I think he falls firmly in the Lawful Neutral category.
He ideally wants good and order to reign. But he is willing do un-goodly things to achieve that goal.
How far he goes to achieve this idealistic goal is what could shift him from LN to LE. Is he willing to kill an entire village that doesn't want to join his empire? How does him handle them if they resist his control?
Whether he remains lawful or becomes evil should be determined in game by his actions and how far he would be willing to go, or how far he goes in order to achieve his goal.
I think he would start out Lawful Neutral, but I think he would pretty rapidly/gradually slip to LE. World Conquest can't really result in a non-evil outcome unless all of the world is so grimdark that only conquest could improve the daily lives of people.
I still believe the character is LE, but I see no problem with the LN label as long as he has a great deal of self-restraint. I can't fathom this character being good aligned.
But alignments are abstractions, give me a popular character from popular media and I could easily argue for at least three different alignments.
The slip to evil would be heavily dependent on what the character actually does.
I don't think we can say it would be rapid descent into evil. And I don't think world conquest necessarily means evil.
Look at Alexander the Great, he was many things but I doubt anyone would classify him as "evil".
The evil part of wanting to conquer the world is the conqueror's indifference to the possibility that some parts of the world might be just fine under their current systems. A lot depends on what sorts of deals he is willing to cut that might fall short of absolute world conquest.
Of course, in our world most would-be world conquerors are stopped by the physical impossibility of completing their conquests.
Look at Alexander the Great, he was many things but I doubt anyone would classify him as "evil".
Um. Conquest for conquest's sake is, IMO, evil. I would in fact class Alexander the Great as evil in a world where evil is an actual force. The guy was no more brutal than was required of a man who wanted to rule everything he saw, but a fair bit was required.
okay so still making decisions on this any how, let's say he leaves alone nations that he can both approved of their policies, they are lead by someone competent and not just a figure head, and do not oppose him and ally with him
|
I played a very similar character in an extended campaign. I chose to make him Lawful Neutral: he was a military man, with elements of Patton and Bonaparte. A bit stiff, but a decent and practical guy, however he was obsessed with fighting and winning battles. He had a drive to always win, to always be the greatest leader, fighter, and tactician.
That said, if you interested in a deeper exploration of alignment, I humbly suggest this book.
There are lawful stupid kings who cause more harm than good and there are CE demon lords that rule the abyss just fine.
I don't know about you, but I would really hesitate before uttering the words "just fine" in relation to the Abyss.
But to be more on topic, I think the guy you're describing is, as many others have said, LN beginning to edge towards LE.
Ally with me and only do what I approve of = evil IMHO.
Ally with me and only do what I approve of = evil IMHO.
So are paladins evil in your game then? Because, after all, there are numerous people who think that is how paladins should act at times. Hell, doing what you approve is an integral part of any alliance. I think you're misinterpreting the nature of evil as it was written in the core rules. If your actions aren't bringing constant harm to others, then you're almost by default not evil.
It sounds like you see him as having "good" intentions, but isn't concerned with law or chaos. Which seems rather NG, or True N leaning toward Good.
Is he a Tryant or a Dictator? (Unrestrained power or does he impose his rule on others? The world is subject to his whims, or he seeks to establish a certain control over his world?)
Most villains see themselves as heroes. They justify their actions as being "for the greater good."
I generally choose NG for my characters who are largely Neutral, but still often do good, simply because it gives me the most latitude in the system. And most games are about giving players the chance to help people out - defend them against evil, persecution, etc.
And Good doesn't mean they can't be deep, or troubled, or brooding. You can still play that kind of character and have a Good alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ally with me and only do what I approve of = evil IMHO.So are paladins evil in your game then? Because, after all, there are numerous people who think that is how paladins should act at times. Hell, doing what you approve is an integral part of any alliance. I think you're misinterpreting the nature of evil as it was written in the core rules. If your actions aren't bringing constant harm to others, then you're almost by default not evil.
"Or else I will murder you" was implied.
The OP was saying along the lines of "Well he won't hurt them if they just ally with him and only do what he approves of" which is pretty heavily implying "he will murder anybody that doesn't". What if a nation simply wants to be left alone? Their reaction is "Thanks but no thanks, we're good with our current rule and have no problem with you ruling whatever land you are." Apparently the OPs reaction to that scenario is "Welp, better murder them until they comply."
At least that's my understanding of it, I could be wrong.
