PDA

View Full Version : Choosing by 'Alignment': Empire, High Elves, or Dwarfs



Desalbert
06-11-2010, 20:15
Alright, so I've been posting what is probably an obscene amount of posts over the months, trying to help get some thoughts on the next army that I should play. I've listed things I like, and even tried to come at it from a purely fluff pers[pective (which is often most important to me). I even pick up on the smallest things and relate them to this choice.

Anyway, after perusing everything about the armies-- and every small trinket of a thing to help me decide, I took a really solid D&D alignment test that shed some light (I believe) on the kind of mind-set I have as a person. Now, this isn't usually the mindset I choose when I'm gaming (as that is usually evil) but according to the test, my alignment is: Lawful Neutral. I have decided I will use this 'alignment' to help me choose my next force, and I believe that either Empire, High Elves, or Dwarfs fit this notion (but I'm open to lesser suggestions to considerations, like Wood Elves and the 'law of the forest' say.

For those unaware, a few short snippets of Lawful Neutral is as follows:

Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk.
...

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

((more description can be had here and it's quite interesting I find: http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html))

Now, my desire for help is as follows: To those of you who play each army, what makes the top 3 fit into Lawful Neutral-- Or what makes them not so?

Again, I'm not looking for good or evil, but instead, Order-- a force that seeks to preserve their order.


What's more: my main opponent right now is a Vampire player who also has an older Empire army-- how do the above 3 (or any other suggestions) stand against these armies in terms of fun -- Is Empire vs Empire fun for example?

In addition, are High Elves and Dwarfs fun to play against, or is ASF for HE and a focus on dispelling and artillery in terms of the Dwarf, grounds for making them unfun?

As well, I already own Bretonnia and would like to shelf them for now until a new book comes out, so consider them out.


Also, any thoughts you might have on each of the armies in a vacuum would be helpful! (Apologies for the long winded nature of the post)

Thanks guys! (hopefully for the last time so I can get this army going :D)
-Des

Wakerofgods
06-11-2010, 20:22
Lawful neutral reads like wood elves and possibly tomb kings to me. But I don't see it at all with dwarves, empire or high elves. All three of those are varied groups of individuals with a very large mix of strong biases that influence their political decisions and actions.

They simply aren't neutral, they are factions made up of very different people with no specific intent on destroying individuality at all.

If you want a very neutral faction I'd say wood elves are your only real bet.

However, I personally would advise against choosing an army in this way even if you are having a lot of problem choosing. Those alignment systems are terrible for all but very broad classifications.

Desalbert
06-11-2010, 20:29
However, I personally would advise against choosing an army in this way even if you are having a lot of problem choosing. Those alignment systems are terrible for all but very broad classifications.

I do admit to that in some senses, but I have considered the other things about each army like models, backstory, army choices, unit composition etc. and I find that these 3 armies are ones that I do like, divorced of this alignment choice-- Then, I elected to apply this alignment as a helpful decider and I feel like all of these fit-- Mind, it's not neutral neutral it's about preserving one's ideology regardless of whether the actions to do so could be considered evil or good.

For example, Empire IS lawful neutral when they defend their empire based on the Sigmarite code-- slaying heretics and burning and maim countless people that are threats to that ideology (witch hunt)

High Elves are lawful neutral because, if required, they would slay a whole village of men to protect an elven tower, say. (and so on).

So while I do agree with TK and WE I don't think we can write out my above choices.

Wakerofgods
06-11-2010, 20:54
Firstly, there is the line you've quoted in there about destroying all diversity of freedom which is a massive miss on all the factions that seems to have been ignored.

Secondly, the high elves destroy the villagers to save the tower because they think it is morally right to do so. They migh be wrong in thinking that, but they do not in any way think of themselves as neutral, they think of themselves as good and right.

It is the same with empire, the warrior priests base their morality on the sigmarite teachings so they think they are doing right, they don't decide to do something that they don't think is right.

The alignment system uses a very simplified system of right and wrong and it is terrible.

But, if you are torn between those three armies I would vote empire. They have the best ability to be whatever you want later and fit into a variety of fluff best. IMO, if in doubt when it comes to army choice go for the one that is the most variable.
Plus, you could apply any alignment you want to a bunch of humans. Some humans are 'evil', some are 'good' and some are 'neutral'. When it comes to humans, you decide the fluff. When it comes to elves and dwarves you're more tied to convention if you want to try and maintain what makes them 'dwarfy' in the warhammer world.

Desalbert
06-11-2010, 22:07
Firstly, there is the line you've quoted in there about destroying all diversity of freedom which is a massive miss on all the factions that seems to have been ignored.

Secondly, the high elves destroy the villagers to save the tower because they think it is morally right to do so. They migh be wrong in thinking that, but they do not in any way think of themselves as neutral, they think of themselves as good and right.

It is the same with empire, the warrior priests base their morality on the sigmarite teachings so they think they are doing right, they don't decide to do something that they don't think is right.

The alignment system uses a very simplified system of right and wrong and it is terrible.

But, if you are torn between those three armies I would vote empire. They have the best ability to be whatever you want later and fit into a variety of fluff best. IMO, if in doubt when it comes to army choice go for the one that is the most variable.
Plus, you could apply any alignment you want to a bunch of humans. Some humans are 'evil', some are 'good' and some are 'neutral'. When it comes to humans, you decide the fluff. When it comes to elves and dwarves you're more tied to convention if you want to try and maintain what makes them 'dwarfy' in the warhammer world.

Great point about the conventions of the other races as opposed to human. I see exactly what you mean.

However, I disagree regarding the alignment system, respectfully. The point is most certainly not about right and wrong but instead, the system deals with views of the world and the possible ways that people might percieve the environment in which they exist, and the ways they might act within it because of those perceptions.

Look at the very nature of Lawful Neutral. They will support ANY system of order whether it be "tyranny" or "democracy" so long as it lends order and meaning to life. (This taken from the link) Tyranny is generally considered wrong or evil, and democracy and personal freedom will often be linked to that which is good. The point then, is not one or the other-- but the desire for order.

In a sense then, Empire continually strives to protect its order and limits freedoms and diversification with forced-conscription, and witch-hunts to name two ways-- Yes, the empire is diverse-of-people and of province, and that may again lend against the notion of The Empire as lawful neutral. However, if a province were to jeopardize the Empire --that is, the very thing each citizen is sworn to defend-- they would likely be ousted or ostracized. Again though, the diversity of the nation IS an issue... I admit.

