Alignment and real world examples...

[Silvanos]

I just thought it would be interesting to put together a list of real world arch types, based on alignment... With reasons to support it... Also, we have to make some assumptions, so lets say based on western the western Philosophy of right and wrong. (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle etc.) And of course, if it is a group of people we have to assume the ideal.

Please add to this list:

LG
Priests? (Remember we are talking the IDEAL here!) Devoted to guiding the flock to the “right” way of life, and instructing on the right and wrongs of the world.

LN
IRS Agents in the 1980’s? (Likely today as well.) Concerned with only the letter of the law. Not bound by moral quandaries of right and wrong.

Judges: Same as above.

LE


NG


N


NE
Hitler? Did not feel bound to treaties both before, and during World War 2. Genocide. But did create a fairly complex set of social rules…

CG


CN


CE
Used car sales men: Just kidding!

 

[Ghostwalker_Daishi]

For lawful evil, corrupt politicians and such people might fit. Conforming to the letter of the law, but using it for evil means.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

See, I'd put Hitler down as LE. He established a rule which favored the few at the expense of the many and used hate and fear to create that rule and make it embraced by the people. If you were a blond, blue eyed german with no jewish, gypsy, or other ethnic blood in your family line Nazi Germany favored you and you did well by it. Just because he didn't abide by agreements with his enemies doesn't make him non-lawful.

William Wallace I might put down as Chaotic Neutral. He fought for the freedom of the Scottish people against Edward I. According to history books Edward I was actually thought of as a very good king for the British people. Good and Evil didn't figure into it because each side saw what they were doing as good and what the other side was doing as evil. The key point is the Wallace fought for freedom which is a distictive Chaotic trait (IMHO).

Real life examples are kind of difficult except in the cases of extremes (such as Hitler and Hussein) because in all cases a particular person thinks they are doing the best for all concerned. After watching the miniseries "Hitler: Rise of Evil" I'd have to believe that even Hitler thought that what he was doing was for the best for the German people. Real life is too gray... D&D is black and white set against a DM created scale of good and evil. If you say that killing innocent people to achieve your goals then the United States is as evil as they come for dropping two atomic bombs on civilian cities but obviously we like to think of ourselves as some of the most morally "good" people in the world.

Way too fuzzy and I'm just hoping that your discussion doesn't become a flame war where people vent against each other based upon their opinion of different sides of conflict in history. :\

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I think this is a very difficult question that could lead to some 'colourful' discussion... IMO, definitions of Good and Evil differ wildly from person to person. Subjective and dangerous territory.

Trying to find something unlikely to upset anyone:

I find Stones, Rocks and Gravel tend towards neutrality, with the barest hint of indecisiveness about them.

 

[Silvanos]

IMO, definitions of Good and Evil differ wildly from person to person. Subjective and dangerous territory.

Nah. I already defined them for the discussion. Socrates did not leave much grey area in his dialouges! But I guess we also have to assume that most people have not read the authors I listed...

On Hitler... I can see your point. In my mind the person at the top of the food change, that creats laws, and expects his henchmen to follow them, is NE. His followers are LE. Or heck! They could be LN!

William Wallace! Great Example. I would also say CG all the way. He shunned the "offices" given to him, and fought for the little guy. At least in the movie he did.

I believe Socrates wrote on the actions of the government, and it's reflection on the people. For the A-bomb discussion... I would think that the people of a nation, that stand by and allow a war of agression, are not innocents when it comes to said war of aggression. But that is just me!

 

[Mercule]

I believe Socrates wrote on the actions of the government, and it's reflection on the people. For the A-bomb discussion... I would think that the people of a nation, that stand by and allow a war of agression, are not innocents when it comes to said war of aggression. But that is just me!

Socrates didn't write a thing, FWIW. Plato wrote pretty much everything we have about Socrates. Many were no doubt biographical, but some of the early Platonic writings just used Socrates as a character to lend credibility.

Later in life, Plato became a bit darker and cynical. He also didn't use Socrates as a character quite so much. Sometime along the way, his stuff became less reflective of Socrates' point of view and more distinctly Plato's own.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Nah. I already defined them for the discussion. Socrates did not leave much grey area in his dialouges! But I guess we also have to assume that most people have not read the authors I listed...

In my experience, the painful (and usually flame filled bit) comes when:

a) People have not read those works and jump off the deep end.

b) People disagree with his work and wish to throw (otherwise neutral) Rocks, Stones and Gravel about.

c) Try to fit apply 9 discreet labels to those teachings.

d) The name 'Hitler' is ever mentioned. (invoking Godwins law)

 

[Mercule]

I'd nominate Thomas Jefferson for CG. He was an Anti-Federalist and possibly the principle mind behind much of the limited-government wording of the US Constitution. It is also clear from his writings that he sought not just freedom, but benevolent freedom.

 

[Faraer]

Relating D&D alignments to our-world people can be a fun intellectual game, but they're for fictional people in a sword and sorcery fantasy world, and the connections can't be taken far.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'd nominate Thomas Jefferson for CG. He was an Anti-Federalist and possibly the principle mind behind much of the limited-government wording of the US Constitution. It is also clear from his writings that he sought not just freedom, but benevolent freedom.

I'd agree... he was so chaotic that he didn't see any reason to fix the Articles of Confederation which provided a VERY WEAK federal government and was against the establishment of the Constitution.