to mention it's annoying to read). If you wish to use emphasis, bolding or italicizing your words is a better option. There are other options? That do not expose the ruler and his family and loyalists to danger? Name them. The ones (or combinations) that are universally effective, that is. (As I have said, not all stray royals are a problem. Its the ones that are that we're dealing with here.) Nothing to do with good alignment? A case of no two people being able to agree what alignment means, I think. Actively threatening others- a good case can be made that the existance of a stray royal is an active threat, even if not an immediate one. People have a tendency to shoot potentially dangerous wild animals immediately, rather than wait till its in the middle of attacking someone. Same idea. ASoFaI- its on my list. One of these days. When I remember and am in a bookstore, basically. Could be years. Could be tuesday. Unless youre a paladin- I didnt say they operated under a different alignment system. I just said theyre basically the one exception to the rule that a single bad act wont inherently affect the do-er. Its clearer in the second bracket of the post. Its not the overall longterm average- Well ok, granted, to a degree. Its the longterm average of deeds, intentions and motivations, if you want to be pedantic about it. Which is pretty much irrelevant to the point of that paragraph, which was that a single bad act doesnt change your alignment, which far too many people in this thread dont seem to get. Stay on point please. Capitalising- Its a habit. Its easier since it doesnt involve taking my hands off the keyboard to go click the icon for it, and my posts have a tendency toward length as it is, without making them tedious to write into the bargain. There may be a shortcut that will do it without requiring mouse use; if so I havent learned it. So I use capitals for easy emphasis. If you think that makes me sound frustrated thats your damage. I'm just lazy-ish. Suffah!! (I was nice, and italicised a couple just for you in this reply, but it aint becoming a habit.)
Palin the Wizard 11-19-07, 10:14 AM	There are other options? That do not expose the ruler and his family and loyalists to danger? Name them. The ones (or combinations) that are universally effective, that is. (As I have said, not all stray royals are a problem. Its the ones that are that we're dealing with here.) Certainly there are other options. Imprisonment for example. Endentured servitude. You could even attempt diplomacy. Does it involve a certain amount of risk? Of course. But you avoid outright killing them. It's not as easy, no, but Good isn't about ease. Nothing to do with good alignment? A case of no two people being able to agree what alignment means, I think. Agreement doesn't factor into it. Each alignment is described, and while you can interpret the alignments differently, the core remains the same. It has nothing to do with the Good alignment. It's Lawful. Don't misunderstand the quote just because it has the word 'good' in it. An extremely Neutral Good character would never even consider the axiom, as he would find the concept incomprehensible. A Lawful Good character would follow it, because he values Lawful and Good, but not to the same degree that a Lawful Neutral character would -- as a Lawful Neutral character only focuses on being Lawful. As long as the concept is applied fairly, a Lawful Neutral character wouldn't be concerned with people who either benefit from the system or suffer from it. A Lawful Good character would want no one to truly suffer. A Chaotic Good character would find the axiom horrible -- he would argue individuals over an indistinguishable "mass" of people. Actively threatening others- a good case can be made that the existance of a stray royal is an active threat, even if not an immediate one. People have a tendency to shoot potentially dangerous wild animals immediately, rather than wait till its in the middle of attacking someone. Same idea. Yes, you could. It's a slippery slope, however. I would consider it only barely Good. ASoFaI- its on my list. One of these days. When I remember and am in a bookstore, basically. Could be years. Could be tuesday. It's good. Loads of politics, if you like that. Unless youre a paladin- I didnt say they operated under a different alignment system. I just said theyre basically the one exception to the rule that a single bad act wont inherently affect the do-er. Its clearer in the second bracket of the post. Its not the overall longterm average- Well ok, granted, to a degree. Its the longterm average of deeds, intentions and motivations, if you want to be pedantic about it. Which is pretty much irrelevant to the point of that paragraph, which was that a single bad act doesnt change your alignment, which far too many people in this thread dont seem to get. Stay on point please. Yeah, I know that's what you meant. I am rather annoyed by people who do not understand alignment as well. You point out yourself that alignment is misunderstood far too much; to avoid that particular annoyance, I prefer to be as clear as possible regarding the issue. It wasn't as much for your benefit as for other people reading this thread. Capitalising- Its a habit. Its easier since it doesnt involve taking my hands off the keyboard to go click the icon for it, and my posts have a tendency toward length as it is, without making them tedious to write into the bargain. There may be a shortcut that will do it without requiring mouse use; if so I havent learned it. So I use capitals for easy emphasis. If you think that makes me sound frustrated thats your damage. I'm just lazy-ish. Suffah!! (I was nice, and italicised a couple just for you in this reply, but it aint becoming a habit.) I appreciate the effort. (Depending on your keyboard layout, the shortcut is simply square brackets with the corresponding key, i.e. <italicized>.)
