The real Kaius III still lives, held in the deepest reaches of the prison of Dreadhold. The identity of the rightful king of Karrnath is a secret few arc privy to, even among Ihe prison guards. The true king's sister, the young Haydith, lives in exile in Breland, banished because her close friendship with her brother might have enabled her to pierce the vampire king's disguise."
Kaius's overarching goals are purely selfish. Certainly he feels guilt for the murderous rampage that he was forced to do, and he wishes to assuage the guilt of murdering his wife. But mostly he is motivated by ambition and vengeance. He didn't drive the Blood of Vol out of Karrnath through altruism. He didn't retire to a monastery or stay content fighting against the evil of Vol from the shadows. He went straight for the throne, casting his grandson into Dreadhold and exiling his granddaughter. The peace he fought for was merely pragmatic, for Karrnath was badly losing the war, plagued by famine and disease. His true ambition is to become the sole king of Gallifar, and to achieve that end he will certainly need to spill more blood.
Just because he isn't just a murderous blood-sucking fiend (though he is that as well), doesn't mean he isn't evil. His ambitions for power and the steps he is willing take to achieve it are enough for him to be evil.
Kaius' virtue is Fortitude and his vice is Pride, and he has Humanity 4 
Yes, I'm being facetious, but you see how much more completely that system encapsulates the character's moral qualities?
If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you.
That's a description of "Unaligned" from the PHB, and it doesn't sound like Kaius to me. This is the man who set aside the Code of Galifar for a harsher code of law, the man who's kept his nation under martial law. He doesn't just "support law and order when doing so benefits him" - he believes that rigid laws are vital for maintaining order.
It's hard to put someone like Kaius into the fairly broad alignment terms of 4E. But I certainly believe that Kaius is a ruthless man capable of great cruelty. It's important to note that while he wants to avoid another war, he still views Karrnath - under-martial-law-and-the-Code-of-Kaius Karrnath - as the way things should be. This is, again, what differentiates him from Aurala. Queen Aurala naively believes that we can have another war without great tragedy; Kaius knows that we can't. But, frankly, a united Galifar under Aurala would be a more pleasant place to live than one under Kaius.
Don't get me wrong - one of the basic points of Eberron is that an evil person can do good and a good person can do evil. Kaius is supposed to be one of those tricky characters who might be the person you want in charge despite his evil nature. I'm just saying that for all that he wants peace, remember that Peace under Kaius in Karrnath is very different than Peace under Aurala in Aundair.
I think a DM who really wanted to could possibly make Kaius unaligned to start, but definitely on a slippery slope. You'd need to posit that III was an incompetent or weak-willed dolt (in Kaius' opinion, at least), and that Kaius really regrets what he's been "forced" to do for the good of his country, but you could do that by spinning past events a bit differently without actually changing much.
Make III an accomplice, at least in his own mind: he thinks grandpa is looking out for his best interests, that he's "in prison" for his own protection, and that he will be restored to his throne as soon as practical. Suppose that III was the one who exiled his own sister, because, well, much as he loves her, she's just a girl (before you start screaming "'sexist!", remember that I did call him a dolt) and might spill the beans, so he got her out of the way just before granddad took over.
So now Kaius has reduced the threat from the Blood of Vol, but dang it, Junior Junior is SO bloody naive; there's no way he'd be able to do what needs to be done, and wouldn't it be better to hand him the entire ancient kingdom of Galifar, or at least a substantial fraction thereof, as a sort of interest on the loan of Karrnath? That's fair, right?
In retrospect, it's probably a mistake to be coddling him so much. Maybe... maybe it would be good to gradually make his prison experience a bit harsher, toughen him up a little, give the boy a spine. That way not only will he appreciate it even more when he finally gets out, he might even be ready to rule by that point. It's for his own good, really, in the long run.
And if despite this III never shapes up... well, maybe his son will be different. Or his son's son; there's a kind of poetry in that, don't you think? Surely by then things will be more settled.
There you go. Kaius went crazy for a while, but he got better, and now... the power and his own nature is starting to go to his head, and he's slipping towards evil, but he's not really there yet; he may even think he intends to hand over the reins in just a year or two, three at the most, well, POSSIBLY as long as five, though... no, no, three, he's sure of it. Almost sure. PRETTY sure...
It does require some changes in Kaius' past nature and motivations, and you almost have to assume he was literally insane for a while there, but it's doable. As DM, history is what you say it is, so if any of the PCs balks... well, they've been reading things they probably shouldn't have, haven't they?
(Note: I have literally no idea if this contradicts the novels or not; I don't generally like to read novels specifically set in a game world.)
Don't get me wrong - one of the basic points of Eberron is that an evil person can do good and a good person can do evil. Kaius is supposed to be one of those tricky characters who might be the person you want in charge despite his evil nature. I'm just saying that for all that he wants peace, remember that Peace under Kaius in Karrnath is very different than Peace under Aurala in Aundair.
Kaius to me is just . . . COMPLEX! Machiavellian, feels that Martial Law is necessary, but desires peace for his people. I usually cast him as an Anti-Hero in my games because I see him as an Anti-Hero. He's a bad guy you feel sympathy for, not antipathy. But that's only my opinion and how I protray him. Maybe there should be an alignment just for anti-heroes in D&D.
I could go into the whole thing on how he's Eberron's example of Greek Tragedy. But that would take more time than I have at the moment.
The tragedy of King Kaius is that he was backed into a corner by siding with Erandis Vol (which I can illustrate as a 12 year old, by the way). He made a pact with dark forces, and was turned into a vampire. He then left the throne to see if he can undo what he did to Karrnath. Which is a typical cycle of tragedy and redemption. Although he couldn't fully redeem himself of the evil he has done and represents, he is working towards that goal by:
* Proposing peace in the Last War.
* Establishing the peace talks of Thronehold.
* Working with Breland in an unofficial capacity (the fostering of siblings do count).
He's an Anti-Hero by:
* Working towards peace.
* Is willing to work with his younger nephews and neices.
* Establishing peace in his own kingdom and working against the Knights of the Emerald Claw.
Working with Breland in an unofficial capacity (the fostering of siblings do count).
Although the 4E ECG notes that he had a simple ulterior motive here - Haydith would soon pierce his disguise as Kaius III. He was kind enough not to kill her - but finding a good excuse to get her out of his court was an expedient act.
Establishing peace in his own kingdom and working against the Knights of the Emerald Claw.
True, but it's the flavor of that peace that I would call out. From the begining of the war, "King Kaius I took absolute control over the state, consolidating power in his hands. Martial law reigned, and the people bent their knees to the king’s will on fear of death." As for the warlords, "these restless nobles have been kept in line by the ruthless reputation of their monarchs."
There's also the question of long term goals. You could play Kaius as someone who is truly repetant, who now only wants peace in his nation of Karrnath. Or you could say that his goals haven't changed; it's simply that unlike Aurala, he now believes that war isn't the best way to accomplish them. This is the direction the 4E ECG goes, saying "With power once again in hand, he has done his best to undo his mistakes, ousting the Blood of Vol and restoring peace to the Five Nations. Despite the passage of years, he still seeks his original goal of a reunited Galifar, with himself as king."
I've always considered Kaius to be a complex and interesting character, someone who could be be a patron or a villain. But the common depiction of him as the evil-aligned good guy and Aurala as the good-aligned bad guy isn't quite so clear-cut. They both want the same things in the end; it's just that Kaius is smarter about it, having learned from his own past mistakes. But as the ECG says, Kaius is a "plotter and master manipulator"... and peace under Kaius may mean brutal martial law. This is the way Karrnath has always been; it's what the Karrns expect from their kings, and in fact the promotion of peace has made Kaius somewhat unpopular among his own warlords. I'm just saying that Kaius' "peace" is a complex thing itself.
And of course, even when it comes to Erandis and the Blood of Vol, you can say he's trying to correct his mistakes. Erandis would surely tell a different story: He's weaseled out of a deal. The Blood of Vol upheld its promises down the line. Its priests and its faithful strengthened the army, and Fort Zombie and Fort Bones are still in service today. The Order of the Emerald Claw and the Order of the Ebon Skull served faithfully and heroically in the war. But Kaius wasn't willing to pay the price for their aid. So that price was higher than expected; well, he was happy enough when they helped drive his enemies from his land. Erandis may be evil; that doesn't mean the knights of the Ebon Skull were. They served faithfully and well, and for their trouble they were betrayed by the king.
