"The Godfather" and Alignment

[WayneLigon]

His Grace Vito Corleone, Count of Black March

M Human Expert6 Aristocrat3 CR 8; Size:M Type Humanoid; HD (6d6)+(3d8)+9; hp 46; Init +0 (+0 Dex, +0 Misc); Spd Walk 30'; AC 10 (flatfooted 10, touch 10), / ( /x ) or ; SA: ; Vision: Normal AL: LE; Sv: Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +12; Str 10, Dex 11, Con 13, Int 16, Wis 15, Cha 16

Skills and Feats: Appraise +9, Bluff +15, Diplomacy +19, Forgery +6, Gather Information +9, Innuendo +4, Intimidate +18, Intuit Direction +14, Knowledge (Local) +9, Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) +9, Listen +4, Perform +6, Profession (Woodcutter) +12, Sense Motive +14, Spot +3;

Expertise,Iron Will,Leadership,Point Blank Shot, Skill Focus (Intimidate)

 

[Rhialto]

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...

 

[La Bete]

LN - with serious E tendencies....

 

[Squire James]

If I'm going to play the "alignment game" at all, I tend to try to forget that word "tendencies" until I establish what he is. Jack the Ripper isn't a True Neutral guy with "serious" Chaotic Evil tendencies... he's freaking Chaotic Evil!

I warn you that I haven't memorized enough of "The Godfather" to come up with specifics, so bear with me. The Godfather was head of a "shadow government" of a sort, a regulatory board on crime. "Crime" is a mixture of things Chaotic and things Evil, and the Mafia acted to regulate the Chaotic a lot more than they acted to regulate the Evil. The Mafia is clearly a Lawful Evil organization.

As for the Godfather himself, that is more difficult. He is the embodiment of the Mafia, their "god" so to speak, and it is hard to imagine a "god" not matching the alignment of its "worshippers". However, there did seem to be a few cases where he did just that. Kinda like how Odin (in Norse mythology) did evil stuff once in a while.

So it is my opinion that he's Lawful Evil, but since he is a "god" he can violate his alignment once in a while and get away with it. At least until someone demonstrates that he's not really a god (which is essentially what happens).

 

[Rhialto]

All right, who's the joker that voted Lawful Good...?

At the very least you owe us an explanation...

 

[EricNoah]

I'm gonna go with Neutral Evil. Uses the trappings of order, heirarchy, etc. to accomplish chaotic and evil ends. Doesn't actually want to further the cause of law, probably doesn't want to further the cause chaos, really just furthering his own selfish ends.

 

[The Serge]

I think the problem some people are having here is reconciling a clearly LE character (based upon D&D definitions) who happens to love his family (not to mention that many people have built The Godfather and its characters into romanticized anti-heroes in the same way Englightenment period artists did to Milton's Satan).

As some people have already illustrated, the Mafia and The Corleone family as depicted in The Godfather are clearly evil. They murder, extort, cheat, and engage in all kinds of evil acts for their own benefit within an organized, hierarchical, and traditional framework. There's the leader, his aide (a legal aid), his successor, his lieutenants, an enforcer, and the lowlies. There are clearly expected norms and mores and a great deal of attention is paid to the manipulation of laws and culture to promote their own ends. Vito Corleone not only endorses this behavior, he's the reason it exists in the first place.

However, being evil does not mean that a person cannot love... particularly if you're Lawful Evil. Certainly, there are variations of LE. Vito loves his children, particularly Michael. He loves them so much that, after one's killed, he's willing to allow The Corleone Family to acquiesce to the demands of rivals. Sure, he's mellowed out, but he did not stop the war because he was worried about the deaths of his enemies children, the impact his business had on the nation, or any of that. He stopped it because he loved his children and didn't want any more harm to come to them.

Michael Corleone is als LE. However, he is far more Lawful about his behavior. Corleone stopped his behavior for a self act... the love for his natural family (not all that selfish, but it was not for a greater good). Michael killed his own brother because it was a business move. Anyone who cross The Corleone Family was dealt with in the appropriate manner, and betrayal of the Family meant execution and this extended to his brother. Still, he's consumed with guilt and loss because he loved his brother.

The silent scream Corleone issues near the end of The Godfather indicates that even a terribly evil and selfish person can love. Michael loved his daughter immensely... so much that he was trying to pull out of the Family Business (actually, she was only one part of the equation). Her death really hurt him... but he was still LE.

I do think that LE will likely have more room for love, than NE and especially more than CE, but only a few mortal beings are capable of so profound an evil as to be oblivious to a degree of love.

 

[KDLadage]

I think the problem some people are having here is reconciling a clearly LE character (based upon D&D definitions) who happens to love his family (not to mention that many people have built The Godfather and its characters into romanticized anti-heroes in the same way Englightenment period artists did to Milton's Satan).

Allow me to re-phrase this to make my opinion on this matter a little clearer...

The problem with the Paladin is reconciling a clearly LG character (based upon D&D definitions) who happens to love his church and his faith...

As some people have already illustrated, the Mafia and The Corleone family as depicted in The Godfather are clearly evil. They murder, extort, cheat, and engage in all kinds of evil acts for their own benefit within an organized, hierarchical, and traditional framework.

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.

