Was talking to my buddy about a character I had made for an evil campaign he was running, a campaign that has ended and likely won't restart again. I was looking forward to playing the character, and was discussing with him maybe eventually making him lawful neutral in an effort to make him more playable.
However, he thinks it can't be done given the concept, which is something I disagree on, as he says Lawful Beutral characters don't really go try to conquer cities. So I am just curious what y'all think.
The concept:
A warlord/commander who has gained access to an army who believes he is the best suited to rule "Region X." He would like to place himself in power with as little loss of life as possible, but accepts the fact that in war, death is a very real possibility and likely outcome.
As previously written for the evil campaign, he was willing to take things to much further levels to get what he wanted, but if made LN, I would obviously play up more of a siege and frequently request the cities current leaders to surrender diplomatically.
Not fishing for argument ammo, just curious if I am alone in thinking it can be done with alignments other than evil.
He would like to place himself in power with as little loss of life as possible, but accepts the fact that in war, death is a very real possibility and likely outcome.
Sounds LN to me.
If I'm gonna get into the background, I gotta explain the whole thing, so here goes:
He was a member of a merchant family who had been cast out due to the Character killing a noble's son who had been bullying him relentlessly (snapped in self defense). He had joined a mercenary company who had heard rumors of an abandoned dragon lair in some ruins. They went in, hoping for an easy payday, and learned the lair wasn't abandoned. The red dragon killed the entire company, save the character, who had accidentally activated an artifact that bound the dragon to him (summoner).
Now infused with magic and his control of the dragon, he spent much time thinking what to do with this newfound power. He decided to use the vast wealth of the dragon's hoard to hire on various well respected mercenary companies, eventually gaining their true loyalty and allegiance, and return home from his exile to reclaim his home and put himself in charge to hand out justice more fairly than he had received.
(Obviously this goes against much of the write up I had previously done in preparation for an evil campaign, but that comes with the territory of rewriting a character to a different alignment.)
The disagreement stems from whether or not a Lawful Neutral character would go out and seek to conquer a city to install himself as a ruler. Or whether or not the goal of conquering a city is an evil ambition.
However, he thinks it can't be done given the concept, which is something I disagree on, as he says Lawful Beutral characters don't really go try to conquer cities. So I am just curious what y'all think.
Well Lawful Beutral characters might not, but I bet Lawful Neutral could.
When someone's decided an alignment can't do X arguing with them can be an uphill battle. Anyone can do anything. Good can conquer cities. Methodology and the like however could vary greatly from person to person.
However, he thinks it can't be done given the concept, which is something I disagree on, as he says Lawful Beutral characters don't really go try to conquer cities. So I am just curious what y'all think.Well Lawful Beutral characters might not, but I bet Lawful Neutral could.
When someone's decided an alignment can't do X arguing with them can be an uphill battle. Anyone can do anything. Good can conquer cities. Methodology and the like however could vary greatly from person to person.
Love typing posts on my phone. Lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Naturally, absorbing cities or other inhabited areas into an existing state via peaceful, diplomatic means would be perfectly alright for a LN character, whether those means involved a certain amount of coerciveness or not (trade wars, arranged marriages, bribery, etc).
But by force? It sorta depends. Your motivation counts for a lot here. Theoretically, even a Lawful Good character could decide that it is necessary for him to take over a city by force, accepting the attendant loss of life, with no alignment repercussions. However, something like that would normally only be possible in very narrow circumstances: if the city's leader was a cruel despot using his power to oppress the city's people or the people of neighboring areas and if the expected loss of life in the takeover and afterward was less than what would happen if there were no such attempt. In other words, the LG PC would be trying to work for the greater good, and with no selfish motivations. If he thought someone else might do a better job as leader, he might work to install that person instead. Likewise, force would be used only if no other methods seemed feasible. The principles of jus ad bellum (defining what constitutes a "just war") would definitely apply.