But again, that's Eberron - not always so clear-cut. If you're playing with Erandis as a villain, than Kaius can certainly be a hero. On the other hand, when I had a party with a paladin of the Blood of Vol in it, his goal was to personally bring down Kaius III for betraying his faith and being responsible for the death of his father. so it's all a question of your starting perspective.
Kaius is complicated and very human. He's flawed, sometimes contradictory, at odds with half of what is said about him and far too in line with whatever else is spoken. Play him as such, have him dangerous, cool, smoothe, a bit cold perhaps and above all is a consumate schemer.
In other words, to my mind Kaius is a very real character.
To me, Kaius makes an excellent campaign figurehead. Someone whose laws and mandates could both bolster and challenge a party of adventurers. Yes, he's evil, but as has been discussed, his evil is complex; it's evil with good reason. He's a victim of circumstances (saved his nation at the cost of his mortality and possibly his soul), but still partly a monster of his own making. Given what he is, I think he's one of the best evils you can rightly come by. He'll torture and kill but he'll do it for the good of many. He's the devil you know. Better him in charge than the warmongering warlords of Karrnathi aristocracy.
SO...I think he can swing back and forth between benefactor and villain in a campaign; of course, he can be just one or the other if the DM wants him to be.
To my knowledge, there aren't any novels that feature Kaius.
So far, that's true. But his "right-hand man," the Regent Moranna (one of Karrnath's former rulers), is featured in my novel, The Darkwood Mask. And Kaius himself is referred to often. It's a Karrnath- and specifically Korth-based story.
If Kiaus was weak, Karrnath could easily fall into fuedal civil war without a Last War to channel all of that, enthusiasm, in the Karrnathi nobility. However, he is a strong ruler using the only means to keep his country under control. Just because a government is LAWFUL EVIL doesn't mean that the head of state has to be Lawful Evil. I wonder if Kiaus could have been considered a Sacred Undead like the Vampire Jesith Verdragt from The Ebon Mirror?
And in case you are wondering, a Sacred Undead is a good undead. I.e. if a Vampire is evil, than his or sacred version would be good and righteous. However, Kaius isn't an ascendant counselor, so he really isn't. And that what makes Eberron a good campaign setting -- it muddies everything so you have to really think about a person's (i.e. NPC's) motives despite his or her alignment.
Well, he's definitely not a character I'd kill when the Players get his ear (although abuse may mandate it). Killing Kaius will send the kingdom of Karrnath into trouble. One of the reasons he maintains Martial Law is to prevent civil unrest instigated by his Warlords.
True. Warlords aside, it's cultural. The people of Karrnath expect a leader to rule with a strong hand. A leader who appears weak will have difficulty controling the warlords and maintaining the respect of the peasantry. Fear will keep the local systems in line.
I wonder if Kiaus could have been considered a Sacred Undead like the Vampire Jesith Verdragt from The Ebon Mirror? And in case you are wondering, a Sacred Undead is a good undead. I.e. if a Vampire is evil, than his or sacred version would be good and righteous. However, Kaius isn't an ascendant counselor, so he really isn't. And that what makes Eberron a good campaign setting -- it muddies everything so you have to really think about a person's (i.e. NPC's) motives despite his or her alignment.
The Ebon Mirror was a reaction to the idea that undead and orcs are always evil and such. In Eberron, that idea's taken further, to the point that you can have a good vampire... or an evil ascendant councilor. They are empowered by positive or negative energy, and this may have an impact on their personality (as a vampire is, on some level, a predator while the deathless are not). But as Kaius was created by a cult based on negative necromancy, I don't see a reason for him to be positively aligned when it comes to energy. Mind you, he COULD have had a good alignment; being a vampire doesn't preclude that, even if it might make it hard sometimes.
But hey, props for mentioning The Ebon Mirror.
He's evil, without a doubt. He represses his people, promotes a dictatorship that has left many downtrodden (not all his fault, but one can only so far before they have to take some accountability for their actions), and he's made it a point of taking a throne that's really no longer his to have anymore.
I'd almost think Kaius was unlaigned AT BEST before he gave in to Vol's demands (though I still think he was evil before that), but he had to know Erandis was going to demand a heavy price for her services. Necromancy that led to an undead army, a paramilitary outfit, etc. Power always comes with a price, so Kaius shouldn't have acted so shocked and appalled when Erandis came back to collect. I don't think I would expect a slap on the wrist and 100 hours of community service as a price, that's for sure.
I'm sure he feels a degree of remorse for some of his actions (such as killing his first wife), but his motivations are purely pragmatic, which usually doesn't coincide with a strong moral compass. Then again, Aurala's a moron for thinking war is glorious when she spends her life inside a castle, so it's a little hard to gauge. One good deed doesn't make an evil person good, just as one bad deed doesn't make a good person evil...well, unless your name starts with Darth and ends with Vader
Nevertheless, I don't see many of the higher nobles of Eberron (outside of maybe Boranel) as people I'd want to associate with. Way I see it, let the jackals hunt each other down.
In 4E, alignment is meaningless. It's completely impossible to detect or measure. It has no impact on one's behavior, abilities, or successes. In other words, it's a matter of description and no more. In this regard, 4E is a much better model for Eberron than 3.5 was.
On the matter of Kaius, even under 3.5, I found myself disagreeing with the descriptors given to the various royals, particularly A and K. Their descriptions and behaviors didn't really to match their descriptions. Most defenses of their designated alignments then and now boil down to "Aundair is a nice place to live so Aurala is good, and Karrnath is a bad place to live, so Kaius is evil." Without changing any specific history, we can can easily reverse these descriptions, or at least nullify them.
Aurala is hungry for power. From Five Nations (21): "No matter her words or deeds, no matter the show she puts on for the public, everything Aurala does leads her one step closer to the crown and throne of her ancestors. She has no intention of letting a lasting peace stand in the way of her ultimate goal." This is a description of her motives. Does anything about her agenda sound remotely Good?
Yes, I'm sure she "truly believes it will be better for everyone if she leads," and she, "wants to help her people." These aren't defenses of a Good alignment because they are true of near every person and certainly all of the current royals in Khorvaire. Boranel thinks he'd be best, as does Kaius, Lhesh Haruuc, etc. They all think they're Khorvaire's best bet, and they all want to help their own people. Their internal description of themselves as good has nothing to do with whether they are actually Good.
Now, reflect on the 5N description of Aurala for a moment. She's willing to destroy lasting peace to rule the continent. She is not some reluctant conqueror who plans for war because she thinks it's inevitable and that her people must be prepared. Aurala would start a war even if (or especially if) she believed that peace would otherwise endure. Her ultimate goal is domination, regardless of the costs. So - good how?
Onto Kaius. I'm not going to make the case that he's Good, but simply that he's not Evil. His actions aren't motivated by malice. 5N (101): "Kaius I probably saved the nation by making a bargain with the Blood of Vol, but it's a bargain he's still paying off." 104: "He became a vampire to save his nation." 95: "Karrnath suffered a series of embarrassing and potentially destructive setbacks, forcing King Kaius I to accept aid from the Blood of Vol." Kaius does things to save his land, not to empower himself. He surrendered the throne for a generation to undo the influence of Vol in the land.
Granted, these actions do not make him Good, but they don't make him Evil, either. As indicated by others, he's the ultimate pragmatist. Grandson is untested, weak, and likely to lead the nation to chaos? Send him to Dreadhold and personally replace him (but don't kill him - he doesn't deserve to die, even though death would be simpler and less risky). Nation's suffering famine? Turn the dead into soldiers who will never grow hungry. Running a nation of loosely-affiliated warlords who would as soon fight each other as enemy nations? Establish martial law and rule the warlords with an iron fist.
Had Kaius done what he had done, Karrnath would probably not exist in 998. It's people would have starved by the thousands and its lords would have slaughtered each other in civil war, leaving ungoverned personal armies to rampage across Khorvaire, seeking plunder and glory. If Kaius I weren't currently ruling Karrnath, who would? By that I mean is there anyone else who actually could run the country without it collapsing or without its lords successfully agitating for another war? It would likely have been impossible for anyone else to have successfully led Karrnath to peace in 996.
Kaius is excising the Emerald Claw to help the nation, even though they, if he chose to work with them rather than against them, would certainly be an excellent tool for maintaining his own power. Instead, at great personal risk, he's fighting a knightly order-turned terrorist group because he fears for the welfare of his people.
He does dark things, keeping a harem of young citizens on whom he can feed, for instance. But they're volunteers, not slaves, and (from Eberron 3.5 179) "He never takes more blood than an individual can safely give, and he never goes to the same individual more than once in any two-week period." In other words, Kaius simply feeds enough to continue functioning. He doesn't force anyone to be his food and he never puts them at risk. If he wished, he could easily become a glutton, taking people off of the streets, consuming his political enemies, or working with the Emerald Claw to have slaves brought to his castle. He does none of that.
