|
As the title asks. You have a noble. He/she is spoiled. He/she can be greedy and materialistic, loves luxury, and dose not see the peasantry as their equal. He/she is arrogant in the highest degree, and quick to look down their noses at others and act with the haughty demeanor characteristic of the aristocracy. They are spoiled, and believe as a noble they are entitled to certain privileges by virtue of their birth alone. They can, and will use less then honorable means if it is strategically beneficial for them to do so. However, at the same time, despite all these things, they believe that being a noble is about responsibility to both your country and those under you above all else. While they do no see the lower classes as equal to the nobility in terms of being allowed to rule themselves, they do believe that they, as humanoids, are entitled to basic rights and all the things needed to live a happy, if humble, existence. They feel that, as nobility, it is their primary responsibility to assure the safety and well-being of the lower classes in the name of keeping the peace and assuring a stable, orderly sphere of influence. If they are in their own sphere of influence they will fight tooth and nail to protect the commoners in that area, even putting their own life on the line. However, if they are outside of it then they would likely defer protection of the commoners to the local authorities and local nobility, as at that point it is not their duty or responsibility to protect those particular commoners and thus they see no reason why they should help them if the local ruling class and their authorities are already in place to serve that purpose...unless of course there is something else in it for them.
Now, their belief in "noble responsibility" doesn't mean they believe the lower classes should all be raised out of poverty and live in palaces alongside the nobility. Likewise, it doesn't mean that they believe the common people are fit to lead themselves. They view the peasantry as human(oid) beings deserving of the basic rights all humanoids deserve, but they distinctly do not view them as equals. They also don't believe in just giving money to the poor; in their mind, wealth is something that must be earned, and nobility despite being born with their wealth, have "earned" it due to the unique position of responsibility they find themselves in. While they do not dismiss charity they don't believe in just freely throwing gold pieces at the poor. Rather, they think the best kind of charity is that which gives the less fortunate the means to better themselves I.E. training and education in a valuable trade and/or something else that would allow them better their own station in society. Just giving away money, in their mind, is a fleeting and temporary remedy that just makes the commoners lazy and content to stay in their current position of poverty.
They do see themselves as above commoners/peasants in the sense that nobility, in their mind, truly are the most fit to lead. They believe that the commoner's rights are best protected by having an elite, enlightened ruling class guiding them. In their eyes if people where left to rule themselves there would be an endless string of abuses where the most clever and/or strong would oppress, abuse, steal from and even kill the weak. Bloodthirsty mobs would seize power and "order" would come at the end of a blade, fireball or a hangman's noose. To them, it is the role of the noble to protect the commoners not only from the monsters and outside threats, but themselves as well. As a result of their belief in the position of a noble as one of responsibility, this character would resent lazy, selfish and corrupt nobility more then anything else. A noble who abuses his serfs and milks them for everything they have, or one who sits idle in his palace and feasts all day while his people grow more desperate is not only not doing his job as a noble, but also endangering the wellfare of both his people and his country, at least to this character. By failing to lead his people, the corrupt noble is opening the pathway for rebellion, warfare, chaos and strife. He is failing to perform what this character views as the "basic function" of nobility; providing leadership, stability and security for his people and his country. As a result this character would often try to work against corrupt nobility, though would try to do so through "legitimate" means rather then by starting a rebellion and causing even more outright disorder. They would also try to work actively to convince nobility that their position is one of responsibility and that decadence is dangerous not only to their people, but to their country and themselves.
Taking all this into consideration...would this character be good or neutral aligned? Heck...if you have an argument for evil feel free to state that here as well, even though I don't really see this character as "evil" despite their selfish side. Post thoughts and comments here.
I would say that for the most part what you describe is good. It sounds like you are confusing democracy with good. While I am a believer in democracy that does not mean that anything that disagrees with it is necessary evil. Other than using less than honorable tactics they actually sound lawful good. Also keep in mind that they may hold commoners and nobles to different standards, that is not necessary chaotic, or evil.
The saying give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, but teach him to fish and he will be fed for life comes from the bible. If the commoner works hard do they take away what he earned or do they let him keep it? There will of course be taxes but as long as they are consistent and fair that should not be a problem. If they allow the commoners to prosper if they work hard, and don’t just take what they want they sound good.
I tend to think of good as an extreme. A neutral person still prefers good over evil, because it's good. They still have a conscience and don't want to hurt others. They just won't go too far out of their comfort zone to "do good".