Obviously, a Lawful Neutral person has somewhat more leeway than a Lawful Good one. Still, accepting the deaths of others in any attempt to become a ruler for completely selfish reasons would still be an evil act. A Lawful Neutral character might conceivably consider himself a better ruler of any given city than the current one, but the disparity in ability would have to be considerable before taking over by force would be morally acceptable to him (they do tend to believe in following the laws, after all). There might be an outside threat (current or imminent) the current ruler is either ignoring or downplaying that the PC believes needs to be addressed. Or perhaps the current ruler is squandering the city's wealth on frivolous personal luxuries during a famine while ignoring the people's legitimate need for food. In other words, the incapacity of the current leader to do his or her job properly would have to be grossly apparent before it would be okay to get rid of that leader.
I'd have to say that if the city is currently ruled by a very chaotic and unlawful type of ruler that your PC with the LN alignment might try to depose them, but to rule just to rule and gain power is more along the lines of being evil.
To me anyhow, LN is more like a Judge Dredd type of character where the law is everything to them, no matter if it's a good law or evil law, the law is the law and he is the law.
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
So without knowing more about the government and/or ruler of the city he is trying to take over, I'd have to say LE right now. Give us more information on what else you are trying to accomplish and I might be swayed to change my mind.
|
Conquering cities isn't per se an evil action. As people have mentioned, it depends on your characters motivations as well as his methods.
If you decided to conquer a nearby city state that had been instigating raids or wars against your country, for example, you may be perfectly justified in conquering their capital city in an effort to stop them. And if his goal is simply to take over cities but not to treat the inhabitants cruelly or rape, or pillage, or to salt the fields, then I do not see what he is doing as being evil.
However, if your character doesn't care at all about the loss of life in taking these cities, or actively encourages it (such as by poisoning the wells, spreading disease, etc.), or does not use any reasonable efforts to try a diplomatic solution, then I would say that he is behaving in an evil manner.
Heck, in the Kingmaker Adventure Path, the players are faced with the possibility of having to besiege a city run by a Chaotic Evil despot. However, no alignment penalties were mentioned if the players decided to do so.
just curious if I am alone in thinking it can be done with alignments other than evil.
You are not alone. I believe it can be done, however there are a few things to be mindful of. First is that conquering a city, or any war, is going to cost lives.
Taking others' lives, or causing them to lose their lives, is very often Evil, though certainly not always so. This is where the line between Evil and Neutral would be determined, in this scenario.
Firstly, you've stated your character is looking to minimize the loss of life, which is a positive. Evil shows a disregard for human life which you aren't. You may be taking human life, but you aren't devaluing it.
Secondly, your character seems to be looking to conquer out of a belief that he'd be best suited to rule. In theory then, he believes that the people will be better off once he's in charge. So he's not seizing power out of cruelty, revenge, or self-gratification, but rather out of the belief that the fittest should rule, and he is the fittest.
Sounds very Lawful Neutral to me. He has set beliefs, and he's acting on them, while not displaying any Evil motivations. Starting a war is rarely a Good act, but then you aren't claiming the character is Good.
I love these discussions on alignment.
Here's a little something that will cause some people to think about what your alignment actually means.
In 3.5 days there was a book that came out, Unearthed Arcana, that introduced my favorite modification in the world; different alignment Paladins; CG - Paladin of Freedom, CE - Paladin of Slaughter, and LE Paladin of Tyranny.
Each and every Paladin through out the course of the games has a code that they must follow or they would lose their Paladin abilities. If you read the Paladin of Tyranny's Oath you see that really all they want to do is rule and/or bring Law to all, but it's not for their sakes par say. It's for Order and Law. It even mentions something about their personal need to destroy unlawfulness, bring order to things, and establish an order and laws for things.
Now, if you look at the gods from 3.5 you will eventually find the LG deity St. Cuthbert. A god obsessed with law and order. When you compare the Paladin of Tyranny's Oath to what St. Cuthbert's Clerics and Paladins are suppose to do you find something mildly disturbing. By all rights; save for alignment; they have the EXACT same rules that govern them.
What does this mean? You can take over any city by what ever means necessary as long as you can justify it by your chars beliefs and values.
Example: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, and Lawful Evil chars can all justify invading, killing the inhabitants, and ruling over a city because it's chaotic nature is an affront to them as people and their personal beliefs in Law. By that same token, a DM can say no to your plans to invade a city, good neutral or evil, because it is ruled well.