Complexities of Alignment
In real life there are complexities to people's personalities that don't always translate well into Baldur's Gate alignments.
My question is what the alignment should be for characters that are very protective of citizens of their own country and other people positively associated with their country, but have no limits whatsoever in what they might do to people who they perceive as a threat to those they protect.
In the past I have classified them as chaotic evil, but now I am uncertain. In my BG games I almost always make PCs that are based on characters in a novel I am writing, that I then roleplay in BG, so the two characters I am asking about are from that story.
I can get into more detail if anyone wants me to, but in brief summary they are a king and a general that are revered as their nation's protectors and would never do anything to harm anyone within their own society. If one of their citizens is imprisoned by another country, even if that person is guilty they will invade and annihilate the people who dared to imprison their citizen. When outsiders threaten their country, they torture them literally forever as punishment. They are firm believers in 'an eye for an eye' philosophy and as a result offenders, within their country, suffer the same pain as their victims, forever. They are also loved and respected by almost everyone in their country and have the genuine loyalty of trillions.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention, that the king and the general are married to each other and would do literally anything for the other. Indeed, when the king dies the general wears a gauntlet containing his soul for 100 trillion years so they can be together forever, before his eventual resurrection. While the king is dead, the general lives in secret and protects the king's descendants who continue to rule the country. This is part of what clouds the alignment issue since they genuinely love each other and go to great lengths to protect and help the other.
My question is what the alignment should be for characters that are very protective of citizens of their own country and other people positively associated with their country, but have no limits whatsoever in what they might do to people who they perceive as a threat to those they protect.
In the past I have classified them as chaotic evil, but now I am uncertain. In my BG games I almost always make PCs that are based on characters in a novel I am writing, that I then roleplay in BG, so the two characters I am asking about are from that story.
I can get into more detail if anyone wants me to, but in brief summary they are a king and a general that are revered as their nation's protectors and would never do anything to harm anyone within their own society. If one of their citizens is imprisoned by another country, even if that person is guilty they will invade and annihilate the people who dared to imprison their citizen. When outsiders threaten their country, they torture them literally forever as punishment. They are firm believers in 'an eye for an eye' philosophy and as a result offenders, within their country, suffer the same pain as their victims, forever. They are also loved and respected by almost everyone in their country and have the genuine loyalty of trillions.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention, that the king and the general are married to each other and would do literally anything for the other. Indeed, when the king dies the general wears a gauntlet containing his soul for 100 trillion years so they can be together forever, before his eventual resurrection. While the king is dead, the general lives in secret and protects the king's descendants who continue to rule the country. This is part of what clouds the alignment issue since they genuinely love each other and go to great lengths to protect and help the other.
Post edited by ARKdeEREH on
0
Comments
Reminds me of the Xenophobic sun elves from Cormanthyr way back when.
http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html
Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle ground betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world--and the whole universe--is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation. It is the view of this alignment that law and order give purpose and meaning to everything. Without regimentation and strict definition, there would be no purpose in the cosmos. Therefore, whether a law is good or evil is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning. (1)
Lawful neutral beings believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. Lawful neutral beings will uphold the law regardless of whether it is considered just or not. If the majority of the population disagrees with the practices of the government, then they must use legal means of getting those laws changed. Rebellion is a crime regardless of the purpose behind revolt. In their day-to-day affairs, lawful neutrals will adhere to the laws of the area they are in, and will also maintain their own sense of honor. (2)
They are respectful to both their leaders and their peers. Subordinates will be treated as is due their station within society. Written contracts and verbal agreements will be honored by these characters. They will not break their word or a contract unless there is a legal way to do so. Lawful neutral beings are concerned with the letter of the law, but rarely the spirit. These characters also respect the idea of station in life. They will act as they should, given their station.
The lawful neutral being normally sees law and order as of prime importance, with the well-being of the group put ahead of the individual on almost every occasion. Such persons see good and evil as immaterial and unimportant in the structuring of the universe into perfect order and harmony, in which lies society's only hope for survival. Whether a law is good or evil is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning. Thus, personal gratification of needs and desires is well and fine, as long as this doesn't interfere with the ultimate ordering of the cosmos; all other considerations are secondary. Life, to the lawful neutral being, has no meaning without order, and is thus expendable when faced with the choice between it and harmony. (3)
A lawful neutral character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie. He may attack an unarmed foe if he feels it necessary. He will never harm an innocent. He may use torture to extract information, but never for pleasure. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A lawful neutral character may use poison as long as poison use is not illegal. He will help those in need only to advance the social order. He prefers to work with others. He responds well to higher authority, is trustful of organizations, and will always follow the law. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend. Lawful neutral characters respect the concepts of self-discipline and honor. (4)
Here are some possible adjectives describing lawful neutral characters: reliable, responsible, truthful, orderly, loyal, respectful of authority, regular, structured, rigid, neat, methodical, and precise.