Again, his self-sacrifice, pragmatism, and personal restraint don't make him Good, but they ought to put his action in context before he's simplistically labeled evil. He's not a deluded war-monger like Aurala. I don't doubt that he also seeks to rule a new Galifar (like every royal of 998 would like to), but he's not about to destroy the peace and put his people through hell to get the imperial throne.
Yes, I'm sure she "truly believes it will be better for everyone if she leads," and she, "wants to help her people." These aren't defenses of a Good alignment because they are true of near every person and certainly all of the current royals in Khorvaire. Boranel thinks he'd be best, as does Kaius, Lhesh Haruuc, etc. They all think they're Khorvaire's best bet, and they all want to help their own people. Their internal description of themselves as good has nothing to do with whether they are actually Good.
You've missed the point I always try to make on this, Sarlax.
You are absolutely right: Kaius, Krozen, Boranel - they ALL believe that what they do is in the best interests of their people. That alone is insufficient to justify alignment. Thus, for me, what alignment represents is what actions they are prepared to take or personally order in pursuit of those goals.
As we've often said, Kaius' goal serves a greater good. Why, then, is he assigned an alignment of evil? It's not simply because "Karrnath is an unpleasant place to live". It's because, in order to acheive that peace, Kaius will personally murder or torture. He'll imprison his grandson. He'd strangle his grandson if he had to. He'll order a massacre and not blink. Because, in his mind, it's for that greater good... and maybe it is.
Aurala? Yes, everything she does is in pursuit of that goal of sovereignity. But what does she DO? The point of Aurala being "good" is that there are places she simply will not go and actions she will not condone. She will not allow torture. She will not order assassination. She won't order a massacre. She truly believes in War With Honor. This may make her naive. Certainly she's lived a sheltered life and has little sense of what her desire for war will cost her people. Thus, she doesn't see the hypocrisy of refusing to kill one person (murder) while pursuing a war that will kill tens of thousands. But the end point is that she WON'T personally order a murder.
Does this mean that the Aundairians never committed war crimes? That there are no assassins among the Royal Eyes? Not remotely. It means that the people responsible for these things don't receive those orders from Aurala. Warlord Adal is evil, and he may very well pursue those paths without Aurala knowing, and likely she is complicent in trusting Adal when she must know he's doing things that go against her personal ethics. But Aurala may very well imprison an Aundairian officer who she learns has committed atrocities.
So again: Aurala's good alignment is not based on her interest in war... because when you go big picture, Kaius and Aurala both believe they are serving a greater good, doing what's best for their people, yadda yadda. Thus, what the personal alignment was intended to convey was the SMALL picture - what you can expect from these people when you have dinner with them. Even if you oppose her in war, Aurala simply won't poison you at dinner or order you tortured. It doesn't matter if you oppose her schemes, she just doesn't work that way. Kaius would have you poisoned in a minute. For the greater good, sure. But he won't hesitate, and Aurala will.
He does dark things, keeping a harem of young citizens on whom he can feed, for instance. But they're volunteers, not slaves, and (from Eberron 3.5 179) "He never takes more blood than an individual can safely give, and he never goes to the same individual more than once in any two-week period."
As a side note, I've always assumed that these volunteers are in fact followers of the Blood of Vol. The BoV believes in giving blood to support undead champions, after all, and many are Karrnathi patriots. Kaius and Moranna have worked to undermine the political influence of the BoV church, but that doesn't keep some of the faithful from believing in their king and choosing to aid him (in the same way that there are followers of the Silver Flame who oppose the theocracy).
.But he won't hesitate, and Aurala will.
Hesitation is not a mark of goodness, only indecisiveness. Kaius's ability to make quick decisions is an asset (if he's wise) or a flaw (if he's a fool), but it's not a sign of evil, whether he's deciding whether to replace his grandson - or deciding to keep him alive rather than murdering him.
Thus, what the personal alignment was intended to convey was the SMALL picture - what you can expect from these people when you have dinner with them. Even if you oppose her in war, Aurala simply won't poison you at dinner or order you tortured.
But how is this actually Good? Perhaps Aurala won't have you poisoned to take your lands - but she will spend the lives of a thousand soldiers to do so. That she refuses to do harm at the individual level but doesn't mind inflicting it at the macro level suggests naivety, intellectual incoherence, or simple squeamishness, but not an exceptionally or actually moral nature.
Alignment as a small picture guide, hm. I suppose I can see that, but it doesn't seem to capture what the alignments generally mean. Nothing in the description of Good (in either edition) suggests it's only about the personal level. At its essence, good is about putting the needs of others beyond those of oneself (in both editions), and evil suggests the opposite, valuing your interests at the cost of others'.
.But he won't hesitate, and Aurala will.
Hesitation is not a mark of goodness, only indecisiveness. Kaius's ability to make quick decisions is an asset (if he's wise) or a flaw (if he's a fool), but it's not a sign of evil, whether he's deciding whether to replace his grandson - or deciding to keep him alive rather than murdering him.Thus, what the personal alignment was intended to convey was the SMALL picture - what you can expect from these people when you have dinner with them. Even if you oppose her in war, Aurala simply won't poison you at dinner or order you tortured.
But how is this actually Good? Perhaps Aurala won't have you poisoned to take your lands - but she will spend the lives of a thousand soldiers to do so. That she refuses to do harm at the individual level but doesn't mind inflicting it at the macro level suggests naivety, intellectual incoherence, or simple squeamishness, but not an exceptionally or actually moral nature.
Alignment as a small picture guide, hm. I suppose I can see that, but it doesn't seem to capture what the alignments generally mean. Nothing in the description of Good (in either edition) suggests it's only about the personal level. At its essence, good is about putting the needs of others beyond those of oneself (in both editions), and evil suggests the opposite, valuing your interests at the cost of others'.
When I view Eberron, an old proverb comes to mind: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Aurala is a well-meaning woman who likely has the best interests of her people at heart, but she thinks war is glorious and noble when, in fact, it's bloody and heart-breaking. In short, she has good intentions, but wants that crown and doesn't see it'll come with a major cost.
Kaius is a prick who has no problem putting down anyone in his way by any means necessary. His outlawing of the Order of the Emerald Claw and the Blood of Vol has stems from his enmity for Erandis, not a desire to look out for his people's well-being. He wants the crown of Galifar just as badly as Aurala, but is pragmatic enough to know Karrnath can't fight another war right now.
That being said, Kaius is just as war-wacky as Aurala. Let's not forget Karrnath is a militaristic nation, founded by an ancient warlord, with its main enterprise being war itself. Had he the resources and the means, Kaius would not hesitate to call for another war at a moment's notice. Aurala, with some education, MIGHT see war for what it really is (key word MIGHT). Let's also not forget Aurala's specialty is oratory, not war (which she acknowledges), so the crown may go to someone with a gift for speaking and diplomacy. That's pretty much how Galifar did it.
Right now, Kaius is biding his time, just like Aurala. It's just a matter of finding out who's ready first.
Hesitation is not a mark of goodness, only indecisiveness.
We're arguing semantics. Let me rephrase.
Aurala will never have someone tortured. She will never condone assassination. Kaius will do both of these things, and he will do both without remorse.
Aurala's alignment in her NPC block is intended to give the DM a short, clear definition of how she will behave in her interactions with player characters. As a good person, she will not personally engage in direct action that D&D considers to be evil. Kaius will.
When you look to the big picture, all of the major NPCs of Eberron are simply too complex for the alignment system, especially in 3.5. As setting designer, I can say that the INTENT of Aurala and Kaius was to have Aurala as the person who is traditionally "good" but whose actions are ultimately dangerous... while Kaius is someone whose ruthless and evil actions serve the greater good.
On the SMALL scale, Aurala is empathetic. She'll give a starving beggar a bagful of gold. She just lacks the insight to see that her aspirations to reforge broken Galifar will create far more starving beggars and cripples. She is the person who believes that war can be just, because sheltered in her castle she hasn't seen the horror of it. Kaius knows the harsh reality.
