TheRPGSite

What, to you, would be the exemplar of a Lawful Evil character?

What is the best example for you in literature, media, or RPGs?

The Lawful part implies a belief in rules, order, even bureaucracy. A person who does his acts not randomly or capriciously but with a larger goal in mind. That larger goal might be an evil one, from our perspective, but it is a goal attained by working within a system of some sort. You can usually trust a Lawful character to behave in certain ways, to have limits.

Examples:

Star Wars has three obvious examples: Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine and Grand Moff Tarkin.

Colonel Jessup, A Few Good Men

A lawyer who defends his client's shady business or mob activities (presuming the lawyer knows there is something bad going on.) Tom Hagen of The Godfather. The opposing lawyers in Erin Brockovich and The Rainmaker (although I haven't seen that one in a long while, I could be wrong about it.)

Satan is usually portrayed as law-abiding and contract-honoring.

Soldiers who slaughter civilians in the name of their nation or tribe can be portrayed as LE.

Bernie Madoff could be considered LE, if sociopathy has its lawful aspects.

Darth Vader.  Follows a master and the Force.  Not above deceit to get what he wants, but respects a hierarchy and a power greater than himself.

D&D usually describes Lawful evil types as a sort of "might makes right" ideal. They will oppress and enslave those weaker than they. But uphold laws and ideals.

They are probably the only "evil" alignment you can more or less safely adventure with and not expect them to arbitrarily, or deliberately kill you in your sleep.

I cannot think of any from the D&D books that is really exemplar because depending on the writer they may act more like chaotic evil or neutral evil.

Probably Venger is the closest. He rules in an orderly manner, he will keep his word when given. But will take advantage of any sign of weakness and respects shows of strength. Lord Soth is another. He never came across as arbitrarily evil.

Strahd might be another. Though I know the least of him. He comes across as orderly and honourable, but on his terms.

I've heard Vader cast as Lawful Neutral.

After all, a LN character will also carry out unsavory laws if they think it is the best way to establish order.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837717I've heard Vader cast as Lawful Neutral.

After all, a LN character will also carry out unsavory laws if they think it is the best way to establish order.

I dunno, I think Vader really is LE all the way. LN will certainly do unsavory things, but still has reluctance to commit evil acts. Vader did some youngling-chopping that is well into E territory. An N character (again, in my opinion, since I seem to be followed by folks that simply say the opposite of whatever I say) would have at least flinched a little: "Isn't there a better way? I mean, c'mon, we could at least try to turn the 5 year olds to the dark side first, right? Maybe sell them into slavery instead?"

I really think, as others do here, that Star Wars villains really epitomize the LE mindset: order is important for the best of all, the individual is irrelevant.

Quote from: Doom;837718I dunno, I think Vader really is LE all the way. LN will certainly do unsavory things, but still has reluctance to commit evil acts. Vader did some youngling-chopping that is well into E territory. An N character (again, in my opinion, since I seem to be followed by folks that simply say the opposite of whatever I say) would have at least flinched a little: "Isn't there a better way? I mean, c'mon, we could at least try to turn the 5 year olds to the dark side first, right? Maybe sell them into slavery instead?"

I really think, as others do here, that Star Wars villains really epitomize the LE mindset: order is important for the best of all, the individual is irrelevant.

The argument made is that Anakin was basically a different character and different alignment. He was fighting for things. But then everything he ever cared about burned away and he was left an empty husk of a man that only followed the Emperor's orders. At that point becoming LN because he didn't care about anything personally, he just followed his function like a machine.

Lawful Evil = Hitler - took control of the means of government and honed those means to a level of ruthless efficiency. Actually looked for the most efficient and cost effective way to commit mass genicide, whilst still keeping meticulous records and saving the luggage to be sorted through later for things that would reward the war effort.

Lawful Neutral = Judge Dredd - does what the Law says if that means forbidding democracy or exiling a perfectly innocent Umpty manufacturer in to solitary confinement in deep space so be it or indeed if it means ignoring crimes and refusing to help if after his return from Luna One on secondment he had not yet been officially sworn back in as a Mega City One Judge.

Lawful Good = Captain America - obeys the rules and the hierarchy of command unless that hierarchy is acting against the greater good in which case he will take steps to rectify that imbalance whilst at the same time doing so in a structured and well ordered way that has its own hierarchy and strict code.

I personally see Darth Vader as LE, and Hitler as CE. The latter was not only evil, but did things that were absurd and only destructive for its own sake (e.g. odious genocide that doesn't make sense except maybe as an excuse to steal some money, though I don't think that was the primary intent; wanting to destroy Paris before the US soldiers arrive; wanting to punish the German populations with death when war was lost against the US and the Russians; etc.).

Quote from: Turanil;837735I personally see Darth Vader as LE, and Hitler as CE. The latter was not only evil, but did things that were absurd and only destructive for its own sake (e.g. odious genocide that doesn't make sense except maybe as an excuse to steal some money, though I don't think that was the primary intent; wanting to destroy Paris before the US soldiers arrive; wanting to punish the German populations with death when war was lost against the US and the Russians; etc.).

Hmmm.. can't see that. Hitler does crazy stuff towards the end maybe but its more evil than crazy. Killing all the Jews isn't crazy if you think them racially inferior and deserving of death. It's evil sure and it was done so systematically.
I think a Chaotic Evil leaver wouldn't be able to run a  complex government structure organize a successful military campaign etc.
Chaotic Evil leads to Anarchy. So I suspect Somalia if full of CE warlords who never get any higher because they can't organize.
Compare Nazi Germany to Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge. You still have mass genocide, you still have totalitarian state but the genocide is random the state has no organization so it fails to improve the lot of the people that side with it and every man for themselves is the only option for people embeded in the regime. Next result country is a disaster and the regime lasts 4 years.

As for Vader its no accident that the Empire are based on Nazis with Stormtroopers, crisp uniforms and a military dictatorship.

Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't be a government leader or a warlord. After all, CE loves to use force to get what it wants and what's more forceful than having an entire legion at your command.

The difference is CE uses the organization as just a means to an end whereas the LE guy actually believes in the structure.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837740Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't be a government leader or a warlord. After all, CE loves to use force to get what it wants and what's more forceful than having an entire legion at your command.

The difference is CE uses the organization as just a means to an end whereas the LE guy actually believes in the structure.

I think it means you can't be a very good one.

Governments needs process and procedures to operate a CE guy won't implement them. They have no interest. Their whole system will work on patronage and fear. The strong prey on the weak etc.
A warlord might prosper for a while but they won't be able to support a large empire because they have no system.

So I can see the leader of a group of bandits being CE. I can even see those bandits become an army and winning battles but as soon as the battles stop the army will eat itself and anarchy.

Quote from: Turanil;837735I personally see Darth Vader as LE, and Hitler as CE.

Rather than Hitler as an example of LE I'd nominate Adolf ' just doing my job' Eichmann. With him the E is tied more closely to the L than I think it is with Hitler, who was fine with using Chaotic means to reach his goals.
That has me thinking there are some fine LE characters in Kafka's stories as well.

Didn't Darth Vader suggest to Luke that they could overthrow the Emperor? Would that lessen his L levels?

King Claudius...I think he pretty much exemplifies LE.

Dirty Harry, Jack Bauer, and most of the other tough cop characters.

In contrast, vengeance killers like Charles Bronson's character in Death Wish are CE.

Dirty Harry? Lawful Evil?

He's Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good if anything.

Quote from: RPGPundit;837710What, to you, would be the exemplar of a Lawful Evil character?

What is the best example for you in literature, media, or RPGs?

nurse ratched from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837797Dirty Harry? Lawful Evil?

He's Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good if anything.

Under the "modern" interpretation of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, perhaps.

But under the old interpretation, being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is the classic definition of Lawful Evil.

Quote from: Simlasa;837744Rather than Hitler as an example of LE I'd nominate Adolf ' just doing my job' Eichmann. With him the E is tied more closely to the L than I think it is with Hitler, who was fine with using Chaotic means to reach his goals.
That has me thinking there are some fine LE characters in Kafka's stories as well.

Didn't Darth Vader suggest to Luke that they could overthrow the Emperor? Would that lessen his L levels?

I think it just ups his E stat and does not lower the L stat. Is that a thing?

Vadar didn't seem to be inclined at all to change the rigid law part of the Empire that kept control over everything and promoted the evil. If anything, he was looking to improve that power structure by installing himself as Emporer and his Son as Sith Lord.

And I don't think you Lawful Evil rules out backstabbing, I think that is baked into the Evil part. There are going to be people in the organization looking for advancement but not necessarily tear down the power structure.

Isn't alignment something that is in flux anyway? So, one act might move the needle in one direction, but not change the alignment.

Quote from: talysman;837799Under the "modern" interpretation of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, perhaps.

But under the old interpretation, being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is the classic definition of Lawful Evil.

Uh, no...have you ever actually watched the movies?

In Dirty Harry, he is very much LG, with NG tendencies. Only toward the end of the movie, realizing the system he supports has failed, does he step over the line. When he throws away his badge, he straddles NG/CG I'd think. The mayor and police chief are pretty much LN in all respects, as they're more interested in upholding the law over anything else. Harry is more concerned in doing good and protecting people, and feels the law is a straightjacket. He might actually be LG in the classical sense, having a greater sense of justice than the law allows. He doesn't ascribe to a "greater good" in the utilitarian way; he only cares about individual rights.

Magnum Force, he has drifted back to LG and directly opposes a LE group of officers who *do* resort to any means to uphold some sort of utopian ideal of "greater good". The distinction is pretty clear as to Harry's notions of justice and good when put in opposition with Briggs and his cronies.

RE: Death Wish, my buddy and I watched all of them in succession one night. I had already seen the first two, but never III-V. In I, Kersey is a law-abiding citizen who pretty much becomes CG due to his use of force. In II, he starts to move to CN, and in III - V, he's just an outright murderer...honestly, I can't even believe I was able to watch the rest of them because they got pretty idiotic, but the alcohol probably helped a lot.

Quote from: RPGPundit;837710What, to you, would be the exemplar of a Lawful Evil character?

What is the best example for you in literature, media, or RPGs?

Tywin Lannister, the quintessential lawful evil.

No one yet posted the Church Lady from SNL saying, "perhaps... Satan?"

I am dissapoint. :mad:

Quote from: Brad;837803Uh, no...have you ever actually watched the movies?

It's been a really long time, and perhaps I missed parts, but it is my recollection that Dirty Harry is willing to take extreme measures early on (threats of violence, torturing Scorpio to get information) to protect the city. The movie is about him being pushed to even greater extremes, but the seeds were always there. He was always Lawful Evil.

Likewise, Death Wish has a guy willing to use force to get vengeance. The public sees him  as a hero, but I don'tg recall if he ever expressed that he was doing it for the greater good or his own personal reasons, or how nuanced that distinction may have been, so I call him Chaotic Evil. Perhaps the story is about him starting Ce and becoming LE? Again, far too long ago, and perhaps I didn't see the end of the movie. Just about all I remember was the rape scene that started it all.

I have seen a lot of other action moves, and whether or not my recollections of Dirty Harry and Death Wish are correct, the vast majority of action heroes fall into those two archetypes: hero willing to "do what it takes" to protect society (Lawful Evil) or loner out for revenge or to protect just his friends and family (Chaotic Evil.) Occasionally, there's a critical moment where the hero actually reaches a boundary he won't cross: can't kill a villain in cold blood, decides beating up the bad guy doesn't really solve the problem, etc. I suppose you could call that a turning point where the hero chooses Lawful/Chaotic Good over Lawful/Chaotic Evil. But I think in most cases, it's more like "I'm  notg *that* evil!"

I think there's an argument to be made that a very large number of leaders and cultures are either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. Most just vary on how "evil" they are.

The more chaotic you are, the less likely you are going to limit yourself to what is allowed under the law, or operate within whatever political framework exists. Caligula is a great example of Chaotic Evil, and he was tolerated for about four years or so.

Even in a society that's made up of Chaotic Goods (like Elves), they have laws and traditions that are strictly adhered to, and may allow or require "evil" penalties like torture or execution - so its questionable just how "chaotic and good" they can be, say, in a tightly knit elven kingdom. It does explain small wandering bands of elves brought together by friendship or similar interests.

Quote from: RPGPundit;837710What, to you, would be the exemplar of a Lawful Evil character?

What is the best example for you in literature, media, or RPGs?

Don Corleone and Michael Corleone from The Godfather are the quintessential Lawful Evil characters in media.  Sonny and Fredo were CN with strong Evil tendencies.

Quote from: Brad;837803Uh, no...have you ever actually watched the movies?

In Dirty Harry, he is very much LG, with NG tendencies. Only toward the end of the movie, realizing the system he supports has failed, does he step over the line. When he throws away his badge, he straddles NG/CG I'd think. The mayor and police chief are pretty much LN in all respects, as they're more interested in upholding the law over anything else. Harry is more concerned in doing good and protecting people, and feels the law is a straightjacket. He might actually be LG in the classical sense, having a greater sense of justice than the law allows. He doesn't ascribe to a "greater good" in the utilitarian way; he only cares about individual rights.

Magnum Force, he has drifted back to LG and directly opposes a LE group of officers who *do* resort to any means to uphold some sort of utopian ideal of "greater good". The distinction is pretty clear as to Harry's notions of justice and good when put in opposition with Briggs and his cronies.

RE: Death Wish, my buddy and I watched all of them in succession one night. I had already seen the first two, but never III-V. In I, Kersey is a law-abiding citizen who pretty much becomes CG due to his use of force. In II, he starts to move to CN, and in III - V, he's just an outright murderer...honestly, I can't even believe I was able to watch the rest of them because they got pretty idiotic, but the alcohol probably helped a lot.

In Magnum Force, Harry Callahan is given the opportunity to join a departmental death-squad, run by a judge who would decide who lives and who dies and he (Harry) laid it out pretty well where he stood (Lawful Good):

QuoteAfter the raid, the three remaining renegade cops, sitting on their bikes, confront Callahan in his garage complex. When Harry tells them they've killed a dozen people and asks what they're going to do next week, Davis cold-bloodedly replies, "Kill a dozen more". They present Callahan with a veiled ultimatum to join their organization saying, "Either you're for us or you're against us;" he responds, "I'm afraid you've misjudged me."

The Empire, Nazi Germany, hell even Rome under some regimes - L/E

Dirty Harry had some definite Neutral tendencies I think.  Good guys don't torture for information.  Once you get into End Justifies the Means, you've edged to or across the Neutral line.  "What would Captain America do?" is a pretty good standard for Lawful Good, generally.

Twyin Lanister I would argue isn't Lawful at all.  Sure he knows the laws backwards and forwards and knows how to play the Game of Thrones, but he's willing to throw any and all laws and customs out the window in defense of his family.  He'll send The Mountain to rape, torture and murder the people of the Riverlands, he'll conspire with Walder Frey to commit the atrocity of the Red Wedding, he'll have the Mountain kill the babies of Elia Dorne because Doran Martell got Elia married to Rhaegar instead of Cersei.  He's a monster who cares only for Lanister Power.  He's Lawful only if the Lanister wishes are the only Law.  He'll obey a king...or not, depending on the situation.  He basically does whatever the fuck he feels like.

However, I'm not sure about the Evil part either.  I mean sure he will do anything to anyone, but there's not much evidence that he enjoys any of it.  He might be a form of True Neutral - capable of anything, driven only by logic and cunning.

Quote from: talysman;837815It's been a really long time, and perhaps I missed parts, but it is my recollection that Dirty Harry is willing to take extreme measures early on (threats of violence, torturing Scorpio to get information) to protect the city. The movie is about him being pushed to even greater extremes, but the seeds were always there. He was always Lawful Evil.

Likewise, Death Wish has a guy willing to use force to get vengeance. The public sees him  as a hero, but I don'tg recall if he ever expressed that he was doing it for the greater good or his own personal reasons, or how nuanced that distinction may have been, so I call him Chaotic Evil. Perhaps the story is about him starting Ce and becoming LE? Again, far too long ago, and perhaps I didn't see the end of the movie. Just about all I remember was the rape scene that started it all.

Definitely not early on...if anything, he is beyond restrained given his own feelings on the matter and tries to bring Scorpio in legally. He resorts to torture after the girl is kidnapped, and specifically to save her life. That's LE to you?

I think this is (yet again) another good argument for NOT using D&D-style alignments to pigeonhole anyone.

Even Lawful people have to be not Lawful sometimes, right. I mean otherwise you're a robot or a deity.

It just depends how often and what for.

Hard to distinguish is Chaotic Good from Chaotic Neutral because Chaotic Neutral is normally where you put people like that GoT guy. But Chaotic Good likes to do "whatever it takes" too.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;837818Don Corleone and Michael Corleone from The Godfather

Contrasted with the thugs on The Sopranos who seem to me to be Chaotic Evil deluding itself that it's Lawful... they give lip-service to various codes and alliances and 'honor' but it all drops away the moment it becomes inconvenient or stands in the way of getting what they want.

Generally I'm with Brad though... D&D alignments aren't all that useful beyond a simplistic definition of character and motivation... sometimes.

The Daleks.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;837805Tywin Lannister, the quintessential lawful evil.

That would be my recent example.

JG

Quote from: Brad;837829Definitely not early on...if anything, he is beyond restrained given his own feelings on the matter and tries to bring Scorpio in legally. He resorts to torture after the girl is kidnapped, and specifically to save her life. That's LE to you?

Definitely Lawful  Evil to me. In fact, "but it saves lives" seems to me to be the quintessential Lawful Evil catchphrase. The essence of Lawful Evil is that they are willing to let some people suffer or even die for the good of the many. Compare to Lawful Good, where someone is willing to sacrifice themselves to save others.

Of course, movies and TV shows are bad for alignment discussions, because although you can classify individual acts as one alignment or another, characters in a story are supposed to change. The whole point of the story is the moment of decision where the character turns bad or turns good.