With High Elves and Dwarfs we see something a bit more ridgid and perhaps more 'lawful neutral'-- a Dwarf clan will stick to its code of conduct, its family and its oath regardless of anything; whether it jeopardizes his life, or calls for the elimination of a host of elves, so be it. The Dwarf is the 'soldier who never questions orders' and the people that put great focus on historical tradition.

Similarly, the High Elves-- we saw what happened with Diversity there-- It caused a massive rift and split the race asunder. Now, the High Elves-- assured of their superiority, almost act as a kind of Arian Race in terms of a Nazi empire (I'm taking an extreme view here yes, and I simply mean this in terms of their superiority-complex)-- I agree, they defend the tower because it is, in their mind, RIGHT to do so-- and No High Elf, so assured of their superiority, would question that. That is the point I'm making. It is the way of the highelves, or the high elven code. And that is something they follow till death. To me the adherance to their own superiority is Lawful Neutral.

Now, from this aspect, I almost see Dwarfs as the most Lawful Neutral...

Apart from this though, I will highly consider your points regarding Empire. I agree in the sense that Diversity is the most interesting both on and off the table top-- so there is that edge.

Thanks for the continued discussion.

Gav2k
06-11-2010, 22:28
Lawful Neutral is SO not Wood Elves. Id have leant morr toward Chaotic Neutral, but theyre more True Neutral than anything. They do what they want, when they want. One minute theyll lead you through the most dangerous parts of the forest safely, the next theyll send arrows thudding into your eyesockets. They are PART of Athel Loren, theyre a force of NATURE, the most neutral thing of all.Sorry for the rant :)

As for your predicament, id sayyyyy Tomb Kings. Theyre just protecting theyre lands, keeping what is theirs, keeping the laws and orders of their kings and queens, their history. They are loyalty beyond good or evil.
Empire are similar, however the water is muddied by them being living, breathing, individual human beings, like we are in real life :)

My two pence! Good luck!

Trigger87
06-11-2010, 23:34
from your description of lawful neutral i thought of bretonnia.
A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent.

sounds like the code of chivalry.
also dont they enforce strict laws to keep the peasants in place

Desalbert
06-11-2010, 23:43
from your description of lawful neutral i thought of bretonnia.
A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent.

sounds like the code of chivalry.
also dont they enforce strict laws to keep the peasants in place

Quite right my good man! Which is why I own the army-- However, I'd like to shelve Brettonia until they get a new book because they're not as interesting as I'd like them to be.

So, in terms of a new army whilst holding to the Lawful Neutral alignment, I'd like to choose beteween Empire, Dwarfs or High Elves

Thanks :) -- You're right about Bretonnia regardless.

Skjoldr
07-11-2010, 01:58
Quite right my good man! Which is why I own the army-- However, I'd like to shelve Brettonia until they get a new book because they're not as interesting as I'd like them to be.

So, in terms of a new army whilst holding to the Lawful Neutral alignment, I'd like to choose beteween Empire, Dwarfs or High Elves

Thanks :) -- You're right about Bretonnia regardless.

As a former D&D player, I thought i'd throw in my input without army bias since I myself play Bretonnia, and yeah, they pretty much fit the bill perfectly. But since you have them already, while the army in my mind isn't on your list, allow me to make a suggestion.

How about Lizardmen? It may not be the "code of honor" ideals of Lawful Neutral most people think of, but Lawful Neutral can also represent subservience to a power or leader (Slann), to an ultimate goal, even at the risk of one's self. I feel Lizardmen represent that ideal quite well, but i'm not sure if it's what you're looking for.

Outside of that, I find none of the other armies really fit the bill. I would peg Empire around Chaotic Good, High Elves at Neutral Good and the Dwarves as...probably Chaotic Good as well.

Charistoph
07-11-2010, 01:10
Are you looking at them from an internal or an external perspective?

It's important to consider, because from a Human's perspective, the Lizardmen are Lawful or even Chaotic Evil, whereas they consider themselves Lawful Good. For Elves, they all consider themselves Lawful Good, but from a Human's perspective, the High Elves would be Anal Good, the Wood Elves Chaotic Neutral, and the Dark Elves Chaotic Evil. Going from the average Empire Citizen's perspective, Dwarfs would be Neutral Good, High Elves are Anal Good, and the Empire could be any type of Good (depending on their general interaction with authorities).

If we were to go from the Allies section of the Book, then Tomb Kings would be Lawful Neutral, with Ogres being Chaotic Neutral. The forces you mentioned would all be variations of Good, with their counterparts being variations of Evil.

Wakerofgods
07-11-2010, 02:26
I think you might be right, dwarves would be the most lawful neutral under that system.

Desalbert
07-11-2010, 02:37
Are you looking at them from an internal or an external perspective?

It's important to consider, because from a Human's perspective, the Lizardmen are Lawful or even Chaotic Evil, whereas they consider themselves Lawful Good. For Elves, they all consider themselves Lawful Good, but from a Human's perspective, the High Elves would be Anal Good, the Wood Elves Chaotic Neutral, and the Dark Elves Chaotic Evil. Going from the average Empire Citizen's perspective, Dwarfs would be Neutral Good, High Elves are Anal Good, and the Empire could be any type of Good (depending on their general interaction with authorities).

If we were to go from the Allies section of the Book, then Tomb Kings would be Lawful Neutral, with Ogres being Chaotic Neutral. The forces you mentioned would all be variations of Good, with their counterparts being variations of Evil.

Definetly looking at it from an external perspective-- in the sense that we, as viewers of the warhammer world, can make judgements upon the factions that are divorced from actually being *within* the faction.

You're quite right, it IS a really important point to clarify, and thanks for bringing it up.

And, Lizardmen, that's an interesting suggestion that I hadn't given much thought to. I would certainly say I'd prefer any of the other armies before them (because a buddy of mine has lizardmen and he's become the quintessential Lizardmen Guy-- even if he rarely plays...) and Tomb Kings are interesting as well-- Very interesting suggestions as a whole-- though neither are essentially my cup of tea, I'll do some more research on them as well.

Hmm, very interesting, so no one here tends to see Dwarfs, Empire or High Elves as Lawful Neutral huh! Very interesting-- am I seeing them in a completely different way than I should be?

papabearshane
07-11-2010, 02:54
Lawful neutral is a very strict and D&Desk persona your trying to slap on the divers and not so politicly correct Warhammer world..................

