Moral quandry (Alignment question of a sort)

Considering how most people tend to think of morality in D&D as pretty black or white, I came up with a scenario that tests those boundaries.

First, let me introduce the principal characters in this story.

The Prince: A ruler of an indepdent city state. He thinks of himself as a neutral good ruler, with a philosophy most closely approaching Renaissance Humanism. He allows his people as many freedoms as is possible, such as freedom of religion (except for cults that threaten safety such as violent death worshippers), legal equality for all citizens regardless of gender or race, and so forth. He is fairly pragmatic as well, but would die to protect his people. In fact, in battle he leads his army personally, although he does have a personal cleric to raise him if necessary.

The Conquerer: A charismatic military ruler who has seized a great deal of land due to the prowess of his army. He claims to be an idealist. His leadership style is somewhat close to such figures as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Hitler. He rules by force, and aims to take control of the entire world. He thinks of himself as chaotic good, but in practice it is closer to chaotic neutral or neutral evil due to his lax control over his soldiers' pillaging and looting not to much the conquerer's use of violence to silence his political foes. On the other hand, the Conquerer fights despots and tyrannts mostly, and does in most cases improve the lives of those who come under his rule. He is an extremely brave warrior who is willing to die to protect soldiers under his leadership. He does care about his people as well. However, his administrative ability and ability to understand and implement sophsticated political ideals are limited at best.

Now, let us discuss what has happened.

The Conquerer has swept the land, taking control of a dozen kingdoms. His army is embroiled in a massive war to seize the rest. However, The Prince through careful diplomacy has remained in power despite his city state being surrounded by the Conquerer's newly acquired lands. You see, when the conquerer's armies drew close to the Prince's city, the Prince offered to be a staunch economic and political ally to the Conquerer in exchange for indepdence when the conquerer came rolling through.

This act gave the Conquerer a measure of political power and credence with other neutral countries. In fact, this act partially contributed to the Conquerer's success thus far. Privately, the Prince abhors the destruction wrought by the Conquerer but when he realized that the Conquerer would inveitably come, the Prince realized he could not oppose him militarily. The Prince simply wanted to keep his city state from being sacked. While this act betrayed his then neighbors and allies, and gave the conquerer additional strength to kill and plunder, the Prince felt he could not risk his or his peoples' lives.

The current war is draining the Conquerer's forces. His army has lost its early momentum. Also, the Prince has learned that the Conquerer is considering reneging on their alliance, which does not surprise the Prince as the Prince has been stockpiling military resources for this eventuality. Before the Conquerer can betray the Prince, the Prince strikes in a brilliant attack that slays the Conquerer and his top lieutenants and breaks the central leadership of the armies.

This act has destablized the region to say the least. Every kingdom controlled by the Conquerer is now a bandit kingom, where soldiers loot and plunder the country side even more viciously than before. Countries not controlled by the Conquerer are besieged by hordes of refugees and soldiers turned bandits, causing massive bloodshed and misery.

The Prince knew this would happen, and acted accordingly. First, he established patrols and raised light forts across his kingdom to protect against bandits, which is a large success. His people do not suffer from the depradations of bandit attacks. He also actively welcomes in some refugees. However, his refugee acceptance policy is not based on humanitarian concerns but rather more practical concerns. Spellcasters, skilled experts, and anyone else who can contribute to the city state are welcomed in with open arms. In fact, the Prince sends out agents to recruit talented and useful individuals (anyone welcomed in the city state can bring their immediate family with them as well) Commoners are mostly ignored and prohibited from entering. This act strengthens his city state and saves many people, but also further destablizes the region as many potential leaders and desperately needed specialists are removed from the regions that need them the most. The prince knows this but ultimately, he is concerned only with the people in his city state. He will not provide ANY aid to people of foreign nations.


My questions:

What alignment would you assign each ruler?

What do you think of their actions? Are they justifed?

How would you act if you were the Prince? The Conquerer?

I would say they were both Chaotic Neutral acting out of self interest by any means neccessary.

Do I think there actions are justified? Absolutely. Being a ruler AND a paragon of wisdom and virtue sounds nice but if you look at history these sorts are usually very short lived.

One could argue that personal morals are a selfish luxury for a leader of a people.

The only action I would have taken differently would be as the Conquerer. Not knowing the particulars, I would have made sure I was not exposed to "ally".

The only action I would have taken differently would be as the Conquerer. Not knowing the particulars, I would have made sure I was not exposed to "ally".

Click to expand...

Well more or less, The conquerer was only exposed because he overextended his forces in the war.