Well known lawful neutral characters from film or literature include: Judge Dredd (Comics), Sergeant Friday (Dragnet television show), Percy Weasley (Harry Potter), and Cornelius Fudge (Harry Potter).
But, yes, I've thought they were probably evil-aligned for a long time. Right now I'm reconsidering since they aren't evil within their own cultural-social context.
A Lawful Evil ruler would be more akin to Vlad Tepes, who basically ruled via fear - "Vlad was generally known as a fierce and honest leader. Vlad was said to have been so confident that no thief would dare challenge him knowing they would be brutally killed that he placed a golden cup on display in the central square of Tirgoviste. The cup was never stolen and remained where it was untouched throughout Vlad's reign."
Again, just my opinion.
People and their motivations are too complex to lump into 9 different categories. Write your story first, let overzealous fans who feel like everything needs to be lumped into an alignment category classify it for you post-publication.
orcs want to smash and destroy and plunder, caring nothing for order or rules -> Chaotic Evil
Dwarves have a highly regimented society that does its best to provide welfare for all, and are quick to lend aid to anyone who needs it -> Lawful Good
Druids care only about the cycle of nature and try to absolve themselves from any moral or ethical problems, following only nature's rules of survival of the fittest -> Neutral
When you get closer up though, indiviuals are usually made up of way too many contradictions to be set into one alignment. I've had a girlfriend who quickly turned out to be a horrible person, using threats and blackmail to get what she wanted, isolating me from everyone while draining my bank account and threatening to destroy my things or call the police on me for an assault she'd inflict on herself if I protested. We broke up, from what I hear she now doing the same to some other idiot.
However, she was caring and loving to her little brother, donated money to charities, helped customers in her work as servicedesker beyond what was required, helped out her neighbour from a few houses down when she was kicked out by her husband by providing her with shelter and safety. Moments of good, moments of evil.
It works as a quick guideline for a character or monster, but Real Life is often trickier. When I use it, I usually use it as a "He tries to act like" guideline for a character, making Alignment not something someone is, but something someone wants to be.
This is essentially the Drow way - the outlook (above) is consistent with Drow society. Yes, these leaders protect 'their own', and they arbitrarily decide who qualifies as their own, and who doesn't. Anyway, LE seems the best fit for them.
But i like the D&D system, it´s relatively easy to get if you dont think to deep about it;)
Good - Will defend others
Neutral - Will do what has to be done according to the situation
Evil - Will sacrifice others
IRL, frankly, you can't actually be a proper Chaotic person. You'd be in jail. Everybody is innately Lawful, as everybody (most people) follow the Law.
Law vs Chaos is whether you personally adhere to a set of laws (be their personal, religious or kindgom)
Good vs Evil is then easier on a personal level - as it has been described before.
So in the original question I see definitely evil in their actions (the reason does not always justify the means)
And I would go for Lawful with some Neutral Tendencies - because they would easily change their beliefs to protect themselves (say something occurs inside their kingdom that does threaten their love - maybe someone accuses one of the couple rightfully and motions for their banishment)
A Chaotic Good king might leave the laws up to local magistrates or judges who can improvise laws with each case and their wisdom is trusted to do so. People are generally expected to just be nice to eachother instead of having to follow strict rules. (note: this usually only works in chaotic GOOD societies where generally everyone wants the best for eachother. Since ours is in my opinion firmly neutral, this scenario would descend into anarchy and riots pretty quick)
Alternatively, the king might change laws on a daily basis to suit whichever situation he feels is best served, or have very mallable laws that are open to interpretation ("Thieves must repay whatever they stole in whatever way they can"), or believe that since he is king, he is above the law and thus does whatever he wants despite the laws he might have written himself (and still count for the populace).
Chaotic people (regardless of morality) are generally about freedom so whatever the outcome is, the baseline is "He won't care overly much about the law, whatever the laws are" because that inhibits his freedom.
A lawful king would make up laws and stick by them, using them for peace and order among his people. The system might not always work, but it's designed to be the best way for the majority of people.
A good king uses this system for the betterment and prosperity of his people, returning the profits of the system to the people to improve their wellfare and happiness, an Evil king would use this system for the betterment and prosperity of himself.
Example; Most dictators vs the image most western leaders attempt to promote.
Mostly true, yes.
Our society is generally Lawful, we have laws for everything, from thievery to when you're allowed to cross a street or not (a nightmare to any chaotic creature).