Varia 11-19-07, 10:53 AM	any committer of genocide can do so with the noblest of aims and ideals... There is a reason we have a judicial system now Any political figure not allied with the ruler could do the same, therefore those that do not swear fealty, or who fail to obey, must die along with their families. Guild masters, mayors, aldermen - all have to be loyal or die. Anyone who speaks out against the ruler. Anyone with arcane knowledge also could cause mayhem. Is this sounding familiar? Many of the uprisings against rulers by scions of other lines It was Robespierre who said Ahh hyperbole, how I have missed thee. Lemme esplain- Any committer of genocide- We're not talking about genocide here. We're talking about maybe 10 people per kingdom, most of whom, if its been done right, died from accidents, disease or other unfortunate natural causes as far as anyone knows, with maybe 1 or 2 dying in war related ways. My original post already covered why killing them any other way might well be counterproductive. There is a reason we have a judicial system now...- Yes. Now. But we're not talking about now. These arent nice happy shiny modern democracies we're talking about here. These are kingdoms (warlorddoms?) we're talking about. They are, by their very nature, inherently undemocratic. The same rules of law do not apply. There have been (and may still be, in one or two places) systems where youre guilty till proven innocent. I seem to recall that the Napoleonic Code had some elements of that, although I could be wrong, and thats still in significant force in parts of the south I believe. Back in the good old days, such as D+D, the King WAS the law. And these arent even stable peaceful kings we're talking about- As the OP said, they war with each other constantly. This is "Black Hawk Down" era Somalia, boys and girls, and if you watched the news at all you know how much fun that was. Any political figure not allied- er, you are aware that in point of historical fact, all the various national political figures (read- nobles) did have to swear fealty to the king? These are NOT happy democracies as far as the eye can see; these are kingdoms, and that means fealty to the King. Mayors were sworn to their nobles, as were aldermen. I'm not sure about guild leaders. If they refused to swear fealty they were removed from their positions, and, in the case of nobles, usually exiled. That was the Law. Or die? No, only if they took up arms against the king or his agents, and only those members of the families that did. And the same easily transfers and applies to D+D. Swear fealty to the new king or lose your politcal figure status and cease being a problem. Same goes for military leaders. Swear fealty or be stripped of your rank. Mercenaries? Theyre mercenaries, they dont care either way. No mercenary is going to rise against a king just for the heck of it. Anyone who speaks out- No, they dont get killed. They, maybe, get jailed or fined. Or maybe not, depends on the king. In the OP's case I would assume the king is working on a benevelent campaign, so they dont get jailed. They get PR stunts/events by the king to build support for him. A few dissenters in the crowd of pro-king sentiment just get ignored or shouted down. Try going to a republican or democrat rally and shouting opposite party sentiments and see how much you achieve, while remaining remarkably un-killed. Anyone with arcane power/adventurers- Actually its logically absurd, it positively beggars the imagination, that adventurers are allowed to just wander around without requiring permissions, warrants, bindings, oaths and so on, in any even remotely sane D+D world. But all this is carefully and consistantly ignored for the sake of the wild-west roaming hero style of play. That little bit of reality that we all studiously ignore is part of what makes it the game that we love. But in a sensible world such people would most certainly be tied into the local legal and political framework before being permitted. Is this sounding familiar- yes, and so is your slippery-slope hysteria. But its not justified- the heirs have been killed by stealth, precisely to avoid such backlash, and all else is in accordance with standard traditional monarchy-style law, not in defiance of it, and thus also doesnt generate serious backlash. Many of the rebellions by scions of other lines... precisely. By scions of other lines. Which is precisely the point of killing them. No scion, no rebellion. People may rally behind a scion because they have the scion. They cant rise up behind a corpse. Its not like they can put the corpse back on the throne. If all they have is a corpse then theyve already lost everything they can lose in that particular emotional pool. So then they will only usually rise up in defense of themselves. As long as the new king doesnt threaten them the people should remain fairly quiet. Robespierre- No, thats not what this NPC is proposing. He's proposing that "better a few semi-innocent people should die, than 100's of times that number should die". 