So again, when you look to a broad enough scale, they are both completely muddy. But knowing that Aurala wants to start a war does nothing when it comes to knowing how she will act when she is face to face with a character. The intention of giving her a good alignment was to say that in such a personal interaction, she will behave in a manner consistent with that alignment - and likewise, Kaius will take evil actions. Torture, murder, and unjust imprisonment are tools Kaius is completely comfortable with, and they are tools Aurala will personally never employ. There's nothing indecisive about this. Were Adal to suggest it to her, she'd slap him in the face and say "HOW DARE YOU! Would you stain the crown of Galifar with such an act?" She's just got a big blind spot when it comes to that dream of restored Galifar. And she's hardly the first ruler in history to believe in the concept of a "just war".
Having said all of that: Is Aurala a better person than Kaius? Would she be a better ruler than he would? Probably not. Because, in Eberron, a good person can do bad things and an evil person can do good. The fact that Kaius has an evil alignment doesn't mean that he's a villain and Aurala is a hero. It simply tells you how they are expected to act towards players.
But how is this actually Good? Perhaps Aurala won't have you poisoned to take your lands - but she will spend the lives of a thousand soldiers to do so.
Right. Because, again, in Eberron the alignment of an NPC is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of a person's long-term philosophy and goals - because those things are generally too complicated for such a narrow scale. Aurala herself is good because she will not murder or poison (among other things), both things that the game system defines as evil acts. If we called her "Evil" because she naively believes that she can fight war without horrific casualties, then we have no indicator that she WOULDN'T torture, murder, assassinate, condone massacres, and so on. We assume that you, the DM are smart enough to know war is a bad thing. Aurala's alignment is supposed to tell you how she will make decisions in the course of that war and how she will handle herself in person. As a war leader, Kaius will make ruthless and expedient decisions. He would order a massacre if it would ultimately save thousands. Aurala would not. Thus, she would be culpable for the deaths of those thousands. But in D&D terms, killing helpless innocents is an evil act. Aurala performs a greater evil, but follows the stricter D&D concept of "good", and as a result tells herself that her war is a good thing.
Meanwhile, Warlord Adal is excited for the war and is evil. So HE will order massacres and the like. That's why we used the alignment the way we did. Both Adal and Aurala want the same long-term goal: war restarted, Galifar united under Aundair. But they will prosecute that war in completely different ways as shown by their alignments. And if the players have an encounter with them, they will act in completely different ways. Aurala will treat the players honorably. Adal will slit their throats if it's expeditent to do so and he can get away with it without Aurala finding out. We could just call them all neutral or unaligned; the use of the good-evil alignments as we used them was intended for this purpose.
Aurala is a well-meaning woman who likely has the best interests of her people at heart, but she thinks war is glorious and noble when, in fact, it's bloody and heart-breaking. In short, she has good intentions, but wants that crown and doesn't see it'll come with a major cost.
Exactly.
Sarlax, how is working towards a united Galifar with that person on the crown related to alignments? There are some good arguments that strifing towards such a goal is a Good thing. Afterall, a united Galifar can form a powerful united front against the many evils that threaten the world whether the small (the potential economic corruption of the Dragonmarked Houses) or the big (the Lords of Dust, the Daelkyr or the Dreaming Dark). It is not as if such an unification automatically leads to war. Countries have been united and civil wars averted in RL under skillfull leadership and hard work, especially when facing a common easily recognized threat. Admittedly, it is a rare thing, but not outside the realms of possibilility. In a D&D setting it would be the conclusion of an epic destiny ;)
Furthermore, one could argue that war in itself is neither evil nor good. If the war sticks to the battlefields, only involves soldiers who volluntarily entered service knowing full well the concequences and the soldiers fight fairly then it is not particularly evil. Mind you, it is not good. Killing never is. Of course, we all know that such wars do not exist. Innocents always get hurt, often badly, and who the hack fights fairly in a war? Aurala is clearly naive to belief otherwise, but then again, two centuries ago most people in RL believed otherwise as well. It took two world wars filled with all kinds of attrocities and an almost instant all-across the globe mass media to teach us so, and even now, people still belief there is glory and honor to be gained in fighting.
We talk about war being horrible and destructive, yet the Vassals of Eberron have three war gods, and two of them are Good. (Or at least, not evil. I can't remember if Dol Dorn got his alignment changed to Good or Unaligned).
Whether the reality of war in the current age is much more to the Mockery's liking than Dol Arah's, using the in-world belief system of Sovereign-worship-dominated Khorvaire, the belief that a war can be waged according to the strictures of Dol Arah isn't a stupid or ignorant one. It's one of hope and trust in the Sovereign of Sun and Sacrifice.
The belief that war is fought by worthy challengers on the field of glorious battle in a test of each other's determination, grit, and steel, isn't stupid. It's believing in Dol Dorn.
Aurala's not naive. She's a Vassal.
I also think people are judging Aurala unfairly. All this talk of naivete and ignorance. While that may be true, it should also be considered that she could be a believer... Whether the reality of war in the current age is much more to the Mockery's liking than Dol Arah's, using the in-world belief system of Sovereign-worship-dominated Khorvaire, the belief that a war can be waged according to the strictures of Dol Arah isn't a stupid or ignorant one. It's one of hope and trust in the Sovereign of Sun and Sacrifice.
The belief that war is fought by worthy challengers on the field of glorious battle in a test of each other's determination, grit, and steel, isn't stupid. It's believing in Dol Dorn.
Aurala's not naive. She's a Vassal.
I couldn't agree more. Aurala IS a Vassal, and this is the point. She doesn't see the war as a bad thing. We can be cynical. We can see how many will be killed, lose their homes, etc. SHE believes that war is a just tool and that she has a right to the throne of Galifar - and that the reunited kingdom will prosper under her rule.
The vast majority of Khorvarians are Vassals, and therefore civilization taken as a whole ALSO believes war can be just and fought in a noble manner.
The Last War was a particularly vicious and brutal one. And seeing as how it was started by the betrayal of family, one can obviously see that the Mockery held sway over it, and many of its darkest, most horrible attrocities were his mark on the war.
But that just means Khorvarians hate and fear The Mockery's wars, not Dol Dorn's or Dol Arrah's.
I couldn't agree more. Aurala IS a Vassal, and this is the point. She doesn't see the war as a bad thing. We can be cynical. We can see how many will be killed, lose their homes, etc. SHE believes that war is a just tool and that she has a right to the throne of Galifar - and that the reunited kingdom will prosper under her rule.
To be fair to Aurala for a moment, I think she's got a reasonable chance of being right in the assertion that the reunited kingdom would prosper under her rule, and to a greater degree than under Kaius's. She's also got a reasonable chance of being wrong, of course - Kaius has considerably more experience than she does and he's not going to tolerate anything like the snake pit Aundarian politics seem to be turning into.
The problem is the process of getting there may not leave a kingdom to rule in the first place by the time the fires get put out. Kaius realizes that, no doubt in large part because he's been around to see this train jump the tracks before. Aurala doesn't and if something doesn't happent to drive it into her head, the results of her attempt to get the throne may do far more damage than anything Kaius would manage sitting on it. Once war breaks out, all bets are off, and wars that start just and "clean" have a nasty habit of degenerating if both sides aren't prepared to play nice.
Sarlax, how is working towards a united Galifar with that person on the crown related to alignments?
It's not. At least, it's not in a broad sense. You have to get to specific behaviors.
There are some good arguments that strifing towards such a goal is a Good thing.
Indeed, and that's a large part of my point: All (or very nearly all) of Khorvaire's leaders are seeking to unite Khorvaire. If such pursuits are good, all of them are good, and alignment becomes meaningless. If Aurala's pursuit of a remade Galifar is good, and this contributes to her alignment of Capital-Good, then all the monarchs are good because they all seek to remake Galifar.
As I've said, one's broad, nebulous intentions have no bearing on the morality of one's actions. If one seeks to "make the world a better place" by enslaving all members of certain races or backgrounds, such as might occur in areas of Darguun, is that enslavement good? Absolutely not. Wanting to "make the world better" does not make a person good, because, by nature, almost every single person believes that what they do makes the world better, or at least doesn't make it worse off. "Making things better" is so nebulous that any person can attach it to their actions to rationalize any behavior. This is why I insist that such vague desires ought to be dismissed when considering a person's alignment. We have to get into specifics.
For someone like Aurala, her vague goal is "make Khorvaire better." That's not helpful, because few entities except the Lords of Dust want to actually make Khorvaire worse. So we look at her specific goal, which is to become the supreme ruler of a New Galifar. This goal, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil: it's like aspiring to be President. However, her morality is compromised by her willingness to destroy a lasting peace in order to achieve that power. It's not her pursuit of power that makes here less-than-good, it's that she will plunge the world back into terrible war to get that power. Yes, yes, she thinks the world will be better under her influence, but so does Kaius, so does Haruuc, so does Krozen, etc.