If your wanting to base this whole thread/decision on the simple fact that you are the D&D alignment then I would say Tomb Kings is the best and only fit for you and this army theam you have in your head...............

You are making a choice on what the army will be made of because of your thoughts (and others thoughts) on what army best fits the alignment.....................

Base your decision on the other things you have come to know about yourself and the army that best fits in with all the questions you have posted..................

Play that army/fluff that army to be as Lawful Neutral as you are and you cant go wrong as youll be able to wright your own appealing fluff, model the way you want it to be represented and play an army that wont bore you on the table top (the most important factor after modeling/painting/fluffing/converting/imagining/dreaming about little toy soldiers in da wee hours of da mornin..............................)

Desalbert
07-11-2010, 03:11
Lawful neutral is a very strict and D&Desk persona your trying to slap on the divers and not so politicly correct Warhammer world..................

If your wanting to base this whole thread/decision on the simple fact that you are the D&D alignment then I would say Tomb Kings is the best and only fit for you and this army theam you have in your head...............

You are making a choice on what the army will be made of because of your thoughts (and others thoughts) on what army best fits the alignment.....................

Base your decision on the other things you have come to know about yourself and the army that best fits in with all the questions you have posted..................

Play that army/fluff that army to be as Lawful Neutral as you are and you cant go wrong as youll be able to wright your own appealing fluff, model the way you want it to be represented and play an army that wont bore you on the table top (the most important factor after modeling/painting/fluffing/converting/imagining/dreaming about little toy soldiers in da wee hours of da mornin..............................)

As strange as the tone of your post is (perhaps some kind of frustration) I do think you make some very valid points here. I COULD indeed run an empire army that expects fealty, demands the completion of one's duty and that shuns the idea of diversity and of outsiders.

I could very well do the same with the High Elves and bring their superiority to a whole new level-- Quite right.

Like I say, while the tone is interesting in your reply, the ideas are quite level headed, and-- frankly, I think you're spot on.

Thank you for this :)

I am, however, still interested in keeping the responses going if there are more thoughts to be had!

Azazyll
07-11-2010, 03:18
First off, love that you're using the alignment system! I'm a firm believer in using it as a way to view the world.

The leadership of all three factions mentioned would be lawful good, not neutral. They all band together to fight chaos, even when they are not immediately in danger. Dwarfs in particular are a people of sacrifice. They certainly have a harsh code of honor and vengeance, but the alignment system would still I think qualify their willingness to band together with mankind and shepherd them to a higher cultural level as good. Dwarfs are martyrs for what is right and civilized - they are a bastion against the forces of darkness. They may be affected by greed and blinded by honor on occasion, but that makes their goodness all the more tragic.

The High Elves are similarly tragic. Teclis' helping of mankind is the most obvious, but high elves, more than any other race, embody the ideals of selfless devotion to the principles commonly identified with good. Think of Caledor and the Isle of the Dead, or Tyrion facing down Malekith's champion at Finuvel Plain. Certainly, the high elves are proud and haughty - but again, this simply makes them tragic, not less good.

The Empire is the closest of the three you have picked, but even there, you have the ideal of something greater than mere survival. Sigmar would certainly be good. As would Karl Franz, who embodies sacrifice for his people and leadership of the forces of light. Luther and Valten likewise road to the defense of the helpless when all seemed lost. While the empire is corrupt, it is also noble. I could see it going either way, but don't forget its good elements.


It's hard to use the nine alignments with WHF or WH40K. Both are designed to be grim, and Chaos vs Order is far more emphasized. In some ways, the undead forces, either VC or TK are the true antithesis of Chaos from a cosmological perspective, and are ethically (rather than morally) ambivalent. But even amidst grim darkness there must be points of light for comparison, and that is certainly provided by the three factions you address from a narrative perspective. All have their tragic flaws, but that is what makes them all the more compelling as protagonists. You want truly lawful neutral, take the tomb kings (a force of literally undying order and eternity without change) or Lizardmen (who desperately work to preserve without deviation the great plan of the world's creators, opposed by the forces of chaos and destruction). Both have no concern for the well being of others, not even their own citizens, just the goals of their civilization, which is seen as immutable and eternal.

I would rate the various factions thusly:

Lawful Good:

High Elves
Dwarfs
Bretonnia (sure, they have a horribly oppressed second class, but that doesn't stop them from having noble ideals of self sacrifice. The peasants may have no hope for improvement, but they are protected)
Empire

Lawful Neutral:
Tomb Kings
Lizardmen

Lawful Evil:
- (possibly certain elements of VC)

Neutral Good:
- (If High Elves were less about tradition I would put them here, or if Wood Elves had even a shred of altruism)

Neutral:
Wood Elves (they really just want to be left alone)

Neutral Evil:
Dark Elves (organized but factious and placing self over society)
Vampire Counts (a bit more self serving and less ideological than TK)

Chaotic Good:
- (Chaos is too strongly associated with destruction in WH to be good)

Chaotic Neutral:
Ogres

Chaotic Evil: (basically, the forces of Chaos)
Daemons
Chaos Warriors
Beastmen
Skaven (they have a society with traditions, but it's little more than anarchy, the strong ruling over the weak, and is in constant change)

Just my impressions

papabearshane
07-11-2010, 03:21
No frustration just trying to through my 2 cents in where it would benifit...........

Im a huge believer that you have to run armys you love as theres never any second place when you truly "get" your army concept and model/convert/play/paint all make you enjoy the process......................

My Green Skin hords just went over 22k today with a great trade so Im very much a Pure Chaotic follower myself but I do understand basing your choices on these Rules you have been setting for your self.................

Have fun and I for one Vote do all of them as they are great!!!!!! Each in there own right.............

Everyone needs the Good (My Lizzards at 2.5k) and evil (My new found Skaven 2k), Animal aggression (Beastmen 2k) and pure Heart/Pointy ear necklaces for my Orcs (High Elfs 2k)

Just always play things you like and youll never go wrong................

papabearshane
07-11-2010, 03:30
First off, love that you're using the alignment system! I'm a firm believer in using it as a way to view the world.

The leadership of all three factions mentioned would be lawful good, not neutral. They all band together to fight chaos, even when they are not immediately in danger. Dwarfs in particular are a people of sacrifice. They certainly have a harsh code of honor and vengeance, but the alignment system would still I think qualify their willingness to band together with mankind and shepherd them to a higher cultural level as good. Dwarfs are martyrs for what is right and civilized - they are a bastion against the forces of darkness. They may be affected by greed and blinded by honor on occasion, but that makes their goodness all the more tragic.