1 death to save hundreds, not hundreds of deaths to get one criminal. Slippery slope- as I said in my original post- you have to kill the heirs without being seen to, precisely to avoid slippery slope issues. No evidence = no backlash = no slippery slope.
lamrar 11-19-07, 01:25 PM	Palin and Varia, you both make good points, and I find myself agreeing (sp?) with both of you. The way I see it: This NPC is lawful because he believes strongly that order prevents suffering, and is working to bring order to a chaotic society. This NPC can not be good, because he kills innocents. But he is not evil either, because he works for the greater good. I know what you are thinking Palin: "all dictators say that." But good and evil are not abstract in DnD terms. The gods (or the cosmological forces or whatever) will see that this NPC is, in fact, working for the greater good, and thus, he will not register as evil. Let me add that seen from our point of view, where democracy and equality is the norm, and morals are relative (sp?) it might be argued that he is evil. But I don't think he would register as such by the standards of DnD. At least not in my game.
kelvinaw273 11-19-07, 02:02 PM	Any committer of genocide- We're not talking about genocide here. We're talking about maybe 10 people per kingdom, most of whom, if its been done right, died from accidents, disease or other unfortunate natural causes as far as anyone knows, with maybe 1 or 2 dying in war related ways. My original post already covered why killing them any other way might well be counterproductive. It's evil whether or not anyone knows about it, and whether or not you kill one baby or a hundred, and whether or not they might have died anyway in three years time. You can argue serial killers aren't evil with that logic: "I didn't kill everyone I could, just a few here and there, I wasn't caught and the bodies were never found, so no-one knows they are dead, and anyway in a hundred years they'd be dead regardless, so what does it matter?" And at the risk of repeating myself: Evil is never so seductive as when it is convenient. There is a reason we have a judicial system now...- Yes. Now. But we're not talking about now. These arent nice happy shiny modern democracies we're talking about here. These are kingdoms (warlorddoms?) we're talking about. They are, by their very nature, inherently undemocratic. The same rules of law do not apply. There have been (and may still be, in one or two places) systems where youre guilty till proven innocent. I seem to recall that the Napoleonic Code had some elements of that, although I could be wrong, and thats still in significant force in parts of the south I believe. Back in the good old days, such as D+D, the King WAS the law. And these arent even stable peaceful kings we're talking about- As the OP said, they war with each other constantly. This is "Black Hawk Down" era Somalia, boys and girls, and if you watched the news at all you know how much fun that was. None at all. Nobody said being good was easy. Nobody said that being evil was something people set out to do. It does not matter whether there are survivors or not for the peace of the land to be broken. There will ALWAYS be another warlord willing to size power by right of arms from whoever currently has it. The qualifications are not birthright or divine favour, they are having a big sword and a bunch of armed men behind you. Killing the children of your foes isn't done quietly in these societies - it's done publicly to make sure that everyone knows not to mess with you! Any political figure not allied- er, you are aware that in point of historical fact, all the various national political figures (read- nobles) did have to swear fealty to the king? These are NOT happy democracies as far as the eye can see; these are kingdoms, and that means fealty to the King. Mayors were sworn to their nobles, as were aldermen. I'm not sure about guild leaders. If they refused to swear fealty they were removed from