Who's more of a Lawful Neutral?

[Iriath Zhul]

Settra or Orion? I was trying to map the LLs onto that old chart (horribly referenced in RP1 by the way) and I got hung up on this.

[Ghuldarkar]

Settra seems more toward lawful evil. He's a conqueror and does not like these young upstarts nor the other old races. Orion on the other hand seems neutral, but somewhere between true neutral and chaotic neutral.

[Red Dragon]

Originally posted by Pélinal Blancserpent:

Idk but I can tell you one thing, there's only one race which should be considered as chaotic evil : Halflings.

How dare you ...

[AVGAMER]

I think settra is completely lawful evil he props his own rule with a rigid system based on the exploitation of those below him, and take any oppertunity to "lawfully" take someones elses country too. don't forget he murered his own children in sacrifice to his ego. Khalida seems closer to the high elves in morality as a very supriour if not imperious lawful good.

I would agree that the lizardmen expecialy mazdamundi are lawful neutral they follow the plan set before them without personal intrest and without cuelty. Kroq Gar is a little more blood thirsty but he restrines himself tot he enemies of the plan.

The wood elves seem chatoic neutral mostly, orion seems very changable in lore and ariel is a nutcase. Druthu was good once but seems warped.

Dwaves sem lawful good for the most part as thier honrable, trustwrothy and valient though their arrgont obsession with precived wrongs against them and quickness to kill over over their own egos could be seen as lawful neutral if not lawful evil behavior verging onr acial supremecy.

High elves are lawful good mostly as they genrally act for the greater good and are genrally defensive when fighting other nations like dark elves and greenskins or target world destroying evils like chaos. However like dwaves their arrgonce leads them to overact to slights such as sealord aislin invading marainburg. Though this seems like am isolated incident.

Empire and bretonnia seem to encompass a lot or moral outlooks and eithics but at thier best they genrally thing their doing the the right thin. Though bretonnias caste system is clearly quite lawful evil in outlook if not always in practice same witht he witch hunters that in reality do more to promote chaos sympathisers than to stamp it out.

Skaven seem chaotic evil just a seething mass of hate, spite and destruction with no concept of higher virtues.

Dark elves seem neutral evil their sadisitc, arragont, decitful and blood thirsty and genrally do it for thier own sick pleasure. Malakeith and malus are pehaps more lawful evil as they have thier own twisted codes of honor and malkeith in particular dosen't seem to enjoy brutality or cruelty.

Vampires seem evil for the most part ranging from orderly and scheming to chicken drinking crazy. Vlad seems more lawful neutral he rules fairly and legitimetly and dosen't tend to get nasty until sombody wrongs him.

Thats my take on things

[shadain597]

Originally posted by AVGAMER:

High elves are lawful good mostly as they genrally act for the greater good and are genrally defensive when fighting other nations like dark elves and greenskins or target world destroying evils like chaos. However like dwaves their arrgonce leads them to overact to slights such as sealord aislin invading marainburg. Though this seems like am isolated incident.

I disagree about the high elves. Some, like Teclis, are really interested in the greater good but the vast majority seem only interested in protecting themselves. The humans and other relatively decent folk that they sometimes help exist primarily as a meat shield to protect Ulthuan from the real enemies.

[AVGAMER]

I don't know they maintain the vortex, have a brutal civil war going on and onlyt end to attack others in slef defense. Teclis is somthing of an emissary buy isolation in and of itself isn't an maoral act. considering that dwaves will commit genocide over an insult (any insult), the empire and bretonnia will invade without question and cull quite happily wanting to be left alone isn't a huge sin.

[shadain597]

Maintaining the vortex is primarily a selfish act. That it helps others is icing on the cake. Isolation isn't bad, but it also isn't selflessly acting to protect others.

[AVGAMER]

No its not an act of maytrdom but compared to the behavior of other factions even the good ones being a bit elitiest and staying on your island dosen't disqualify you from being lawful good. They've always acted to protect the younger races against chaos teclis didn't go alone to aid magnus or karl franz.