The High Elves are similarly tragic. Teclis' helping of mankind is the most obvious, but high elves, more than any other race, embody the ideals of selfless devotion to the principles commonly identified with good. Think of Caledor and the Isle of the Dead, or Tyrion facing down Malekith's champion at Finuvel Plain. Certainly, the high elves are proud and haughty - but again, this simply makes them tragic, not less good.

The Empire is the closest of the three you have picked, but even there, you have the ideal of something greater than mere survival. Sigmar would certainly be good. As would Karl Franz, who embodies sacrifice for his people and leadership of the forces of light. Luther and Valten likewise road to the defense of the helpless when all seemed lost. While the empire is corrupt, it is also noble. I could see it going either way, but don't forget its good elements.


It's hard to use the nine alignments with WHF or WH40K. Both are designed to be grim, and Chaos vs Order is far more emphasized. In some ways, the undead forces, either VC or TK are the true antithesis of Chaos from a cosmological perspective, and are ethically (rather than morally) ambivalent. But even amidst grim darkness there must be points of light for comparison, and that is certainly provided by the three factions you address from a narrative perspective. All have their tragic flaws, but that is what makes them all the more compelling as protagonists. You want truly lawful neutral, take the tomb kings (a force of literally undying order and eternity without change) or Lizardmen (who desperately work to preserve without deviation the great plan of the world's creators, opposed by the forces of chaos and destruction). Both have no concern for the well being of others, not even their own citizens, just the goals of their civilization, which is seen as immutable and eternal.

I would rate the various factions thusly:

Lawful Good:

High Elves
Dwarfs
Bretonnia (sure, they have a horribly oppressed second class, but that doesn't stop them from having noble ideals of self sacrifice. The peasants may have no hope for improvement, but they are protected)
Empire

Lawful Neutral:
Tomb Kings
Lizardmen

Lawful Evil:
- (possibly certain elements of VC)

Neutral Good:
- (If High Elves were less about tradition I would put them here, or if Wood Elves had even a shred of altruism)

Neutral:
Wood Elves (they really just want to be left alone)

Neutral Evil:
Dark Elves (organized but factious and placing self over society)
Vampire Counts (a bit more self serving and less ideological than TK)

Chaotic Good:
- (Chaos is too strongly associated with destruction in WH to be good)

Chaotic Neutral:
Ogres

Chaotic Evil: (basically, the forces of Chaos)
Daemons
Chaos Warriors
Beastmen
Skaven (they have a society with traditions, but it's little more than anarchy, the strong ruling over the weak, and is in constant change)

Just my impressions

Great Breakdown of the races..........

My only Question to you is "Why no Green Skins????????"

Are we just to chaotic to put in with chaos??????

To self sacrificing to put in with all those goody to shoes????????(by self I do mean here take bob instead of me because hes not me and his wife is less worty then mine..............)

To pure uncontrolable evil to be in with those other blood drinkers?????/(Da dont eats da gissards and internies dat we dose............)

What no love for the complex psyche we call Waaagh!!!!

......Warning...........................Dont eat Ice cream when reading warseer...................May.............Cause sever......mindblowing...Dorkyness................

Desalbert
07-11-2010, 04:04
First off, love that you're using the alignment system! I'm a firm believer in using it as a way to view the world.

The leadership of all three factions mentioned would be lawful good, not neutral. They all band together to fight chaos, even when they are not immediately in danger. Dwarfs in particular are a people of sacrifice. They certainly have a harsh code of honor and vengeance, but the alignment system would still I think qualify their willingness to band together with mankind and shepherd them to a higher cultural level as good. Dwarfs are martyrs for what is right and civilized - they are a bastion against the forces of darkness. They may be affected by greed and blinded by honor on occasion, but that makes their goodness all the more tragic.

The High Elves are similarly tragic. Teclis' helping of mankind is the most obvious, but high elves, more than any other race, embody the ideals of selfless devotion to the principles commonly identified with good. Think of Caledor and the Isle of the Dead, or Tyrion facing down Malekith's champion at Finuvel Plain. Certainly, the high elves are proud and haughty - but again, this simply makes them tragic, not less good.

The Empire is the closest of the three you have picked, but even there, you have the ideal of something greater than mere survival. Sigmar would certainly be good. As would Karl Franz, who embodies sacrifice for his people and leadership of the forces of light. Luther and Valten likewise road to the defense of the helpless when all seemed lost. While the empire is corrupt, it is also noble. I could see it going either way, but don't forget its good elements.


It's hard to use the nine alignments with WHF or WH40K. Both are designed to be grim, and Chaos vs Order is far more emphasized. In some ways, the undead forces, either VC or TK are the true antithesis of Chaos from a cosmological perspective, and are ethically (rather than morally) ambivalent. But even amidst grim darkness there must be points of light for comparison, and that is certainly provided by the three factions you address from a narrative perspective. All have their tragic flaws, but that is what makes them all the more compelling as protagonists. You want truly lawful neutral, take the tomb kings (a force of literally undying order and eternity without change) or Lizardmen (who desperately work to preserve without deviation the great plan of the world's creators, opposed by the forces of chaos and destruction). Both have no concern for the well being of others, not even their own citizens, just the goals of their civilization, which is seen as immutable and eternal.

I would rate the various factions thusly:

Lawful Good:

High Elves
Dwarfs
Bretonnia (sure, they have a horribly oppressed second class, but that doesn't stop them from having noble ideals of self sacrifice. The peasants may have no hope for improvement, but they are protected)
Empire

Lawful Neutral:
Tomb Kings
Lizardmen

Lawful Evil:
- (possibly certain elements of VC)

Neutral Good:
- (If High Elves were less about tradition I would put them here, or if Wood Elves had even a shred of altruism)

Neutral:
Wood Elves (they really just want to be left alone)

Neutral Evil:
Dark Elves (organized but factious and placing self over society)
Vampire Counts (a bit more self serving and less ideological than TK)

Chaotic Good:
- (Chaos is too strongly associated with destruction in WH to be good)

Chaotic Neutral:
Ogres

Chaotic Evil: (basically, the forces of Chaos)
Daemons
Chaos Warriors
Beastmen
Skaven (they have a society with traditions, but it's little more than anarchy, the strong ruling over the weak, and is in constant change)

Just my impressions

This is a fantastic breakdown of the races!! I am quite impressed. But I think you have way too many races placed in the Lawful Good section-- There is way too much darkness in warhammer for Order and Goodness to be some of the most popular-- BUT, if I had to take just one out, it'd be to move Bretonnia down to Lawful Neutral in my opinion.