Might as well throw an alignment question I was pondering in here.

Let's say a PC captures a surrendered enemy that they were fighting. He promises to let him go if the enemy talks about his organization's plans. After doing so, the party realizes the enemy's friends are entering the area to rescue their captured comrade. So the PC slits the enemy's throat on the reasoning that it saves them from the chance that the enemy gets freed and helps in the battle.

The same PC was involved in another situation where he adopted a goblin as his pet and clothed and fed it, paid it gold, basically brought it around like a member of the party. Then one day when a monster was threatening another PC, he decapitated the goblin and fed the body to the monster to help his fellow party member escape.

A third situation involved capturing a goblin and tricking it into thinking it was being freed before chopping off a leg and leaving it as bait for an Owlbear that might have come after them instead.

The PC is Lawful Neutral. Is this Lawful Neutral? His reasoning is that it saves lives, so the discussion made me think about it.

That is not even lawful.  I put that guy into neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Quote from: Brad;837829I think this is (yet again) another good argument for NOT using D&D-style alignments to pigeonhole anyone.

I find many morality systems in rpgs to be completely horrible.  There is a reason why there are other RPGs avoid that none sense.

Quote from: talysman;837977Definitely Lawful  Evil to me. In fact, "but it saves lives" seems to me to be the quintessential Lawful Evil catchphrase. The essence of Lawful Evil is that they are willing to let some people suffer or even die for the good of the many. Compare to Lawful Good, where someone is willing to sacrifice themselves to save others.

Don't want to split hairs here, but in this *specific* instance, his actions have absolutely zero to do with the "good of the many". In fact, he never ever says anything remotely utilitarian in outlook; it is all specifically related to the intrinsic value of human life.

So, if LE = "good of the many", Dirty Harry is directly opposite of that. He does, in fact, sacrifice himself at the end of the movie to save the kids on the bus...his career, possible incarceration, etc. He does what must be done simply because he feels it is the right thing to do, not because it promotes some utilitarian ideal. You could argue it's definitely non-lawful (obviously), but evil? Whatever.

LE, from how it's posited by yourself, means promoting very lawful behavior to do whatever you want, under the guise of "helping everyone". Dirty Harry frequently breaks whatever laws he feels are unjust, to protect individual life.

Quote from: Brad;837991Dirty Harry frequently breaks whatever laws he feels are unjust, to protect individual life.

The Dirty Harry films are a product of their time. Harry is depicted as the lone knight fighting within and often against a system which has been bent and broken to accommodate the rights of the criminals instead of protecting the rights of the ordinary, law-abiding citizens. It harkens back to many of the noir heroes during and after Prohibition. Harry is not too dissimilar to Eastwood's man with no name role in A Fist Full of Dollars. Lawful isn't really a very useful descriptor when the genre includes a justice system which is outright corrupt or wholly inadequate to deal with the antagonist(s) in the film.

Doctor Doom.  He's a harsh but fair ruler, but his sense of contempt for the rest of humanity allows him to be able to do morally reprehensible acts, simply because he believes he is always right.

Dirty Harry is C/G(n) or N/G(n).

He could give two shits about "The Law".  He operates according to his own personal code.  Any limits on his behavior are self-imposed.  If he does what the system wants, it's because he has to, not because he supports the system.

His personal code is basically doing what he thinks is right, and breaking laws if he thinks he needs to.  Classic Chaotic behavior.  Chaotic is not schizophrenic.

Quote from: talysman;837799Under the "modern" interpretation of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, perhaps.

But under the old interpretation, being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is the classic definition of Lawful Evil.

The old 'interpretation' they were nothing more than Football (American or otherwise) Jerseys you wore to denote what 'team' you were on.  It never actually meant anything beyond that.

3.x is the first place in D&D in which they tried to define alignment outside of absolutes and copying Moorcock's Law and Chaos axis of existence.

Quote from: CRKrueger;838059Dirty Harry is C/G(n) or N/G(n).

He could give two shits about "The Law".  He operates according to his own personal code.  Any limits on his behavior are self-imposed.  If he does what the system wants, it's because he has to, not because he supports the system.

His personal code is basically doing what he thinks is right, and breaking laws if he thinks he needs to.  Classic Chaotic behavior.  Chaotic is not schizophrenic.

Actually, if you have a code you follow and don't break, that puts you on the Lawful side of the scale.  If your code is beneficial to others, then it's good.

Being Lawful (after 3.x) is not about following the current laws of the city/kingdom, it's about having a personal code you're not willing to break.

Now, if you're willing to compromise...  Here's how I do it, and I'm not saying anyone else does it the same, or should, but:

If you bend the situation to your code, you're likely lawful.

If you bend the code to the situation, you're likely neutral.

If you react to the situation, rather than follow any set precedents, you're likely chaotic.

Quote from: CRKrueger;838059Dirty Harry is C/G(n) or N/G(n).

He's Justice Good, just like Batman. Lawful/Chaotic really doesn't make a lot of sense in Real Life because, like Christopher Brady states, those concepts actually refer to Moorcock's cosmology.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838060Actually, if you have a code you follow and don't break, that puts you on the Lawful side of the scale.

If you have a code that you regularly break, you don't have a code.  

QuoteNow, if you're willing to compromise...  Here's how I do it, and I'm not saying anyone else does it the same, or should, but:

If you bend the situation to your code, you're likely lawful.

If you bend the code to the situation, you're likely neutral.

What would be an example of bending the situation to the code vs. bending the code to the situation?

QuoteIf you react to the situation, rather than follow any set precedents, you're likely chaotic.

This sounds like chaos = random or chaos = schizophrenic.

Quote from: Brad;838062He's Justice Good, just like Batman.

Like Batman except for that does not kill thing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;837710What, to you, would be the exemplar of a Lawful Evil character?

What is the best example for you in literature, media, or RPGs?

I'd use following: Lawful is person who plays by the rules of the society while Evil means that person is ethically inclined to support only herself.

Television: Perhaps the best example of such a person as a hero is legendary Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon) who is Permanent Secretary at the Department of Administrative Affairs. While he often comes across as a proper Lawful Neutral, the times when his precious skin is the game makes it clear he is working only for himself...

Literature: Perhaps the best example of such a person as a villain is Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duke of Richelieu and of Fronsac, First Minister of France. His goals are noble and his deeds are ethically questionable but his duty to glory of France never rests as he works to make it a stronger land whether his King wants it or not...

Transplanting my answer from the "Best D&D-setting Villain" thread:

Azalin, the lich who rules the domain of Darkon in Ravenloft.

While the game material about him was already evocative, the novel King of the Dead really brought his character to (un)life for me. Brilliant, principled (albeit completely without empathy), and utterly convinced that he's right about everything, his character seethes with frustration and rage at a world that refuses to recognize that he knows what's best for it.

He still strikes me as the epitome of Lawful Evil.

Quote from: Bren;838063If you have a code that you regularly break, you don't have a code.  
What would be an example of bending the situation to the code vs. bending the code to the situation?

OK, you have a thief, caught.  But they helped the PC's take down the real bad guy, because although the thief steals, they don't actually harm anyone in an overtly damaging manner.  And this is also assuming that the society is fair and just.

Now a Lawful Good would compel the Thief to turn themselves in.  But would ask for leniency and exceptions made for reasons of the fact that the Thief helped the Heroes.  (And this is also assuming that the Heroes are vaguely law abiding.)

A Neutral Good would look the other way, allowing said thief to 'get away', and likely not mention their involvement in the apprehension of the real bad guy.

At the same time, a Samurai who follows the Anime style romanticized Bushido code (Justice for all, Duty above all, so on and so forth) who is considered Lawful Good in his land, suddenly ends up in Medieval Europe Fantasy Land, as long as he keeps to his code, is still Lawful Good, even if the rest of the world around him doesn't see it that way.

The Cartoon, Samurai Jack, the protagonist is, in my opinion, Lawful Good.

Quote from: Bren;838063This sounds like chaos = random or chaos = schizophrenic.

Going with your gut does NOT mean random or schizophrenic, it just means you react to each situation as it presents itself.  It's great for short term solutions, but you tend not to care about the long term.

A free spirit, someone who goes with the flow, remember though, the good-neutral-evil determines how you will see each situation.

Again, though, this is MY interpretation, and I do not expect anyone else to agree.  Unless you're at my D&D table, and I'd expect you to work with me for a compromise.

Dirty Harry breaking the law doesn't mean he is not LG. It's just like the old "Paladin in enemy territory." Just because the law says he shouldn't save someone doesn't mean he's not Lawful if he ignores it and does so.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838069OK, you have a thief, caught.  But they helped the PC's take down the real bad guy, because although the thief steals, they don't actually harm anyone in an overtly damaging manner.  And this is also assuming that the society is fair and just.

What was the agreement they made with the thief to get him to aid them? If it included letting the thief go, then someone who keeps their word as part of their code would let the thief go despite what the societal rule says about arresting thieves for trial. This is still following a code (a personal code), but it places or values one's personal code above societal rules, even just societal rules. Typically this is what one sees in many western heroes. Both Westerns as a genre and western European traditions that value personal power, freedom, and independence. Dirty Harry and most Western heroes e.g. pretty much any character played by John Wayne ever, value their personal, individual code over that of society, especially eastern or civilized society. One sees the same sort of individual ethic in Robert E. Howard's heroes and in Edgar Rice Burrough's heroes.

QuoteNow a Lawful Good would compel the Thief to turn themselves in.  But would ask for leniency and exceptions made for reasons of the fact that the Thief helped the Heroes.  (And this is also assuming that the Heroes are vaguely law abiding.)

In this case you are assuming that the thief helps the PCs without discussing any expectations of quid pro quo. While I agree that is possible, it isn't very foresightful of the thief not to ask for terms up front or it sounds like the thief is neutral good since they didn't make their help contingent on getting a deal thus putting the good of others over that of their own selfish ends.

A lawful character whose code includes fair payment as an element of their code would argue that turning the thief in  after accepting his help is not selfish and unfair since the "lawful good" character is accepting and using the thief's aid without recompense. Taking or accepting things from others without offering payment is one definition of selfishness not goodness. I'd argue your lawful good is more of a lawful neutral.

QuoteA Neutral Good would look the other way, allowing said thief to 'get away', and likely not mention their involvement in the apprehension of the real bad guy.

OK. I can see this as bending the societal code to fit their situation. It doesn't sound like they are bending their personal code though. That's why I am finding idea of bending the law to fit the situation when the law in question is one's own code still unclear to me.

QuoteAt the same time, a Samurai who follows the Anime style romanticized Bushido code (Justice for all, Duty above all, so on and so forth) who is considered Lawful Good in his land, suddenly ends up in Medieval Europe Fantasy Land, as long as he keeps to his code, is still Lawful Good, even if the rest of the world around him doesn't see it that way.

Haven't watched enough Samurai Jack to comment. It does seem like if he gives his word to the evil guy, he keeps his word even if the evil guy turns out to be lying.

But the fictional samurai in medieval Europe is an example of personal code vs. societal code. It isn't an example of bending the situation to fit a societal code. It's an example of a person who follows their personal code instead of following the societal rules of a society (not even their own) in which they temporarily reside. That is normal behavior in fish out of water situations. I would argue that very few people in fiction or fact subjugate their personal beliefs about right and wrong to the mores of the society they happen to be temporarily residing in. Characters in Star Trek who follow this week's version of the prime directive are supposed to do that, but it seldom happens in practice on TV.

QuoteGoing with your gut does NOT mean random or schizophrenic, it just means you react to each situation as it presents itself.  It's great for short term solutions, but you tend not to care about the long term.

You seem to be seeing going with one's gut as different than following a personal code. One who acts from one's gut ends up responding from a mixture of habit and intuition. Such a person may respond in the same way to different situations but will seldom respond in different ways to the same situation. I don't think this differentiates chaotic from neutral or even lawful. Other than intuition is not a written out set of rules, but an internal, often unconscious decision making process.

QuoteA free spirit, someone who goes with the flow, remember though, the good-neutral-evil determines how you will see each situation.

Going with the flow isn't the same as being unpredictable though. The free spirits I know in life are at least as predictable as the rules following folks that I know. Free spirits just tend not to follow the typical protestant work-ethic societal norms that most of the rest of us who were raised in the US or western Europe grew up with.

QuoteAgain, though, this is MY interpretation, and I do not expect anyone else to agree.  Unless you're at my D&D table, and I'd expect you to work with me for a compromise.

Perfectly fair. I see this as an abstract or theoretical discussion. I don't find D&D alignments particularly useful when compared to other methods of describing character.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;838078Dirty Harry breaking the law doesn't mean he is not LG. It's just like the old "Paladin in enemy territory." Just because the law says he shouldn't save someone doesn't mean he's not Lawful if he ignores it and does so.

The problem here is that different people are talking about societal laws while other people are talking about personal codes of behavior.

Now one can argue that everyone operates on a personal code of behavior, but that some peoples' personal codes are in better alignment with societal norms than are other peoples' codes. Without being clear about whether the laws are personal or societal we can't talk intelligently about Dirty Harry's behavior (or others like him).

Dirty Harry follows his own code: "Stop or catch the bad guys whatever it takes." While ignoring societal codes on due process, roughing up prisoners, rules of evidence, etc. He's also pretty cavalier about causing collateral damage so long as he stops the bad guys. (He shares that attitude with virtually every hero in any action picture.)

Hmm, people say alignment doesn't represent Real Life. So? It's not supposed to.  It's supposed to represent D&D Life where the cosmology is made up of the Great Wheel, the Inner, Outer, Astral and Ethereal Planes, etc.

Of course you can't take an Earth human and exactly assign them a strict D&D alignment. Move the character under the D&D cosmology for fun and you can.  Keeping to the premise of Alignments is kinda the point of the whole thread.

I'm actually finding this discussion rather useful. I've recently joined a Pathfinder game and I rolled up a human Paladin. I'm trying to play my character as better than "Lawful Stupid" and so far there hasn't been any big tests of his morality. The other party members did have to create reasons why he should risk life-and-limb to clean out a ruined tower out in the wilderness instead of tending to his lawyer duties in the city. I can only hope that in the future we'll come up with better reasons for my Pally to march forward.

Quote from: CRKrueger;838084Hmm, people say alignment doesn't represent Real Life. So? It's not supposed to.  It's supposed to represent D&D Life where the cosmology is made up of the Great Wheel, the Inner, Outer, Astral and Ethereal Planes, etc.

Of course you can't take an Earth human and exactly assign them a strict D&D alignment. Move the character under the D&D cosmology for fun and you can.  Keeping to the premise of Alignments is kinda the point of the whole thread.

What would change exactly if you moved them into the D&D cosmology? Like why can't you just apply that to the "real life" version.

Long time lurker, I registered just to post this.

I have always looked at the good-evil axis of the alignment spectrum as selfish to altruistic. I don't see it as how willing a character is to cause physical pain. The lawful-chaotic axis is murkier. It could be personal or societal. I haven't given it as much though as good-evil.
I think that Harry Callahan is a good example of neutral  good. He tends to follow the rules when it suits him, but he breaks them At the first sign that they are not aligned with his perception of good.

I see lawful evil as lawful selfish . The bureaucrat who never technically breaks the rules, but uses them for their own gain.

Quote from: Deadfish;838102Long time lurker, I registered just to post this.

I have always looked at the good-evil axis of the alignment spectrum as selfish to altruistic. I don't see it as how willing a character is to cause physical pain. The lawful-chaotic axis is murkier. It could be personal or societal. I haven't given it as much though as good-evil.
I think that Harry Callahan is a good example of neutral  good. He tends to follow the rules when it suits him, but he breaks them At the first sign that they are not aligned with his perception of good.

I see lawful evil as lawful selfish . The bureaucrat who never technically breaks the rules, but uses them for their own gain.

Welcome to our pain cave!

Quote from: Doughdee222;838086I'm actually finding this discussion rather useful. I've recently joined a Pathfinder game and I rolled up a human Paladin. I'm trying to play my character as better than "Lawful Stupid" and so far there hasn't been any big tests of his morality. The other party members did have to create reasons why he should risk life-and-limb to clean out a ruined tower out in the wilderness instead of tending to his lawyer duties in the city. I can only hope that in the future we'll come up with better reasons for my Pally to march forward.

All I can say is that in my personal games, I've always had my Paladins follow a code similar to chivalry and make sure they stick to it, no matter the situation, even if it hurts them, as long as it helps other people.

Going to spoiler this because it contains many pictures...but they're on point.

Spoiler

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4b/29/4a/4b294aa231d63dcc4c4bb08f92d4acf6.jpg)

(http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/lawfulneutral.jpg)

(http://orig14.deviantart.net/0f1a/f/2013/299/6/6/lawful_good_captain_america_by_4thehorde-d6rwzh1.jpg)

(http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/59735239-b8c8-42ac-8265-d832e5f46e15/91c28bd4-faa7-455f-891b-185008b3869a.jpg)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4922632297_128ee91e85_b.jpg)

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/023/e/0/chaotic_good_batman_by_4thehorde-d37wao1.jpg)

(http://orig11.deviantart.net/5c84/f/2014/052/f/2/neutral_evil_frank_underwood_by_4thehorde-d77dtah.jpg)

(http://undeadastronauts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/true-neutral.png)

(https://warriorwriters.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen-shot-2014-07-10-at-8-53-53-am.png)

Quote from: talysman;837977Definitely Lawful  Evil to me. In fact, "but it saves lives" seems to me to be the quintessential Lawful Evil catchphrase. The essence of Lawful Evil is that they are willing to let some people suffer or even die for the good of the many. Compare to Lawful Good, where someone is willing to sacrifice themselves to save others.

Of course, movies and TV shows are bad for alignment discussions, because although you can classify individual acts as one alignment or another, characters in a story are supposed to change. The whole point of the story is the moment of decision where the character turns bad or turns good.

