"The Godfather" and Alignment

[The Serge]

You use the word people. I have seen games where the Paladin will easilly slay entire tribes of Orcs -- not because they did an evil act, but becuase they are Orcs -- and thus, deserve to die.

This is what I was refering to.

Well, to be fair, IMC Dwarves are largely LG. As a race, they hate Goblins and Giants and do everything they can to kill them... largely because in their experience, these creatures are wholy evil and dangerous. This includes Dwarven Paladins. However, the Dwarven Paladin we had in our campaign was willing, on occasion, to consider letting Goblins go if they weren't committing an act of evil (of course, this never happened).

Now, to me, a Paladin going out of his way to slaughter a group of Orcs indiscriminately just because she things they're up to no good is evil. If, however, she kills Orcs in order to stop them from committing an act of evil against people, then she's fine. In my mind, such games that do what you describe are either being played immaturely or are being played simplistically (and there is a difference).

But that's just me.

But in the end -- its all good (pun intended).

Alignment is (greatly, in my opinion) a matter of perspective. If there is such a thing as elemental evil -- and thus, Orcs all qualify as inherently evil, by nature) then perhaps my judgements are off. But since I disagree with the very notion of an elemental evil, then this is where my opinion is founded.

I agree with you to a point. I think that each DM is responsible for clarifying alignments in his/her campaign setting. I attempt to have a very broad alignment canvas. I can see Evil beings as capable of love... I can also see an entire race of Evil beings. I can see Good characters as capable of hate just as I can see an entire race of Good beings.

But, I do think that when we're talking about alignment for the core D&D that the explanations in the Core Rule Books are fairly clear and that they can be applied to questions like the one that got this entire discourse started.

Now, let me shut up and let other people get involved.

 

[La Bete]

woo-hoo - less than 12hours since the first post, and the paladin arguement came up! Excellent work guys!

Unfortunately your argument was disturbingly civil and reasoned. Grumble...

 

[tleilaxu]

Now it's my vote. I'm siding with the sizable LN minority myself. (With perhaps evil tendencies). Vito operates by a code, and though he is ruthless, he is rarely malicious. Vito usually gives people a way out before he gets violent (or has his men get violent). He has his limits--he won't support the narcotics business, even though it will be profitable, for both pragmatic, and personal reasons. And he repays even the smallest favors, and asks that others do the same.

And Michael at the end of Godfather, Part II--definitely Lawful Evil. Hell, arguably by the end of Part I...

If that is your definition of LN i'd hate to see what you consider LE. Look at all the evil stuff he does in the flashbacks of Godfather 2.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Now it's my vote. I'm siding with the sizable LN minority myself. (With perhaps evil tendencies). Vito operates by a code, and though he is ruthless, he is rarely malicious. Vito usually gives people a way out before he gets violent (or has his men get violent). He has his limits--he won't support the narcotics business, even though it will be profitable, for both pragmatic, and personal reasons. And he repays even the smallest favors, and asks that others do the same.
...

QUOTE]

I think you just described Asmodeus

I also think his alignment shifted. He probably was LG/Nuetral tendecies as a child and then slid into malaise as he turned off the part of of his emotions that caused him to care about people beyond a twisted sense to duty.

 

[Darkness]

Moved to Fantasy & Sci-Fi Books, Movies & TV.

 

[LostSoul]

As many have illustrated in the past, the order of Paladins, as depicted in the game, will murder (even to the point of genocide) any people they feel falls into their definition of evil, all in the name of their Diety -- and thus, within the bounds of an organized, hierarchical, and traditional religious framework.

The problem with this is that Evil is an absolute force in standard D&D - you can't do something Evil and still be a Paladin, even if your god teaches that it is true. They will kill, even to the point of genocide, but only if it is a Good act (or, in certain circumstances, Neutral).

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

A lot of posters have mentioned Corleone's anti-drug angle to upgrade him from evil to neutrality. While I would argue that the very point of the Godfather movies points out how ridiculous an alignment system really is, I'd rather not get into that. But, I do have to disagree with those who think Vito shied away from the drug trade out of humanitarianism. It seemed plain to me that Vito knew that the judges, cops and politicians whose hypocrisy and corruption he'd worked so long to cultivate would not stand for drugs. Narcotics would be the dealbreaker. And that's pretty much how it worked out in real life, too.

As for me, I voted LE. He was capable of doing anything to provide security for his family, up to and including murder. That's something I just can't see a LN doing. But, as I said, the central dichotomy of the Godfather characters' lives makes pigeonholing them pretty hard.

 

[kengar]

A lot of posters have mentioned Corleone's anti-drug angle to upgrade him from evil to neutrality. While I would argue that the very point of the Godfather movies points out how ridiculous an alignment system really is, I'd rather not get into that. But, I do have to disagree with those who think Vito shied away from the drug trade out of humanitarianism. It seemed plain to me that Vito knew that the judges, cops and politicians whose hypocrisy and corruption he'd worked so long to cultivate would not stand for drugs. Narcotics would be the dealbreaker. And that's pretty much how it worked out in real life, too.

"It makes no difference to me how a man makes his living."

"I wish you good luck in your business insofar as it doesn't interfere with me or my family's."

-Vito Corleone to Salazzo "The Turk" about turning down his request to help him in the narcotics trade.

Immediately thereafter he sends for Luca Brasi, his most loyal & ruthless killer.

 

[Rhialto]

Well first of all, we can't take everything that the mafiaso say during their business meetings as gospel truth--they each stretch the truth, coach their opinions in pleasant terms, and occasionally lie outright. A good example is Roth's comments about Moe Green in Part II--while claiming to show his businesslike nature, he is actually revealing some of his motives for trying to kill Michael. In the case you're mentioning, Vito, in a business meeting, explains his pragmatic motives for wanting to avoid the trade. However, it is definitely implied that he has underneath the pragmatic motives a distaste for the narcotics business itself.

And explain and illustrate the difference between Vito sending for Brasi to kill his enemies, and a king sending for a party of adventurers to kill his enemies. Use clear examples.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

And explain and illustrate the difference between Vito sending for Brasi to kill his enemies, and a king sending for a party of adventurers to kill his enemies. Use clear examples.

And the answer is:

Depends on who the enemy is.

If a king hires adventurers to take out a marauding red dragon, that's pretty unimpeachable.

Two criminals trying to whack each other is not necessarily an evil act in and of itself, but you have to examine motive. Was St. Corleone looking to rid the world of evil Virgil Sollazzo, or was he trying to protect his business interests? My heart says the former, but my gut says the latter.

And killing for selfish gain is pretty evil in my book, whether or not it's a jerk like Sollazzo.