However, that is simply my opinion. I admire this list as it stands, greatly! Thanks for sharing!

squeekenator
07-11-2010, 04:05
Well, here's the alignments I would give to each army. Keep in mind that this is the alignment of the average person. Yes, there will be some exceptional individuals that have different alignments. That doesn't change the overall alignment of the race. I'll also point out a common misconception about the D&D alignment system - most people think they are good. They are not. Similarly, 'good' does not mean 'has the same views as me'. The 'good' alignment is reserved for people who go out of their way to help others, and consider doing so to be more important than helping themselves. People who donate that thousand dollars to charity rather than buying the fancy TV they wanted. And not just people who occasionally do so when it suits them, but people who will consistently give all their excess money to others in need, even if it causes them significant financial difficulty for themselves. That is Good. Evil, on the other hand, is looking out for yourself only, and not caring about others. Neutral is a regular person, who is primarily concerned with themselves but will happily help someone or donate to charity if it won't inconvenience themself too much.

Now that that's out of the way...

The Empire: Overall, true neutral. They're average humans, and the alignment system was designed around the idea that an average human is true neutral. They do differ in some ways to real people, and there are certainly some exceptional individuals who would have different alignments to that, but those are small differences that don't have any impact on their overall alignment. Some of the different factions within the Empire would have different alignments, but I'm no expert on them, so you'd have to make your own personal assessment for that.
Bretonnia: Definitely Lawful, with a decent range of variation on the Good-Evil axis, so the overall alignment of the army would be lawful neutral. Some just and chivalrous knights who are kind and generous to all, some who wouldn't **** on a peasant if he was on fire, a lot of people somewhere in between. The peasants themselves would be true neutral, as they're basically regular humans, just like the Empire.
High Elves: Lawful Neutral. They are arrogant and look down on all the other races. While they do help those inferior beings fight against the Chaos and Dark Elves, they do so out of a personal grudge rather than any desire to save the world. They also stick to tradition and despise all these new-fangled inventions like guns.
Wood Elves: True Neutral. They don't have any particular grudge against the outside world, but they wouldn't care if every living creature outside Athel Loren suddenly died. They just keep to themselves and brutally murder anyone who gets in their way. A far more extreme version of TN than a standard human, and one that's closer to evil than to good, but still TN.
Dark Elves: Neutral Evil. Bathing in the blood of captured slaves in order to gain eternal youth? Definitely self-centred. They don't have any particular Lawful or Chaotic tendencies, though.
Chaos: Depends on the god. Undivided is Any Evil, with grand plans of world domination no matter how many innocents they need to sacrifice to achieve it, but the gods themselves differ.
Khorne worshippers - Chaotic Evil. KILLMAIMBURNKILLMAIMBURNKILLMAIMBURNKILLMAIMBURNKI LLMAIMBURN.
Nurgle worshippers - Neutral Evil. They give their souls to an evil god in order to avoid death, then spread plagues and kill in his name.
Slaanesh worshippers - Neutral Evil. They're arrogant, self-obsessed and vain, and are willing to sell their soul and kill any number of people in order to find pleasure. Slaanesh is the epitome of evil, sacrificing others simply to find enjoyment.
Tzeentch worshippers - Lawful Evil. While Tzeentch himself is certainly Chaotic, his worshippers tend to be the scheming kinds who plot cunning plans in order to bring the downfall of their foes. They're methodical and concerned with long-term goals.
Vampire Counts - Any Evil. They're self-centred megalomaniacs with plans for world domination.
Tomb Kings - Lawful Neutral. The army is focused around tradition and religion, stuck in the past and happy with the way things were. They have their static command structure and still use the same tactics as they did back in their glory days.
Dwarves - Lawful Neutral. They're very into tradition, they keep old grudges because that's what their ancestors did. Their veneration of elders is a very Lawful trait - they are respected not because of any deeds or ability, but because they're your elders and they should be respected.
Skaven - Chaotic Evil. Self-obsessed rats with superiority complexes who live in a constant state of anarchy because their leaders can't look forwards for five seconds without a dagger sinking into their back.
Ogre Kingdoms - True Neutral. They're in it for gold and food. They don't especially dislike other races, and are quite happy to work for them as long as they get paid.
Lizardmen - Lawful Neutral. Similar to Dwarves, their tradition and veneration of the Old Ones and Slaan are the driving forces behind their race, and they couldn't care less about the younger races.
Orcs and Goblins - Chaotic Evil. They live in a constant state of chaos, and get their jollies out of killing and otherwise inconveniencing others.

Desalbert
07-11-2010, 04:24
Well, here's the alignments I would give to each army. Keep in mind that this is the alignment of the average person. Yes, there will be some exceptional individuals that have different alignments. That doesn't change the overall alignment of the race. I'll also point out a common misconception about the D&D alignment system - most people think they are good. They are not. Similarly, 'good' does not mean 'has the same views as me'. The 'good' alignment is reserved for people who go out of their way to help others, and consider doing so to be more important than helping themselves. People who donate that thousand dollars to charity rather than buying the fancy TV they wanted. And not just people who occasionally do so when it suits them, but people who will consistently give all their excess money to others in need, even if it causes them significant financial difficulty for themselves. That is Good. Evil, on the other hand, is looking out for yourself only, and not caring about others. Neutral is a regular person, who is primarily concerned with themselves but will happily help someone or donate to charity if it won't inconvenience themself too much.

Now that that's out of the way...