Aurala isn't impaired: she's an intelligent woman. If she doesn't understand or doesn't believe that rekindling war for her own advancement won't produce terrible suffering, her moral strength isn't excused. She is intelligent enough to understand war, and if she holds an ideology or religious view that purports the war she is willing to seek as righteous, she is just as compromised morally as a person who holds no such ideology. Such a belief system may very well be a post hoc decision to justify what she seeks; rather than, "Because the Sovereigns can support honorable war, I may seek power through it," she may simply have formulated her ideas in this manner: "Because I seek power, the Sovereigns must support war, which is therefore honorable."
Short of actual madness, or curse, or Intelligence 4, Aurala (and all people) are accountable for the specific actions they take which can be reasonable understood, regardless of the particular belief system which they have adopted. If Aurala doesn't believe that her secret war-mongering will harm the people of Khorvaire (again, she would destroy a lasting peace to rule), she's refusing reality.
That she refuses to permit torture, etc. is definitely a point in her favor, but morality ought to be measured through specific actions (sending a thousand soldiers to die, prohibiting assassination) and specific, predictable consequences - not what one hopes will occur. That she would refuse to order the assassination of an evil noble to spare a hundreds of deaths in battle is not a point in her favor.
On the matter of Kaius, he's so much more interesting from a moral position. Aurala is tragic because, if not for her willingness to sacrifice peace for power, she'd almost certainly be unquestionably good, if only for the abcense of any other known evil plots. She is actively good to her people, prohibits what most would consider terrible practices of war, etc. But she chooses to compromise that goodness by threatening everyone with conflict.
Kaius, on the other hand, is very much a man without much choice, but he does take his small moral victories when he can. For instance, imprisoning his own grandson. It sounds awful, and it is, but we must ask why he didn't simply have him killed, if he's so ruthless. K3's continued existence is nothing but a liability. There's always the chance of escape, of blackmail, or simply exposure. If K3 were liberated and could prove his identity, it might undermine everything K1 has been doing for decades. So why let him live? I believe the only plausible reason is that K1 doesn't want to kill if he doesn't have to (and this is born out again by the example of his harem). I don't know what Kaius's ultimate goal is - it may be identical to Aurala's, it might be only to keep Karrnath a function nation, or it might be a quest for personal redemption, but whatever it might be, Kaius is capable of accepting some actions as necessary for the accomplishment of his goals. That's not good and it's not evil; it's just pragmatism.
Given what we know about Karrnath, I'm hard-pressed to think of any alternative history in which Karrnath could have faired better under any ruler but Kaius during the Last War. If Kaius hadn't done what he has done, I expect hundreds of thousands more Karrns would have died during the war and the nation might not exist any longer. Or: what choice did he have?
Aurala is dark because her personal ambitions threaten her people and the Five Nations. Kaius is dark because it's not possible to do the job he had to do and be good.
This is one of the reasons I love Eberron...
It got complex characters who I feel are real and hard to put under an alignment. I was one of those who read ECS and saw Kaius as evil and got a bit annoyed cause I imagined him Unaligned. But it doesn't really matter cause we don't use alignment at all.
The Sovereigns have been supporting war since there were Sovereigns. It's part and parcel to the vast population's belief system, and has been that way for untold generation upon generation. It is not as if Aurala believes in some religion that has no opinion on war and is using it's doctrin to rationalize.
The religion *itself* supports war as a not-so-terrible thing by way of Dol Dorn and Dol Arah. Aurala didn't make them up, they were there for thousands upon thousands of years before her.
What I'm saying is that her mindset most definately wasn't "Because I seek power, the Sovereigns must support war, which is therefore honorable." Because everyone knows the Sovereigns support fair and honorable war and have been supporting it since nearly the beginning of time.
If anything her state of mind is probably "I seek power for just ends, AND the Sovereigns support wars fought nobly, so therefore I must fight honorably."
From there, we can determine and remove the factors that do not indicate alignment. Believing her ends are just does not make her good or evil because thats a mindset common to most people everywhere, regardless of alignment, as was said.
The fact that she's willing to go to war also does not make her evil, as wars are neither good nor evil. They're a fact of civilization, otherwise the idea of war would not be represented (doubly so) in the Sovereigns.
However, it should be noted that she doesn't think the Sovereigns support HER. She, and everyone else in-world, knows for a fact that The Sovereign Host supports wars that are fought cleanly and honorably.
So in her pursuit of what she believes is a noble and just cause (irrelevant) she is willing to go to war (irrelevant). And if it comes to that she is determined to fight the war in a noble and honorable manner (Good, because in the eyes of the gods and the world at-large, such a thing is a Good act).
So if you posit that wars are NEVER good and cannot possibly be so and no god that supports it is truly Good, then we have to call into question the alignment of Dol Arah.
Or we can take the Lawful Good War Goddess as a fact of the game world, and realize we have to judge alignment off the yardstick we were given.
It's not. At least, it's not in a broad sense. You have to get to specific behaviors... Aurala is dark because her personal ambitions threaten her people and the Five Nations. Kaius is dark because it's not possible to do the job he had to do and be good.
This is exactly my point. Both Aurala and Kaius are "Dark". Were we to give them the SAME alignment - say, make them both unaligned - it becomes utterly meaningless. You have no way to tell the two of them apart. And when it comes to specific behaviors - especially specific behaviors that are likely to driectly impact the PCs - they are completely different. The actions that Kaius will engage in during a personal encounter with the PCs are things that D&D considers "evil". Aurala will not do those things, period. This is the point of giving her that alignment - so you understand that she would never attempt to murder a PC at dinner.
Sure, from a philosophical standpoint we can argue that her willingness to condone war is more evil than any personal actions she might take at dinner with players. But again, if we called her "evil" because of that, then a DM who just grabs her stats quick would logically make the assumption that she WOULD condone murder, torture, and all the other things D&D defines as evil acts. Her stat block is there to tell you how the acts in an encounter. Her flavor text exists to give you the deeper insight into her character that is simply too complicated for the alignment system.
Again, the goal behind both characters when they were originally created was to show that Eberron was a morally complex world - a world in which someone who does good on that small scale can be responsible for much greater evil, and someone who will do evil things could be pursuing a greater good. Essentially, Aurala's alignment isn't supposed to suggest that she is Good; it's supposed to suggest that she's good... and her flavor text shows that despite this, she's pursuing a murky agenda.
With that said, I do feel that the description of her in Five Nations - a book I wasn't personally involved in - does a poor job of getting this across. It seems to focus almost enitely on her underhanded pursuit of the war. I wish that they had done more to explain her alignment, small-letter though it may be. Beyond that, I personally dislike the degree of underhandedness suggested in Five Nations. In my opinion, Aurala shouldn't be being incredibly sneaky about her preparations for war. Because she believes that war is just. The only reason the Last War ended was because of the Mourning. Galifar hasn't been reunited, and peace now means accepting that. Aurala believes in that reunited Galifar. She can't afford to be TOO open about it, because Aundair's the l'ilest country. But again, the point of that good alignment is that she's not an extremely underhanded person. She beleives the war is just and right, that her cause is sanctioned by the Sovereigns. She might not announce to the world "I AM PREPARING FOR WAR!" - but if an ambassador said "What's with the increased funding of the Phantom Knights", I'd see her as saying "Galifar remains broken, Lord ir'Suchandsuch. This peace may not last, and should it end Aundair will be prepared." She won't actively state "I AM GETTING READY TO ATTACK YOU ALL" - but she shouldn't be some Zil schemer lying to everyone about what's being done. That's what ministers are for.
So if you posit that wars are NEVER good and cannot possibly be so and no god that supports it is truly Good, then we have to call into question the alignment of Dol Arah.
Or we can take the Lawful Good War Goddess as a fact of the game world, and realize we have to judge alignment off the yardstick we were given.
I prefer the former. This is essentially the Euthyphro dilemma: Do the gods command only things which are good, or are things good because the gods command them? In this case, is war honorable because the gods say so, or do they say so because it is? At this point we're moving pretty far from "Good guys protect the innocent" discussions of alignment, but I'd argue that what makes the Sovereigns good, if they exist, is that they represent principles of goodness, not that goodness exist because of them. Of course, a Vassal would disagree, saying both elements are true: The gods respect and encourage Good, and simultaneously are goodness itself, just as Dol Arrah is both the goddess of sunlight and is sunlight. Or: They are what they preach.