their positions, and, in the case of nobles, usually exiled. That was the Law. Or die? No, only if they took up arms against the king or his agents, and only those members of the families that did. And the same easily transfers and applies to D+D. Swear fealty to the new king or lose your politcal figure status and cease being a problem. Same goes for military leaders. Swear fealty or be stripped of your rank. Mercenaries? Theyre mercenaries, they dont care either way. No mercenary is going to rise against a king just for the heck of it. No they aren't. They do it for the power and the glory. And of course they all swore fealty - then some broke their oaths. Happened all the time. The point I am making here is that anyone whose loyalty you are not sure of is a potential problem to disturb the peace. Anyone who speaks out- No, they dont get killed. They, maybe, get jailed or fined. Or maybe not, depends on the king. In the OP's case I would assume the king is working on a benevelent campaign, so they dont get jailed. They get PR stunts/events by the king to build support for him. A few dissenters in the crowd of pro-king sentiment just get ignored or shouted down. Try going to a republican or democrat rally and shouting opposite party sentiments and see how much you achieve, while remaining remarkably un-killed. But as you said these are not nice, happy democratic institutions. You are assuming the populace loves the ruler - why should they? He ruthlessly kills babies doesn't he? Not a nice guy. Anyone with arcane power/adventurers- Actually its logically absurd, it positively beggars the imagination, that adventurers are allowed to just wander around without requiring permissions, warrants, bindings, oaths and so on, in any even remotely sane D+D world. But all this is carefully and consistantly ignored for the sake of the wild-west roaming hero style of play. That little bit of reality that we all studiously ignore is part of what makes it the game that we love. But in a sensible world such people would most certainly be tied into the local legal and political framework before being permitted. Hey, I'm just extrapolating your logic. Robespierre- No, thats not what this NPC is proposing. He's proposing that "better a few semi-innocent people should die, than 100's of times that number should die". 1 death to save hundreds, not hundreds of deaths to get one criminal. All of their children = everyone from 1 day old to any age. How is a day old baby only "semi-innocent"? At the end of the day you are trying to argue that "Ends justifies the means" which is the best description of LE there is. Mine is that you cannot define somebody's right to live based on what they might do with their life. And it may not save anyone at all, you just do not know. It certainly didn't save Robespierre! Slippery slope- as I said in my original post- you have to kill the heirs without being seen to, precisely to avoid slippery slope issues. No evidence = no backlash = no slippery slope. So you get away with it ... so you do it again ... and get away with it ... and again ... THAT is the slippery slope. You are obsessed with APPEARING to be good and confusing it with BEING good. The question is not "Does he come across as Good" but "What alignment is he really?"
Palin the Wizard 11-19-07, 05:47 PM	Palin and Varia, you both make good points, and I find myself agreeing (sp?) with both of you. The way I see it: This NPC is lawful because he believes strongly that order prevents suffering, and is working to bring order to a chaotic society. This NPC can not be good, because he kills innocents. But he is not evil either, because he works for the greater good. I know what you are thinking Palin: "all dictators say that." But good and evil are not abstract in DnD terms. The gods (or the cosmological forces or whatever) will see that this NPC is, in fact, working for the greater good, and thus, he will not register as evil. Actually, that's not what I'm thinking. (Yes, all dictators would say that, but that's beside the point.) I fully agree that he is Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil. I am strongly reminded of the plot in Hero here, by the way.
Khan2000 11-19-07, 05:59 PM	I'd have to go LN with good tendencies. While he's looking to the greater good, he's willing to order the killing of those who may seek revenge and return to the "old ways" in the future in order to protect the populace from a civil war.
lamrar 11-19-07, 06:36 PM	*busted* Hero was the inspiration. Great movie BTW.