However, I believe you can be chaotic and still follow the law because you have the common sense to do so. This will just express itself in the relationships you have with people and you might be known for being a 'rage against the machine' kind of guy.
I've a friend who's firmly anti-government, he sees any police officer as a tool of the oppressive regime, will undermine any kind of authority whenever he can, he'll vote, but only for the party that promises to destroy the current system for a more freedom/mass vote based democracy and whenever there's a protest against anything the government does, he'll be there.
He's acting in the confines of the law because he doesn't want jail time or fines. I would say, however, that he is a firmly Chaotic person.
From my point of view, it's not just how you act that defines your alignment, but the reason why you do it. Otherwise, it's just judgement of your actions by others instead of a summary of your prime motivations for your actions.
Example: Man goes into hills and kills a hundred orcs. Clearly, he is a good man because the orcs are evil and were threatening the nearby villages.
However, if he went into the hills to kill a hundred orcs because he revels in the slaughter and pain of sentient creatures and he believes orcs won't be missed, he's evil. Just looking at his actions does not give an accurate analysis of his possible alignment.
(note: I put way too much thought into this. The entire system is still full of holes and I gave some basic examples of how I believe is the best way to interpret it. If you do it otherwise, you're probably just as right as I am. Hey-ho!)
Anyone who's played Planescape: Torment can tell you that in Planescape alignments have an almost physical aspect to them. They are not just categories of dispositions or philosophical outlooks. They are laws of nature. A creature from a chaotic plane is chaotic, a creature from an evil plane is evil, etc, because that is their nature. You will never meet a good aligned Glabrezu.
And yet, the Nameless One's alignment changes based on his actions. That is because the actions he takes can best be identified by a certain alignment. It has little to do with morality/ethics. He's aligned with other creatures who act and think like him. It's pretty much a matter of categorization, a quick heuristic of where he stands in the big picture.
OTOH in BG, alignment ,from the get-go, is a descriptor of a character's moral outlook on the world. It defines what sort of values a character believes in. Whether or not laws are important, how much value they place on other people...
What a character's alignment describes is something much more personal. It has little to do with their actions.
The only time in BG when the protagonist's alignment changes is when
Any action taken here defines what the protagonist really believes in.
Unlike Planescape, the Bhaalspawn does not start with a blank slate. She already has certain values and convictions.
You can play a neutral evil character who always does nice and generous things for others. But that character is still ultimately selfish and only acting for her own benefit.
Or you can play a zealous Paladin who shows no mercy and is a controlling asshole towards everyone else. Her motives are still "good"-aligned, though. Even if her actions are (seen as) cruel.
The thing to remember, I guess, is that in both settings alignments are a very general construct and, more importantly, that they are descriptive and not prescriptive. They describe or categorize a character in very broad terms (and the focus shifts for different settings).
But it's the player's job to roleplay that character and give her substance and a unique personality.
In my mind, at least.
Planescape: Torment has a Chaotic Neutral chaste Succubus, a Chaotic Neutral Modron from the plane of Law, an Evil Angel and several other examples.
One of the main themes of the game is that you choose how to act, despite your background or heritage. Hence the central question; What can change the nature of a man?
The nature of all these creatures has been changed, each for a different reason and as such they do not follow the laws of nature as you set them.
Although as the OP might suggest, you might get a more "realistic" in terms of ogranically flexible alignments by using a 3 alignment system, Law, Chaos, Neutral....or just not using them at all, since it hardly breaks the game...
Chaotic Neutral holds to nothing and no one. This alignment generally appears insane to other people. They have no constant but their own wants and self-interest. Almost pure ID (Jungian Psychology). Whereas only Chaotic Evil is actively malevolent on an ongoing basis. Nothing matters but him and if the CE character feels like raping you with a spear up the butt to amuse himself for a while he will. Other humans are tools to be used or pawns to be played with. Whereas a Chaotic Neutral might still respect you if you hold power over him in some way, Chaotic Evil will be figuring out how to screw you over so that they are on top. They have no loyalty, no honor, no affection, though they might pretend to feel something to gull you.
I'm not sure I agree with you entirely, as a Lawful person does have a personal morality (and is generally more likely to hold to that personal morality than a Chaotic person). Law isn't legislation, it is Order, rigid and inflexible. This inflexibility and strength of mind is what is necessary
In fact, one could argue that legislation is much less related to Law, and much more related to the Moral axis of Good and Evil.
For example (and for the rest of this post, where I put a lower case "law", assume I mean legislation, not the embodiment of absolute order):
A Good law says: Do not kill or hurt others.
A Neutral law says: If someone kills or hurts someone, then they or their family may extract a blood price from them in gold or flesh.