The Empire: Overall, true neutral. They're average humans, and the alignment system was designed around the idea that an average human is true neutral. They do differ in some ways to real people, and there are certainly some exceptional individuals who would have different alignments to that, but those are small differences that don't have any impact on their overall alignment. Some of the different factions within the Empire would have different alignments, but I'm no expert on them, so you'd have to make your own personal assessment for that.
Bretonnia: Definitely Lawful, with a decent range of variation on the Good-Evil axis, so the overall alignment of the army would be lawful neutral. Some just and chivalrous knights who are kind and generous to all, some who wouldn't **** on a peasant if he was on fire, a lot of people somewhere in between. The peasants themselves would be true neutral, as they're basically regular humans, just like the Empire.
High Elves: Lawful Neutral. They are arrogant and look down on all the other races. While they do help those inferior beings fight against the Chaos and Dark Elves, they do so out of a personal grudge rather than any desire to save the world. They also stick to tradition and despise all these new-fangled inventions like guns.
Wood Elves: True Neutral. They don't have any particular grudge against the outside world, but they wouldn't care if every living creature outside Athel Loren suddenly died. They just keep to themselves and brutally murder anyone who gets in their way. A far more extreme version of TN than a standard human, and one that's closer to evil than to good, but still TN.
Dark Elves: Neutral Evil. Bathing in the blood of captured slaves in order to gain eternal youth? Definitely self-centred. They don't have any particular Lawful or Chaotic tendencies, though.
Chaos: Depends on the god. Undivided is Any Evil, with grand plans of world domination no matter how many innocents they need to sacrifice to achieve it, but the gods themselves differ.
Khorne worshippers - Chaotic Evil. KILLMAIMBURNKILLMAIMBURNKILLMAIMBURNKILLMAIMBURNKI LLMAIMBURN.
Nurgle worshippers - Neutral Evil. They give their souls to an evil god in order to avoid death, then spread plagues and kill in his name.
Slaanesh worshippers - Neutral Evil. They're arrogant, self-obsessed and vain, and are willing to sell their soul and kill any number of people in order to find pleasure. Slaanesh is the epitome of evil, sacrificing others simply to find enjoyment.
Tzeentch worshippers - Lawful Evil. While Tzeentch himself is certainly Chaotic, his worshippers tend to be the scheming kinds who plot cunning plans in order to bring the downfall of their foes. They're methodical and concerned with long-term goals.
Vampire Counts - Any Evil. They're self-centred megalomaniacs with plans for world domination.
Tomb Kings - Lawful Neutral. The army is focused around tradition and religion, stuck in the past and happy with the way things were. They have their static command structure and still use the same tactics as they did back in their glory days.
Dwarves - Lawful Neutral. They're very into tradition, they keep old grudges because that's what their ancestors did. Their veneration of elders is a very Lawful trait - they are respected not because of any deeds or ability, but because they're your elders and they should be respected.
Skaven - Chaotic Evil. Self-obsessed rats with superiority complexes who live in a constant state of anarchy because their leaders can't look forwards for five seconds without a dagger sinking into their back.
Ogre Kingdoms - True Neutral. They're in it for gold and food. They don't especially dislike other races, and are quite happy to work for them as long as they get paid.
Lizardmen - Lawful Neutral. Similar to Dwarves, their tradition and veneration of the Old Ones and Slaan are the driving forces behind their race, and they couldn't care less about the younger races.
Orcs and Goblins - Chaotic Evil. They live in a constant state of chaos, and get their jollies out of killing and otherwise inconveniencing others.

Yet another fantastic summary! I think perhaps a few too many races may be considered lawful neutral! But you make some VERY interesting points-- and by and large-- I agree with your account of the human as a certain kind of true neutral.

In fact, I agree with the whole list a good deal-- Thanks for sharing! And thank you for offering the much needed clarity on the nature of Good and exactly why we see so few Lawful Good people in the world, or Lawful good forces, at large.

I love the way this discussion has evolved! :D

Charistoph
07-11-2010, 22:04
The only other army that could be classified as Lawful Neutral is no longer supported, that being the Dogs of War/Regiments of Renown. They keep their own rules internally, but could care less as to who they help outside of that.

Botjer
07-11-2010, 23:16
Ive been playing high elves since 95 and my view of them is this.

Highelves are nobleness, chivalry and galantness taking as far as it can go... however.

They are NOT good.

They fight chaos because it is a threat to them, chaos is their main enemy. They will kill or use anyone that is in their way.

So if you look at the highelves breifly they seem to be the defenders of the world...

but if you start digging into the fluff youll soon realise that they are racists beyond germany 1939, selfserving beyond american corporations and just as devious and plotting as anyone else if not even more so.

and that is why i love them so much. they seem perfect on the surface but are deeply and irrevocably flawed inside ^^

Torpedo Vegas
07-11-2010, 23:42
The Empire is sort of hard. Its is mad up of multiple provinces, so maybe they need a breakdown:
True Neutral: Ostland, Ostermark, Hochland and Nordland. They basically serve as muscle, helping which ever other province is in more power. Ostland MAYBE is Lawful Good if you argue that they are the first line of defense against Chaos invasions from the North, and they tend to side with the Emperor's choices.

Lawful Neutral/Lawful Good:
Riekland
Middenland
Averland
Stirland
Talacland(not sure of spelling)
Riekland and Talacland provide the most loyal body of troops, Middenland worships Ulric, which I would say is Lawful Neutral, Stirland is constantly fighting against undead, and are loyal, so I'd go with Lawful Good, or maybe Neutral Good.
Did I miss any?

Idle Thought
08-11-2010, 00:18
Well it is an interesting question is it not?

I have a few ideas though I should preface my response by clearly stating my immense dislike of the alignment system. I find that while it can serve as a useful form of shorthand, it inevitably colours perceptions too much...

But anyway there are a few ways to approach the issue (my apologies for what will be a massive post):

One way to do it is to begin with the assumption that the races and factions of the Warhammer world are fairly uniform and can be separated into discrete blocks of morality. To begin with we can separate the "armies" of the Warhammer World into two camps; those who wish to change the world radically (the aggressors), and those who wish to maintain the status quo or establish order and the accompanying institutions (loosely termed preservers/maintainers). There is another camp formed by those willing to work with either party to achieve their ends (the unaligned). This gives us three lists:

Preservers/Maintainers:
The Empire of Sigmar
The Kingdom of Bretonnia
The High Elves
The Dwarfs
The Lizardmen
The Wood Elves
The Kingdom of Kislev*

The Unaligned:
The Tomb Kings
The Ogre Kingdoms
The Dogs of War*

The Aggressors:
Chaos (Demons, Mortals, Beastmen)
The Skaven
The Orcs and Goblins
The Dark Elves
The Vampire Counts
The Chaos Dwarfs*

*disputed legitimacy as armies

Now form our perspective those that seek to maintain and defend their lands and traditions are viewed as generally good. The Empire, High Elves, Dwarfs, and Bretonnians (and Kislev) are fairly easy to relate to; as they defend "civilization" from the aggressor factions; these are the most likely candidates to be seen as "good" on any list of the factions however a case can be made for any of them as "neutral".