Okay so to answer questions
his intent to rid the world evil by essentially controlling it, Ridding the world of slavery, forbidding torture, anything he views as evil. people under his rule are free to live there lives unhindered with the understanding that his rule is law. In his mind Democracy is a flawed system, that puts the most popular in charge not the most competent that's why he doesn't let the people choose, in his mind they lack understanding. it isn't how a villain views heroes as evil as has been brought up, his morals and beliefs do fall squarely under the good category, it's his ways of doing so that are questionable.
His actions depend and change for the situation, he uses both war and democracy. generally he is respectful to those he considers worthy or trustworthy, he doesn't pillage or destroy nations as that would go against his beliefs. He seeks more to unite them under his rule, nations would be allowed to govern themselves still, as one man cannot govern the world alone. That said they all would still answer to him.
It's world domination yes, but in a way that is different than most typical examples.
Remember that acts of evil for him are an option but they are always his last resort. If he must kill, he will. if he must do something abhorrent to make a point he will, but the justification for doing so must be there.
Yeah, it definitely sounds like he's enslaving the world. Seems like a pretty typical LE to me. You should look at the Pendragon books. Their villain, Saint Dane, is almost exactly that. He believes in his heart that he is the good guy who is taking over just to help and guide the universe.
But as always, the alignments are just abstractions that are left up to interpretation. LE is just my opinion.
Okay so to answer questions
his intent to rid the world evil by essentially controlling it, Ridding the world of slavery, forbidding torture, anything he views as evil. people under his rule are free to live there lives unhindered with the understanding that his rule is law. In his mind Democracy is a flawed system, that puts the most popular in charge not the most competent that's why he doesn't let the people choose, in his mind they lack understanding. it isn't how a villain views heroes as evil as has been brought up, his morals and beliefs do fall squarely under the good category, it's his ways of doing so that are questionable.
I think the thing is, those are not simple tasks that you can handwave away with an edict. By removing one form of misery you potentially unleash an entire new wave of them.
Okay you ban slavery..than what? You have crashed the economy of that nation and suddenly have a legion of slaves you need to adapt to a life as a freedman...which will be a lot harder with the economy being ruined. You also have to somehow have a population that was enslaved by another get along, without reprisal killings from either side.
Getting rid of centuries of cultural mores is not something you can just do overnight. See....well most military interventions in history, and for a fantasy example see Daenery's conquest of the Ghiscari (books or shows).
I think he could easily do the conquest and still remain LN. However actually maintaining his power over said nations would require dipping into evil territory on a pretty regular basis, or at least result in many of his subordinates doing so.
|
My LE witch's goal from RotRL was to defeat Karzoug (which she did) and use his seat of Power, Wealth, and Broken giant army to her disposal to conquer Cheliax. A lot of it was for selfish reason of revenge. She was a former slave run away who was caught and had her face burned as punishment. But her absolute hate for slavery and that country of devil worshipers had to go in her opinion. The DM ended it right after we killed Karzoug so she did not get to crush an entire country under her expensive and stylish leather boots. But it would have happened...might of took 50 years of building and planning but I'm sure she could have accomplished that goal. She had plans to enlist the help of the Strix whom hate humans and just want to be left alone. (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
It falls to what he does. Going about getting world domination in a LN way would be to build power structures, working toward a legalistic view of the world, knowing the entire labyrinth that results, getting through agreed-on methods to the key positions of the hierarchy, and making sure everyone else keeps invested enough in the structure to want to keep it. At the end of the day, he might never be Grand Poobah of everything with a crown and a throne... but he would decide on policy, call the shots, and everything would happen through him. He wouldn't really have to murder anyone, but he would be quite happy to set up trade deals that would make the disadvantaged party weak enough to need his support, etc.
That was not this guy. Anyone he considered an enemy died. Anyone who didn't comply died. And whoop-de-doo, he was fair to his subjects - the people who did what he told them to. Sorry, not good enough. This is a textbook example of LE.
|
Okay so to answer questions
his intent to rid the world evil by essentially controlling it, Ridding the world of slavery, forbidding torture, anything he views as evil. people under his rule are free to live there lives unhindered with the understanding that his rule is law. In his mind Democracy is a flawed system, that puts the most popular in charge not the most competent that's why he doesn't let the people choose, in his mind they lack understanding. it isn't how a villain views heroes as evil as has been brought up, his morals and beliefs do fall squarely under the good category, it's his ways of doing so that are questionable.