[shadain597]

Originally posted by AVGAMER:

They've always acted to protect the younger races against chaos teclis didn't go alone to aid magnus or karl franz.

Motive is important when you talk morality. Most high elves don't care about the younger races, they're protecting them so that those battlefields aren't on Ulthuan itself.

[Cacomistle]

Originally posted by shadain597:

Originally posted by AVGAMER:

They've always acted to protect the younger races against chaos teclis didn't go alone to aid magnus or karl franz.

Motive is important when you talk morality. Most high elves don't care about the younger races, they're protecting them so that those battlefields aren't on Ulthuan itself.

It depends how strict you are about the good requirement. I mean in dnd for example, a lawful good character could go hunting undead and goblins and such. I don't think its expected to treat "evil" races as good as their own.

If we view it based on always acting on the motive of greater good for everyone, in modern society as well almost nobody fits that. And don't know anybody who gollow the motive of treating others as well as they do themselves or people close to them (and by others I obviously don't just mean humans). Like if you could save your mother, or some random stranger kid, you'd almost certainly save your mother (assuming you care more about her like most people would).

High elves find the motive of saving themselves most important. Everyone does. But I think if the empire (and not ulthuan) was about to burn, and they could save them without risking their own lives, they would help. Or at least teclis probably would. And I know that's not a high bar, but if you set the bar high no one or at least very few people will ever meet it (in bith fantasy and reality).

[AVGAMER]

And also ulthan held back the chaos for aeons before the empire exisited. Can you provide any evidence they aid the empire for purely self preservation or any evidence that other races acted out anything other than self preservation.

[shadain597]

Originally posted by Boneripper:

Originally posted by shadain597:

Motive is important when you talk morality. Most high elves don't care about the younger races, they're protecting them so that those battlefields aren't on Ulthuan itself.

It depends how strict you are about the good requirement. I mean in dnd for example, a lawful good character could go hunting undead and goblins and such. I don't think its expected to treat "evil" races as good as their own.

That's completely different. And high elves hunt the "bad guys" too. Again, the difference is MOTIVE. Why they do it. That LG paladin is going around killing Bad Guys AND specifically protecting the weak/innocent/whatever. It could be folks of a different nation, race, religion, etc. and the paladin still does it because it's the Right Thing To Do. Most high elves primarily do it because it's a valid strategy to keep their own homes safe.

If we view it based on always acting on the motive of greater good for everyone, in modern society as well almost nobody fits that. And don't know anybody who gollow the motive of treating others as well as they do themselves or people close to them (and by others I obviously don't just mean humans). Like if you could save your mother, or some random stranger kid, you'd almost certainly save your mother (assuming you care more about her like most people would).

High elves find the motive of saving themselves most important. Everyone does. But I think if the empire (and not ulthuan) was about to burn, and they could save them without risking their own lives, they would help. Or at least teclis probably would. And I know that's not a high bar, but if you set the bar high no one or at least very few people will ever meet it (in bith fantasy and reality).

Saving someone when it's convenient for you isn't really the definition of a good person, more like an okay person.

Example time! Real world: let's say there's a world-class surgeon. He saves at least one life per week, every week he is on the job. Probably quite a bit more than that. A lot of lives saved, he must be a good guy, right? Well, turns out the guy is an arrogant jerk. Totally insufferable and without an ounce of compassion. Sure, he does his job, but he doesn't care about the patient. He does it to prove his skill and earn a fat paycheck. Sure, his contribution to society is good, but is he really a good person? I don't think so, especially not in the D&D alignment system. Similar thing for most of the high elves. Doing a good thing because it happens to fit your goals does not make you good.

[AVGAMER]

Your just labouring your point give some evidence on how thw high ef morality is selfish (i.e not good) and what in the warhammer world would you consider good the autocratic invading empire, arrgont genocidal dwaves the rigidly objective focused lizardmen.