Stepping back from this faith, Aurala's argument in defense of her preparations for war, if she got into such an argument, would probably boil down the moral component to, "Honorable war is just to the Sovereigns." In essense, she would simply be pointing at her established but unprovable faith. In all likelihood, she wasn't a war-mongering atheist who discovered the religion of the Host to be compatible with her desire for war, but has rather spent her entire life believing and being told to believe that the war she now seeks is good.
But this is all simply more elaborate discussion of the same point, that Aurala seeks vague 'goodness' and doesn't consider (or devalues) the real actions and their consequences: the suffering of thousands. Ancient faith or no, she'll put millions at risk for power.
This is exactly my point. Both Aurala and Kaius are "Dark". Were we to give them the SAME alignment - say, make them both unaligned - it becomes utterly meaningless. You have no way to tell the two of them apart.
I quite disagree. It's very easy to tell them apart simply by way of even a paragraph's description. Aurala is an idealistic leader who wants to swiftly reuinte Galifar, and Kaius is a ruthless pragmatist who wants to strengthen Karrnath. The two monarchs are very distinct, with or without differing alignments. Behavior face-to-face can be easily established in the same way, by simple description of what they're like in person.
Eberron could easily have been (and in my opinion, ought to have been) written without the alignment system at all - but I know that doesn't fly in D&D. Attaching alignments to people like these two (and many others) diminishes their moral complexity and strains the alignment system (such as it is) to the breaking point. It no longer really matters in 4E, but in 3.5, it was a tangible force. A paladin could simply have stood next to Aurala and given her a clean bill of morality. PCs could use the various Detect spells to ferret out narrative enemies. It's not a fun way to roleplay, but if we're assuming a group which is sufficiently mature to not use such tactics, I think we can assume as well a DM who can manage some moral complexity.
Eberron could easily have been (and in my opinion, ought to have been) written without the alignment system at all - but I know that doesn't fly in D&D.
Exactly. It wasn't an option. Eberron was designed to be a setting for third edition D&D and had to use the system as it was in place. So it stretched it in certain ways.
A paladin could simply have stood next to Aurala and given her a clean bill of morality. PCs could use the various Detect spells to ferret out narrative enemies.
Which was EXACTLY the point. The paladin would detect Aurala as "good" and Kaius as "evil". In traditional D&D, that would be enough to ferret out narrative enemies. In Eberron, it's not. Because I think we're all in agreement that Kaius' goals serve the greater good. My point is that BECAUSE Kaius is willing to murder you personally and without remorse, he shows up as evil - but that doesn't mean that he WILL do it, unless there's a very good reason to do so. Thus, in Eberron, you can toss your detect evil out the window, because knowing what someone's alignment is only tells you a little bit about their role in the story. The rest you have to figure out through the story itself
This is the point called out in the first Silver Flame dragonshard. The paladin can tell that the innkeeper is evil. But he doesn't know what that means. It's like Yoda saying "There's much darkness in that one." He might still be doing good. All along, what I've said is that the Silver Flame is fighting Evil, not "that which can be detected by detect evil."
The fact that the paladin detects Aurala as good and Kaius as evil, when Kaius is in the bigger picture doing good and Aurala is in the bigger picture doing something most PCs would consider evil was intentional. Removing alignment simply wasn't an option for us. So we subverted it so that it meant something different. It wasn't completely useless; again, knowing that Aurala is good means that you don't have to worry about her poisoning you. But it doesn't tell you if she's the villain of this story. And just because someone's evil doesn't make them the monster to be taken down.
This remained problematic because our goals simply couldn't mesh with the mechanics. You can't have Krozen be the complex figure I want - a figure who may not realize his own corruption - if when he casts a holy spell he gets fried in the blast, or if he loses a level when he picks up the holy sword. I counted this point with my house rule that the cleric's "divine aura" for purposes of magic and positive/negative axis was based on the alignment of the religion's power source (as listed in the book), not the cleric's personal alignment. Thus, you can be a good cleric of the Blood of Vol, but you still channel negative energy and are still treated as "evil" by holy effects - while even a corrupt priest of the SF channels positive energy and responds as being holy.
It's a problem. We said "We want clerical alignment to vary from divine alignment!" but it doesn't work well. Just like 4E ritual magic fits Magewrights and a magical economy far better than Vancian magic. Similarly, the fact of the matter is that the Lycanthropic Purge was driven by the fact that in 3E lycanthropy was fully contagious - and ever since it's become increasingly less contagious, making it seem less justified. We've done what we can, and in most ways the system has grown closer to it. But in this particular instance, you and I are simply trying to do different things with 3.5 alignment. I understand what you're saying. I don't disagree with your premise. But Aurala's alignment still makes perfect sense in my eyes with what I wanted to accomplish with her in the setting with the system. She shouldn't detect as evil when you use detect evil on her - because the spell is operating on a narrow scale that can't see the philosophical and moral implications of those long term actions. Which, in turn, forces the player to pay closer attention, and not rely on that spell to identify the heroes and villains for him.
As I said, in my campaign, I actually have Aurala be more upfront about her ambitions, because she's someone who dislikes subterfuge (again, "good" person doing bad things). She's not an idiot and knows that she shouldn't broadcast these intentions to the world when she's not ready to back them up. Right now her nation NEEDS to rebuild, and she will be as diplomatic as she must be to help them... but my point is that I don't see her lying through her teeth about how excited and thrilled she is about peace. She's not cruel or bombastic. She's not going around threatening people or having temper tantrums. But question her actions to her face and she will say "I still believe in a united Galifar, citizen. Someday the Sovereigns will call us back to battle, and when that day comes Aundair will be ready." Note that this is how I run her; it's obviously completely counter to how she is described in Five Nations.
Having said that, I think that Aurala would actually prefer peace, given the choice... if that peace ended with a Galifar reunited under her rule. So sure, if that can be acheived through negotiation, great. I just don't see her as being a nefarious two faced schemer the way some of the others are.
The alignment system is one of my least favorite things about D&D. By and large, when I play, I toss it out the window. That wasn't an option when creating Eberron. But I really didn't want this to be a world in which you can serve the locked room murder mystery by saying "Well, which one of them is evil?" In Eberron, 3 of ten people may ping as evil. But you don't know if any of them have actually DONE evil or will. You don't know what this says about the broader impact of their actions. You simply know what they are capable of. And for the DM, you aren't limited in saying that if a person is LG that they must be doing good; it's a basic guideline as to how they view the world. On that small scale, Aurala is a more compassionate and merciful person than Kaius is, and this shows in that detection. On the broad scale, her actions may be far LESS compassionate, as they will result in more deaths. But again, different scope - and one you have to detect in a different manner.
Just as evil people aren't always monsters, good people aren't always saints. It's good, not Good. So yes, the paladin will ping off Kaius and not off Aurala... in spite of the fact that in the big picture, Aurala's actions pose a greater objective evil.
Perhaps it is best to leave the ancient notions of subjective good and evil behind and take a more objective approach to morality.
It may well be. For me, the point of the discussion is this:
Eberron was originally created as a setting for 3.5 D&D.
Within that setting, people have an assigned alignment that may be "good" or "evil".
This is something that can trigger effects from magic, ranging from detection spells to whether a paladin can smite you.
Within that system, why did we give would-be peacemaker Kaius an evil alignment and potential warmonger Aurala a good alignment?
The answer is that, by and large, we based it on the personal, direct actions a person may perform. Might he give money to a beggar? Would he ever personally torture, steal, or murder? Does he have empathy for the people around him? Is he compassionate?
Evil people in Eberron tend to be ruthless and to lack empathy or compassion. Kaius may, overall, do what he feels is best for the kingdom, but he lacks personal empathy. He does what must be done with no real sense of remorse for his actions. If murder is the expedient solution, he'll do it. He might prefer not to if he can avoid it - these are his subjects and relatives - but he will do it without remorse when he must. Aurala would believe that the act of murder would stain any victory. She would prefer to start a war that could instead be won in a single day by assassination because as AvonRekas says, she believes that war is a tool sanctioned by the Sovereigns - that war is a proper way to resolve problems. Murder is the tool of the Mockery. When fought with honor, war is the tool of Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn. To her, a war fought for a just cause IS good; assassination is a unsupportable evil. The fact that the war will result in more deaths, refugees, and such doesn't enter into that logic.
What this also means is that Detect Alignment won't tell you if someone's objective is good or not. The person who pings as good may be planning the war. The person who's evil may be the best hope for the future. Again, it's the Jedi looking at someone and saying "There's much darkness in that one." It doesn't mean you've done anything Evil or that you will; it means that you would feel no remorse if you did, that the idea doesn't disturb you.
