Moral quandry (Alignment question of a sort)

[EOL]

It's funny, but the prince in this example bears a striking resemblance to the ideal ruler put forth in Machivelli's The Prince I'm guessing it's unintentional.

Having said that I would mostly agree with Al. Though possibly put the prince down as LE rather than LN. He also reminds me a lot of the Doctor Doom character from the Marvel Universe.

 

[LostSoul]

The Prince is, I think, Neutral. He stood up for those under his care and did everything he could to protect them. Nothing says that the Prince sticks to his personal "oath" more than any other concern (not Lawful), but he doesn't make strange, impulsive decisions (not Chaotic). He isn't Evil because he's not going out of his way to cause harm; he isn't Good because he's not sacrificing for the sake of others.

The Conqueror? Don't know. Why is he waging this war? Just because he wants to expand the Empire? for Pride? or because he needs the resources? He doesn't seem to have made any rash decisions (other than starting the war, but we don't know his reasons for this), so he's probably not Chaotic. He will sacrifice his life for those under him, but he's not going out of his way for anyone else - either to hurt or help them. Probably Neutral. He sounds like he has a personal code of honour, so he might be Lawful.

Are thier actions justified? In what sense? How do you judge this? They worked in the best interest of the people under thier leadership, so, in that light, yes. Many people died, though, so maybe not.

What would I do differently? Not get killed, if I were the Conquerer.

 

[Quickbeam]

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.

There's no question that I'm oversimplifying the equation here with my analogy. My point wasn't that the Prince was wrong for following his chosen course of action, or that it necessarily made him good or evil. I was only stating that I don't care for this particular form of egocentric behavior. That happens to be my personal opinion -- nothing more, nothing less.
Many people would see these actions as the epitomy of responsible leadership, while others would condemn them as callous and shameful. How about the German and Polish citizens during the onset of WWII who sought to aid the Jews, by protecting them from extermination? Are the citizens who did nothing to be condemned for refusing to act because they feared bringing harm to their own families? We could argue both sides of that coin to no end, but my personal beliefs are such that I'd like to think I wouldn't turn my back on those in need.

As for the Prince's alignment, I have no problem classifying him as True Neutral. In fact, that was my original answer...which I changed prior to posting my reply .

 

[clockworkjoe]

It's funny, but the prince in this example bears a striking resemblance to the ideal ruler put forth in Machivelli's The Prince I'm guessing it's unintentional.

Having said that I would mostly agree with Al. Though possibly put the prince down as LE rather than LN. He also reminds me a lot of the Doctor Doom character from the Marvel Universe.

I've only read the Prince four or five times

No, seriously, I did think of Renaissance politics when I thought of this. I think that mode of politics is well suited to D&D games.

 

[med stud]

I think this is a very interesting topic, because the Prince's behaviour is almost exactly like the behaviour of my country during WWII, when Nazi troops passed through Swedish territory on their way to Norway. By cooperating with the Nazis, Sweden was saved from the war.

It was a cowardly behaviour on one hand, but Sweden wouldnt be able to stop the Germans anyway, and then the question is whatever it is right for a politician to sacrifice his population in a symbolic fight, or if the politician instead should save the life of as many citizens as possible?

This is a hot issue in Sweden, if this was the right way or the wrong way. Personally I think like I did in this example, that the government did the right thing by keeping out of the war.

 

[Quickbeam]

med stud:
I appreciate your honest assessment of the moral conflict presented, and your opinion on the matter. You and I simply believe we'd act differently -- or at least would prefer to see our leaders act differently -- under painful circumstances. Let's hope that none of us are ever forced into actually having to face such horrific situations.

 

[Squire James]

The Conquerer is clearly Chaotic, IMO. If he has a "code of honor", he made it up himself and probably didn't consult anyone else about it. I think there is a difference between "realm alignment" and "ruler alignment" here. The Conquerer himself appears to be CN and may be CG, but his realm is CE (or maybe CN with evil tendencies).

Not enough data on the Prince. He doesn't appear to be Chaotic or Evil (though he might have a little "Lex Luthor" hidden in there somewhere for all I know), but I'm at a loss about which of the other 4 he might be. Yes, I can see a LG ruler (not a Paladin, just generally benevolent and just) doing what he did. So I'd have to say True Neutral with 2 "ticks" of Lawful and 1 "tick" of Good (3 "ticks" required to change alignment).

 

[Zerovoid]

I think the prince is probably lawful neutral. He obviously believes in maintaining order, and he tried to do the best thing for his own society. Lawful means that someone has a group orientation, but I don't think the group can extend beyond one's own nation, unless it has strong ties with another nation.

Here's what I'm wondering. We all seem to agree that the prince isn't neutral good, but what should a NG ruler have done? Certianly making a stand against the conquorer is and inflicting great harm on ones own people isn't a good thing to allow. Especially if such a sacrifice will be insufficeint to accomplish anything. Perhaps the prince really is NG, but there are no feasible actions that can be taken in this situation that are in line with this ethos. Maybe he made the hard choice, and doesn't really like it, but he isn't bound by this precident, and will try to act NG in the future.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that, if the Prince wanted to be NG, he should have given up the throne, gathered up his "chosen men", and struck out to do war behind the lines against the Conquerer.

By being a good ruler, however, he has been forced to sell his soul.

 

[LostSoul]

The Conquerer is clearly Chaotic, IMO. If he has a "code of honor", he made it up himself and probably didn't consult anyone else about it. I think there is a difference between "realm alignment" and "ruler alignment" here. The Conquerer himself appears to be CN and may be CG, but his realm is CE (or maybe CN with evil tendencies).

In the PHB, lawful implies "honor, trustworthiness, obidience to authority, and reliability." All of which the Conquerer displays. Nowhere does it say that a personal code of honour, made up by and for himself, is any less lawful than one handed down from on high.

That's my take on it, at least.

Spot on with the Conquerer's realm, I think.