There's the leader, his aide (a legal aid), his successor, his lieutenants, an enforcer, and the lowlies. There are clearly expected norms and mores and a great deal of attention is paid to the manipulation of laws and culture to promote their own ends.

There is a leader (sometimes intagible and distant, other times in the form of a high-ranking Priest), a defined order, and a system of discipline. They will (without pity or remorse) enforce thier system of beliefs at any cost. Local laws can (and will) be ignored if they conflict with the code and beliefs of their command structure. There are clearly expected norms (in the form of the Code of Behavior).

Vito Corleone not only endorses this behavior, he's the reason it exists in the first place.

As a member of this order, the Paladin not only endorses this behavior, but re-enforces it through recruitment and conversion tactics.

However, being evil does not mean that a person cannot love... particularly if you're Lawful Evil. Certainly, there are variations of LE. Vito loves his children, particularly Michael. He loves them so much that, after one's killed, he's willing to allow The Corleone Family to acquiesce to the demands of rivals. Sure, he's mellowed out, but he did not stop the war because he was worried about the deaths of his enemies children, the impact his business had on the nation, or any of that. He stopped it because he loved his children and didn't want any more harm to come to them.

The Paladin, despite his code of ethics, is not forbidden to love. But no matter his love, he must always hold his faith as the higher ideal. If the death of his beloved will serve the common good -- he is not always allowed to acquiesce to the demands of his heart. Sure, he may feel the pain, and he may even feel the raw emotions of the loss. But in the end, for his ideal to be maintained, the very things he held dear in his heart, must give way to the desires and demands of the faith itself.

Michael Corleone is als LE. However, he is far more Lawful about his behavior. Corleone stopped his behavior for a self act... the love for his natural family (not all that selfish, but it was not for a greater good). Michael killed his own brother because it was a business move. Anyone who cross The Corleone Family was dealt with in the appropriate manner, and betrayal of the Family meant execution and this extended to his brother. Still, he's consumed with guilt and loss because he loved his brother.

The silent scream Corleone issues near the end of The Godfather indicates that even a terribly evil and selfish person can love. Michael loved his daughter immensely... so much that he was trying to pull out of the Family Business (actually, she was only one part of the equation). Her death really hurt him... but he was still LE.

I do think that LE will likely have more room for love, than NE and especially more than CE, but only a few mortal beings are capable of so profound an evil as to be oblivious to a degree of love.

With your comments on Michael, I agree. That is one cold-hearted SOB. LE to the core. Vito, on the other hand, is not quite so clear. At least in my mind.

 

[The Serge]

Allow me to re-phrase this to make my opinion on this matter a little clearer...

By all means... although my comments weren't directed to you earlier.

The problem with the Paladin is reconciling a clearly LG character (based upon D&D definitions) who happens to love his church and his faith...

I don't see a problem here if the Paladin class is played within the D&D framework. Based upon what I've seen thus far in your post, I think your "Paladin" is not really a Paladin, but we'll deal with your points one at a time.

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.

I'd like to know where we've seen Paladins in a game used in this fashion. I've never used them like this. I've never had a Paladin as a class commit acts of genocide in the name of their god.

Quite frankly, I think that your perspective on Paladins is appropriate for a "Vile" or very, very mature and not so much alignment-oriented game. You're bringing in elements that typically would not be a part of the traditional/standard game.

In a game I run, a Paladin would not murder wantonly (unless forced or tricked into doing so). A Paladin defends just laws for the common good. She would not start killing or even arresting people who did not follow said laws unless their actions directly impacted and conflicted with the common good. Even if the tradition is being challenged, the traditional D&D Paladin would not just start killing and/or removing people because they disagreed with her. Would she frown upon their position and behavior? Sure, but that would be it.

There is a leader (sometimes intagible and distant, other times in the form of a high-ranking Priest), a defined order, and a system of discipline. They will (without pity or remorse) enforce thier system of beliefs at any cost. Local laws can (and will) be ignored if they conflict with the code and beliefs of their command structure. There are clearly expected norms (in the form of the Code of Behavior).

You're describing a LN Monk, or an attorney from Law and Order, not the traditional D&D Paladin.

A Paladin would react with remorse if she had to kill someone who was threatening her or others, but she would not hesitate. And this threat would have to be life-threatening or potentially so, not some vague situation.

Local laws would not be ignored. I see Paladins as a bunch of Supermen. Superman would not just wantonly fly into some country and impose his clearly LG ideology on people, but would not stand by as people are murdered and abused.

As a member of this order, the Paladin not only endorses this behavior, but re-enforces it through recruitment and conversion tactics.

As any religious entity, Lawful or not, would... although, a Paladin does not endorse the behaviors you describe.

The Paladin, despite his code of ethics, is not forbidden to love. But no matter his love, he must always hold his faith as the higher ideal. If the death of his beloved will serve the common good -- he is not always allowed to acquiesce to the demands of his heart. Sure, he may feel the pain, and he may even feel the raw emotions of the loss. But in the end, for his ideal to be maintained, the very things he held dear in his heart, must give way to the desires and demands of the faith itself.

But I don't see a LG god up and demanding that degree of sacrifice either.

With your comments on Michael, I agree. That is one cold-hearted SOB. LE to the core. Vito, on the other hand, is not quite so clear. At least in my mind.

At least we agree on something!

Your arguments are excellent by the way.

 

[KDLadage]

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.

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.