An Evil law says: If you are strong enough, do as you please.
See here that it is evil, not chaos, that is against a law about hurting someone.
A Lawful law says: No Trespassing!
A Chaotic law says: There is no such thing as private property.
Even these have moral overtones, because the Chaotic ideal of Freedom is something most human-like entites appreciate, but at the same time, most humam-ish species appreciate the ideals of privacy, security and home, all Lawful aspects.
You are correct that a Chaotic person isn't obligated to break the law, as they have a more flexible mindset, they will pick and choose regularly based on the situation whether to follow the law or not, depending how they felt about it Morally.
Nowhere in this however, does a Lawful *person* become more or less likely to break or obey the law, as an Orderly existence is not necessarily a legal one. Indeed, the only thing that Lawfulness indicates is how *consistently* they break the law, and how methodically they break the law.
If a Chaotic person doesn't care one way or other about the law then they would either break or not break it on a whim, or obey the law simply because it's easier to be law abiding than otherwise (something a Lawful person is just as capable of deciding).
If a Lawful person doesn't care one way or other about the law, then because their behaviour is more consistent then their first action towards that law (walking on the grass, for example), is likely to be their second and third action and so on; they will either keep breaking, or keep obeying the law.
Now, there is one primary muddying issue, and it's one that confuses this issue much more than it need be; Law also encompasses Tradition, Society and Truth, and Chaos Liberty, Individualism and Deceit (along with many more things you could go on forever about).
Society and Tradition both have strong ties to laws, so too does Law go hand in hand with obedience, and yes, a person can embody Obedience and believe in following the law over all else, but it's important to understand that that is only a comparatively tiny fraction of Law, and a Lawful person is no more bound to behave that way than a Chaotic one is bound to disobedience. Most sentient creatures are not bound to embody all the wide reaching aspects of a Law/Chaos alignment, and if they did, would only be capable of Lawful Neutrality, and a very bizarre, barely understandable by "regular" creatures.
In conclusion, and most importantly of all: Batman is Lawful Good. He routinely breaks the law against vigilantism, yes, but he is also absolutely faithful to his code of not killing, a lawful trait.
Plus he's totally a Monk, look at those moves.
Lawful Good's attitude towards the law is "Laws are supposed to be there to help people. If a law is bad, I will follow it, but also try to get it changed to a better law." Lawful Neutral is "The Law that exists must be followed- it's the Law." It's kind of the Inspector Javert of morality. Incidentally, Javert lets Jean Valjean go to save his adopted daughter- and Javert who is the strictest "Law must be followed" guy ever, commits suicide over it because he broke the law! Lawful Evil is "Laws help me gain power over others" so they exploit the loopholes in the law and lean on the letter of the law until it groans in protest- because Laws are necessary, but also can help you screw people over.
Chaotic, again, is more towards freedom. Personal morality over what most people think is universal. Chaotic Good ignores laws that are bad- he won't follow them while trying to change them for the better, he'll just ignore it as if it isn't there in order to do good as he sees it. (Again, Robin Hood and Batman being the alignment exemplars in this. Robin Hood commits theft to help people survive (Money from the Nasty Rich and Venial tax collectors and Deer from the King and Nobles Forest to feed people who are hungry.) While Batman commits multiple crimes to bring down people the Police cannot catch/touch. Both feel they are completely justified in this. Neither care they are breaking the law so long as more Good is done in consequence. And neither are troubled by breaking these laws.
Honestly I wish they did away with the whole thing. People and the characters they create are too complex to fit into any 9 simple alignment archetypes.
Yes, the AD&D Player's Handbook gives very contrasting beliefs, a Lawful character in its example does not believe that chaos exists, and a Chaotic character believes the very opposite, with only Neutrality espousing the view that both have their place (and in this showing that there are a variety of points along the "triangle" it describes).
Even there, in the same paragraph as it describes philosophical Law, however, it shows the exact same differences I have described: "For less philosophical types, they believe in following laws". One believes in acting within orderly structures, patterns of behaviour; the other does not.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that the *examples* of alignments the book present were laid out in such a way as to pretend to be universal, whereas they are in fact laser focused. A hermit who shuns society and believes that the key to enlightenment is isolation and a life practised in strict meditation and diet, with no thoughts given to simple morality is not Chaotic Neutral, they are still definitely Lawful Neutral, even though they have rejected society and its laws.
It's important to remember that individuals aren't robots defined by simple programming rules and nothing else, and generally a lot more important to read the Law Neutrality and Chaos section to understand the building blocks of D&D morality than it is the Alignment Combination examples to see what the writers made out of those blocks.