Now, again, this is the point of the side-thread here for ME: why did we give Aurala and Kaius the alignments we did when we first assigned them? I understand that others may be searching for something else from the thread. But yes: I personally have never liked the alignment system. I find it to be limiting. Removing it from Eberron wasn't a choice that was available to me as a designer... so we took this path to limit its impact and allow for unpredictability even in a world in which spells that reveal alignment exist. But personally, I've very glad to have the role of alignment reduced in 4E.
Now, I don't condone revenge killings for my characters, personally, but I wouldn't consider a character evil for killing someone in revenge. What if that character lost his/her children to someone, or was driven to bankrupcy by that enemy, or even framed by that enemy, and took the enemy's life? I wouldn't blame someone for doing that, and I wouldn't stop. That reason, among others, is why alingment should have no bearing in the game. There's a point in Sharn: City of Towers that should drive my point home:
There's a dwarf in the book (I believe he resides in The Cogs) who lost his children during the Last War due to the warforged. He now pickets against the warforged and tries to undermine them at every opportunity. He's obviously prejudiced, and his alignment was LE (I think), but can you really blame that dwarf? He lost his family. I don't think I could consider what he is doing evil, at least not in its pure form, because he has every right to hate the warforged. Yes, trying to rip apart a random warforged would be pretty dastardly, but who's to judge this dwarf as evil for doing what he does?
Having said that, I think that Aurala would actually prefer peace, given the choice...
Few prefer war, except for the arch-villains in my Eberron campaign.
So yes, the paladin will ping off Kaius and not off Aurala... in spite of the fact that in the big picture, Aurala's actions pose a greater objective evil.
That's the biggest block for me. In my mind, nothing is less evil because it's carried out through agents rather than done directly. But the alignment system isn't exactly a well-oiled machine.
That's the biggest block for me. In my mind, nothing is less evil because it's carried out through agents rather than done directly.
I'm not saying it is. It's not simply that Aurala won't poison you with her own hand. She also won't order her cook to poison you for her. If Adal says "Do you mind if I poison them?" she'd say "They are guests under my roof! How DARE you profane the honor of our bloodline with such a suggestion?" He might do it anyway, but if so he won't tell her about it. She honestly won't know. And if she found out, he might end up in Dreadhold, so it's a dangerous game.
The issue is war vs assassination... as Avon Rekas said before, Dol Arrah versus the Mockery. For all that we can say that war is the ultimate evil, that it robs people of their homes and lives, that igniting a war that could kill tens of thousands makes ordering a single death insignificant, the fact is that in Eberron, war is seen as a righteous way to resolve conflict, while murder is considered evil.
Aurala wants war. Kaius doesn't. War may happen either way. The personal alignment tells you how they will conduct that war. Aurala will do her best to fight an honorable war. She will do everything she can to avoid civillian casualties. Kaius on the other hand would butcher a village and have them raised as zombies, then send those zombies to attack their former parents and spouses on the battlefield. It's a horrific, brutal act - and one which he's calculated will demoralize the enemy, break the battle line, and ultimately bring the war to a close with fewer casualties. If you measure things purely in number of lives lost, Kaius is the good guy. But he's also just slaughtered children and sent their corpses to attack their parents, an act Aurala would never consider. "Evil" act in the short term, possibly ending a greater evil in the long term.
And coming back to the detect spell, Kaius is perfectly aware that he detects as "evil". Because that doesn't mean his actions are WRONG. It means he's ruthless and lacks compassion, and is prepared to do things "good" people will not do. He knows that. He believes these things must be done. The same goes for others who use these spells, as noted in the original ECS. Detect alignment spells give you some information - but there are many "evil" people who have accomplished important things throughout history. Looking to Dolurrh's Dawn, Lhazaar - who spearheaded the greatest wave of human colonization of Khorvaire - was evil. People who use these spells know that "evil" is about personality, not an overall divine judgment of the person's life work - and that the evil person may be serving the greater good. And thus the spell doesn't provide all the answers to moral quandaries the PCs may face.
For all intents and purposes, alignment IS a subjective thing. Everyone has a variation or opinion of their belief in how certain alignments act, behave, and whatnot, that it's not really as clear-cut as people.
While I agree with you in the case of real-world 'alignment' / morality to a certain extent, the point of the D&D alignment system (epecially before 4E) is that it is objective.
In the D&D alignment system there exists some kind of cosmic mechanism that classifies you as Good or Evil and (before 4E) produces effects such as that of detect evil.
Regardless of how we might think about alignment in real life, within the D&D universe(s) there does exist an objective, universal standard of morality by which one's morality is judged. Whether we would label an act or a person as 'good' or 'evil' doesn't matter for alignment, what matters is whether the great alignment code in the sky labels someone as Good or Evil.
In the case of Aurala and Kaius the alignment code in the sky obviously finds their personal outlook more important than the final outcome of their actions, which tells us that the alignment code in the sky is a deontological one, rather than a consequentialist one. I.e. the ends do not justify the means according to the code in the sky.
Also seeing war as a positive thing (or at least a proper way for nations to settle their disputes) was pretty common until about half-way through WWI. [Disclaimer: not a historian or anthropologist, so feel free to correct me on this point]
For all intents and purposes, alignment IS a subjective thing. Everyone has a variation or opinion of their belief in how certain alignments act, behave, and whatnot, that it's not really as clear-cut as people.
While I agree with you in the case of real-world 'alignment' / morality to a certain extent, the point of the D&D alignment system (epecially before 4E) is that it is objective.
Also seeing war as a positive thing (or at least a proper way for nations to settle their disputes) was pretty common until about half-way through WWI. [Disclaimer: not a historian or anthropologist, so feel free to correct me on this point]
For all intents and purposes, alignment IS a subjective thing. Everyone has a variation or opinion of their belief in how certain alignments act, behave, and whatnot, that it's not really as clear-cut as people. Not to say EVERYTHING is clear-cut, as murder is obviously an evil act, but not every criminal act is evil. The Sharn Watch may think someone stealing an apple from a merchant is evil because he's depriving the merchant of much-needed income, but considering the Watch's overt corruption, the possibility the thief was NOT a thief, but simply a desperate, hungry, and the possibility the merchant is overcharging his goods after driving out other merchants in his district? The other way is possible, but do we know for sure.
I think a lot of the subjectivity about alignment stems from the limitations of being human. If we were able to infallibly anticipate the consequences of all our choices, we might disagree much less about what is evil and when not-so-good acts are justified. Alas, we are not gods.
The shifts in views about war happened pretty gradually over the course of the 20th century. You're right that they did begin in WWI, with the new military technologies, machine guns, tanks and poisons like mustard gas. Nuclear weapons gave another big spurt, as did extensive media coverage of the Vietnam War. Of course, even today a few people don't recognize the compatibility between saying that WWII, as a whole, was Not Good and saying it was necessary to stop the Nazis.
In the case of Aurala and Kaius the alignment code in the sky obviously finds their personal outlook more important than the final outcome of their actions, which tells us that the alignment code in the sky is a deontological one, rather than a consequentialist one. I.e. the ends do not justify the means according to the code in the sky.
Indeed. The key point here is that Eberron is a world in which low-level magic is a part of society... and that includes detect alignment spells. Paladins have been a part of human society at least back to Khalesh, and possibly much further. As noted in the 3.5 ECS, evil people are not always monsters - and evil people can accomplish good things. History has proven that. Lhazaar and Malleon were evil people, and yet they established the foundations of human civilization in Khorvaire. It's not as if no-one had even done a detect alignment on either of them; people judged them by what they accomplished as opposed to the judgment of the Code in the Sky. it's back to The Empire Strikes Back, where Yoda says "There is much anger in him... like his father"... in Eberron, he's a Silver Flame paladin saying "I just ran a detect evil and he's evil" to which Obi-Wan still says "That boy is our last hope." There are people of evil alignment in the Church of the Silver Flame, and they don't all hide their alignment with magic. Again, the Church opposes Evil, not "the quality that can be detected by detect evil." They know that people of evil alignment commit EVIL acts more easily and more frequently than people of good alignment, and as a result someone detecting as evil is a concern, a cause for doubt, something to try to change. Bringing us back to Yoda and Ben. It's not "He's angry, kill him before he destroys us all"; it's "He's angry, I can't work with him" to which Ben says "He will learn patience" - which is to say, work with him and we can change his alignment over time.
