Alexandra Quick is a 6th-level Magic-User/Thief

[inverarity]

Springing off of a comment on an earlier post, I had this extremely nerdy idea a while ago, so why not?



Way back in the day, I played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Yes, yes, it's true. I even had the original blue box basic D&D set.

By high school I had left AD&D behind and have never really looked back (for many years I was more of a Champions and GURPS grognard), but let's face it, everyone who has ever played a roleplaying game, even if they sniff disdainfully at AD&D, is familiar with the tropes pioneered by that game.

So, for anyone nerdy enough to be familiar with them, here's an AD&D alignment poll for my AQ characters. (Here is a summary of alignments if you need a refresher/guide.)

We're going by the original AD&D alignment chart.



Blink Dogs. Seriously.

Or if you prefer one of a bajillion images online mapping various fictional characters to alignments:



It took me a while to find one I agreed with. Also, The Wire is fucking awesome.

So, without entering into an extensive debate on the validity/utility of AD&D alignments (I had those debates so many times in high school...), consider this "just for fun."

I will let the poll run for a while, and then eventually post my own Absolutely Correct and Inarguable Word of God interpretations. :P

I'm not including all the minor characters because it's a pain — LJ requires I manually enter the fields for every single character. But feel free to speculate in the comments if you like.



[Poll #1942893]

Comments

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between killing enemy soldiers in a war (and a revolution is effectively a civil war) and killing civilians, "collateral damage" or no. Abraham Thorn did the latter. Killing civilians may sometimes (extremely rarely) be "necessary," but it's still evil.

I apologize for being unclear. I agree that revolutionaries can be lawful, and my original reasoning for moving Abraham into the NE category was unsound. That's why I think a strong argument can be given for him being LE. I think it depends on how you interpret "Lawful Evil," which is one of the more complicated alignments.

Whether someone follows school rules is a defining factor in whether or not they're lawful when the person in question is a student. School rules are laws for a student.

[graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)]

I agree that there is a difference between killing enemy soldiers and killing civilians, but you'd be extremely hard pressed to find a revolutionary who didn't do both. Not every revolutionary has the means to fight a conventional war and in this case the civilians were legitimate collateral damage. Thorn didn't set out to kill civilians and (he says) he gave the confederation the means to prevent civilian deaths, but cutting off the confederation from the Lands Below is a legitimate military objective. In his other attacks (Gringotts, the schools) he has also gone out of his way to limit collateral damage. The way I see it he is waging this war as cleanly as possible while still being effective.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

You're right, it's hard to find a revolutionary who doesn't kill civilians. That's why a violent revolution should be a method of last resort. Abraham's methods are not necessary to end the Deathly Regiment and depose Hucksteen. Geming Chu is trying to do the same thing nonviolently and democratically. But even if they were necessary, I repeat, necessary evil is still evil.

Look, the alignment system doesn't leave much room for moral ambiguity. Abraham is certainly a much more complex figure than, say, John Manuelito. But if committing evil actions without remorse--which Abraham certainly does--is not enough to count as "evil," quite frankly I don't know what does.

(As a final note, the civilian deaths were only "legitimate collateral damage" if [a] Abraham's revolution is the only way to stop the Deathly Regiment and [b] sealing the Lands Below is necessary for the success of the revolution. Neither of those has been demonstrated.)

[graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)]

Whether or not his actions are the only way to end the deathly regiment (or all the other crap the confederation does) is up for debate. But Abraham clearly believes that it's the only way, he's said it in so many words and, given what has transpired so far, he has a point. It wasn't Thorn's choice to stop trying the peaceful path, the confederation forced it on him by declaring him an enemy of the state. Geming Chu would be the case in point giving the lengths the confederation went to to prevent his election. Does this prove it is impossible to stop legislatively? Not with certainty, but Abraham isn't the first Thorn who has tried to stop the Deathly Regiment and I suspect he doesn't want to be the next one to die doing so. When the other guy is willing to kill for it you can either kill him back, surrender, or die pointlessly. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that people would be able to judge whether sealing the Lands Below is "Necessary", all Abraham can see is that it is the best, and probably least casualty intensive, way he has to hurt the confederation. You might as well argue that the Italian Campaign or the sinking of the Tirpitz were war crimes because it can't be proved that they were absolutely "necessary" for the defeat of Germany, such certainty is not possible in the midst of war.

[ng14916.livejournal.com]

I've always wondered, why does the Deathly Regiment use children? Why not adult volunteers? It doesn't really need to be secret.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I assume that'll be explained in later books. It's probably some sort of Generous Ones rule or something.

[graeme sutton (from livejournal.com)]

It hasn't been explained but it had occurred to me that children might give more charge (if you're trading a person's life for a temporary token, then it might make sense that someone with a longer remaining life span would give a longer lasting token).

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Of course Abraham believes he's right. Pretty much everyone believes they're right. (Even John Manuelito!) I'm not saying he doesn't have a point, I'm saying that he's blinded by his own biases and history, too obsessed with revenge to think clearly about how his (stated) goals might best be achieved. A complex figure, yes, but definitely firmly in the "Evil" portion of D&D's limited alignment system.

Italy was an enemy nation filled with actual soldiers; the Tirpitz was a battleship. We are talking about the deaths of civilians here, so your analogy does not hold. There is, of course, a good chance sealing the Lands Below was the most efficient way to deal a huge blow to the Confederation, but even at this early stage I have a hard time believing it was "necessary," even if I thought violent revolution was the only way to bring down the Deathly Regiment (which again, I don't).