I'd agree that both are Chaotic Neutral according the the PHB definitions, given their bent towards highly self-serving behavior. I'd say it's also not a stretch to label some of their actions as being Evil, given the wanton disregard for life exhibited by both fellows at different points in time.

As for what I think of their actions...
The Conqueror: He's doing what any warlike, powerhungry military leader of his genre would do -- namely making a run at world domination. Do I approve? Not really. But I don't think there's much value in trying to assess his megalomania. As for his failed alliance, I don't think it could have been reasonably avoided. He made a deal to further his cause intending to renege. That makes perfect sense given your description of the Conqueror. His defining personality trait (like so many of his kind historically) is an unwillingness to see limits in the scope of his power...which brought about his demise.
The Prince: How many countries and world leaders throughout history have been singularly concerned with self-preservation above all else? In a nutshell, that's our fair Prince. Do I approve? No way, it's not my nature to ignore the world outside my door while I tend to my own affairs.

I'd call the Conqueror Neutral, with Evil tendencies. The Prince I'd call Lawful Neutral. Breaking one treaty (which one knew would be broken by the other side soon) does not make one Chaotic.

Both are dealing in their own self-interest, both are certainly not Good (in the by-the-book D&D sense).

Are their actions justified? That's tough question to answer. Justified by whom? Did they have a right to do the things they did? No.

How would I act if I were either of them? If the conqueror, I would have tried to setup some sort of plan to create stability after I was gone. That's been the problem with charismatic conquerors from Alexander to Caesar to Napolean to Hitler. The lead figure dies, the movement dies.

As the Prince, I think I would have done just what he's done. He's setting himself up to take through trade and politics what the Conqueror tried to accomplish through force of arms.

Quickbeam said:

The Prince: How many countries and world leaders throughout history have been singularly concerned with self-preservation above all else? In a nutshell, that's our fair Prince. Do I approve? No way, it's not my nature to ignore the world outside my door while I tend to my own affairs.

Click to expand...

You are making it far too easy. By "ignoring" the outside world, he saved the lives of his citizens; by going into a war with Conquerer, a lot of people would never return to their families, their wives would be raped and their farms plundered and burned.

I dont know if the Prince was good, but by keeping out of the war he saved his own people from being killed and looted, and he could later destroy the conquerers kingdom.

All in all, I would say he was True neutral, acting out of the interest of his kingdom, but not out of other kingdoms' interrests. The conquerer, on the other hand, is Neutral Evil; he is realizing himself by killing, looting and raping. History is full of them, and they all ended the same way; in anarchy and chaos, followed by a new government.

You are hitting on another one of the weaknesses of the alignment system. Personal Alignment vs Macro Alignment. I truly believe that no Government can actually be Good or Evil - and that 90% are actually LN.

Nearly all governments work towards the betterment of their citizens (or certainly a subset of them) and all governements use shady methods of dealing with their enemies.

So, I think that it is entirely possible that the Prince could be Neutral Good on a personal level, but in the context of a nation-state, he represents a LN entity.

clockworkjoe said:

Considering how most people tend to think of morality in D&D as pretty black or white, I came up with a scenario that tests those boundaries.

Click to expand...

Someone is obviously very bored.

The prince is LN.
He acts using realpolitik and does not bind himself to unnecessary treaty obligations. He recognises the need for raison d'etat and realistic diplomacy without becoming overtly aggressive. He acts in the interest of his city-state and secures the land around it, but he does not go out for general altruism.

The conqueror is probably chaotic neutral.
He acts on an impulse, and his bizarre variant of megalomania is borderline insane. His desire to conquer the world is indicative of this, and the disorderly fashion in which he goes about this is further indication. He cares little for laws and the humdrum of everyday politics, preferring to go on some manic ideology.

Are there actions justified?
Prince: Yes. Acts in the interest of his people, realises his limitations.
Conquerer. No. Clearly driven by a loony ideology.

What would I do?
Prince: Can't be sure. Probably not backstab the Conqueror, but unlikely to be too naive. I would secure my borders and establish trade links with the Conqueror, hoping that the superior intellect and culture of the City State would build bonds that a single government cannot undermine.

Conqueror: Cut my losses. Abandon the madcap quest, secure my existing borders, use bluff diplomacy to impose peace partitions on weaker neighbours and mutual agreements with stronger neighbours. Build a stronger alliance with the prince, stamp out banditry. Placate the people of the newly conquered lands BEFORE going on another campaign.

Re: Re: Moral quandry (Alignment question of a sort)

hong said:

Someone is obviously very bored.

Click to expand...

Actually, I had a dream about bandit kingdoms last night and I sort made up a back story about it while I was eating breakfast this morning. Neat, huh?