In short, in many previous D&D settings, the alignments of good and evil were stronger defining points. If you're hanging out with ten people at the bar, you wouldn't expect to find out that three of them were evil, and if you did, you might want to get out of the bar. In Eberron, that alignment tells you these people are going to be less compassionate, to lack empathy, and be more likely to engage in selfish acts without remorse... but that doesn't mean that they are murderers or thieves. Watch your step a little, sure. But at the end of the day, it may simply be that there's much anger in them. And sometimes, that might be exactly what's required to get a job done.
It's not simply that she wants to be Queen of the World. It's not simply that she thinks that she'd be a better ruler than any of the other monarchs of the Five Nations, though she does. It's that the world as it stands is in an unacceptable state. This "peace" is a travesty. Galifar I fought a war to unite the nations of Galifar, and the kingdom he forged brought centuries of prosperity. Now, look at the world as it stands today. There's an organized nation of monsters just south of Aundair. Treacherous goblins and elves are plucking the corpse of Galifar, and the elves are already breaking the terms of the Treaty of Galifar. Karrnath has fortresses filled with skeletons and zombies, while in Thrane the rightful monarch of the Wynarn line has been displaced by religious zealots (and remember, the SF in Aundair has the highest percentage of Puritans, so Aurala's personal impressions of the church are colored by that). To the east, Thrane still holds Thaliost; to the west, a huge chunk of Aundair has been lost to the Eldeen Reaches. The Order of the Emerald Claw and the Lord of Blades are engaging in terrorist activities, and she personally believes that Kaius is behind the Emerald Claw. The Dragonmarked Houses were held in check by the united Galifar, but it's questionable whether any one nation could challenge them now. And then we have the Mourning - an unsolved mystery that destroyed what was left of Cyre, a mystery that could still threaten humanity.
This is unacceptable. We may look at it and say "More people will die in a war than if the current peace lasts" - she doesn't see it that way. Because she believes this current peace WILL be broken - if not by one of the Five Nations, then by Darguun, Valenar, or Droaam. Or the Emerald Claw or Lord of Blades will cause a second Mourning. Or something terrible will emerge from the Mournland that no single creature can fight. Set aside her desire to reclaim what has been lost by her kingdom; she believes that the world needs a united Galifar more than it needs peace, that the current state of affairs will only lead to doom in the end. She believes that the world needs her to walk in the footsteps of Galifar I and return the world to that golden age - that this is the only way to stand against the horrors of the present day. And she believes that if she fights a just war - following the principles of Dol Dorn and Dol Arrah, refusing to stoop to the vile tactics someone like Kaius might use - the Sovereigns will see her to her goal. This isn't just a childish ambition. She seeks to protect the world from the Valenar, the Goblins, Droaam, the Lord of Blades and the Mourning. The world needs Galifar. It will take terrible sacrifices to get there - but it's a price that must be paid for the good of all.
One more thing to add in here: The Quori. It's up to you as DM to decide if the Dreaming Dark set the Last War in motion, but it's classic DD tactics. The Sundering of Sarlona was essentially the same way - the old stable order dissolving into terrible war, until eventually the Inspired rose up as saviors. The problem is that if the DD were behind the war, it ended too soon; thanks to the Mourning, it ended before they could get their "saviors" in place. As a result, war is a good thing for them... but they would like that war to end with a single stable kingdom under Quori puppet rule, as with Riedra. So Aurala's conviction that Galifar needs to be restored and that she can accomplish it may be partially the result of Quori filling her head with dreams... or, if you decide to take things farther, Aundair could be where the Quori are planting their seeds for Khorvaire's equivalent of the Inspired.
Not enough? Don't forget the Lords of Dust. Bel Shalor specializes in pushing good people to do terrible things. Bel Shalor typically reaches people through the Silver Flame, but it could be that there is another Overlord buried below Aurala's palace, an Overlord that has found a way to reach into Aurala's thoughts and push her towards this dangerous path. Perhaps the old crown of Aundair was lost in battle, and the crown forged for Aurala holds a Khyber shard... a shard that just happens to be chipped from the prison of the Overlord, letting him touch her heart. Essentially, remember that this is a world in which there are magical forces manipulating people in subtle ways.
Personally, I don't think this is necessary, though it's an option. The Khorvaire of today is in terrible shape compared to Khorvaire under Galifar. The kingdom of Galifar was forged in war. Aurala believes that war is required to rebuild that kingdom, and that maintaining the current peace will ultimately result in many, many more deaths. Her alignment tells you how she will conduct that war - that as a commander, she will employ completely different tactics than the evil Kaius... even if Kaius' evil tactics are more efficient and will save more lives in the short term. She's beloved of Dol Arrah. She believes the war is just. But she won't embrace the Mockery to win it.
:P
For what its worth, I wouldn't condone a war in the real world. But this is a very modern sensibility, and I think it's out of place and unfair to apply it to a world of swords and sorcerery. Eberron may be the most modern-esque of the DnD settings, but the idea that wars are universally bad is relatively new to them, and I see no reason to assume it's a universally-held opinion. They just saw their first nuke, the Mourning, and no one's even sure if it had anything to do with the war at all.
I don't think it's inherently Evil to still think that war can be a tool for Good, if fought bravely and honorably. I don't think it's inherently ignorant or idiotic either. I think it's a perfectly valid viewpoint in a post-medieval, pre-modern society. The fact that the "standard" religion of Khorvaire, The Sovereign Host, supports this only cements my viewpoint.
For what its worth, I wouldn't condone a war in the real world. But this is a very modern sensibility, and I think it's out of place and unfair to apply it to a world of swords and sorcerery. Eberron may be the most modern-esque of the DnD settings, but the idea that wars are universally bad is relatively new to them, and I see no reason to assume it's a universally-held opinion. They just saw their first nuke, the Mourning, and no one's even sure if it had anything to do with the war at all.
Exactly. Again, as designers coming from a modern perspective, OUR view and intent was that Kaius would be the one working towards the greater good while Aurala is (with the best of intentions) doing something that could have terrible consequences. But she doesn't view it as an evil act. She looks back to Galifar I, who conquered five nations to form his kingdom, and she believes that it was a great good - and that she is doing the right thing to follow in his footsteps. WE are supposed to recognize that she is doing something that could result in tens of thousands of deaths, and possibly a new Mourning - but we're coming at things from a very different perspective. And it's a perspective that is begining to take root in Khorvaire. New Galifar is based on objection to war. The roles of monarchies and the old nations are in question. Khorvaire is on the verge of change - but there are still people clinging to the old ways. One of those is that war fought for a just cause, fought in accordance with the teachings of the Sovereigns, can be a positive tool. Aurala is coming from that tradition. She believes the cause is virtuous and even vital. She will conduct her war in accordance with her good alignment; but being good doesn't prevent her from believing that war is necessary.
; but being good doesn't prevent her from believing that war is necessary.
And vise-versa. Believing that war is necessary doesn't automatically prevent her from being good.
For what its worth, I wouldn't condone a war in the real world. But this is a very modern sensibility, and I think it's out of place and unfair to apply it to a world of swords and sorcerery. Eberron may be the most modern-esque of the DnD settings, but the idea that wars are universally bad is relatively new to them, and I see no reason to assume it's a universally-held opinion. They just saw their first nuke, the Mourning, and no one's even sure if it had anything to do with the war at all.
Exactly. Again, as designers coming from a modern perspective, OUR view and intent was that Kaius would be the one working towards the greater good while Aurala is (with the best of intentions) doing something that could have terrible consequences. But she doesn't view it as an evil act. She looks back to Galifar I, who conquered five nations to form his kingdom, and she believes that it was a great good - and that she is doing the right thing to follow in his footsteps. WE are supposed to recognize that she is doing something that could result in tens of thousands of deaths, and possibly a new Mourning - but we're coming at things from a very different perspective. And it's a perspective that is begining to take root in Khorvaire. New Galifar is based on objection to war. The roles of monarchies and the old nations are in question. Khorvaire is on the verge of change - but there are still people clinging to the old ways. One of those is that war fought for a just cause, fought in accordance with the teachings of the Sovereigns, can be a positive tool. Aurala is coming from that tradition. She believes the cause is virtuous and even vital. She will conduct her war in accordance with her good alignment; but being good doesn't prevent her from believing that war is necessary.
And she could even be right in her views, rather than just "not non-good aligned". Even with modern experiences and modern sensibilities, I think it takes a certain kind of naivete to claim that nothing is worse than war. The challenges faced by the people of Khorvaire are substantial, and leaving the human realms divided could easily be the cancer that makes them vulnerable to their enemies.
I could easily see a campaign that supported Aurala and her views, though hopefully mitigating the negative impact of reunification where possible.