His actions depend and change for the situation, he uses both war and democracy. generally he is respectful to those he considers worthy or trustworthy, he doesn't pillage or destroy nations as that would go against his beliefs. He seeks more to unite them under his rule, nations would be allowed to govern themselves still, as one man cannot govern the world alone. That said they all would still answer to him.
It's world domination yes, but in a way that is different than most typical examples.
Remember that acts of evil for him are an option but they are always his last resort. If he must kill, he will. if he must do something abhorrent to make a point he will, but the justification for doing so must be there.
Chaotic Neutral, bordering on Evil, in my games then.
Definitely not Lawful IMO, because he will only ever take into account his own opinion. He will obey no outside authority, hence Chaotic.
i don't really agree, chaotic evil or Chaotic neutral? that's definitly pushing it. when deciding alignment shouldn't intent be factored in? As well as a variety of other things like he isn't in opposition to law, but disagree's with societies current laws. You can be lawful and not agree with others laws and rules.
When you say someone i s CE your basically saying they what the world destroyed. CN suggests they desire freedom and hate all laws and such.
of course your opinion is just that.
My decision for right now stands LN, the LE will be for in game development.
|
|
Well, I always look at the two axes separately and not at the resulting compounded alignment.
My take on Lawful vs Chaotic is how the character reacts when being told what to do by a legitimate authority (say, their parents, or teachers, or superiors, or the traditions/good old ways in their culture). Lawful tends to obey. Chaotic tends to disobey. Neutral considers the matter before choosing.
My take on Good vs Evil is how the character treats innocent creatures. Evil hurts and kills them. Good protects them. Neutral does nothing to help them but does not try to hurt them either.
So, Chaotic Neutral dislikes being told what to do and will not go out of his way to protect innocent creatures.
While Chaotic Evil also dislikes being told what to do and will have no qualms about hurting or killing innocent creatures.
Well, I always look at the two axes separately and not at the resulting compounded alignment.
My take on Lawful vs Chaotic is how the character reacts when being told what to do by a legitimate authority (say, their parents, or teachers, or superiors, or the traditions/good old ways in their culture). Lawful tends to obey. Chaotic tends to disobey. Neutral considers the matter before choosing.
My take on Good vs Evil is how the character treats innocent creatures. Evil hurts and kills them. Good protects them. Neutral does nothing to help them but does not try to hurt them either.
So, Chaotic Neutral dislikes being told what to do and will not go out of his way to protect innocent creatures.
While Chaotic Evil also dislikes being told what to do and will have no qualms about hurting or killing innocent creatures.
I understand now, with that explanation you are overlooking the fact i keep saying he does go out of his way to help innocent people. he will generally help people who are in need just because it is right.
It is specifically those who are willing to kill and fight back such as soldiers, city guardsmen, certain types of criminals, ect that he doesn't hold back against
however the chaotic side i understand then that makes sense if that how you view alignment
Unless of course those innocent people don't support him and obey him. This guy is as evil as they come. Compare with the concentration camp commander in Schindler's list. As repugnant as mass murderers come, he gets it into his head that he can be GOOD and perhaps even divine if he pardons some of those slated for execution.
well no, unless they try killing or harming him he won't act to harm them
Innocents are top priority in his mind, he will manipulate and make them believe he is the hero but he won't harm them unless they act first, important distinction. unless they mean him harm or evil intent he won't put civilians in the crossfire. even then he would hesitate to do so
Yes he might end up a tyrant or dictator in some peoples eyes, but his actions are generally good and well meaning not by his standards but by typical definitions of good. I've been trying to explain that when i say his actions are good i don't mean in his mind he is good , but by outsider looking in good.
what i'm trying to go for is a good person who embraces his darkness but doesnt let it consume him. he explores it so that it can be used for good things
Sounds kinda like Walhart from FE:A to me, and that pegs them as Lawful Neutral. Remember, you don't have to have an evil antagonist, just one that has goals that are contrary to your PCs.
You know, I first read that as Walmart . . . .
Alignment of the world conqueror would tend to be non-Good, with the particular variety of non-Good depending upon how the conqueror went about conquest and subsequent rule (both Law and Chaos as well as in-between are compatible with tyranny, just different types), and also upon the world itself (if you are willing to conquer a whold world that has Good nations in it, you have to be Evil, not just non-Good, but if all the nations in the world are Evil, conceivably you could be Good, although it isn't likely).