Neutral...but I long to be evil in PFS :) (throws another Kyra pregen to the wolves)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what they do, and their priorities. Alignment is about actions and what you choose to do with your life, not attitudes. Now, attitudes certainly inform priorities and actions, but they aren't quite the same thing.
If he goes out and actively campaigns on his people's behalf when they are wronged, goes out of his way to make certain justice is served on his own lands, and stands at the forefront of battles to defend his lands and people when they are under attack, he might well be Good.
If he's less inclined to actively get up off his ass and help people, well, then he's more likely to be Neutral.
Good is about putting yourself at risk, or otherwise putting real time and effort into, helping people and making their lives better. If you do that, whatever your personal beliefs about society, you're probably Good. If you don't, you're more likely to be Neutral.
Either way, this guy's clearly Lawful, given his strong belief in a particular right way for people to live base on their social class.
EDIT: In regards to the 'not helping people outside their sphere'...everyone makes determinations of who they can afford to help. You certainly need to help people you have no personal connection with in order to be Good, but I'm not sure refusing to help people you lack authority to help is enough to make you categorically Neutral. Helping people outside your area of authority and influence is certainly more Good, but I'm not sure it's a prerequisite of the Alignment.
Lawful Evil
They are out for themselves and work within the structure to maintain their status and control others (especially the part about not protecting those outside their influence unless "...unless of course there is something else in it for them").
-Doomn
Clear cut LN in my opinion. Defending your homeland and such is all nice, but something that neutral people do all the time.
|
|
Lawful Evil
They are out for themselves and work within the structure to maintain their status and control others (especially the part about not protecting those outside their influence unless "...unless of course there is something else in it for them").
-Doomn
Having played a LE guy with this attitude, I disagree that the above described character fits it.
The guy in the OP believes people have basic rights, and feels some moral obligation to defend those. That's definitely enough to get him to at least LN provided there are no intervening evil acts (which there don't seem to be).
|
|
On a slightly off-topic note, I'd like to mention Count Varian Jeggare, from Dave Gross's Pathfinder Tales Novels and Stories, as an excellent example of how you can be Good (in fact, officially listed as NG) with an attitude of 'commoners are lesser' combined with noblesse oblige.
He's a much less ambiguous case than the guy in the OP due to actively working to help people pretty regularly and way outside the list of those he's obligated to (and by breaking the rules when and if necessary), but his attitude regarding the proper roles of nobles and commoners is pretty dead-on, at least in the first couple of books/stories.
Just to make it clear that this guy's Alignment is in doubt because of his selfishness and unconcern for those outside his lands, not simply because he's an arrogant nobleman.
Neutral...but I long to be evil in PFS :) (throws another Kyra pregen to the wolves)
There's a saying at certain tables: "Banning evil alignments in PFS does nothing to evil characters except making them more patient for an opportunity to live up to their ideology."
As to the OP:
Add another bloke saying they're Lawful Neutral. This is a person who believes there is a fundamental ordering to society, that they can use various means to enforce it, but that the ordering is to be used to maintain the order itself. I.E. the law is an end in and of itself.
The character is willing to put his life on the line to protect his commoners. He also tries to do what he thinks as right for his commoners. Instead of just giving the commoner food, he wants to make sure the commoner always has the resources he needs to take care of himself. He treats his commoners as if they are his children. While this may be arrogant and patronizing it is not evil. The only thing that seems to be a strike against him is that he does not feel the same way about other commoners. I think that this is more of a matter of respecting tradition. He is taking care of his responsibilities and expects other nobles to do the same.
The character is also willing to work against corrupt nobles. The fact that he prefers to work within the system is an indication of lawful good than anything else. This falls under respecting legitimate authority. Kind of hard to say an act is evil when it is called out in the paladin’s code.
Does the character try to cheat other commoners or does he treat them fairly? How does he treat commoners not under a noble’s protection? If he treats other commoners fairly and is willing to help commoners not under another nobles protection he is lawful good.
It definitely sounds lawful, and it seems to straddle the line between good and neutral. This is one of those instances where I like the 5x5 alignment grid, but it does tend to overcomplicate things.
http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/76/3b/763b66_3987023.jpg
In that grid, I would say this person falls under "Lawful Moral". Or, as I've seen it in other statements, "LN leaning towards good"
If I had to go with the traditional 9-points, I'd say LN.