I disagree with the harry Callahan as LE argument.  Yes, he uses violence and even kills people.  But his killing isn't wanton or capricious. He does so ONLY to protect the innocent (and perhaps to punish evildoers).   That may not seem "good" in a traditional sense; but he doe snot act out of a desire for personal gain, which is, to me, the essence of evil (even the lawful kind).  Hitler and Darth Vader wanted to make the trains and the TIE fighters run on time, but not for the good of the average citizen of the Empire.  It was more for their own aggrandizement, to satisfy their own egos. Sure we'll have order, but it will be MY order, with ME in charge. You want to benefit from my system, you toe my line.  Or you die.  Harry doesn't care about glory or personal power.  He shoots armed criminals in the act of robbing a diner or a store, protecting the patrons.  He tortures Scorpio to save the kidnap victim.  But he won't join a cold blooded death squad in Magnum Force. Solomon Kane and (perhaps overly) zealous LG clerics and Paladins do likewise.  So IMO, Dirty Harry has a "good" component to his alignment.  

Harry Callahan is also willing to disobey his superiors and deny criminals their civil rights while he does so.  Defying law and authority is the essence of chaos.  But because he doesn't do so for any personal, "evil" motive, I think CG describes him best.  

The Fetts - Jango and Boba - would typify CN.  They clearly operate outside the law, using illegal weaponry and shady underworld contacts to track down and bring in their bounties.  They'd resort to torture or intimidation of others (good or evil people, it makes no difference) to achieve their goals, and would kill anyone that got in their way (such as an authority figure/lawman like a Jedi Knight).  Thus the chaotic component.

But are they evil?  All they do, while it might not be "good", isn't necessarily done for sheer pleasure or direct advancement.  They aren't killing their superior to assume his role.  The bounties they bring in are evil, ugly criminals and "good guys" like Han Solo alike.  They don't care who they hunt, as long as there's a benefit to that hunt: the bounty.  If they could accomplish their goal without resorting to torture and murder, they's be even happier.  It makes their job easier.  They do so only in service to the goal, and only as much as is necessary.  Overkill and needless violence for its own sake are not in their ethos.  Thus the N component.  

Honorable Mercs, like the soldiers in David Cook's "Black Company" books - to whom giving their current master good and faithful service, even if it is the World conquering Archmage and his Ten Who Were Taken is paramount - strike me as LN personified.  They will serve, within a rigid command structure, valuing the order of the military unit and the service they are honor bound to render in order to fulfill their contracts. Thus, L.

But they limit that service to fighting, in a war.  They do not form civilian seeking death squads, or torture prisoners.   But since they will serve a good master or an evil one with equal fervor in that capacity, there's the N.

Lawful Evil?

Baron Harkonnen from DUNE.

The one in the books, the cunning, ruthless, sophisticated player in the game of Empire.  Not the flying pustule that Dino De Laurentis shat up onto the screen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;838110Going to spoiler this because it contains many pictures...but they're on point.

Spoiler

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4b/29/4a/4b294aa231d63dcc4c4bb08f92d4acf6.jpg)

(http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/lawfulneutral.jpg)

(http://orig14.deviantart.net/0f1a/f/2013/299/6/6/lawful_good_captain_america_by_4thehorde-d6rwzh1.jpg)

(http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/59735239-b8c8-42ac-8265-d832e5f46e15/91c28bd4-faa7-455f-891b-185008b3869a.jpg)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4094/4922632297_128ee91e85_b.jpg)

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/023/e/0/chaotic_good_batman_by_4thehorde-d37wao1.jpg)

(http://orig11.deviantart.net/5c84/f/2014/052/f/2/neutral_evil_frank_underwood_by_4thehorde-d77dtah.jpg)

(http://undeadastronauts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/true-neutral.png)

(https://warriorwriters.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen-shot-2014-07-10-at-8-53-53-am.png)

They are excellent.
I think House is interesting. He is based on Sherlock Holmes (the pun's in the name) as are a slew of consulting detectives from Patrick Jayne to Monk.
Is he true neutral only caring about defeating his enemy the disease,as he often states, or is he secretly good. Sherlock Holmes in the UK recent adaptation is constantly describing himself as a high functioning sociopath but is he really?

Quote from: Old Geezer;838132Lawful Evil?

Baron Harkonnen from DUNE.

The one in the books, the cunning, ruthless, sophisticated player in the game of Empire.  Not the flying pustule that Dino De Laurentis shat up onto the screen.

I blame David Lynch for flying pustule Harkonnen. In multiple films he has depicted moral evil as physical grotesquerie. It seems to be a thing with him.

Quote from: Brad;837991LE, from how it's posited by yourself, means promoting very lawful behavior to do whatever you want, under the guise of "helping everyone". Dirty Harry frequently breaks whatever laws he feels are unjust, to protect individual life.

Um, don't know who you're thinking of, but I didn't say anything about LE being about promoting very lawful behavior to do what you want. But perhaps that leads into...

Quote from: talysman;837799Under the "modern" interpretation of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil, perhaps.

But under the old interpretation, being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is the classic definition of Lawful Evil.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838060The old 'interpretation' they were nothing more than Football (American or otherwise) Jerseys you wore to denote what 'team' you were on.  It never actually meant anything beyond that.

No, when I distinguished the modern interprettation from an older interpretation, I was specifically referring to the interpretation on page 23 of the Dungeon Master's Guide by Gary Gygax. Chainmail had the Football Jersey interpretation. OD&D didn't specifically define alignment, although the cleric rules indirectly suggest that it was now more than just a Football Jersey approach. Anti-clerics are unable to cast healing spells or turn undead, and Lawful clerics can't cast reversed version of the beneficial spells without dire consequences.

So the 1e DMG is one of the earliest attempts to define alignment, aside from Holmes and an article or two in either Strategic Review or Dragon Magazine. I don't have either handy, but I understand they diverge significantly from the following, from the DMG:

QuoteAlignment describes the broad ethos of thinking, reasoning creatures...

Law and Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while chaos promotes the individual over the group.

Good and Evil: Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of AD&D, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesireable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.

Now, Gygax said a bunch of other things in the alignment section that I think muddies what could have been a simple, clear definition: Law and Chaos is about the group vs. the individual, while Good and Evil is about what is right vs. what your purpose is, or to put it another way, means vs. ends. That's why I said that being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is a sure sign of Lawful Evil, because they are placing the needs of the many over the right to life without suffering. Any of the dominant five alignments could save someone's life, but why and how they do it varies for each alignment. If a character saves someone's life because they are family or a close friend, that's probably Chaotic. If they save someone they don't really know, just on principal, that's Lawful. If they do so by risking their own lives, that's Good. If they do so by killing someone else, that's Evil.

And, under that definition, a lot of cop action heroes fall under Lawful Evil. I'll concede that it's been so long since I've seen Dirty Harry that I can't argue for any specific alignment for him. I don't remember most of the details. But any movie cop that threatens someone for a confession or actually inflicts pain, or who shoots or kills a crook who is not an immediate threat because hey, they might get out of jail and do it again, that cop is Lawful Evil under that definition, at least for that scene. As mentioned earlier, most movie characters can't be placed neatly into an alignment because their alignment changes as a part of their character arc.

Another example of Lawful Evil: Dr. Zaius. Since he's a supporting character, he doesn't change in either of the first two Planet of the Apes movies, so he's a good, clear example of LE: he's willing to sacrifice the human astronauts and brazenly lie just to protect ape society from what he sees as a danger.

An example of a clear Lawful Evil moment from a character who wasn't normally Lawful Evil: Giles killing Ben at the end of Season 5 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Giles knows that Ben isn't evil, isn't a danger. Glory is defeated and might not re-manifest... but maybe she will, someday. So he kills Ben, an innocent, for the good of the world.

Quote from: talysman;838234Now, Gygax said a bunch of other things in the alignment section that I think muddies what could have been a simple, clear definition: Law and Chaos is about the group vs. the individual, while Good and Evil is about what is right vs. what your purpose is, or to put it another way, means vs. ends. That's why I said that being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is a sure sign of Lawful Evil, because they are placing the needs of the many over the right to life without suffering. Any of the dominant five alignments could save someone's life, but why and how they do it varies for each alignment. If a character saves someone's life because they are family or a close friend, that's probably Chaotic. If they save someone they don't really know, just on principal, that's Lawful. If they do so by risking their own lives, that's Good. If they do so by killing someone else, that's Evil.

So in your view, Lawful Good characters cannot kill?

QuoteAnd, under that definition, a lot of cop action heroes fall under Lawful Evil.

As would traditional Lawful Good Paladins who actually hit people with their swords as hitting people with swords has a marked tendency to hurt or even kill.

This definition you are using seems flawed.

If it's just about methods, wouldn't that mean there are actually good people who'd have an Evil alignment?

Quote from: Bren;838239So in your view, Lawful Good characters cannot kill?

This is what happens when people conflate all killing with murder...

Quote from: Bren;838164I blame David Lynch for flying pustule Harkonnen. In multiple films he has depicted moral evil as physical grotesquerie. It seems to be a thing with him.

He was pretty repulsive physically in the books too (he was so immensely overweight he needed special technology to go about normally).

Harkonnen is a homosexual pedophile. "Bring me that young fellow we bought ...with the lovely eyes. Drug him well. I don't feel like wrestling."

In 1965 that's horrific enough.  In 1984, I guess Lynch needed to make him even more disgusting with heart plugs and boils (plus there might be something to the outward signs of corruption mentioned upthread).

It's similar to Dracula 1992.  Lucy of the books is a scandalous slut to the Victorian mind, but modern audiences wouldn't bat an eye, so she had to be really tarted up for a modern audience.

Quote from: Bren;838239So in your view, Lawful Good characters cannot kill?

I didn't go too much into the difference between immediate threats, but I did mention it when talking about tough cops. Killing is, technically, always evil, but we excuse people as not Evil (with a capital "E") in cases of life and death.   One guy's going to kill some people, but you could stop him by shooting him, possibly killing him? OK, you aren't evil. This means some paladins are Lawful Good, but a lot of examples I've seen posted on forums are more like Lawful Evil.

Lawful Evil is all about rationalizing killing, usually by stretching the definition of "defense". Sure, that goblin isn't killing anyone now, but he probably will at some point, because that's the way goblins are. So killing the goblin saves lives.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;838240If it's just about methods, wouldn't that mean there are actually good people who'd have an Evil alignment?

Yes, I'd say that there are good people  (lowercase) who have an Evil alignment. Or, to put it another way, Evil people can be nice people, good friends, respectful, and lead a more or less moral life  The way I see it, the alignments should be treated as broad categories of philosophy, rather than behaviors. Most of the alignment fights seem to be caused by attempts to correlate alignment to personality.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838243He was pretty repulsive physically in the books too (he was so immensely overweight he needed special technology to go about normally).

Yeah, he was really fat. But he didn't have the heart plugs and numerous boils though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;838249Harkonnen is a homosexual pedophile. "Bring me that young fellow we bought …with the lovely eyes. Drug him well. I don't feel like wrestling."

In 1965 that's horrific enough.  In 1984, I guess Lynch needed to make him even more disgusting with heart plugs and boils (plus there might be something to the outward signs of corruption mentioned upthread).

In addition to the pedophilia the Baron was sadistic, homocidal, and sociopathically manipulative (he corrupted a Suk physician and the Atreides loyal family mentat). Rather than spending screen time showing us the Baron's internal evil, Lynch made the Baron physically repulsive. It seemed cheap and lazy to me at the time. Even more so in hindsight as it reinforces the pernicious stereotype that physical attractiveness and moral goodness are correlated. But all that seems in keeping with Lynch's vision in Eraserhead and Blue Velvet.

Quote from: talysman;838251Lawful Evil is all about rationalizing killing, usually by stretching the definition of "defense".

That definition doesn't really work for me nor is it very useful for my gaming. It looks like we won't reach consensus on this point.

Quote from: Bren;838256Yeah, he was really fat. But he didn't have the heart plugs and numerous boils though.
In addition to the pedophilia the Baron was sadistic, homocidal, and sociopathically manipulative (he corrupted a Suk physician and the Atreides loyal family mentat). Rather than spending screen time showing us the Baron's internal evil, Lynch made the Baron physically repulsive. It seemed cheap and lazy to me at the time. Even more so in hindsight as it reinforces the pernicious stereotype that physical attractiveness and moral goodness are correlated. But all that seems in keeping with Lynch's vision in Eraserhead and Blue Velvet.

That definition doesn't really work for me nor is it very useful for my gaming. It looks like we won't reach consensus on this point.

I guess my point was he is physically repulsive in the books too as a reflection of his internal evil (the descriptions of him using suspensors to help his fat defy gravity always stuck with me as a key feature of thd character. I think the movie just elaborated on that for the screen. I think in the books one of the responses you are meant to have to the character is revulsion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838262I guess my point was he is physically repulsive in the books too as a reflection of his internal evil (the descriptions of him using suspensors to help his fat defy gravity always stuck with me as a key feature of thd character. I think the movie just elaborated on that for the screen. I think in the books one of the responses you are meant to have to the character is revulsion.

Sure. He is an out of control hedonist. His behavior is reminiscent of the unbridled gluttony that we read of in historically decadent Rome.

As I recall, Herbert's book focused more on the Baron's internal or moral grossness rather than on his physical grossness. The movie reverses that focus, to the detriment of the character and the story. It's similar to the movie's use of sonic key words that make for a visual and auditory Fremen super weapon instead of the subtler and less visually obvious prana-bindu training underlying the Bene Gesserit weirding way or the Fremen combat training in the harsh environment of Arrakis. I think Lynch's fascination for the physically gross and repulsive lead him to make the cinematically easy choice of showing physical rather than moral decay. But then as you can tell, I am not a fan of Lynch's oeuvre. I think he is lazy and overrated as a filmmaker.

Quote from: Bren;838263Sure. He is an out of control hedonist. His behavior is reminiscent of the unbridled gluttony that we read of in historically decadent Rome.

As I recall, Herbert's book focused more on the Baron's internal or moral grossness rather than on his physical grossness. The movie reverses that focus, to the detriment of the character and the story. It's similar to the movie's use of sonic key words that make for a visual and auditory Fremen super weapon instead of the subtler and less visually obvious prana-bindu training underlying the Bene Gesserit weirding way or the Fremen combat training in the harsh environment of Arrakis. I think Lynch's fascination for the physically gross and repulsive lead him to make the cinematically easy choice of showing physical rather than moral decay. But then as you can tell, I am not a fan of Lynch's oeuvre. I think he is lazy and overrated as a filmmaker.

I think the overall impression one gets of Harkonnen in the books is revulsion (both internal and external). Herbert basically invented a whole science fiction tech just to highlight how fat he was. When I first read the book, that really stopd out in my imagination (I remember picturing these suspensors uplifting heaping folds of human flesh). I do think there was more emphasis on the internal aspect than the external in the books, but films are a visual medium so I don't really fault the movie for how it chose to physically portray the character (and frankly those horrible overdubs of internal dialogue aren't something I wanted more of). All that said, I don't particularly care for Lynch's work, this is one of the few films of his I've seen. If you don't like Lynch, you don't like him. I just don't have an issue with body horror or using film to explore physically grotesque characters. Honestly it is one of the few things from that movie I remember, so I think he must of been doing something right there. For me the flaws in the film had a lot less to do with this sort of thing than with other elements.

Rather off topic but I agree that David Lynch is overrated as a director. Dune was a middling movie bested by the Sci-Fi channel version. Blue Velvet was interesting but not great. Mulholland Drive I could barely sit through. Inland Empire is one of the 5 worst films I've ever seen. A true test of will not to turn it off every minute.

Twin Peaks, on the other hand, I love. To me, Lynch's fame rests solely on that show. But even TP grew tiresome toward the end. Am looking forward to the new extension though.

Quote from: talysman;838234Now, Gygax said a bunch of other things in the alignment section that I think muddies what could have been a simple, clear definition: Law and Chaos is about the group vs. the individual, while Good and Evil is about what is right vs. what your purpose is, or to put it another way, means vs. ends. That's why I said that being willing to harm or kill people for the greater good is a sure sign of Lawful Evil, because they are placing the needs of the many over the right to life without suffering. Any of the dominant five alignments could save someone's life, but why and how they do it varies for each alignment. If a character saves someone's life because they are family or a close friend, that's probably Chaotic. If they save someone they don't really know, just on principal, that's Lawful. If they do so by risking their own lives, that's Good. If they do so by killing someone else, that's Evil.

I think this takes things a bit too far. If my character kills an sadistic and cruel necromancer to save someone, I just can't see that as evil. Good characters can kill, they just don't do so without good reason (and they still may be torn by the action because they are supposed to have a healthy respect for life). I can possibly see an argument that it isn't lawful good (personally I don't think this violates being lawful good, but I can see the issue it may present to some). Now if they kill someone who is innocent or merely obstructing their path toward the elimination of an evil threat, then I would say it is evil.

Quote from: Bren;838239So in your view, Lawful Good characters cannot kill?

As would traditional Lawful Good Paladins who actually hit people with their swords as hitting people with swords has a marked tendency to hurt or even kill.

This definition you are using seems flawed.

Quote from: Brad;838242This is what happens when people conflate all killing with murder...

Actually, I think it's more Saturday Morning Cartoons that some of us grew up with, that we forget that in a Medieval Fantasy, there's no actual enforceable code of law on a national level.  Not to mention that there's no prison system, which means incarceration is nigh impossible.  In fact, your personal code (should you have one) is the only thing to go by.

But a lot of us were taught that killing is wrong (and it is) but it's often the only choice the players have available.  But because there are other more visible options and choices in a more modern setting, we immediately assume that all fantasy games are the same.

Of course, that's just my perception, I could be wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838272Actually, I think it's more Saturday Morning Cartoons that some of us grew up with, that we forget that in a Medieval Fantasy, there's no actual enforceable code of law on a national level.  Not to mention that there's no prison system, which means incarceration is nigh impossible.  In fact, your personal code (should you have one) is the only thing to go by.