The Lizardmen seek to uphold the ancient designs of the Old Ones, the motives of their gods/creators are unknown to us even from our external view and as a result it is harder to associate them with the "good". The Wood Elves seek to preserve the wild places of the world both from the impact of civilization and from the corruption of the aggressor factions. Both of these factions seem less "good" to us since they fight the group of four listed above. However since we witness them fighting the aggressors they do not seem "evil" either. As a result they tend to fall somewhere between "good" and "neutral" on most lists of the factions.

The three unaligned factions are almost always considered "neutral", this placement in between the "good" and "evil" is due to their willingness to fight alongside any group against any other group rather than through an exhaustive survey of their own structures and codes(such a survey I would argue would destroy the ability to differentiate any of the factions on a traditional D&D system).

As for the aggressors, each of these factions desires a fundamental shift in the power balance of the Warhammer World. Such a shift almost always involves massive death and as such is easily recognized as "evil" from our perspective. The homicidal, genocidal and omnicidal tendencies of the leaders of these factions serve to underscore their "evil intent".

The Orcs and Goblins, and Chaos (Demons and Beastmen) armies appear as the most overtly destructive but are often seen as lacking the free will to make them truly evil. Since they are evil but do not chose evil they are argued to be less evil than the Dark Elves, Chaos Dwarfs, Chaos Mortals, Skaven and Vampire Counts who chose the "evil path" through a combination of desire to commit "evil" and social pressures brought abut by their "evil societies".

So from our prospective we can place the factions in general clusters:

The High Elves, The Dwarfs, The Empire, Kislev, and Bretonnian tend to straddle the line between "neutral" and "good" with the High Elves, Dwarves and Bretonnians leaning more towards lawful and Kislev leaning more towards the chaotic. The Empire tends to operate in between the two extremes in most lists. The Wood Elves and Lizardmen are often placed in the neutral bracket (though usually leaning towards the "Good") and occupy opposite ends, the Wood Elves tend towards chaos (often as a misinterpretation of nature as a lack of order) and the Lizardmen lean towards the lawful.

The WE/Lizardmen split is mirrored on the other side of "true neutral" by the Ogre and Tomb King split. Both of these factions are firmly in the neutral category although again they tend towards an extreme; in this case evil.

Progressing down the moral ladder we come to the Vampire Counts, Dark Elves and Chaos Dwarfs all of which lean towards a more ordered form of evil. Skaven mirror the Empire in a neutral evil positioning while the Orcs and Goblins and Chaos factions trends towards a chaotic evil classification. It is interesting to note that the "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Evil" groupings are at times shifted up the spectrum based upon the list maker's opinions on the relative "evilness" of order and chaos. Some argue that the "Chaotic Evil" factions have no choice but to act the way they do and that they are in fact chaotic neutral. Others argue that the evil of the "Lawful evil" armies is little different than the behaviour of the "good" factions and that these "evil" factions are in fact neutral (for example: "the Dark Elves are not evil they are just misunderstood").

If we go by the classical breakdown then the Lizardmen and Tomb Kings are indeed your best choices. Of the three you mention as potentials the closest fit becomes the Empire.

However there is another factor to consider:

Generally in D&D alignment is applied to an individual not to a body of people, even the evil Drow have at least one "good" well known hero (and if you take into account all the "good" drow that seem to be PCs then the race really is just misunderstood). Now this system often fails to encompass the variety of competing motivations within a single individual; when it is applied to a group, particularly groups as large as the warhammer factions, the system falls apart entirely. However this provides a player with opportunities as well as difficulties.

Any army (or at least those comprised of sentient individuals in possession of free will) will be comprised of a wide variety of different moral positions. However there are a few key factors to consider that can shift the moral stance of an army:

Leadership:

Take the Empire for an example, it is not a single unified body but a collect of literally hundreds of factions worshipping dozens of deities. Generally its leadership is "neutral good" but if I built an army centred around a witchhnter of Solkan then my army would be "lawful neutral", if it was built around Valtan's mob of preaches and fanatics then it would be "chaotic good", if built as a chaos cult it would be "chaotic neutral" or "chaotic evil". A Bretonnian army modelled on a corrupt lord would be quite different than one modeled around a faceless, or a prophetess, or a good and noble lord.

This is particularly pronounced in armies with a strong command structure, their can be a profound difference between the morality of different Vampires ranging from good (albeit rarely) to evil, from chaotic to lawful and anywhere in between. In this extreme case the morality of the general determines the morality of the army.

Composition:

For the elves the home province and general make-up of the army would also change its relative morality, phoenix guard would make the army more lawful, white lions could make it more chaotic good, Shadow warriors would push it towards true neutral or lawful neutral and so on. The same goes for dwarfs, members of the Engineer's guild and Slayers are both more chaotic than standard dwarfs in personality. And humans by their very nature create organizations that would tilt an army in any number of directions.

Background:

The story behind the army can have a tremendous impact on its moral standing. In the old Grudge of Drong supplement the dwarven characters and by extension the army were at best neutral and at worst evil. Humans, Elves and Dwarfs are all capable of running from one extreme to another in terms of morality and whatever backstory you construct can go along was towards fitting a particular race within a certain category.

With this in mind I would say that any of the three can fit.

The High Elf leadership is the closest thing to lawful good you will find within the Warhammer setting but the rank and file High Elf nobles vary greatly. There is plenty of space to work with in constructing a less "pure" HE army. Themes of vengeance against the Dark Elves and Dwarfs and a sense of lost glory and the ambition to restore their empire could be used to create a "lawful neutral" High Elf army.

The Empire as the most malleable of the three would work well. Simply avoid the overtly good magical orders and faiths in favour of those that emphasize law. Sigmar is not a terrible choice; Ulric is too wild but Myrmidia might work; I would avoid Verena however, she might seem like the best choice but he dedication to justice rather than law would move your army towards "lawful good". Probably the best choice would be Solkan as the God of Vengeance he would be a god fit.

The Dwarfs could actually be made to fit a "lawful neutral" characterization fairly easily. Simply play up the unforgiving aspect of their culture at the expense of the honourable aspect. Given the long dwarf memory and their tendency to become easily offended such an army could easily make war on everyone including other dwarfs.

Each of these armies could be seen as "lawful good" though it may be more accurate to say that factions within each of these armies could be seen as lawful while other factions could occupy just about any position on the old D&D system. It might be more helpful to envision the warhammer world as set on a sliding scale of morality rather than with clearly identifiable moral boxes.