He kills people who have some sort of power, like soldiers and guards, unless they obey and surrender. In diplomacy he goes to war unless people surrender to him. The only way to get fairness from him is to serve him. All this is by your explanation.
This guy is evil to the core. Rotten, wicked, monstrous. He is ready and willing to commit atrocities for his own self-interest, for power. If an outsider were to see him, they would see something utterly evil. The only one who thinks he is good is himself. He would make a worthy villain, if he weren't so cliche in his inability to see his own taint.
If you intend to be Good, there are things you don't do. Mass murder and starting wars for power are two of them. Exploring darkness will taint you, and using it for Good still makes you a reeking wreck of Evil.
i think this is just something we won't be able to come to some sort of even view on. thank you for your input though.
You think he is as evil as they come
I think he is just he is some form of neutral. A darker type of hero than some would allow
i mean yea he does some evil things, but he does just as many good things.
just because one does something evil or is willing shouldn't condemn them to the evil alignment immediately
|
|
well no, unless they try killing or harming him he won't act to harm them
Innocents are top priority in his mind, he will manipulate and make them believe he is the hero but he won't harm them unless they act first, important distinction. unless they mean him harm or evil intent he won't put civilians in the crossfire. even then he would hesitate to do so
Yes he might end up a tyrant or dictator in some peoples eyes, but his actions are generally good and well meaning not by his standards but by typical definitions of good. I've been trying to explain that when i say his actions are good i don't mean in his mind he is good , but by outsider looking in good.
what i'm trying to go for is a good person who embraces his darkness but doesnt let it consume him. he explores it so that it can be used for good things
Ok. He might be Chaotic Good in my game, but with a very real risk of turning to Chaotic Neutral or even worse depending on his actual actions.
The question is does the character live by his own code. From the sound of it he has a code of conduct that he believes in. If he has a code of conduct that he lives by, and follows the code then he is lawful. If he follows the code for the most part, but breaks it when needed that would be neutral. If he completely ignores the code and does whatever he needs to do, then he would be chaotic. Lawful will also be consistent in its actions, and follow precedence and tradition. Chaos is just the opposite it treats each case as a completely new situation and may decide differently in similar cases.
Another thing to consider is that what may be illegal for one person may be completely legal for another. Rank and position give both privilege and duty. If I as a private citizen know someone committed a crime in most cases I do not have the right to do anything about it. Yes in some cases I can make a citizen’s arrest, but that is a fairly narrow circumstance. For the most part what I have a right to do is to file charges and have the police arrest the person. The police on the other hand do have the authority and right to place someone under arrest. So if someone was negligent and caused me to become injured and l locked him up, I would be guilty of kidnapping. If I file charges and a warrant is issued for his arrest I still cannot arrest him, but a police officer can. The police officer has the authority and even more importantly the duty to arrest the person.
If the character has some form of legitimate authority he may be able to impose his ideas on other and still be considered lawful. If he is an actual ruler of a country then he may have more leeway on his actions than the ordinary person on the street. As long as he keeps his word and upholds his code he can be lawful. He can even conquer other nations as long as he honors the terms of their surrender. He may need to be careful in how and why he starts the war, but once started he can fight and win it without being chaotic.
The question is does the character live by his own code. From the sound of it he has a code of conduct that he believes in. If he has a code of conduct that he lives by, and follows the code then he is lawful. If he follows the code for the most part, but breaks it when needed that would be neutral. If he completely ignores the code and does whatever he needs to do, then he would be chaotic. Lawful will also be consistent in its actions, and follow precedence and tradition. Chaos is just the opposite it treats each case as a completely new situation and may decide differently in similar cases.
Another thing to consider is that what may be illegal for one person may be completely legal for another. Rank and position give both privilege and duty. If I as a private citizen know someone committed a crime in most cases I do not have the right to do anything about it. Yes in some cases I can make a citizen’s arrest, but that is a fairly narrow circumstance. For the most part what I have a right to do is to file charges and have the police arrest the person. The police on the other hand do have the authority and right to place someone under arrest. So if someone was negligent and caused me to become injured and l locked him up, I would be guilty of kidnapping. If I file charges and a warrant is issued for his arrest I still cannot arrest him, but a police officer can. The police officer has the authority and even more importantly the duty to arrest the person.
If the character has some form of legitimate authority he may be able to impose his ideas on other and still be considered lawful. If he is an actual ruler of a country then he may have more leeway on his actions than the ordinary person on the street. As long as he keeps his word and upholds his code he can be lawful. He can even conquer other nations as long as he honors the terms of their surrender. He may need to be careful in how and why he starts the war, but once started he can fight and win it without being chaotic.