Medieval societies, like all societies, have behavioral norms. You are correct that a formal justice and prison system may be missing. Often the apprehension of suspected criminals was performed by the family and friends of victims and punishment might be monetary (fines or weregild), corporal (stocks, branding, maiming, hanging, beheading, or draw and quartering), slavery, or temporary or permanent exile or outlawry. And of course there were some medieval dungeons for incarceration, though I believe that was more something one did to enemies who one was holding for ransom or who it was not politically expedient to kill.

QuoteBut a lot of us were taught that killing is wrong (and it is) but it's often the only choice the players have available.

I find that killing being the only choice in any setting is usually a lack of imagination on the part of the GM and/or the players. I've also seen that in some folks' games killing is allowed to be the easiest choice by making little or no repercussion for the murder of prisoners or the failure to ever grant quarter and by making the taking of prisoners overly burdensome by turning normal opponents after their capture into Houdini like escape artists with the deadly skills of trained Ninja assassins and an unrealistic desire to harm their captors at any cost rather than being realistically afraid of the people who just kicked the captive's ass.

I think modern settings sometimes avoid this not by virtue of having a functioning criminal justice system so much as by the fact that the players recognize that turning the average bank robber or gangland thug into a professional escape artist and a deadly assassin bent on revenge as soon as he is captured is extremely silly.

Quote from: Bren;838276I think modern settings sometimes avoid this not by virtue of having a functioning criminal justice system so much as by the fact that the players recognize that turning the average bank robber or gangland thug into a professional escape artist and a deadly assassin bent on revenge as soon as he is captured is extremely silly.

And yet, sadly and anecdotally, in a lot of games, especially modern ones, it happens.  We hear stories about that all the time.

On the issue of having having the players find 'alternative' ways to resolve conflicts is how implausible it sometimes is.

I mean, you have 20 bandits, they surrendered (not likely, because they'll know what's coming, but let's go with this), cool.  Unfortunately, their camp was one week away.  Meaning a minimum of a week's march.

So, supplies, you need at least 20 people's worth of water for a minimum of 7 days.  Who gets to carry that?  Cuz, otherwise, most of the bandits are dead of thirst within 3 days.

And there's the food, assuming you don't want to starve them.  But hey, a week's won't kill them, so I guess we can leave that out.

Now, you brought them back all to the Kingdom, do you know what happens then?  Well, just about all the bandits will typically be tortured to see if they know anything of any other threat, and then executed.

But, hey, at least the PC's didn't kill them!

Quote from: Bren;838164I blame David Lynch for flying pustule Harkonnen. In multiple films he has depicted moral evil as physical grotesquerie. It seems to be a thing with him.

Lynch depicts most things as physical grotesquerie.  At least in The Elephant Man there was a reason for it.

JG

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838271I think this takes things a bit too far. If my character kills an sadistic and cruel necromancer to save someone, I just can't see that as evil. Good characters can kill, they just don't do so without good reason (and they still may be torn by the action because they are supposed to have a healthy respect for life). I can possibly see an argument that it isn't lawful good (personally I don't think this violates being lawful good, but I can see the issue it may present to some). Now if they kill someone who is innocent or merely obstructing their path toward the elimination of an evil threat, then I would say it is evil.

All this is couched within the known moral scope of the universe. Some campaign settings leave you wondering, whereas others like FR can be too clear.

My feeling is that the alignment nine-box grid needs to have each box sub-divided into four. That is, you are acting more on one axis rather than the other, but still within the realm of alignment.

A LG person from a LG society (or belief system) can be acting in a lawful way by hacking down pedo-necromancer (saving an innocent life who is in immediate danger from someone who is clearly a criminal element). It is not exactly good in itself, sure. But it was good to save an innocent life under the tenants of the LG society. That wouldn't be the case if LG character could leisurely pin the pedo-necromancer down and do him slowly with toenail clippers; if capturing is really viable option, then that would probably be both the lawful and good choice.

Quote from: talysman;838234So the 1e DMG is one of the earliest attempts to define alignment, aside from Holmes and an article or two in either Strategic Review or Dragon Magazine. I don't have either handy, but I understand they diverge significantly from the following, from the DMG

Strategic Review volume 2 number 1 has an article on "The Meaning of Law and Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons And Their Relationships to Good and Evil" by Gary Gygax; most notable to me is that it only has 5 alignments (the corners and Neutral), although recognizing gradations and showing a scatter plot of various creatures. The law-chaos axis was mostly about order versus disorder and not explicitly groups versus individuals.

Greyhawk had only law and chaos, but recommends having rules against continuing co-operation among chaotic players, so there is a little more than just the team colors effect.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838277On the issue of having having the players find 'alternative' ways to resolve conflicts is how implausible it sometimes is.

The implausible part is the assumption that the bandits are one week away from their camp and they travel without any supplies. That seems implausibly desperate of the bandits. It's almost like the GM is intentionally trying to make capturing the bandits a big pain in the ass for the PCs to encourage the PCs to kill the bandits. Which is usually what seems to happen in most of these anecdotal situations.

As for carrying the supplies once the PCs have some, the bandits do that themselves. As prisoners they aren't doing anything more useful at the moment anyway and carrying supplies helps keep them tired so they are less likely to be trouble and feeding people naturally engenders positive feelings from most of prisoners who get fed. If they are really far from the Kingdom then I have to question who they normally rob. It seems like whomever the victims are they probably live no more than a week's travel from the bandit's camp.

QuoteNow, you brought them back all to the Kingdom, do you know what happens then?  Well, just about all the bandits will typically be tortured to see if they know anything of any other threat, and then executed.

So the Kingdom is not a Lawful Good place?

The Kingdom sounds like robber baron Europe. In that case, it would make more sense to (a) try the bandits on the spot and execute sentence - the trial being an important aspect and requiring learning why these guys became bandits; after all there should be some good reason for them to turn bandit like defeat in war or tribal migrations that may be mitigating factors in their guilt, (b) disarm the bandits, take their shoes and mounts, and let them go with a stern warning to "go and sin no more" - I've seen PCs do that when they couldn't stomach turning ordinary folks over to the authorities if torture is on the agenda, or (c) recruit the bandits as troops in your PCs' band - after all if the Kingdom has a justice system like robber baron Europe then most bandits are out of work mercenaries or displaced farmers with families and the PCs have been handing out food to these guys for days now so working for the PCs probably looks pretty attractive. So have the PCs give them some work...as soldiers or settlers on the frontier.

Quote from: James Gillen;838282Lynch depicts most things as physical grotesquerie.  At least in The Elephant Man there was a reason for it.

Probably why I liked The Elephant Man better than the other Lynch films I've seen.

Quote from: talysman;838234An example of a clear Lawful Evil moment from a character who wasn't normally Lawful Evil: Giles killing Ben at the end of Season 5 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Giles knows that Ben isn't evil, isn't a danger. Glory is defeated and might not re-manifest... but maybe she will, someday. So he kills Ben, an innocent, for the good of the world.

I don't intend this as a rebuttal, but Ben was in no way innocent, having traded Dawn to Glory to be sacrificed.

Another entirely Lawful Good character is Captain Carrot of the Night's Watch.

Yet in Men at Arms ....

Carrot stepped in front of the gonne. His arm moved in a blur. There was hardly any sound.
Pray you never face a good man, Vimes thought. He'll kill you with hardly a word.
Cruces looked down. There was blood on his shirt. His right hand raised to the sword hilt protruding from his chest, and looked back up into Carrot's eyes.
"But why? You could have been ..."

So I entirely think a good man can kill for the greater good. I mean I have played a pacifist priest in a D&D game it isn't an easy route to take :)

The fantasy genre would be somewhat hollowed out if we excluded everyone from Galahad to Conan to Robin Hood to Aragorn on the basis that they were prepared to kill.

An Evil person will kill because it furthers their own agenda.

I am still struggling to identify a Neutral character. Perhaps Tarl Cabbot in Raiders of Gor where he loosed his honour and takes on the Bosk persona.
Maybe Conan though he seems to tend to good.
Joe Abercrombie's books might have some Jezal dan Luthar is a good choice as is Bayaz perhaps.

As part of an alignment discussion Logan's dozen , Threetrees, Dogman, Thunderhead, Black Dow, Forely The Weakest, Grim are an interesting take on the typical fantasy party. They have a wide range of Alignments from Threetrees who might be lawful good to Black Dow who is possibly Neutral Evil, and yet they work as a group each one having a part to play.

Logan NineFingers himself is a real quandary as he wants to be good and tries to do so but when given a chance at revenge or war rarely turns in down. So he's kind of like a guy who wants to be Good but struggles. Except when he is the Bloody Nine of course when like all good beserkers he is entirely CN. or even CE as he reveals in blood and will kill anyone friend or foe adult or child.

Quote from: Bren;838290It's almost like the GM is intentionally trying to make capturing the bandits a big pain in the ass for the PCs

Given the number of times I've heard of GMs giving excessive amounts of low value treasure (e.g., copper pieces) for no clear reason, I think you might just have stopped there.

Quoteto encourage the PCs to kill the bandits.

A lot of games seem to have a rule that antagonists who go down will automatically die of their injuries, regardless of PC actions, perhaps with enough time to question them as they die. I don't see any good reason to push players to be actively more callous; if the group doesn't want to deal with it, the better thing would be some sort of law enforcement that doesn't do the adventuring part but carries off the captives and does the appropriate paperwork.

Last D&D session, I bit the bullet and had my character escort the prisoner back to town, missing out on the next part of the adventure. So the choice could occasionally give scope for a player to live up to what the character's principles are. The DM was OK with it either way.

Quote from: Bren;838290The implausible part is the assumption that the bandits are one week away from their camp and they travel without any supplies. That seems implausibly desperate of the bandits. It's almost like the GM is intentionally trying to make capturing the bandits a big pain in the ass for the PCs to encourage the PCs to kill the bandits. Which is usually what seems to happen in most of these anecdotal situations.

As for carrying the supplies once the PCs have some, the bandits do that themselves. As prisoners they aren't doing anything more useful at the moment anyway and carrying supplies helps keep them tired so they are less likely to be trouble and feeding people naturally engenders positive feelings from most of prisoners who get fed. If they are really far from the Kingdom then I have to question who they normally rob. It seems like whomever the victims are they probably live no more than a week's travel from the bandit's camp.

Letting the bandits carrying their own supplies implies leaving their hands free.  Which means, they can escape.  Or more likely kill the PC's.

Quote from: Bren;838290So the Kingdom is not a Lawful Good place?

Ignoring that very few are,

Quote from: Bren;838290The Kingdom sounds like robber baron Europe. In that case, it would make more sense to (a) try the bandits on the spot and execute sentence - the trial being an important aspect and requiring learning why these guys became bandits; after all there should be some good reason for them to turn bandit like defeat in war or tribal migrations that may be mitigating factors in their guilt, (b) disarm the bandits, take their shoes and mounts, and let them go with a stern warning to "go and sin no more" - I've seen PCs do that when they couldn't stomach turning ordinary folks over to the authorities if torture is on the agenda, or (c) recruit the bandits as troops in your PCs' band - after all if the Kingdom has a justice system like robber baron Europe then most bandits are out of work mercenaries or displaced farmers with families and the PCs have been handing out food to these guys for days now so working for the PCs probably looks pretty attractive. So have the PCs give them some work...as soldiers or settlers on the frontier.

Uh huhn.  You seem to think that mercenaries are somehow exempt from being scummy people.  So what, that they were soldiers for some little wannabe despot's army.  They went bandit, who raped, murdered and stole, just because they were hungry that day, and decided that Kingdom A -which might even be the same kingdom they were hired to protect- was an easy plum to pick. (We'll assume that their camp had plenty of evidence of their activities.  After all, if there's anything we know from the news, is that crooks are stupid.  And I mean really effin' stupid.)

These guys are not nice people.  And you want them to go up there, and give their sob story about how daddy beat them, and society never gave them a break?  Really?

That's ignoring the fact that most Kingdoms don't have much in the way of jail space to begin with.  Which is usually reserved for political prisoners anyway.

At the end of the day, their fate will be the same, death at either the hands of the PC's or the Kingdom that was rightfully, in this case, wronged.

Now, I'm not saying all bandits are going to be outright greedy, selfish bastards, but the PC's can usually figure out which side of the Bandit/Kingdom coin they should stand on, assuming the DM/GM has done a good enough job letting them know.  Some players need a sledgehammer to get a clue, others just need something said in the 'right' way to get them suspicious of anything.

Thing is, this entire argument hinges on one single point:  Resources.

If you have a Fantasy Land that DOES have a national police force, and the ability to incarcerate a large group of the criminal element, then yes, maybe a more 'modern' approach to crime fighting might be in order.

But in a more, and I am stealing this from the D&D 4e ideal setting, 'Points of Light' style campaign, in which most kingdoms are forced to be self-contained.  Then maybe a more 'cutthroat' way to deal with bad guys.

And that's just dealing with Human opponents, I'm not even touching Orcs and Ogres and Trolls, which in MY opinion is the same thing as killing a Human.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838311Letting the bandits carrying their own supplies implies leaving their hands free.  Which means, they can escape.  Or more likely kill the PC's.



Ignoring that very few are,



Uh huhn.  You seem to think that mercenaries are somehow exempt from being scummy people.  So what, that they were soldiers for some little wannabe despot's army.  They went bandit, who raped, murdered and stole, just because they were hungry that day, and decided that Kingdom A -which might even be the same kingdom they were hired to protect- was an easy plum to pick. (We'll assume that their camp had plenty of evidence of their activities.  After all, if there's anything we know from the news, is that crooks are stupid.  And I mean really effin' stupid.)

These guys are not nice people.  And you want them to go up there, and give their sob story about how daddy beat them, and society never gave them a break?  Really?

That's ignoring the fact that most Kingdoms don't have much in the way of jail space to begin with.  Which is usually reserved for political prisoners anyway.

At the end of the day, their fate will be the same, death at either the hands of the PC's or the Kingdom that was rightfully, in this case, wronged.

Now, I'm not saying all bandits are going to be outright greedy, selfish bastards, but the PC's can usually figure out which side of the Bandit/Kingdom coin they should stand on, assuming the DM/GM has done a good enough job letting them know.  Some players need a sledgehammer to get a clue, others just need something said in the 'right' way to get them suspicious of anything.

Thing is, this entire argument hinges on one single point:  Resources.

If you have a Fantasy Land that DOES have a national police force, and the ability to incarcerate a large group of the criminal element, then yes, maybe a more 'modern' approach to crime fighting might be in order.

But in a more, and I am stealing this from the D&D 4e ideal setting, 'Points of Light' style campaign, in which most kingdoms are forced to be self-contained.  Then maybe a more 'cutthroat' way to deal with bad guys.

And that's just dealing with Human opponents, I'm not even touching Orcs and Ogres and Trolls, which in MY opinion is the same thing as killing a Human.

but you are aware of the existence of Robin Hood, The Brotherhood without Banners, The Water Margins, and of course Che Guevara :)

It is a fantasy setting after all.

Quote from: talysman;838251Lawful Evil is all about rationalizing killing, usually by stretching the definition of "defense". Sure, that goblin isn't killing anyone now, but he probably will at some point, because that's the way goblins are. So killing the goblin saves lives.

Noooo, it isn't about rationalizing killing. Remember, when Gygax was writing he was closer in time to WWII than we are to him. What he had in mind was means/ends as exemplified by the Nazis and the Final Solution. Discussions of evil at the time included dehumanization and the banality of evil, with the examples of totalitarian regimes present in everyone's minds. That's what he means by "purpose". What are you willing to do to achieve your goals? If your means include violating the rights of others in pursuit of YOUR* goals , then you are evil. Hitler was acting in pursuit of what he saw as in the best interests of greater Germany (Lawful**), but the pursuit of that purpose involved invasion and war (lebensraum) and killing anyone who didn't fit his definition of  a real person. In other words massive and systematic violations of human rights, evil.

Good is willing to act to protect the rights of others, and when acting in defense of the rights of others that may mean acting against the rights of those who violate others rights. In other words, if goblins are always willing to do harm to others if they think it might advance their goals, then they are always a threat to the life and liberty of other beings and must be dealt with. If they can be reformed, then you should try. Dirty Harry isn't evil, because he isn't violent in pursuit of his own goals, he's acting to protect the rights of others.

While I like his definition of law and chaos since it's pretty much the one I use, at least partly because it's simple and clear, I'm not so crazy about rights vs. purpose for good and evil. It's neither simple nor clear. I much prefer altruism/reciprocal altruism (or wary cooperation)/selfishness ("cheaters" in game theory). In this approach good is willing to sacrifice to help others, neutral is willing to engage in mutually beneficial exchange but is always on the lookout for "cheaters", and evil is willing to prey on the welfare of others for their own gain.

*'Your' refers to your group if lawful, subgroup if neutral, or self (and maybe at most family) if chaotic.

**This doesn't mean all Nazis were lawful. I'm sure a lot of them were opportunistic sociopaths who saw the party as a means to their own advancement, i.e. chaotic evil. Chaotic doesn't mean you won't use a group to advance your interests or your shared interests.

Long post. Lots to reply to.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;838301I don't intend this as a rebuttal, but Ben was in no way innocent, having traded Dawn to Glory to be sacrificed.

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that. Still it did give Giles' nickname of "Ripper" some teeth to it. :)

Quote from: rawma;838310A lot of games seem to have a rule that antagonists who go down will automatically die of their injuries, regardless of PC actions, perhaps with enough time to question them as they die.

I haven't seen anything that extreme. It sounds like the mirror universe of the rules on death in Golden Age Supers where no one dies even when Hulk and the villain de jour knock down entire buildings and toss busses at each other. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but it's better than using logistics and GM fiat to turn the PCs into fanatic, take-no-quarter berserkers and conscienceless murderers.

QuoteLast D&D session, I bit the bullet and had my character escort the prisoner back to town, missing out on the next part of the adventure. So the choice could occasionally give scope for a player to live up to what the character's principles are. The DM was OK with it either way.

