So i am making a character whose dream is to conquer the world for the greater good.
Umm yeah, he isn't evil he doesn't commit generally evil acts or whatnot.
Not sure if world domination can be considered good either
But yeah haven't really thought of much else other than he generally thinks his way of thinking is superior to others and believes the world is going to fall to corruption.
But yeah some help thinking on this would be nice
My personal opinion is that World Domination falls on that fine line that separates Chaotic Good from Lawful Evil. Both alignments are crazy similar and it most depends on how the character goes about it. Consider how your character is going to do it. By force? Coersion? Even if your idea is to combat evil, a Lawful Evil character can still do just that, believing his way is the right way and putting down the iron fist on any who don't wish things to change "for the better".
oh no, i intend to play him as a pc.
Ps kinda took some philosophy pages from Lelouch (code Geass) and Walhart cause fire emblem awakening was awesome.
So votes so far come out to
LN, LE and CG
K so no chaotic, makes sense.
LE is getting the big push
LN is seeing some support
both make perfect sense
LG is a new one
NG i didn't expect to see
Basically the entire alignment system is very broken and you can justify giving almost anyone any alignment.
I've always seen it a the alignment system is only broken if one tries to break it.
personally the only alignment i don't like is CN in my games it isn't allowed without damn good justification
ALignments are just difficult to pinpoint without an understanding of certain elements. it's not about all the complexities of a character its a generalization pure and simple.
LN.
Neutral alignment would be my pick. There is no opposite alignment, so anyone can be a potential ally or follower.
I think you will need to define your character with more moral facets. "Conquer the world" is a very vague goal. What are you willing to sacrifice to gain the world? Will you commit mass murder when it would be easier than subjugation? Will you execute political opponents or restrain yourself? Will you compromise your values or remain true to your ideals? Will you break promises if it advances your agenda? All good questions which will determine how you want to govern.
There is also no right or wrong answer, Machiavelli would've said a lawful evil ruler who is strong and can protect the country is better than a chaotic good ruler who is weak and can't keep the peace. Note that saying "for the greater good" is not in of itself a good act, in fact it is mostly an excuse to justify what is actually evil. Asmodeus is someone who wants to rule the world, subjugate all mortal kind, and remove free will, because he believes his tyranny is for "the greater good."
My LN Cavalier of Abadar for instance was a Conquerer. He wanted to settle wilderness, generally encroached on the land belonging to native inhabitants, attempted to expand his territory into other states, and quashed political dissidents. But he established peace, never broke his own laws or his promises, and afforded equal protection to everyone he absorbed into his land - including those who were evil. He committed many good and evil acts, because he was driven by his faith in Abadar that civilization and law was better for the world.
his reasoning would be for the greater good, to bring prosperity and peace, however with his methods he is willing to go to through with evil acts to accomplish them.
he will avoid mass murder if he has too especially of those who do not fight back or are innocent of crimes. those that fight or hold power such as soldiers, guards, politicians, leaders are in his mind fair game and shown no mercy. often killed if they resist or do not surrender. However he is willing to kill if it is the only feasible option.
his ideals are important to him, breaking them makes him no different than those he is trying to stop. He believes people have the right to free will and making choices, living in a world where change is a constant and part of life, hence he does not want to eliminate free will although those that choose not to side with him are free to do so with the understanding that they are treated as enemies.
"the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed"
EDITED...
And now for the reminder that there is a chaotic good deity of tradition and racism. The alignment system is worthless.
his reasoning would be for the greater good, to bring prosperity and peace, however with his methods he is willing to go to through with evil acts to accomplish them
Definitely sounds CN, N or LN. I would go with neutral.
My thing about any alignment being justifiable is its not about how the character sees itself and more about how the universe would see that character. Robin Hood is seen as a villian to evil, a hero to the people, but to the universe he's chaotic good: breaks the laws to help those in need.
Ask yourself how this character will be seen by the universe. If he's willing to do evil to bring peace, he sounds like Magneto, who in the grand scheme of things was LE.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now for the reminder that there is a chaotic good deity of tradition and racism. The alignment system is worthless.
if you have nothing worthwhile to input please do not and move on
@ baja1000
I think that is a good way of explaining alignment. And that could conflict with how the character views themselves.