He does in fact follow and hold true to a code of honor, that code of honor in his mind separates him from the true evil he wishes to combat. If his code doesn't cover something he thinks and add to it for future events. he holds in belief that one should grow, in all aspects to become better than they were the day before
He does not however have any form of legitimate power quite yet, i leave that part up to roleplay. His reason for traveling involves gaining both the knowledge and power to lead.
|
|
If the guy follows his own code and is implementing a regulated power structure (even with himself at the top), then I would definitely put him in the "lawful" camp. As for the axis of Good and Evil, I think you have to consider how much he indulges himself as part of this process, how much or how little he factors in the considerations of others in his plans, and what gods or higher powers he serves (if any).
If he goes out of his way to serve and protect civilians, minimize casualties, negotiate victory when possible, and accrues power only in accordance with the needs of his mission, then he's Lawful Good.
If he protects civilians when he can but puts the needs of his mission before other concerns, if he is utilitarian in his methods and always chooses the most effective or expedient means but avoids needless cruelty, and he still only accrues power in accordance with the needs of his mission, then he is Lawful Neutral.
If he goes out of his way to be cruel to his enemies and dominate his allies, if he treats those in his service as chattel, If he pursues his mission in such a way as to maximize his own personal power or serve his own ambitions, then he is probably Lawful Evil
I would only consider him to be Chaotic if he never negotiates from a position of strength, breaks agreements when they are inconvenient, or is otherwise capricious about the way in which he pursues his mission.
i think this is just something we won't be able to come to some sort of even view on. thank you for your input though.
You think he is as evil as they come
I think he is just he is some form of neutral. A darker type of hero than some would allow
i mean yea he does some evil things, but he does just as many good things.
just because one does something evil or is willing shouldn't condemn them to the evil alignment immediately
Lots of times, people have gone into complicated situations with the best of intentions, and done terrible things. Hence the phrase: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Personal code and Chaotic are quite compatible because the code comes from inside. Chaotic has a problem with codes coming from outside
Most people when they talk about personal codes are talking more about a set of morals than an actually code of conduct. When you do something because it makes you feel good, that is not really lawful. Lawful is more doing something even when you don’t want to and you gain nothing for it. Many acts can fit under more than one alignment axis. For example if tradition says I have to act a certain way towards a person that could be lawful. If I act the same way towards the person because I want to prove I am the better person that could be chaotic. If I act that way towards the person because I want to show my respect towards him and make him feel good that could be a good act. If I act that way towards him because it will help me destroy my enemy, that could be an evil act. In each case the act is basically the same but each one has different reason for acting which is the important thing.
The main difference between lawful and chaotic is how they see things. The lawful person sees the universe as a structured place where there are rules for everything. The chaotic person sees the universe as unique experience to be lived. The lawful person tries to figure out where things go and put them in categories so they know what to do. The chaotic person reacts to each situation as a separate experience. Keep in mind that no human can be fully lawful or fully chaotic. We are all mixtures of both and as such have a little of both in us. We can tend towards one or the other but there is still the seed of the opposite in us. The same is true for good and evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think this is just something we won't be able to come to some sort of even view on. thank you for your input though.
You think he is as evil as they come
I think he is just he is some form of neutral. A darker type of hero than some would allow
i mean yea he does some evil things, but he does just as many good things.
just because one does something evil or is willing shouldn't condemn them to the evil alignment immediately
Lots of times, people have gone into complicated situations with the best of intentions, and done terrible things. Hence the phrase: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Makes you wonder where the road that is paved with bad intentions goes . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well logic would dictate heaven, sort of gives that atoner feeling to it
of course if one thinks about it, it stops making sense of course logic and philosophy really don't get along to well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All roads lead to hell.
Or perhaps the Abyss.
No, all roads lead to Rome.
[In their day, they made all the roads, so....]
/cevah
PS: SciFi version: All roads lead to Trantor.
PPS: SciFi version from a long time ago and far, far away: All roads lead to Coruscant.
Coruscant was inspired by Trantor.
[source]
/cevah
He'd be in the range of LN, N, NE or LE, you might start him off as N or LN but doing as many evil acts as good acts should not keep him neutral in my opinion.
The character seems incapable of true atonement which would cause him to fall into evil fairly swiftly.