Yes. Sometimes morals can be inconvenient. They are supposed to be occasionally inconvenient.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838311Letting the bandits carrying their own supplies implies leaving their hands free.  Which means, they can escape.  Or more likely kill the PC's.

Use backpacks or saddle bags, cut some branches to make yokes to tie their hands to and hang the baggage from, tie their necks together, hobble their feet, tie their hands and give them sacks to carry, or worst case have them carry the burdens untied but under guard.

Realistically throughout many periods in history prisoners and slaves were often just kept under guard. Defeated prisoners who aren't being shipped off to death by torture may not want to attack the guys who already defeated and killed them once, especially now that they are unarmed and unarmored.
I already mentioned that GMs who create bad guys who fanatically try to kill their captors after being defeated once are being a bit unrealistic. If the GM wants to force the PCs to have no choice but to become give enemies no quarter, and to act like fight to the death, berserk-fanatics then it's pretty silly for the GM to complain at the predictable result. of murderer PCs. It's not a big deal if the PCs are lawful evil, but I didn't think that we were assuming all the PCs and the Kingdom they came from were lawful evil.

QuoteIgnoring that very few are

In reality, sure. In a fantasy RPG, not always so much.

QuoteUh huhn.  You seem to think that mercenaries are somehow exempt from being scummy people.

No. Just that bandit does not necessarily equal fanatically vengeful, murdering rapists. IIR bandits alignment in D&D is neutral not evil. And since the bandits are robbing the torture all prisoners sadists from Kingdom A the bandits may just as likely be Robin Hood and his merry men as homicidal rapists.

QuoteThese guys are not nice people.  And you want them to go up there, and give their sob story about how daddy beat them, and society never gave them a break?  Really?

Kingdom A are torturers and sadists. Your PCs are murderers. How exactly do we know that the bandits are worse than either of them? Or even as bad? You started out with ordinary bandits. Now you want to turn them into fanatically vengeful, murdering rapists. The goal posts seem to be in motion to arrive at a predetermined result of no quarter vs. bandits.

QuoteThat's ignoring the fact that most Kingdoms don't have much in the way of jail space to begin with.  Which is usually reserved for political prisoners anyway.

I didn't ignore the political prisoner aspect of incarceration. I've already mentioned it. Political reasons and ransom were the big historical reasons for long term incarceration. Short term reasons were holding someone until you could gather a big enough crowd of the happy denizens of Kingdom A to watch the [strike]sadistic torture[/strike] just punishment of the prisoners.

QuoteAt the end of the day, their fate will be the same, death at either the hands of the PC's or the Kingdom that was rightfully, in this case, wronged.

Again, this is only because you are contriving a situation where all bandits are murdering, rapists and frequently they are fanatically vengeful, murdering rapists so that killing them like the mad dogs you've made them out to be is the only viable option.

QuoteNow, I'm not saying all bandits are going to be outright greedy, selfish bastards

Actually you said they were all murdering rapists, often fanatically vengeful murdering rapists and their "victims" are members of a society of sadistic and avid torturers. So it seems like you've changed from ordinary bandits to irredeemably heinous bandits.

QuoteThing is, this entire argument hinges on one single point:  [strike]Resources[/strike] morality.

A little editing liberty on my part, but resources tend to be what the players can envision and what the GM will allow. As I've pointed out, there are a number of solutions to the resources issue that you are ignoring.

QuoteIf you have a Fantasy Land that DOES have a national police force, and the ability to incarcerate a large group of the criminal element, then yes, maybe a more 'modern' approach to crime fighting might be in order.

I've never advocated a 'modern' approach. You are now responding to arguments I haven't made, but that you seem to have invented on your own.

QuoteBut in a more, and I am stealing this from the D&D 4e ideal setting, 'Points of Light' style campaign, in which most kingdoms are forced to be self-contained.  Then maybe a more 'cutthroat' way to deal with bad guys.

Sounds to me like you are advocating a dark ages points of darkness campaign or the worst of medieval Europe during the Hundred Years War or Early Modern Europe during the Thirty Years War but without even the vestige of a system of justice or trial.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838314but you are aware of the existence of Robin Hood, The Brotherhood without Banners, The Water Margins, and of course Che Guevara :)

It is a fantasy setting after all.

I'm aware of Robin Hood and Che, but not the other two.

Quote from: apparition13;838315I'm not so crazy about rights vs. purpose for good and evil. It's neither simple nor clear. I much prefer altruism/reciprocal altruism (or wary cooperation)/selfishness ("cheaters" in game theory). In this approach good is willing to sacrifice to help others, neutral is willing to engage in mutually beneficial exchange but is always on the lookout for "cheaters", and evil is willing to prey on the welfare of others for their own gain.

This works for me, both in games and in life.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838314but you are aware of the existence of Robin Hood, The Brotherhood without Banners, The Water Margins, and of course Che Guevara :)

It is a fantasy setting after all.

Of course.  Thing is, those people are exceedingly rare, and SHOULD BE to not lose their impact to the game and setting.

My point is that modern 'morality' loses it's ability to remain plausible in a society that doesn't have the same resources that we do.

This is in general why I lay down to the players at the start of a session what I read each alignment to be. Then let them play as they will and act how they feel the character should act.

One good example in a 5e session I DMed was James' NG Paladin at one point questioning whether or not killing a baby black dragon egg was the right thing to do. The group debated it for a bit and hit on the compromise of preserving one of the eggs and destroying the rest as they really did not have the resources to haul more than one anyhow. And they could not risk leaving the other eggs. They donated the egg they saved to a temple of good in the hopes that the dragon could be raised in a non-evil environment.

Which was to me pretty darn good playing to their alignments.

Quote from: Bren;838358*Too much stuff to reply to*

It sounds to me that you're still using moderm morality, and want that in your games.  Which to me is perfectly fine.

All I know of medieval history, especially in an era where each kingdom had it's own views on law and morality, tells me differently.  And I don't penalize my players when they don't see any other choices.  I mean, life is like that.  Something comes up, you make a choice, doesn't go so well, but at the time, you didn't have all the details so you couldn't see that there was another choice.  And sometimes, we may never find out if there really was another option.  Life is funny like that, we're not always given all the answers.

Run the games you want your way, I run them mine.

Quote from: Omega;838369This is in general why I lay down to the players at the start of a session what I read each alignment to be. Then let them play as they will and act how they feel the character should act.

One good example in a 5e session I DMed was James' NG Paladin at one point questioning whether or not killing a baby black dragon egg was the right thing to do. The group debated it for a bit and hit on the compromise of preserving one of the eggs and destroying the rest as they really did not have the resources to haul more than one anyhow. And they could not risk leaving the other eggs. They donated the egg they saved to a temple of good in the hopes that the dragon could be raised in a non-evil environment.

Which was to me pretty darn good playing to their alignments.

And, in my opinion, that's what Alignment should do, and I try to promote, it shapes how you roleplay, but not dominate or used as an excuse to be a dick.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838370It sounds to me that you're still using moderm morality, and want that in your games.

Yeah you keep saying that. For no reason that I can discern. What is it that I am saying that seems like modern morality to you?

QuoteAll I know of medieval history, especially in an era where each kingdom had it's own views on law and morality, tells me differently.

You are ignoring the ways past peoples dealt with captured opponents aside from killing them e.g. recruitment, outlawry, slavery or forced labor, maiming, or just looting and leaving them for another day.  You seem trapped by this preconception you have that the only choices are a full blown nation-state justice and penal system or kill 'em all and let the gods sort them out. That's not historically or psychologically very realistic.

QuoteAnd I don't penalize my players when they don't see any other choices.

Consequences are not penalties. If the PCs get a reputation as a take no prisoners gang of berserkers than NPCs will treat them like a gang of take no prisoners berserkers. Many will fear them, few will trust them, most will try to avoid them, and almost no one will risk antagonizing them. Pretty much the way most people would treat heavily armed killers and murderers that they haven't yet outlawed or eliminated. I don't see that as a penalty, just realistic consequences.

QuoteRun the games you want your way, I run them mine.

Yep. I'm happy with the historically semi-realistic behavior mixed with a bit of literary swashbuckling honor that we have in our early modern game. I'm fine with the NPCs varying in their moralities (some good, some bad, most somewhere in between) and with the PCs varying in their morality. I don't want to turn every game into kill or be killed dystopian survivalist horror.

Quote from: Bren;838376Yeah you keep saying that. For no reason that I can discern. What is it that I am saying that seems like modern morality to you?
You are ignoring the ways past peoples dealt with captured opponents aside from killing them e.g. recruitment, outlawry, slavery or forced labor, maiming, or just looting and leaving them for another day.  You seem trapped by this preconception you have that the only choices are a full blown nation-state justice and penal system or kill 'em all and let the gods sort them out. That's not historically or psychologically very realistic.

Outlawry, for example, creates the very bandits you are trying not to create.  Maiming is considered humane now?  Killing is evil, but forcing a man or woman (criminal they may be) to a potentially slow death by beggary (because a lot of maimed have a hard time actually doing a worthwhile job) is A-OK?  That's...  An odd view.  Slavery is considered an evil act, by D&D's moral code, you could put forced labour under that, but the issue there is, Is there labour to be acquired?  Some kingdoms have all the help they need already.  And looting them and leaving them for another day creates two consequences:  The first is more victims, in fact those bandits will likely raid the same place they got their goods in the first place again, and this time leave the victims with even less means, that's a really short sighted view.  The second, it creates enemies for the PC's which may or may not work in the DM's favour.

Quote from: Bren;838376Consequences are not penalties. If the PCs get a reputation as a take no prisoners gang of berserkers than NPCs will treat them like a gang of take no prisoners berserkers. Many will fear them, few will trust them, most will try to avoid them, and almost no one will risk antagonizing them. Pretty much the way most people would treat heavily armed killers and murderers that they haven't yet outlawed or eliminated. I don't see that as a penalty, just realistic consequences.

Wait, hold up.  HOW are they going to get a reputation for being no prisoner berserkers?  I mean, who is telling all the villagers?  There's no news system, no CNN whining about how war gets people killed...  That's a pretty extreme reaction too.  Not something most people outside of the internet do.

Let me use an example:

PC's are wandering the wilderness for ruins to loot, as they are wont to do.  They come across a bandit camp, and decide to scout it out.  They overhear most of those men recount how easy it was to raid a village two days march away.  These goons brag proudly to each other about how many of the pathetic militia they killed, how easy it was to acquire food and the women.  The PC's even find a small pen where the remaining, living women huddle together miserable and broken.

So the PC's come to the conclusion that these pigs must die.  And so they fall upon these bandits like the veritable wrath of the Gods.  They brazenly marching in and demand that they surrender, repent or whatever.  The bandits laugh and attack.  And so all the bandits die.

Then the PC's take the women, bundle and feed them, putting them on a conveniently place cart for the adventure's sake and take them back to the small village.

The Sheriff, and maybe the Headsman (if they aren't one and the same) sees them, and the women, and what do you think he'd do?

If I'm reading it right, you're saying that the first thing this man would do is clap the PC's in irons and sell them off to the mines, or whatever.  That's an extreme reaction, and an extremely unlikely one.

More than likely, this poor man has been harangued by his own people, the village he's pledged to protect, about doing something about the bandits.  Unfortunately for him, he has none of the men, nor resources to go out and deal with these bandits.  He can't call on the King, because that's at least a month away, and let's face it, a lot of nobility claimed a vast amount of territory, but rarely patrolled it unless it was tax time (and even then, book keeping was something not done all that rigorously so some places might not even show up on the meagre maps of the time), and for the most part, the villages were happy about it.

So again, what would he do when five men and women, armed to the teeth, but hauling back the village's women and girls, and these 'adventurers' are not demanding anything more than an inn or a tavern for rest before they move on?

In my campaigns, the sheriff would take them aside and thank them, talking to see what their intentions were, and offer them a small recompense for doing the job his village wanted him to do.  Probably free room and board for a little while, as they don't have gold.

And why would he thank them?  Because he takes the long view, these five people saved him from risking the life and limb of more of his villagers and not only did they bring back their lost women, they're not demanding any great reward (After all, it's likely the PC's looted the bandit camp clean anyway.)

Here's the 'funny' part, this is not the first bandit, orc, goblin, evil humanoid of choice, camp that they cleaned out.  But this little village's headman/sheriff is never going to know about those, simply because the Players are not going to brag about, they'll just keep adventuring and exploring because that's what PC's do.  And it's not like there's a news chopper following them around spying on them.

But according to what you wrote, somehow, some way, every single village they meet up with will somehow know of their deeds and immediately assume that the PC's are mass murdering sociopaths who revel in death and murder.  That's pretty 'unrealistic', even in a setting with Magic in it.

Actually, it doesn't matter if the players are Saturday Morning styled cartoon heroes, who have never killed another man, the fact that they're armed and armoured, some villages and kingdoms will assume that they're mass murdering psychos anyway, because who else would walk around with a sword, and have no allegiance to the local King/ruler?

Of course, that's another extreme reaction, which would hopefully be rare.

When I run a game, my players do things and I deal with the consequences of their actions.  I think on how each situation and how they dealt with it, creates a reaction.  And a consequence is not always a bad thing.  Wiping out that bandit camp for example, the consequence is that the village headsman thanks them for rescuing the wives, mothers and daughters of his little hamlet.

Quote from: Bren;838358I haven't seen anything that extreme. It sounds like the mirror universe of the rules on death in Golden Age Supers where no one dies even when Hulk and the villain de jour knock down entire buildings and toss busses at each other. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but it's better than using logistics and GM fiat to turn the PCs into fanatic, take-no-quarter berserkers and conscienceless murderers.

Perhaps I overstated it; I mean simply that where player characters might have the chance to stabilize after making death saving throws, or to be unconscious if their HPs end up in a certain range, the NPCs just are assumed to die once they can't continue fighting. Maybe it's just abstracting the stab-everyone-after-the-fight-just-to-be-sure thing, or maybe it's something more. I don't mean that it applies to enemies who are slept or who surrender.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838416Outlawry, for example, creates the very bandits you are trying not to create.  Maiming is considered humane now?  Killing is evil, but forcing a man or woman (criminal they may be) to a potentially slow death by beggary (because a lot of maimed have a hard time actually doing a worthwhile job) is A-OK?  That's...  An odd view.  Slavery is considered an evil act, by D&D's moral code, you could put forced labour under that, but the issue there is, Is there labour to be acquired?  Some kingdoms have all the help they need already.  And looting them and leaving them for another day creates two consequences:  The first is more victims, in fact those bandits will likely raid the same place they got their goods in the first place again, and this time leave the victims with even less means, that's a really short sighted view.  The second, it creates enemies for the PC's which may or may not work in the DM's favour.

(1) Outlawry moves the bandits to someone else’s neighborhood. Kind of like a neighborhood watch.

(2) I never said maiming was humane or A OK. I said it was practiced historically as a punishment for crime so there is precedent. And that it is less inhumane than murdering prisoners or torturing and then executing them. The two outcomes you are defending.

(3) Slavery isn’t good, but it  is less bad than murdering prisoners or torturing and then executing them.

(4) Yes letting the bandits go isn’t likely to solve the overall bandit problem though it may drive them away from this neighborhood. Which may matter if the PCs aren't wandering killers. Neither, by the way, does modern penal methods solve crime. (At a metagame level only something that changes the D&D random encounter table is going to solve the bandit problem.) Yes, letting bandits go may make enemies for the PCs, though realistically badly defeated opponents are going to be very leery about attacking the same guys who soundly defeated them when they still had the ir good weapons, armor, and shoes. Most likely soundly defeating them, disarming them, and embarrassing them by taking away their shoes creates fearful people who tell others how dangerous and scary the guys who beat them are to justify their humiliating defeat.

Historically killing people is often a very good way of creating new enemies. The family and friends of the folks you killed often want vengeance and you didn’t leave anyone alive to spread the fear about how dangerous you are and that you shouldn’t be messed with so the friends and family may think they can beat you or at least make you pay.

QuoteWait, hold up.  HOW are they going to get a reputation for being no prisoner berserkers?  I mean, who is telling all the villagers?  There's no news system, no CNN whining about how war gets people killed...  That's a pretty extreme reaction too.  Not something most people outside of the internet do.

• Eye witnesses such as local hunters, fishers, farmers, herders, and woodsmen or travelers. Basically the same people who might be victims of the bandits. After all there must be enough of them around for the bandits to prey on them or there wouldn’t be bandits.
• Locals or travelers who come across the bodies of the throat cut or beheaded prisoners the PCs leave behind.
• The friends or family of the bandits who go out looking for their missing friends or relatives and find only the many bodies or graves of their dead fellows.
• The servants or retainers of the PCs who tell stories to brag or when drinking.
• The PCs themselves who tell stories or brag when drinking.
• Any prisoners of the bandits the PCs rescued. Unless the PCs kill them too.

QuoteThe Sheriff, and maybe the Headsman (if they aren't one and the same) sees them, and the women, and what do you think he'd do?
If I'm reading it right, you're saying that the first thing this man would do is clap the PC's in irons and sell them off to the mines, or whatever.  That's an extreme reaction, and an extremely unlikely one.

No you still aren't reading me right. The PCs have demonstrated how dangerous they are. As I already said the villagers would try to placate the murderous strangers who throat slit the pleading bandits who foolishly surrender to the PCs now known as The Black Death.

QuoteIn my campaigns, the sheriff would take them aside and thank them, talking to see what their intentions were, and offer them a small recompense for doing the job his village wanted him to do.  Probably free room and board for a little while, as they don't have gold.