And now for the reminder that there is a chaotic good deity of tradition and racism. The alignment system is worthless.if you have nothing worthwhile to input please do not and move on
I found it worthwhile. Who are you to judge?
I found it worthwhile. Who are you to judge?And now for the reminder that there is a chaotic good deity of tradition and racism. The alignment system is worthless.if you have nothing worthwhile to input please do not and move on
The OP? I don't think anyone else other than the one asking the question can detirmine whether or not a comment comes close to being worthwhile.
Also, to touch on racism in Pathfinder. Again the Universe needs to be taken into context. Racism by our standards is a load of sh** when by Pathfinder standards we are all human and one race. In Pathfinder/DnD/etc, there are actually many different races and with those races comes a society known for certain aspects. Its less racism to think upon seeing a gnome that hes a tinkerer or to see a dwarf and assume he's brash, or an orc and think killer. Its what their society and race is known for. Its what Drizzt deals with and understands when people recoil at him. Its not evil, its just something you have to assume on first glance to survive, in THAT particular universe.
And now for the reminder that there is a chaotic good deity of tradition and racism. The alignment system is worthless.if you have nothing worthwhile to input please do not and move on
Well said.
Back to topic. Is your character going to be diplomatic or militaristic?
Once a question is asked in a thread the thread no longer belongs to that person. It has been set free upon the world. In this case my reply is very appropriate to the thread. "What alignment is X?" The answer is "any alignment" because the alignment system is worthless. It's all vague like a horoscope. Saying you're chaotic good is no different than saying "you appreciate your freedom and care about others". Everyone does that. Saying you are lawful evil means "you appreciate order and often put your needs before others". Everyone does that.
Not really either, his actions will vary depending on the situation. his diplomacy will involve mainly you will be subjugated or there will be a war and i will win
"Saying your chaotic good is no differen than saying you appreciate your freedom and care about others." CE could never be considered that. Appreciate its freedom, sure, but thats the chaos talking. But Evil doesn't care about others, it uses them and will throw them away just as quickly. And there are plenty of examples of that, IE. the obvious of Joker/Harley. This is why we use the alignments, not so you can justify acting outside the alignment, but so you can label the cause of his "average" choice of action.
Not really either, his actions will vary depending on the situation. his diplomacy will involve mainly you will be subjugated or there will be a war and i will win
In that case I would think lawful neutral makes sense.
Seems like LN is the way to go, thnx guys
Seems like LN is the way to go, thnx guys
Good luck ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
his reasoning would be for the greater good, to bring prosperity and peace, however with his methods he is willing to go to through with evil acts to accomplish them.
he will avoid mass murder if he has too especially of those who do not fight back or are innocent of crimes. those that fight or hold power such as soldiers, guards, politicians, leaders are in his mind fair game and shown no mercy. often killed if they resist or do not surrender. However he is willing to kill if it is the only feasible option.
his ideals are important to him, breaking them makes him no different than those he is trying to stop. He believes people have the right to free will and making choices, living in a world where change is a constant and part of life, hence he does not want to eliminate free will although those that choose not to side with him are free to do so with the understanding that they are treated as enemies.
"the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed"
EDITED...
Wanting to do good, but willing to do evil. --> Neutral in the Good/Evil axis.
Ideals, and not wanting to break them. --> Lawful in the Law/Chaos axis.
Examples of all the alignments as leaders:
CG: Lots of power to enforce will, but not competent to actually rule. Especially if easily distracted. Wants to promote society.
CN: Merchant Prince. Wants to rule by cornering the market. As the market changes, rule changes. Unconcerned with good/evil, only greed.
CE: Despot. Wants to rule, does not care how. Rules by whim.
NE: Evil Empire. Wants to rule everyone, no matter their wishes. Will do whatever is needed to succeed.
LE: Cult leader gone global. Thulsa Doom. Will sacrifice a follower to achieve a purpose.
LN: Creator of the "perfect" society. Rules for everything. Main goal is longevity of the society.
LG: Saint as a ruler. Rules to be compassionate, and an overall goal of peace and prosperity.
