Moral quandry (Alignment question of a sort)

[Evil Josef]

Being good does not necessarily equal making a sacrifice. The prince, in my opinion, is a good man - possible neutral good - but as someone pointed out, he's had to make some tough decisions to make the best of a situation for his people. His intentions are good at heart, and riding out to confront the Conquerer might have been a foolish gamble; one he isn't willing to risk for the sake of his people, which is another good quality he possesses. Outright confrontation is all well and good for a group of few, but the prince's office would make that infeasible and he apparently wants the best for his subjects.

The conquerer, however, is chaotic neutral at best. He's very selfish, and the good-will he showed his people seems more like an attempt to appease his own ego. I would pin him as lawful evil, myself. One need not be a finger-tenting, eyebrow-raising mastermind to achieve that position. He doesn't realize he's a villain - the best villains never do - and probably sees himself as a righteous legend in the making, while his hunger for power and land has destroyed many of the lives of people of his part of the world. His 'good' intentions really have paved the road to hell.

The prince did what he could, given his position. He had to adopt a stance that would protect his people, and confronting the conquerer with violence would have more than likely just led to strife and hardship for his own people, in the same vein that the conquerer's lust for battle leeched his resources. He might be a little more isolationist than a more generous person might be, but the decision doesn't really make him a crueler person; he's using foresight to preserve the peace of his region, rather than striking out rashly. He's hardly sold his soul. Instead, he's saved the souls of his people rather than adding to the chaos beyond his borders by shaking up his royal hierarchy and launching a risky campaign.

The Conquerer, however, isn't so good with his foresight (like many of the examples you named). He seems mostly concerned with the here and now, which lends him towards chaotic, but he seems to have some capacity for manipulation, which pushes him back towards being lawful. If he had patience and a good head for propaganda, he might have tried a little more subversion. A popular tactic for would-be dictators - lay the blame on some other, more foreign force and offer to 'take care of it', then slowly worming their way into the military while earning the falsely generated gratitude of the common man.

 

[S'mon]

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.

But does that mean Norway did the wrong thing by opposing the Nazis? Or that Finland did the wrong thing by opposing the USSR (and winning, with Nazi help)? I don't think these questions are answerable, I can only say that as a Brit I'd have preferred Sweden to have stood with the western allies, ie my side.

Likewise in the example given, I don't think one can set firm alignments for the 2 characters from the information given. The Prince could be LG (and tortured by the need to act 'for the greater good'), or cynically Neutral - can't see anything Chaotic or Evil about his behaviour, but I guess if you think Machiavelli's ideals were 'evil' you'd disagree.
Real life Conquerors are also hard to pin down I've seen Hitler described as both Lawful-Evil and Chaotic - even different versions of D&D rate things differently, so really this is an impossible question.

 

[Lady Dragon]

The conquorer is chaotic neutral with evil tendencies after all his desire to rule the world is clearly selfish.

As for the prince He is Lawful neutral.He loses any right to call himelf good when he chooses to help the refugees based on their ability to help him back.A Good man would have helped people regaurdless of the wealth or at least some of them intil his own resources were overly stretched.

 

[LostSoul]

He's hardly sold his soul. Instead, he's saved the souls of his people rather than adding to the chaos beyond his borders by shaking up his royal hierarchy and launching a risky campaign.

And bought that peace for his people by standing by while other innocents are slaughtered. You can argue that he is providing the Conquerer with tacit consent.

The Conquerer, however, isn't so good with his foresight (like many of the examples you named). He seems mostly concerned with the here and now, which lends him towards chaotic

Chaos and Law have nothing to do with foresight, nor do they concern themselves with the future over the present. If anything, his behaviour indicates an average Wisdom score.

It is just as easy for a Lawful community to sacrifice the future for the present ("This is the way we do it, always; we won't change just because something is different") as it is for a Chaotic one ("I'm not going to do that which would help me just because you told me I had to").

 

[Evil Josef]

And how can he realistically do anything about innocents being slaughtered, LostSoul, beyond his borders without putting his own subjects at risk? What good would it be to foolishly go out to put an end to their suffering only to fail, and end up plunging both his own people into suffering and have to live with having done nothing with the people he rashly intended to save?

The lawful are more apt than the chaotic to use foresight on a regular basis. The examples you gave were fine, but you used the word 'sacrifice' so therefore I assume you mean a quick, harried decision. Left to their own devices, a chaotic person would be more likely to live for the moment, whereas the lawful person would be more likely to put thought into the future so that he might structure his effectiveness.

 

[clockworkjoe]

Here's another thing to consider:

Suppose the Conquerer let his army plunder and pillage simply because he couldn't control his army to that degree and still have the momentum to keep moving? He didn't care for the pillaging, but had he taken active measure to stop it, he would have lost part of the army's support, and it would have taken a great deal of time to enforce the discipline.

 

[Sammelsurum]

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.

Im swedish and I feel somewhat ashamed of our governments policy during WWII. It was opportunistic and it is true that in retrospect Sweden could actually be said to have gained economically from WWII.
This is not something to brag about med stud!

 

[med stud]

Im swedish and I feel somewhat ashamed of our governments policy during WWII. It was opportunistic and it is true that in retrospect Sweden could actually be said to have gained economically from WWII.
This is not something to brag about med stud!

I didnt brag, I said I agreed with the line of action that our government used; I like most old people I meet, and some of them would be dead if Sweden entered the war. That's the decisions a politician has to make; shall we fight a pointless war against an enemy that will crush us? The answer to that one is no IMO.

OTOH, Sweden sold metals to Germany, that according to some calculations prolonged the war by three years. That is unforgivable, and if something makes me feel ashamed, it is that some executives made the decision to increase their already considerable bank accounts by keeping a war going. Every krona they made is payed in blood by a dying soldier. That was extremely bad, and in the end of the war, it was not like Germany would threaten Sweden if we stopped selling materials.

Sweden is not clean; to make profit out of war is IMO one of the lowest and dirtiest of all actions, as is selling out your neighbour when there actually is a chance that you can oppose the super power. But if my history isnt totally off the records, Germany invaded Norway in 1940, before US and Soviet entered the war; against Great Britains stood a devastated France and a Great Britain that wouldnt last long; to resist the Germans then would be suicied.

So to summarize, keeping out of the war = right, making profit out of it = wrong.

 

[LostSoul]

And how can he realistically do anything about innocents being slaughtered, LostSoul, beyond his borders without putting his own subjects at risk?

The lawful are more apt than the chaotic to use foresight on a regular basis.

He could give up his throne while waging a guerillia war against the Conquerer. He'll most likely die, and odds are good he won't do much good, but at least he is doing something. He can also leave someone that he trusts in power, with orders to maintain the truce.

That's what I think a Good person should do. You might have a different view, though.

Re: Lawful/Chaotic. I can see your point. I guess we have different points of view on the subject.

 

[Sammelsurum]

So to summarize, keeping out of the war = right, making profit out of it = wrong.

Well, we are agreed. But on a case-by-case basis, sometimes you just have to put up resistance no matter what the odds.