Of course they will offer the PCs whatever they can. Food, drink, lodging, maybe even bed partners. The PCs have already demonstrated they are way more dangerous and at least as ruthless as the bandits that have been plaguing the villagers. Of course the sheriff would thank the PCs to their face because he doesn’t want to die and, if he is a good sheriff, he doesn’t want any of his people to die and these PCs are as deadly as the plague. The rescued women were witnesses to what the PCs did to every last one of the bandits. Depending on the NPC villagers personalities, moralities, and experiences with the bandits many villagers may be truly grateful to the PCs. Nearly all of them will fear the PCs. And they will all tell stories about how deadly the PCs are. And those stories will grow in the telling.

Quote from: rawma;838417Perhaps I overstated it; I mean simply that where player characters might have the chance to stabilize after making death saving throws, or to be unconscious if their HPs end up in a certain range, the NPCs just are assumed to die once they can't continue fighting. Maybe it's just abstracting the stab-everyone-after-the-fight-just-to-be-sure thing, or maybe it's something more. I don't mean that it applies to enemies who are slept or who surrender.

Gotcha. Yeah that is a simpler and less messy solution than tracking all the details for minor NPCs. Depending on the game system and setting I've seen and done that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838277I mean, you have 20 bandits, they surrendered (not likely, because they'll know what's coming, but let's go with this), cool.  Unfortunately, their camp was one week away.  Meaning a minimum of a week's march.

So, supplies, you need at least 20 people's worth of water for a minimum of 7 days.  Who gets to carry that?  Cuz, otherwise, most of the bandits are dead of thirst within 3 days.

And there's the food, assuming you don't want to starve them.  But hey, a week's won't kill them, so I guess we can leave that out.

Now, you brought them back all to the Kingdom, do you know what happens then?  Well, just about all the bandits will typically be tortured to see if they know anything of any other threat, and then executed.

But, hey, at least the PC's didn't kill them!

It is good that criminals be punished, and the law states that the punishment for banditry is death.  So that's Lawful Good.

So you're telling me that the middle ages were brutal by our standards of today?  Yeah, no shit.  For that matter, if the bandits are caught with their loot ... "red handed"... they will simply be killed on the spot.  A Paladin will hear their confessions first, though.

The past is a foreign land, they do things differently there.

So.  The Spear-Danes in days gone by
And the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness.
We have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns.
There was Shield Sheafson, scourge of many tribes,
A wrecker of mead-benches, rampaging among foes.
This terror of the hall-troops had come far.
A foundling to start with, he would flourish later on
As his powers waxed and his worth was proved.
In the end each clan on the outlying coasts
Beyond the whale-road had to yield to him
And begin to pay tribute.  That was one good king.

So a "good king" is one who subjugates neighboring lands.

Your brother kings and monarchs of the earth
Do all expect that you should rouse yourself
As did the former lions of your blood.

Making war is what kings do.

Et cetera.

Quote from: Bren;838425the murderous strangers who throat slit the pleading bandits who foolishly surrender to the PCs now known as The Black Death.

So, everybody in medieval Europe, then?

Bandits caught with loot were killed on the spot, period.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838367Of course.  Thing is, those people are exceedingly rare, and SHOULD BE to not lose their impact to the game and setting.

My point is that modern 'morality' loses it's ability to remain plausible in a society that doesn't have the same resources that we do.

Their rarity depends on the background.
If you are in a game with an Evil king imposing their law on the local populace with ardent rigour then the chances of a few heroes banding together to make a difference is fairly high. This increases when you make the evil king a different religion race or species than the local populace.

This is particularly true in the fantasy genre.

So as with most things it all depends on setting and context.
The main job of the DM is to great a coherent believable world that is internally consistent and provides the opportunity for adventure and to populate it with inhabitants that are also internally coherent.
 
Now that might mean you adopt a medieval stance on law and order but it doesn't have to be. Fantasy doesn't need to be based on a medieval version of Law and order to make sense or be coherent. It is perfectly acceptable to have a set of modern ethics determining the law of the land just as it is acceptable to adopt the law of Leviticus or the Koran or the Aztec so long as it's coherent. In fact an interesting scenario is one in which 2 societies that perceive themselves to be both Lawful and Good have entirely different views on crime and punishment. In one cutting off a hand or imposing slavery might be seen as more merciful in another removing a man's means to make an honest living and driving him to a life of destitution and making a man a slave and thus removing him of the right to freedom which differentiates man for beasts of burden might be seen as far worse punishments especially if an after life is in the offing for those that accept justice.

It is also not required to have your alignment wheel align with what the law and morals of the land dictate. The Nazi captain that leads the clearing of the Ghetto and shoots a dozen Jewish kids as a result might well perceive himself to be doing Good work to help the fatherland just like the paladin that clears a nest of goblins. The Crusader who rapes their way through Antioch after the siege almost certainly felt they were entirely on God's side as did the American soldiers forcing themselves on French women after D-day and the Islamist bomber who took out a bunch of infidels at a bus stop. They all perceive themselves to be Good. That doesn't mean that the alignment wheel has to match their perceptions.
So the medieval kingdom that imposes slavery and death by hanging for shooting a king's deer or stealing a loaf of bread doesn't have to be "Good" in terms of your worlds actual cosmology. And when the Angels come to Earth to impose their divine justice perhaps it's the bandits who are elevated and the Justicars and Priests who are tested by divine fire :)

Quote from: rawma;838417Perhaps I overstated it; I mean simply that where player characters might have the chance to stabilize after making death saving throws, or to be unconscious if their HPs end up in a certain range, the NPCs just are assumed to die once they can't continue fighting. Maybe it's just abstracting the stab-everyone-after-the-fight-just-to-be-sure thing, or maybe it's something more. I don't mean that it applies to enemies who are slept or who surrender.

...Golden Age Supers actually killed people...  Batman used a gun...  I think Bren was thinking of Silver Age...

Quote from: Old Geezer;838427So, everybody in medieval Europe, then?

Bandits caught with loot were killed on the spot, period.

I could have sworn some of those monks, nuns, and saints didn't murder anyone. :p

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838435...Golden Age Supers actually killed people...  Batman used a gun...  I think Bren was thinking of Silver Age...

You are correct. I was thinking of Silver Age superhero rules.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838434So the medieval kingdom that imposes slavery and death by hanging for shooting a king's deer or stealing a loaf of bread doesn't have to be "Good" in terms of your worlds actual cosmology. And when the Angels come to Earth to impose their divine justice perhaps it's the bandits who are elevated and the Justicars and Priests who are tested by divine fire :)

D&D kind of messes with this notion by treating Good and Evil as capital G good and capital E evil. And the detect spells and such don't help either.

Quote from: Bren;838437I could have sworn some of those monks, nuns, and saints didn't murder anyone. :p

Some of them.  At least one priest went on trial in London for going about dressed as a nobleman, getting in an argument with somebody's squire, and killing him with a sword.

He got off by pleading clergy.

Quote from: Alzrius;838067Transplanting my answer from the "Best D&D-setting Villain" thread:

Azalin, the lich who rules the domain of Darkon in Ravenloft.

While the game material about him was already evocative, the novel King of the Dead really brought his character to (un)life for me. Brilliant, principled (albeit completely without empathy), and utterly convinced that he's right about everything, his character seethes with frustration and rage at a world that refuses to recognize that he knows what's best for it.

He still strikes me as the epitome of Lawful Evil.

This sounds about right for me.

For me if you boil LE right down to the essence it's that feeling your toddler gives you when you keep on telling him not to run around with his cup of orange juice and then spills the whole damn thing on the carpet and you just seethe because they didn't listen to you and you want to smack them. And then you tell that LE part of you mind to shut the fuck up and you go and be a good parent. But if that "why won't they listen to what's best for them" anger never goes away and neither does the desire to smack them for not complying then that's pure LE for me.

CE is more "for the lulz" taking joy out of screwing with people, even if it's people who deserve screwing with, could easily imagine "heroic" CE who loves messing with anyone who they think deserves it, while NE is more the "would sell his own mother for a cup of coffee" type, the narrowly self-interested who don't ever go out of their way to hurt people but cause massive damage nonetheless.

But in general I think having alignments stand in for personal morality is more trouble than it's worth, I prefer to have them represent, well, alignment. A person's alignment is what cosmic force they've signed up with irrespective of their personality.

Quote from: Daztur;838568This sounds about right for me.

For me if you boil LE right down to the essence it's that feeling your toddler gives you when you keep on telling him not to run around with his cup of orange juice and then spills the whole damn thing on the carpet and you just seethe because they didn't listen to you and you want to smack them. And then you tell that LE part of you mind to shut the fuck up and you go and be a good parent. But if that "why won't they listen to what's best for them" anger never goes away and neither does the desire to smack them for not complying then that's pure LE for me.

CE is more "for the lulz" taking joy out of screwing with people, even if it's people who deserve screwing with, could easily imagine "heroic" CE who loves messing with anyone who they think deserves it, while NE is more the "would sell his own mother for a cup of coffee" type, the narrowly self-interested who don't ever go out of their way to hurt people but cause massive damage nonetheless.

But in general I think having alignments stand in for personal morality is more trouble than it's worth, I prefer to have them represent, well, alignment. A person's alignment is what cosmic force they've signed up with irrespective of their personality.

Well, that would explain Elric, at any rate.

jg

Quote from: James Gillen;838585Well, that would explain Elric, at any rate.

jg

Bingo. It's usually a big pain to pay more that lip service to alignment if it means personal morality/personality and if you're just paying lip service what's the point?

For me someone like a paladin would ping good as long as his god has his back, but the bulk of adventurers would be neutral as would bandits, even vicious rapist bandits, unless they were also cultists of some evil god or somesuch.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838426It is good that criminals be punished, and the law states that the punishment for banditry is death.  So that's Lawful Good.

Geezer, I'm agreeing with you.  I'm not sure where Bren gets his history, but it's not the same English history I've read about.

Now admittedly, not all bandits are killed, but again, the biggest issue is not morality, it's resources.  Feeding, housing, keeping an eye on, most kingdoms don't have the means for any of that.  It's nice to believe in morality, but a lot of times practicality overrides it.

Now, in a Fantasy Land, it doesn't have to be that way.  Run the game your way.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838614I'm not sure where Bren gets his history, but it's not the same English history I've read about.

Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

I do realize some roleplayers like kill them all as a solution either because it simplifies the game for them or because they are used to it from CRPGs and video games and just don't know any better. You seem like you fall in the former group but just aren't willing to admit your preference, so you hide it behind your erroneous assumptions about lack of resources mandating a take no prisoners attitude.

Quote from: Bren;838638Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

I do realize some roleplayers like kill them all as a solution either because it simplifies the game for them or because they are used to it from CRPGs and video games and just don't know any better. You seem like you fall in the former group but just aren't willing to admit your preference, so you hide it behind your erroneous assumptions about lack of resources mandating a take no prisoners attitude.

History can inform your decision but unless you are playing a historical RPG you shouldn't allow it to dictate everything (lets be honest any D&D game with magic especailly cantrip type magic has no relationship to history anyway). What plays best and what is internally consistent with the world is all that matters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838641History can inform your decision but unless you are playing a historical RPG you shouldn't allow it to dictate everything (lets be honest any D&D game with magic especailly cantrip type magic has no relationship to history anyway). What plays best and what is internally consistent with the world is all that matters.

Sure. I don't think I've said otherwise. If I did, that wasn't my intent.

Quote from: Bren;838638Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

I do realize some roleplayers like kill them all as a solution either because it simplifies the game for them or because they are used to it from CRPGs and video games and just don't know any better. You seem like you fall in the former group but just aren't willing to admit your preference, so you hide it behind your erroneous assumptions about lack of resources mandating a take no prisoners attitude.

Speaking only for myself, most of my studies of the medieval period have concentrated on England and France so that's my strongest influence.

My point is twofold; first, medieval justice was pretty fuckin' brutal by our standards, and secondly, people back then thought differently.

I am frankly mostly trying to get people to think about how maybe their D&D characters wouldn't think like early 21st Century Americans (or whatever).  I have always been annoyed by what I call "Renaissace Faire with Magicke" fantasy; people have thoroughly modern attitudes, speech, and mannerisms in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.  Turning the "City Watch" into a modern police force is a prime example.

I expect my 14th century French D&D Paladin to act differently from my Green Lantern.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838519Some of them.  At least one priest went on trial in London for going about dressed as a nobleman, getting in an argument with somebody's squire, and killing him with a sword.

He got off by pleading clergy.

I think I remember this one, or a pretty similar one. Wasn't the dispute over their mistresses, or am I mixing it with another occasion of a fighting priest:D?
(I don't see how this relates to Good people. Killing a man over a dispute wasn't the expected, default option in any age I've studied. Resolving the dispute was.
Killing a man over a dispute still happens today, cue biker bars. Just like before, we don't label those people as Capital G Good. Maybe people had a more relaxed attitude towards it if it was a matter of honour, but killing still wasn't the default reaction, just a more likely one.
After all the clergyman in your example was judged, too, if he had to plead anything. Someone in his situation who wasn't a clergyman couldn't plead clergy. Stands to reason the same someone might have been successfully prosecuted).

Quote from: Bren;838425No you still aren't reading me right. The PCs have demonstrated how dangerous they are. As I already said the villagers would try to placate the murderous strangers who throat slit the pleading bandits who foolishly surrender to the PCs now known as The Black Death.

Of course they will offer the PCs whatever they can. Food, drink, lodging, maybe even bed partners. The PCs have already demonstrated they are way more dangerous and at least as ruthless as the bandits that have been plaguing the villagers. Of course the sheriff would thank the PCs to their face because he doesn't want to die and, if he is a good sheriff, he doesn't want any of his people to die and these PCs are as deadly as the plague. The rescued women were witnesses to what the PCs did to every last one of the bandits. Depending on the NPC villagers personalities, moralities, and experiences with the bandits many villagers may be truly grateful to the PCs. Nearly all of them will fear the PCs. And they will all tell stories about how deadly the PCs are. And those stories will grow in the telling.

Quote from: Bren;838638Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

None of these contradicts a "period" attitude on the part of the NPCs. In fact, it would be the "period" attitude for many if not most places:).
Of course, different periods and different lands would differ;).

Quote from: Old Geezer;838658Speaking only for myself, most of my studies of the medieval period have concentrated on England and France so that's my strongest influence.

My point is twofold; first, medieval justice was pretty fuckin' brutal by our standards, and secondly, people back then thought differently.

(snipped)

I expect my 14th century French D&D Paladin to act differently from my Green Lantern.

Ahem, the Swedish foreign affairs minister recently used "Medieval punishment" as a derogatory term (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/swedens-foreign-minister-unrepentant-over-saudi-flogging-row) towards another country's judicial system. Something being lawful doesn't make it necessarily a Good thing.
As CBrady stated, things back then were dictated by resource scarcity more than anything. I wouldn't use them as an example of Good system, though. A Neutral one at best, I'd say.
And yes, the same distinction might be lost on your 14th century knight.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838658I am frankly mostly trying to get people to think about how maybe their D&D characters wouldn't think like early 21st Century Americans (or whatever).  I have always been annoyed by what I call "Renaissace Faire with Magicke" fantasy; people have thoroughly modern attitudes, speech, and mannerisms in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.  Turning the "City Watch" into a modern police force is a prime example.

Speaking only for myself, I hate "Ren Faire with Magicke" settings. Fun fact, this is is exactly why I had to mostly avoid D&D and D&D-alike systems for the first decade of my playing and running games.
(Most people around here had come to associate the system with a setting where people seem to be our contemporaries in a pseudo medieval fantasy world, at least where attitudes were concerned.
In the last several years, I no longer needed to do that - but then the GMs I play with lately wouldn't touch D&D with a 10-foot pole. So my research whether the mechanics are really tied to the implied setting remains inconclusive).
Still, I'm prone to assume it wasn't the system's fault so much as the fault of popular examples of it (like some CRPGs, which probably just wanted to avoid being too gritty).

Quote from: AsenRG;838671Speaking only for myself, I hate "Ren Faire with Magicke" settings. Fun fact, this is is exactly why I had to mostly avoid D&D and D&D-alike systems for the first decade of my playing and running games.
(Most people around here had come to associate the system with a setting where people seem to be our contemporaries in a pseudo medieval fantasy world, at least where attitudes were concerned.
In the last several years, I no longer needed to do that - but then the GMs I play with lately wouldn't touch D&D with a 10-foot pole. So my research whether the mechanics are really tied to the implied setting remains inconclusive).
Still, I'm prone to assume it wasn't the system's fault so much as the fault of popular examples of it (like some CRPGs, which probably just wanted to avoid being too gritty).

First off D&D isn't a historic role-playing game its a fantasy role-playing game. Its origins are at least as much Jack Vance as they are the siege of Vienna. Thus modern 21st century morality might be entirely appropriate or might not be depending on the DM's whim. The same is true of any fantasy game.
The key is it has to be internally consistent. Now obviously that is easier to do through simply copying the laws and mores of a particular time or culture because even the inconsistencies in a "real" system tend to be consistent.
However, if everyone did that we would never have had Lord of Light, Amber, Discworld, let alone Cudgel the Clever and The Dying Earth....

Whitebox FATAL :D

Seriously though, maybe a OSR-based Indiana Jones/Pulp Adventure type game.

or a Top Secret clone.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838658Speaking only for myself, most of my studies of the medieval period have concentrated on England and France so that's my strongest influence.

My point is twofold; first, medieval justice was pretty fuckin' brutal by our standards, and secondly, people back then thought differently.

I am frankly mostly trying to get people to think about how maybe their D&D characters wouldn't think like early 21st Century Americans (or whatever). I have always been annoyed by what I call "Renaissace Faire with Magicke" fantasy; people have thoroughly modern attitudes, speech, and mannerisms in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.  Turning the "City Watch" into a modern police force is a prime example.

I expect my 14th century French D&D Paladin to act differently from my Green Lantern.

I have no issue with wanting players to play their character as if he or she lived in the setting.

Now it's possible you are not reading all the thread of the conversation, but are like that guy in the bar who responds to one snippet of conversation that catches his ear. That's fine, but it makes for a frustrating back and forth if you continue to reply to me while ignoring most of what I am actually saying so you can respond to unnamed people who aren't me.