[shadain597]

Originally posted by AVGAMER:

Your just labouring your point give some evidence on how thw high ef morality is selfish (i.e not good) and what in the warhammer world would you consider good the autocratic invading empire, arrgont genocidal dwaves the rigidly objective focused lizardmen.

Since you don't appear to be interested in reading what I have written, perhaps you'll be interested in reading what someone else said:

Originally posted by Fütter das weisse Licht:

Just thought i bring to attention the Introduction of the elves from the 8th edition rule book.

"Whilst the high elves consider themselves to be the defenders of the world, that calling doesn't necessarily extend to the protection of other races.

Only a relative handful of High elves see the lesser races as something worth protecting-and even they believe that these races must occasionally be saved from themselves.

The rest at their most generous, consider foreigners an additional set of defences with which to preserve Ulthuan, living fortress walls to be reinforced or abandoned as the larger scheme of battle dictates."

So maybe there are some "good" elves. But in general High elves only care about themselves. Not really the paragons of virtue.

And as for the other thing, I'd say none of the societies in WH are particularly good. Obviously HE, Dwarfs, and the Empire are better than most, but they are still very much flawed. Kinda why applying D&D alignments to entire societies, especially in WH, is pointless and off-topic. The whole D&D system is a little wonky and somewhat childish, but it's far easier to call Teclis good than the entire HE society good. Even then you have to ask, is he lawful, neutral, or chaotic? I can see an argument for all three, which is another point against the system.

[Chameon]

Originally posted by AVGAMER:

Your just labouring your point give some evidence on how thw high ef morality is selfish (i.e not good) and what in the warhammer world would you consider good the autocratic invading empire, arrgont genocidal dwaves the rigidly objective focused lizardmen.

Aristocratic and autocratic are two different things, unless you're referencing Bretonnia with the word 'empire', in which case that's monarchic. Dwarves are also not genocidal, by any stretch. Unless you're going very strictly by genetic lineage of 'familicidal', in which case, yes, if they have a grudge against you, they're familicidal.

As for LIzardmen.....rigidly is the incorrect term, although they are certainly objective focused, they also tend not to know their own objective.

The Empire is ruled by a series of counts, each of which holds significant, albeit not absolute, power in their own personal region. These 'counts' elect an emperor, who does not hold absolute power either, although he is as close as the area comes. He is counterbalanced by the Elector Counts, and the church, both of which hold spiritual or local power over him. If he tries to order a count to do something, that count can spread misinformation in his own domain or w/e to prevent himself from having to do that thing, while claiming that his populace are incapable or unwilling to act.

The dwarfs....they'll kill your whole family (Or in extreme circumstances, township) over a grudge. "Sins of the father" are -very- much a thing in dwarf culture. That said, you do need a family member to trigger a grudge first. The greenskins and the Skaven are, in general, the exceptions as opposed to the 'rule' here, although one might argue that every Greenskin is a member of every other greenskin's family as they are 'fungal', and that the Skaven really, really do need to be culled more significantly so on the Dwarfs part this is honestly more helping then hurting the Skaven.

Lizardmen, you're honestly not far off. Lawful robotic is the closest Lizardmen come to alignment. They don't really care about the world as a whole, just the Old Ones' plans for the world, and the fact is that if they actually knew how to enact them for certain that's all they would be doing, but the Skink's don't really know anything and the Slann are busy. And the Saurus and Kroxigors don't have the capacity to think sufficiently to actually question the Skinks who don't know what the Slann know.

[AVGAMER]

Aristocratic is a social status not a ruling system, and I think you need to recheck the dictionary on what autocratic means as its a way of running a system rather than a system itself.

Genocide can relate to family, ethnicity or relgion. and denying genocide and saying they just kill families but only if their upset is hardly any form of moral justification.


adjective: autocratic
relating to a ruler who has absolute power.
"the constitutional reforms threatened his autocratic power"
or
taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering.
"a man with a reputation for an autocratic management style"