NG: Charismatic leader that wants to rule with a light touch. Enough rules to keep things under control, not too many to make citizens feel constrained.
NN: Leader just wants everyone to just get along. Peace and quiet is nice.
/cevah
@ Cevah
I picture chaotic good rulers to be like the founding fathers of the United States. There are still rules but they support individual rights and limit government power. There is no reason to assume that chaotic leaders are less competent than lawful ones.
Alignment does not correlate to competency to lead. There are lawful stupid kings who cause more harm than good and there are CE demon lords that rule the abyss just fine.
My personal take is that the character would be lawful evil because it sounds like Saint Dane from the Pendragon series. He believes he is wiser than all of mankind and so he must rule them in order to protect them, but in order to do so he must first break down the universe so that he can remake as he sees fit. He does have good intentions. He just murders and enslaves and tortures people. He is a very "ends justify the means" kind of guy.
*Shrug* Sounds to me like a tyrant. Killing anybody that opposes you is pretty evil IMHO, especially when the world is your domain. Unless he is actually a god he is not entitled to rule the world, and if he is a god then he has better things to be doing with his life.
In my eyes, world domination is evil no matter how you sugar coat it. You're going to have to murder a lot of people for doing nothing other than not wanting to be ruled by you.
It could make for a more interesting character if he is borderline lawful evil and that he is always at risk of stepping over the line. Or perhaps he does step over the line into evil and decides to seek redemption?
I didn't read anyone else's post, but in my opinion, this sounds like NG taken the the extreme. They will do anything for the greater good. That said, I firmly believe Dr. Doom is Lawful Evil. He wants to rule the world because he really believes he will do a better job and everyone will be better off, but he's willing to kill, torture or anything else to accomplish his goals. So depending on what your character is willing to do... I mean they could start off NG, then as the make more and more compromises for the "Greater Good" gradually slip down the spectrum.
I didn't read anyone else's post, but in my opinion, this sounds like NG taken the the extreme. They will do anything for the greater good. That said, I firmly believe Dr. Doom is Lawful Evil. He wants to rule the world because he really believes he will do a better job and everyone will be better off, but he's willing to kill, torture or anything else to accomplish his goals. So depending on what your character is willing to do... I mean they could start off NG, then as the make more and more compromises for the "Greater Good" gradually slip down the spectrum.
Dr.doom is one of my favorite villains...judged by the panther god, his future is the only one where the world isn't screwed.
Back on topic, I am liking Bommerang's suggestions of borderline.
His character certainly does evil things but he also does good things. He is ruthless towards his enemies because they are enemies. however just and fair toward those who are his subject.
he is not a slaver or torturer as those are things that could both ruin his reputation and are in his mind distasteful. however he also is still attempting world domination and will kill, threaten, blackmail, those who attempt to stop him.
His intentions are pure and good, he will side with the innocent and will almost never side with those considered evil other than himself of course.
@Boomerang Nebula, @My Self:
I wrote "Examples of ..." and not "Requirements of ..."
I believe an incompetent, but powerful leader can be an example of a CG type. He is not the only example possible.
/cevah
it is, but then again we shouldn't acknowledge the troll he might speak again.
Any alignment can be a leader, robin hood prime example of a leader that would be CG. leaders aren't just rulers of nations, but people who lead bands of other people.
What will he do about dissenters? People who aren't criminal in any way, but simply want to govern their own affairs?
To what extent will new laws impinge upon peoples' ordinary lives? Or how and with what beliefs they rear their children? How (harshly) will laws be enforced?
I would agree that LN seems to fit the idea you are suggesting.
I am not too certain about the LN label of the character, and while I understand the perspective you are attempting to reason from, I vehemently disagree. While having good and noble intentions is all well and good, it should be the actions of the character that defines him. So, if he in his attempt to rule the world and drive out all who oppose him is willing to commit great acts of evil, then it seems to me that he is the very definition of LE.
While he thinks it is all for the "greater good", it seems evident that he is a force of evil.
the point is he has as many good and just acts as he does evil ones. as said he is rutheless towards enemies but kind and fair towards his subjects.
Calling him a force of evil might be a bit much if one is to be judged by there actions it should be all of there actions not just at their worst