My original point was, depending on the setting, 21st century Morality may or may not fit, and if it does not, then what we classify as 'Good' may change depending.

At the same time, the DM has (assuming he's the only one building the setting, some players prefer it that way, some do not) the 'right' (I suppose you could call it) to dictate what Alignment (assuming you use it, in 5e it really is less mandatory than in earlier editions due to the lack of Detect X Alignment spells now) means in what context.

But in MY personal opinion, certain things are still 'evil' actions, like torture or outright genocide and those inform the way I run my Fantasy games.

For me the key thing is consistency. I've never met anyone who solidly agrees on what Lawful Good should be when you start getting into specific things that come up in play. There may be some general agreement, but there is a good deal of subjectivity (how far do you take respect for life for example when it comes up against the need to enforce laws). My attitude is leave the interoperation in the court of the GM. If the GM is consistent (and in my experience most are on this matter) then that creates a sense that the moral forces behind the alignment system are real. I may judge a paladin differently than him in my own campaign and that is totally fine.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838690For me the key thing is consistency. I've never met anyone who solidly agrees on what Lawful Good should be when you start getting into specific things that come up in play. There may be some general agreement, but there is a good deal of subjectivity (how far do you take respect for life for example when it comes up against the need to enforce laws). My attitude is leave the interoperation in the court of the GM. If the GM is consistent (and in my experience most are on this matter) then that creates a sense that the moral forces behind the alignment system are real. I may judge a paladin differently than him in my own campaign and that is totally fine.

Thing is, Lawful Good can have lot's of variations, in my opinion.  Not all Paladins can or will agree on certain aspects, but underneath it all (again, my view here) as long as it's vaguely lawful (in terms of a moral code, whether it's societal or personal) and generally good, I don't see the issue.

Part of the issue with Alignment is that some people feel that to have the same alignment, means the characters who share that alignment has to react the same way.  I do not believe this, and so I make sure that my players know that they can be different, but still have the same alignment.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838679First off D&D isn't a historic role-playing game its a fantasy role-playing game. Its origins are at least as much Jack Vance as they are the siege of Vienna. Thus modern 21st century morality might be entirely appropriate or might not be depending on the DM's whim. The same is true of any fantasy game.
The key is it has to be internally consistent. Now obviously that is easier to do through simply copying the laws and mores of a particular time or culture because even the inconsistencies in a "real" system tend to be consistent.
However, if everyone did that we would never have had Lord of Light, Amber, Discworld, let alone Cudgel the Clever and The Dying Earth....

Well, sure, when did I say D&D requires a historical setting? For that matter, where did anyone say that?
What OG said, and I concurred, was that a D&D setting* where people live in pseudofantasyland and still adhere to 21st century morality, makes him less interested in playing. My point was just "me too, but I see it most often when the system is D&D".

Surely you don't mean to say that D&D requires 21st century morality, do you? Well, if it doesn't, it's a choice. My choice is to disregard games where it's fantasyland with knights and barons, but we've got NPCs that keep to a moral code fully understandable to our contemporary compatriotes.
(If you do intend to say that, that would fit with my experience, but Old Geezer's 14th century D&D Paladin might disagree).

*Or rather, a GM's interpretation of it. You can run Dark Sun as full of NPCs with 21st century morality - though it might well be an exercise in frustration - but that's on the GM.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838689My original point was, depending on the setting, 21st century Morality may or may not fit, and if it does not, then what we classify as 'Good' may change depending.

Here's a major difference between us. My point is that what we classify as capital g Good wouldn't change. What might change is whether the law prescribes Good solutions, and whether they're socially expected.

Quote from: AsenRG;838703Surely you don't mean to say that D&D requires 21st century morality, do you? Well, if it doesn't, it's a choice. My choice is to disregard games where it's fantasyland with knights and barons, but we've got NPCs that keep to a moral code fully understandable to our contemporary compatriotes.

Nitpick

The moral code of the NPCs in the game has to be understandable to our contemporaries. We or they may not agree with the moral code, but to play the NPCs it has to be possible for the players to (eventually) understand the moral code.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838691Thing is, Lawful Good can have lot's of variations, in my opinion.  Not all Paladins can or will agree on certain aspects, but underneath it all (again, my view here) as long as it's vaguely lawful (in terms of a moral code, whether it's societal or personal) and generally good, I don't see the issue.

Part of the issue with Alignment is that some people feel that to have the same alignment, means the characters who share that alignment has to react the same way.  I do not believe this, and so I make sure that my players know that they can be different, but still have the same alignment.

Sure, if the GM wants a more elastic interpretation of lawful good, I am cool with that. The issue for me is just consistency, because the alignments are presented as objective forces in the world and the gods are real. So if my paladin angers his god and loses his powers, I'd hope that that GM has a firm sense of what the god's expectations around good and law are and plays them consistently. If the god is flexible or takes things on a case by case basis, I am fine with that. Like I said, I pretty much leave it to the GM.

Quote from: Bren;838704Nitpick

The moral code of the NPCs in the game has to be understandable to our contemporaries. We or they may not agree with the moral code, but to play the NPCs it has to be possible for the players to (eventually) understand the moral code.

I agree, "understandable" is the wrong word here. After all, I can understand moral codes I'm proud I can't relate to, emotionally.
What I meant is that the moral code of the NPCs is one any of our contemporary compatriotes can relate to without too much issues.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838690For me the key thing is consistency. I've never met anyone who solidly agrees on what Lawful Good should be when you start getting into specific things that come up in play. There may be some general agreement, but there is a good deal of subjectivity (how far do you take respect for life for example when it comes up against the need to enforce laws). My attitude is leave the interoperation in the court of the GM. If the GM is consistent (and in my experience most are on this matter) then that creates a sense that the moral forces behind the alignment system are real. I may judge a paladin differently than him in my own campaign and that is totally fine.

Even when it has been more defined people still will re-interpret it to read whatever they want. Lawful Evil for example. Slaver, killer, noble, renegade, viking, lawyer, whatever.

Quote from: Omega;838739Even when it has been more defined people still will re-interpret it to read whatever they want. Lawful Evil for example. Slaver, killer, noble, renegade, viking, lawyer, whatever.

Viking Lawyer!

Quote from: James Gillen;838742Viking Lawyer!

With the right Viking you could actually tick all those boxes.

I can understand that players look down upon a world that is "Renaissance Faire with magick". But on the other hand most people just want to play the game, not get into long digressions about the specifics of the world. How many people really care about the nitty gritty details of whether the fantasy nation has a workable, realistic economy? None that I've met. Or if sailing ships behave realistically? Nope. Or if an army is realistic in how it moves, behaves and is fed? None.

I suppose before a campaign starts the GM and players could have a long talk about the standards of morality and what is considered "Lawful" and "Neutral" etc. A bunch of questions can be asked and examples given:

If a Paladin captures  some bandits, and killing them isn't an option, how about chopping off their hands? Or breaking their legs and leaving them? Or selling them into slavery?

My superior officer orders me to burn the village to the ground, including the crops. Is that Lawful, or Good?

We won the battle and conquered the city! Time to gang-rape all the women and loot every home! Everyone does it so it's okay.

I just rescued these peasants from Orc slavery. I have the right to do anything I want with them, correct?


And so forth. Could be a long night of talking when people just want to play.

Quote from: Bren;838754With the right Viking you could actually tick all those boxes.

Add in merchant then. Vikings were darn good tradesmen when they wanted to be. And we all know merchants are LE anyhoo.

Quote from: Doughdee222;838756How many people really care about the nitty gritty details of whether the fantasy nation has a workable, realistic economy? None that I've met. Or if sailing ships behave realistically? Nope. Or if an army is realistic in how it moves, behaves and is fed? None.

Whether anyone cares depends on who you play with I guess. I've always cared. Some of my players have never cared even back in 1974. Some of my players have always cared, even now in 2015. If you have really never, ever played with anyone who cares your circle of gaming acquaintances is kind of limited.

Quote from: Omega;838761Add in merchant then. Vikings were darn good tradesmen when they wanted to be. And we all know merchants are LE anyhoo.

Sure. But merchant wasn't on the list. And we're never going to get Bingo if you keep making the board bigger so you can fit in more careers.

Quote from: Doughdee222;838756I can understand that players look down upon a world that is "Renaissance Faire with magick". But on the other hand most people just want to play the game, not get into long digressions about the specifics of the world. How many people really care about the nitty gritty details of whether the fantasy nation has a workable, realistic economy? None that I've met. Or if sailing ships behave realistically? Nope. Or if an army is realistic in how it moves, behaves and is fed? None.

I suppose before a campaign starts the GM and players could have a long talk about the standards of morality and what is considered "Lawful" and "Neutral" etc. A bunch of questions can be asked and examples given:

If a Paladin captures  some bandits, and killing them isn't an option, how about chopping off their hands? Or breaking their legs and leaving them? Or selling them into slavery?

My superior officer orders me to burn the village to the ground, including the crops. Is that Lawful, or Good?

We won the battle and conquered the city! Time to gang-rape all the women and loot every home! Everyone does it so it's okay.

I just rescued these peasants from Orc slavery. I have the right to do anything I want with them, correct?


And so forth. Could be a long night of talking when people just want to play.

First, what Bren said:).

Quote from: Bren;838785Whether anyone cares depends on who you play with I guess. I've always cared. Some of my players have never cared even back in 1974. Some of my players have always cared, even now in 2015. If you have really never, ever played with anyone who cares your circle of gaming acquaintances is kind of limited.

And second, if you really, really can't be bothered to ask yourself about the setting's economy, politics and similar stuff, you playing in one of my campaigns is likely to become an exercise in frustration.
Same with morality, except I'm just going to tell you how the setting's morality works. As a GM I've worked it out before the game, and a speech cuts down on the length of the "discussion", since in fact the only questions are asked in order to clarify edge cases.
You can decide where you fit in that scale. Saints and sinners are equally welcome, usually, or at least I'm going to indicate whether this is the case;).
(The elements of the campaign were discussed before that, when we were deciding what to play).

Also, I think mafiosi are the clearest example of real-world LE characters. Except, of course, that given the misinformation about how their world works, this example is more likely to muddy the waters:D! Said misinformation is widely known as "popular knowledge", if you're wondering.

Quote from: Bren;838785Whether anyone cares depends on who you play with I guess. I've always cared. Some of my players have never cared even back in 1974. Some of my players have always cared, even now in 2015. If you have really never, ever played with anyone who cares your circle of gaming acquaintances is kind of limited.

Sure. But merchant wasn't on the list. And we're never going to get Bingo if you keep making the board bigger so you can fit in more careers.

Seems that the more someone knows about a subject, the more they care about how well represented it is in the game. If it's not represented reasonably well, and it is used a lot in the game,  it can affect their enjoyment.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;838835Seems that the more someone knows about a subject, the more they care about how well represented it is in the game. If it's not represented reasonably well, and it is used a lot in the game,  it can affect their enjoyment.

Yes, that too. People who know nothing and have no opinion about a subject probably don't care about it. Personally I just can't think of a subject that I haven't had someone at the table know and care about it. That might have something to do with my mostly gaming with well read nerds and academcs.

Quote from: Bren;838850Yes, that too. People who know nothing and have no opinion about a subject probably don't care about it. Personally I just can't think of a subject that I haven't had someone at the table know and care about it. That might have something to do with my mostly gaming with well read nerds and academcs.

Well, mostly that, but not quite. People that think they know about a subject while actually knowing nothing are doubly less pleasant:).
Yet they're even more likely to care about the subject;).

Quote from: AsenRG;838852Well, mostly that, but not quite. People that think they know about a subject while actually knowing nothing are doubly less pleasant:).
Yet they're even more likely to care about the subject;).

I was sticking to positive examples of caring. But I'd imagine we've all seen those folks, but I don't play for long with the folks who have strong, ignorant opinions that come up at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;837825The Empire, Nazi Germany, hell even Rome under some regimes - L/E

I would say that Rome under both Republic (except late) and the Empire was mostly L Neutral, with being G or E depending on specific emperor, Caligula and Commodus being the best known exceptions. Anyone who uses Social Darwinism is definitely Evil.

I can't think of any fictional character who exemplifies LE whom hasn't been discussed already other than President Snow from the Hunger Games or maybe Auntie Entity and Immortal Joe from Mad Max.

Quote from: Bren;838855I was sticking to positive examples of caring. But I'd imagine we've all seen those folks, but I don't play for long with the folks who have strong, ignorant opinions that come up at the table.

Well, that was me being nitpicky on you:). After all, if we mention the positive examples, we can as well mention those that give a bad rep to the whole endeavour.
Besides, a book I was reading today had just reminded me of a particular GM's rulings;).

Quote from: AsenRG;838885Well, that was me being nitpicky on you:).

To quote Mr. Spock, "Sauce for the goose."

Quote from: Bren;838891To quote Mr. Spock, "Sauce for the goose."

And sauce for the gander, I guess?

Quote from: AsenRG;838893And sauce for the gander, I guess?

He's half Vulcan, not perfect. He mixed up the saying.

Quote from: Bren;838894He's half Vulcan, not perfect. He mixed up the saying.

Yeah, I get it, the Vulcan part if it really gets in the way:D!

Have to ask a silly question?: what would the Terminator's alignment be? Would it not apply, or would its directives determine it? The closest analogue I've seen is the golem, and in 3.5 they're always nwutral.

Fun thought: Robocop has directives that sometimes conflict with his will. He was finally able to defy them at the end by killing the asshole exec. Is alignment the tool that covers a situation like that?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;839181Have to ask a silly question?: what would the Terminator's alignment be? Would it not apply, or would its directives determine it? The closest analogue I've seen is the golem, and in 3.5 they're always nwutral.

Given my understanding, or maybe opinion of Alignment I'd put the Terminator as Lawful Neutral.  It has a prime directive, and it follows it to the letter, no matter the cost or morality of the situation.

As always, thought, Your Mileage May Vary.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;839181Fun thought: Robocop has directives that sometimes conflict with his will. He was finally able to defy them at the end by killing the asshole exec. Is alignment the tool that covers a situation like that?

Why wouldn't it?  It really depends on how rigid or flexible you want it to be.  And each player/DM gets his/her interpretation.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;839181Fun thought: Robocop has directives that sometimes conflict with his will. He was finally able to defy them at the end by killing the asshole exec. Is alignment the tool that covers a situation like that?

By definition programming overrode Murphy's personality, i.e. "alignment."

"Dick, you're fired!"
"?"
"Thank you."
[BRRRRRRRRRRRRRAPP!!!]

Best dialogue ever! :D

JG

"Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."  

Shortening the phrase isn't messing it up.  Someone (Saavik I think) was talking about the handicap of fighting in the Nebula, and Spock was pointing to that handicap as the "sauce for the goose".  The rest is implied.

Lawfulness is pretty confusing.

Normally you have certain alignment acts that are objectively considered Lawful. But then you also have the belief that Lawful means following a code; a code that might just be the same as being Chaotic. And if you look at most iterations of Lawfulness, it is basically just a code of honor.

So how does a code work with being Lawful? Couldn't your code just basically be "I do what gets me what I want" or some sort of copout like that?

It seems like making the alignment be Honorable / Dishonorable would be a better fit instead. It gets the idea across without getting entangled into legalities and whatnot.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;839697It seems like making the alignment be Honorable / Dishonorable would be a better fit instead. It gets the idea across without getting entangled into legalities and whatnot.

There is a reason why more than a few players like Palladium's alignments better. Or revert back to the more ambiguous Law/Neutral/Chaos. Or do not use them much at all, if ever.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;839697Lawfulness is pretty confusing.

Normally you have certain alignment acts that are objectively considered Lawful. But then you also have the belief that Lawful means following a code; a code that might just be the same as being Chaotic. And if you look at most iterations of Lawfulness, it is basically just a code of honor.

So how does a code work with being Lawful? Couldn't your code just basically be "I do what gets me what I want" or some sort of copout like that?

It seems like making the alignment be Honorable / Dishonorable would be a better fit instead. It gets the idea across without getting entangled into legalities and whatnot.

I don't think its that hard.
LG will follow the "law" if the law is beneficial to the common folk. They will break the law and follow their own code if the law harms people or leads to predation. They want structure because they think it benefits the many.
LN will follow the law to its letter
LE will follow law when it suits themselves and will attempt to manipulate the law to achieve their own ends. They will follow what they consider to be their own code if the law is an "ass". They want structure and obedience because it benefits themselves.

Now is a LE guy Honorable?

Lets take a real life situation.

A LG person sees the benefit in paying taxes into a fund to share those taxes with the wider population. They see that providing healthcare and education to the poorest will lift the whole of Society up. Taxes for defense are good but not to wage war against others.

The LN will pay tax as requested. If their accountant shows them a legal way to avoid paying as much they will take that opportunity. They will not cheat their taxes or falisfy their claims but they don't really care about what the money is spent on provided it's all accounted for. They probably like taxes spent on the Military as that enables their lawful state to exapand its boarders and bring law to other areas

The LE person hates paying tax. They see the need for tax but don't know why they should pay so much of it. They will argue for a flat fee that everyone pays, unless they earn little when they will expect the richest in society to pay it and they will object to tax being used to help those who have failed to take the initiative to help themselves. They believe society would be stronger and fitter if those lazy people on welfare were allowed to die due to natural wastage or put to use as workers for the state. They want to see their tax spent on the military, expanding borders and gaining resources to make the lot of the citizens of the state (aka themselves) better, or on critical services. Anything they don't use, schools if they are childless, hospitals if they aren't sick, is seen as superfluous. They do like a robust prison system however and will spend a lot of money on those (far more than on welfare) to ensure people breaking the law are severely punished.

Quote from: jibbajibba;839819A LG person sees the benefit in paying taxes into a fund to share those taxes with the wider population. They see that providing healthcare and education to the poorest will lift the whole of Society up. Taxes for defense are good but not to wage war against others.

The LN will pay tax as requested. If their accountant shows them a legal way to avoid paying as much they will take that opportunity. They will not cheat their taxes or falisfy their claims but they don't really care about what the money is spent on provided it's all accounted for. They probably like taxes spent on the Military as that enables their lawful state to exapand its boarders and bring law to other areas

The LE person hates paying tax. They see the need for tax but don't know why they should pay so much of it. They will argue for a flat fee that everyone pays, unless they earn little when they will expect the richest in society to pay it and they will object to tax being used to help those who have failed to take the initiative to help themselves. They believe society would be stronger and fitter if those lazy people on welfare were allowed to die due to natural wastage or put to use as workers for the state. They want to see their tax spent on the military, expanding borders and gaining resources to make the lot of the citizens of the state (aka themselves) better, or on critical services. Anything they don't use, schools if they are childless, hospitals if they aren't sick, is seen as superfluous. They do like a robust prison system however and will spend a lot of money on those (far more than on welfare) to ensure people breaking the law are severely punished.

Oh, this is gonna be interesting.
:popcorn:

Gul Dukat from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Doctor Doom from Marvel Comics

Lex Luthor from DC comics

Magneto in some of his incarnations

Count Strahd von Zarovich from Ravenloft

Dracula in most of his interpretations outside of the novel (In the novel he's more Neutral Evil since he's just selfishly pursuing Mina Harker)

David Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China

Quote from: CRKrueger;839822Oh, this is gonna be interesting.
:popcorn:

I think he's trying to make a different point here, but I'm not sure what it is....

JG

Just today I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine about the fracking industry in Utah. A whole valley is being poisoned, babies are dieing, people are getting sick just living there. Yet the oil/gas industry is denying everything, the politicians are doing nothing, a good woman is being attacked for sounding the alarm and her reputation smeared by a hospital. That's all Lawful Evil.

Then there is the Frank Underwood character from House of Cards (Francis Urquart to you Brits.) He's pretty much LE.

Quote from: Doughdee222;839969Just today I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine about the fracking industry in Utah. A whole valley is being poisoned, babies are dieing, people are getting sick just living there. Yet the oil/gas industry is denying everything, the politicians are doing nothing, a good woman is being attacked for sounding the alarm and her reputation smeared by a hospital. That's all Lawful Evil.

From RollingStone? I'd take it with a grain of salt. Most of the Anti-Fracking stuff out there is blatantly false and made up by the environmental lobby. Hell, even Bill Nye supports Fracking, Bill Fucking Nye (He does think there should be some more regulations with it, but knows it doesn't do half the stuff it's anatgonists proclaim it does)

I really suggest watching the documentary "Fracknation". It really clears up a lot of misconceptions about the Fracking Industry and was made completely independently.

I use to think Fracking was horrible too (The name alone is scary) until I watched the documentary which explained the science behind it...and the fucking blatant lies coming from things like Gasland.

I'm not sure I'd call Vader "Lawful" Evil...
He did offer to usurp the Emperor to his son.
He Force Choked just about any Imperial Officer that got uppity with him; that's a hell of a court martial!
Vader's the #2 man in an Galactic Empire, but his private motivations still mostly revolve around his own selfishness.

In terms of Lawful Evil, I'd nominate The Operative from Serenity (Firefly movie).
He does terrible things, for a better tomorrow, even if it's one he cannot be allowed into ("I'm a monster.")

It seems to me that Stannis Baratheon went from LN to LE in the last couple of episodes of the latest season of Game of Thrones.  It was his undoing.

Quote from: Orphan81;839934Gul Dukat from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Ooh, nice choice, though I'd actually say the series does a nice job of detailing his fall from LE at the start of the series (the face of the former military Occupation), to CE by the end (when he wanted to release the Pah-wraiths, and destroy everything).

Quote from: RPGPundit;840061It seems to me that Stannis Baratheon went from LN to LE in the last couple of episodes of the latest season of Game of Thrones.  It was his undoing.

Spoiler

Some gingers just want to see the world burn ... the children.

Quote from: Novastar;840040I'm not sure I'd call Vader "Lawful" Evil...
He did offer to usurp the Emperor to his son.
He Force Choked just about any Imperial Officer that got uppity with him; that's a hell of a court martial!
Vader's the #2 man in an Galactic Empire, but his private motivations still mostly revolve around his own selfishness.

My assumption in those choking scenes was he had the authority to do those things.

Quote from: Novastar;840160Ooh, nice choice, though I'd actually say the series does a nice job of detailing his fall from LE at the start of the series (the face of the former military Occupation), to CE by the end (when he wanted to release the Pah-wraiths, and destroy everything).

True enough, he was full on Chaotic Evil Cultist trying to bring about the destruction of the universe there...

But until then! Gul Dukat was a great example of Lawful Evil... particularly when you hear his Justifications for his actions, or tries to argue how the occupation benefitted the Bajorans in the long run.

Quote from: RPGPundit;840061It seems to me that Stannis Baratheon went from LN to LE in the last couple of episodes of the latest season of Game of Thrones.  It was his undoing.

Sentence your own child to die in a fire?  Well, what have you got to lose?

JG

Having Deadwood on the brain, I'd nominate Al Swearengen.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;840245My assumption in those choking scenes was he had the authority to do those things.

And how are you going to stop him, being a normal person, when he can choke you from miles away (goodbye Admiral Ozzel!), or pull out that laser sword?

Then again... (https://youtu.be/0jdQqjcsfC8)

Quote from: James Gillen;840279Sentence your own child to die in a fire?  Well, what have you got to lose?

JG

Actually, that's interesting. how would you guys describe the bible Abraham's alignment? He was going to kill his own son because God told him.



Unrelated:

A funny quote from Jose Saramago, btw: "Según la Biblia, dios ordenó a Abraham que sacrificase a su propio hijo. Lo lógico, lo natural o lo simplemente humano sería que Abraham hubiese mandado al señor a la mierda."

Translated: "According to the Bible, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his own son. The logical, natural or simply human response would be for Abraham to tell God to go fuck himself."

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;840969Translated: "According to the Bible, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his own son. The logical, natural or simply human response would be for Abraham to tell God to go fuck himself."

I'd argue that Abraham's reaction was actually the natural and logical one given how people have acted on their religious beliefs through history.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;840969Actually, that's interesting. how would you guys describe the bible Abraham's alignment? He was going to kill his own son because God told him.

Lawful stupid.

Quote from: Bren;840996Lawful stupid.

AKA Lawful Neutral.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841003AKA Lawful Neutral.

I've never heard Lawful Neutral described as Lawful Stupid.

Quote from: Bren;841043I've never heard Lawful Neutral described as Lawful Stupid.

Lawful Neutral typically follow rules to their logical end, rarely questioning the point of them, simply because the rules exist to be followed, no matter what the outcome may be.  Which can end up with some really stupid results.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841063Lawful Neutral typically follow rules to their logical end, rarely questioning the point of them, simply because the rules exist to be followed, no matter what the outcome may be.  Which can end up with some really stupid results.

That would be stupid, but no more stupid that Lawful Good following the laws while rarely questioning the point of them because they were created by a 'good' deity, ruler, or society. Same for Lawful Evil. What you describe for Lawful Neutral is a simplistic and unfair characterization. Lawful Stupid is the stereotypical alignment description for Lawful Good Paladins.  

As for Lawful Neutral, I can easily imagine a number of philosophical positions that support a strict lawful or deontological position that a lawful neutral person might follow. In addition, conflict between rules or duties is a common occurrence in reality and in fiction. A Lawful Neutral would be very concerned with that situation and would, in fact, need to question and examine duties to discern how to resolve the conflict. Such conflicts are the stuff of many samurai tales among other cultures.

If your point is that you think Abraham was Lawful Neutral, it would be more productive if you just said that rather than going down a tangent about what you think the stereotypical AKA's is for Lawful Neutral.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;840245My assumption in those choking scenes was he had the authority to do those things.

If we accept that Lawful characters are deontological and Evil characters are consequentialist, then Vader is likely Chaotic Evil. He:
- Knowingly allowed Grand Moff Tarkin to lie to Princess Leia about the terms under which her planet would be spared if she revealed the location of the rebel base.
- Ex poste altered a deal with Lando Calrissian. "I've altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
- Lied to his own master about the context of his dealings with Luke Skywalker.
- Betrayed his own master after swearing that Luke Skywalker "would join us or die."
- Executed several subordinates for failures on a capricious basis. E.g. Needa clearly was not aware that there was a clear rule "failure leads to death". He was rather worried that Vader might whim his death.

The only argument for Vader being Lawful is that he claims he wants "to bring order to the galaxy". But a Chaotic character can believe in rules...for other people.

Quote from: Bren;841090That would be stupid, but no more stupid that Lawful Good following the laws while rarely questioning the point of them because they were created by a 'good' deity, ruler, or society.

Ah, but that's the thing.  A LG person would question a law that did not seem 'fair' or 'just' assuming of course, that the God had already set up a system that promoted fairness and justice, which being a Good God one would assume so.

What you're describing is still a Lawful Neutral person, because they don't question anything, because a Law is a Law is a Rule that MUST be followed.  Lawful Good people will break laws/rules that seem to harm more than help.

Quote from: amacris;841118If we accept that Lawful characters are deontological and Evil characters are consequentialist,

This could also be a fruitful approach. Interesting, could use some mulling over.

Would that make Neutral virtue ethics?

Quote from: Bren;840996Lawful stupid.

+1

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;840969Actually, that's interesting. how would you guys describe the bible Abraham's alignment? He was going to kill his own son because God told him.



Unrelated:

A funny quote from Jose Saramago, btw: "Según la Biblia, dios ordenó a Abraham que sacrificase a su propio hijo. Lo lógico, lo natural o lo simplemente humano sería que Abraham hubiese mandado al señor a la mierda."

Translated: "According to the Bible, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his own son. The logical, natural or simply human response would be for Abraham to tell God to go fuck himself."

José Saramago is right, and arguably that is what God was expecting.
Abraham just failed the test.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841198What you're describing is still a Lawful Neutral person, because they don't question anything, because a Law is a Law is a Rule that MUST be followed.

No that's your description of Lawful neutral not mine. I maintain that Lawful Neutral must question how to reconcile conflicting rules.

Abraham was Lawful Stupid.

QuoteLawful Good people will break laws/rules that seem to harm more than help.

Not necessarily. Humans are finite, they can't see the big picture that the deity can perceive. From the deity's perspective those harms you want to mitigate by breaking gods immutable laws only make things worse in the long run. Or try reading Kant.

Quote from: amacris;841118If we accept that Lawful characters are deontological and Evil characters are consequentialist

If Lawful is deontological, then shouldn't its opposite of consequentialism be Chaotic, not Evil?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;841355If Lawful is deontological, then shouldn't its opposite of consequentialism be Chaotic, not Evil?

You know, I totally misread the original quote as saying this. This is interesting and potentially fruitful, L = D and E = C is WTF. I'm going to  assume it's a typing error.

Quote from: Bren;841245Not necessarily. Humans are finite, they can't see the big picture that the deity can perceive. From the deity's perspective those harms you want to mitigate by breaking gods immutable laws only make things worse in the long run. Or try reading Kant.

I understand this argument, but it presumes LG characters who are also religious.  

It also presumes a concept of "Law" that supersedes the intent of serving good.  
This is not as common as one would assume.  As one great Jewish teacher once put it: The Torah is there to serve man, not man to serve the Torah.

Quote from: apparition13;841404You know, I totally misread the original quote as saying this. This is interesting and potentially fruitful, L = D and E = C is WTF. I'm going to  assume it's a typing error.

Another way to look at it:

Lawful is principled, Chaotic is unprincipled.

Although that just invites questions of "what does 'principled' mean."

Quote from: Bren;841245Not necessarily. Humans are finite, they can't see the big picture that the deity can perceive. From the deity's perspective those harms you want to mitigate by breaking gods immutable laws only make things worse in the long run. Or try reading Kant.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to human laws, not divine.

Quote from: apparition13;841892I'm pretty sure he was referring to human laws, not divine.

The original example was Isiah being commanded to kill his son which is clearly a divine command.

Even if we go beyond that example, alignment systems like those in D&D treat Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as fundamental, objective, immutable parts of the world. Applying Law with a capital "L" to culturally relative, changeable, fallible human laws (with a lowercase "l") is wrong-headed and silly in the same way that arguing that there can be different and conflicting Goods in that world would be wrong-headed and silly. I'm not particularly fond of D&D alignment, but if you are going to use it, at least treat all the alignments equally seriously rather than treating some as a caricature.

Quote from: RPGPundit;841839I understand this argument, but it presumes LG characters who are also religious.

I think one could be a Kantian-style deontologist without being religious. The objective aspects of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil in a D&D style setting would take the place of gods in that context. A Lawful person would use Kant's view that the only valid maxims are one's that can be universalized.

QuoteIt also presumes a concept of "Law" that supersedes the intent of serving good.

For Kant, the principle of universality supersedes any hypothetical or single instance of perceived good. His argument that lying is universally wrong (see telling the truth to the axe murderer at your door) would be one example.

Now I don't agree with Kant, for a number of reasons, but it's not like his philosophy is absent of real world believers or advocates.

Upon thinking about this a bit more my view is a little different. (Or at least I think it is, maybe not.) To me, "Good" and "Evil" are about what you do. "Lawful" and "Chaotic" is more about style, how you go about doing an act. What limits you put on yourself is also about law vs. chaos. Do you act in a wild, carefree manner or are you more controlled about your acts?

Example:

Let's say there is a library in your town that is old and needs demolishing. A chaotic-evil person runs up to the building with some gas, matches and burns the place down, maybe with people still inside. A lawful-evil person seeks to use the town council to close the library, decommission the building and hires a contractor to demolish the building. No new library is built and the books are tossed into a landfill. The town suffers but he doesn't care.

A lawful-good person would have the building closed but hire an architect to design a new one, set aside land for it, fund it, have it built. The books would be carefully stored away then moved into the new building. The town has a nice new library and loses nothing but a decrepit old building.

A chaotic-good person, well, I'm not sure. Maybe he would want to keep both the old building and call for construction of a new one but offer no plan on where and how to pay for these places. His only concern is to keep all the old books, somehow, somewhere. (Or maybe that's the neutral-good person, must say I have difficulty separating neutral acts from chaotic.)

Note: The above example presupposes that you consider a town library to be a "good" item to have, a benefit to the town. If you consider libraries to be bad places, a drain upon town finances, well, then the lawful-evil guy might seem good to you.

Quote from: Doughdee222;841926Upon thinking about this a bit more my view is a little different. (Or at least I think it is, maybe not.) To me, "Good" and "Evil" are about what you do. "Lawful" and "Chaotic" is more about style, how you go about doing an act. What limits you put on yourself is also about law vs. chaos. Do you act in a wild, carefree manner or are you more controlled about your acts?

Example:

Let's say there is a library in your town that is old and needs demolishing. A chaotic-evil person runs up to the building with some gas, matches and burns the place down, maybe with people still inside. A lawful-evil person seeks to use the town council to close the library, decommission the building and hires a contractor to demolish the building. No new library is built and the books are tossed into a landfill. The town suffers but he doesn't care.

A lawful-good person would have the building closed but hire an architect to design a new one, set aside land for it, fund it, have it built. The books would be carefully stored away then moved into the new building. The town has a nice new library and loses nothing but a decrepit old building.

A chaotic-good person, well, I'm not sure. Maybe he would want to keep both the old building and call for construction of a new one but offer no plan on where and how to pay for these places. His only concern is to keep all the old books, somehow, somewhere. (Or maybe that's the neutral-good person, must say I have difficulty separating neutral acts from chaotic.)

The Chaotic Good person would have already moved the books to his/her home, for safe keeping (and they would be safe, as they are a GOOD person), and then work on demolishing and rebuilding the structure.  Without consulting the local laws or contractors.

A Neutral Good Person will adopt a mix of the two, depending on which is most expedient, but still safe method.  Is working within the local construction laws the best result?  Which laws can be bent and broken, and still save the books and the library?

A Neutral Evil will look for the most 'efficient' method, as long as it gets them ahead.

It's like a colouring book, a Lawful person will try to keep within the lines.  A Chaotic will likely end up with an expressionist painting if they feel it looks better.  A Neutral person will try to stick within the lines, but might go outside if the situation demands it.

A good example of LE in action would be the captain of the ship in Billy Budd. Budd is court-martialed for killing the sadistic midshipman by accident. Even though it's clear Billy Budd is justified in defending himself, and the captain does have the option of ruling in Budd's favor, he has the sailor hanged because to do otherwise might encourage mutiny in the fleet when they're about to engage the French fleet in battle.

Another example is the Imperial officers in Star Wars, who demand obedience from their underlings while knuckling under to their superiors -all the while willing to kill, torture and enslave anyone who gets in their way (or might be the means to raise their own status).

I've always been more of a Nietzsche guy myself...

I'd go with Tywin Lannister (TV version). He's quite evil, yet he puts his family above himself and his own offspring. This scene cinched it for me:

LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyh9w_AO3YE)

Quote from: Elfdart;842711I'd go with Tywin Lannister (TV version). He's quite evil, yet he puts his family above himself and his own offspring. This scene cinched it for me:

LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyh9w_AO3YE)

Yeah, Twyin was pretty perfectly LE.

Thought of a good example today: Col. Stryker from the X-men movies and comics.  Lawful, because he believes in the good of his group - humankind - over the individual.  He also places a high value on military structure and hierarchy.  But evil because in service to his goal - protecting humanity from the perceived menace of mutants - he's willing to commit genocide, an inherently evil act.  He'll also deceive Xavier into using Cerebro to kill millions of mutants, and would force Logan to undergo the adamantium impregnation of his bones against his will (by all accounts, a horribly painful procedure, even if it couldn't kill healing factor havin' Wolverine) in order to accomplish his goals, the protection of his country and his race.