So um... go with the Empire I guess ;)

regards,
IT

Alternatively you could create a chaos army dedicated to uncompromising order, that sort of self-contradiction would be perfect for Chaos. After all to be truly chaotic, truly random the realms must include every possible configuration including an expression of order.... maybe... I think...:confused:

zerorocky
08-11-2010, 00:21
The Empire is nearly impossible to put on an alignment chart. Just like D&D, a human or human kingdom can be any alignment. A leader like Karl Franz would be Lawful Good or maybe Lawful Neutral. However, there have been many Emperors and Counts that would fall under Chaotic, Neutral, and Evil headings. If -you- want a Lawful Neutral Empire army, it would be easy enough to find a faction to fit. Same with any other alignment.

Other races are much more stereotyped, and thus fit into alignments better.

Dwarves, Lizardmen, and Tomb Kings are the most Lawful Neutral races in my mind. They either keep their word no matter what, or have little to no say in obeying orders. The evil races are obviously various levels of Evil, with perhaps a few Vampire Counts sects reaching Lawful Neutral. Ogres and Wood Elves are either True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral.

Brets and High Elves are probably the hardest races to pin down. Both are two of the biggest "Good" races there is, but they have faults that keep them from being Good. Brets are obviously Lawful with their vows and strict caste system. I'm not sure whether High Elves qualify for Lawful though. Just because they have a well-displicined army doesn't make thier society Lawful. I would classify High Elves as True Neutral.

Because the setting for Warhammer is darker then D&D, it hard to say that any race belongs in the "Good" alignment at all. Your best bet would be to pick your army, then find an individual faction to represent the the alignment of your choice.

Desalbert
08-11-2010, 01:52
Bravo to all these fantastic responses. I seem to note that, Because I like all 3 of these armies at a basic standpoint, and because each of them might be made to fit into the Lawful Neutral stance I'd like to take, that I should just focus on some other aspects to help me decide. I'll write up some lists for each of these 3, pry open some fluff and make my decision.

This has been an absolutely intriguing discussion though, and if there's any more to be said on the Warhammer armies and their alignment, I would certainly love to hear it.

Golden Lion
08-11-2010, 10:54
Nice discussion I think, some interesting thoughts about the Warhammer background. Desalbert, you already half-mentioned it yourself in your last post, but I would suggest writing up a (summary of) back story for each of the three armies. My suggestion would be to start with a character with some kind of vision or mission (you seem a little into role-playing anyway, right?). For example a High Elf lord seeking to reclaim an ancestral colony in the Old World, or a Dwarf slayer hero looking for a specific monster to slay to avenge a family member, or a young Empire nobleman that is ordered to oversee the construction of a defensive network along a border and runs into local authorities that give trouble and demand different things than the Emperor etc. etc. I believe that the Empire offers the most diversity in background, but in the end (how cliché) the sky really is the limit. Or rather your imagination! Writing these back stories may trigger an avalanche of inspiration or something, who knows :). Good luck!

Torpedo Vegas
09-11-2010, 14:39
Alternatively you could create a chaos army dedicated to uncompromising order, that sort of self-contradiction would be perfect for Chaos. After all to be truly chaotic, truly random the realms must include every possible configuration including an expression of order.... maybe... I think...:confused:

Dude, a Chaos Warriors army dedicated to Malaal, the Chaos God of Order. He opposes Chaos, supposed to represent Chaos' self destructive nature, and his worshipers always end up wasting away and dieing. It would be like a Lawful Neutral Nugrel army.

Idle Thought
09-11-2010, 19:44
I do not know, Malal is certainly opposed to chaos but is himself chaotic not lawful.

He is/was a paradox much like Necoho, a chaos army dedicated to Malal would probably be "chaotic neutral" in that it still promotes chaos but loathes its very creation and impulses. Malal is not law but self-destruction as you mention. I was thinking of taking the idea in another direction.

What I was jokingly referring to is a reinterpretation of the Gods of Law, in particular Arianka and Solkan, as highly disruptive. The sort of law they would bring about would generate in the short and medium-term a great deal of chaos and warfare which could be quite appealing to a chaos warband.

The formation of such an army would pose an interesting problem, could they be classed as chaos followers or law bringers or merely a physical manifestation of the destruction done to the warhammer world by the clash between order and chaos. In essence worshipping neither the one nor the other but the boundary formed by their collision and the tensions created by the current situation in the world.

Such a group might recognize the patterns and orders of the realms and in the chaos discern a form of order which they would then uncompromising enforce. Such an army would be by definition "lawful neutral" however the laws it would seek to put forth would not necessarily bring about what we would recognize as a "state of order". (Some theories that speculate on the motivations of Tzeentch are similar in nature to what I was proposing.)

regards,
IT

Torpedo Vegas
10-11-2010, 03:35
SNIP
I know there was a WD somewhere where they had rules or conversions for a Law themed army using WoC. I will begin my search at once.

Ar-Gimilzor
10-11-2010, 09:53
I've never liked DnD alignments because they're very vague. What's "good" for an imperial human might very well be "evil" for a dwarf--it all depends on cultural context.

That being said, you seem to want to play a faction which mercilessly enforces rules based on precedent and tradition so I'd go with the dwarves, or to a lesser extent, the high elves.

squeekenator
10-11-2010, 20:14
I've never liked DnD alignments because they're very vague. What's "good" for an imperial human might very well be "evil" for a dwarf--it all depends on cultural context.

That's the beauty of the system. It appears to be based on cultural context at a glance, but actually each alignment simply represents a point of view. Good is selfless, Evil is selfish, Chaotic is independent and Lawful is conformist. Any of those alignments can be taken to an extreme that would be considered evil by most modern cultures - even Good. The best example of that would be the paladin class, who crusades around the world, slaying evil wherever he finds it. Even though those goblins may not have been doing anything wrong, he kills them because they're evil and he needs to kill them in order to protect his people.

Desalbert
10-11-2010, 21:47
I've never liked DnD alignments because they're very vague. What's "good" for an imperial human might very well be "evil" for a dwarf--it all depends on cultural context.

That being said, you seem to want to play a faction which mercilessly enforces rules based on precedent and tradition so I'd go with the dwarves, or to a lesser extent, the high elves.

You're exactly right. I DO want to play a faction that somewhat-mercilessly enforces rules based on precedent and tradition, and that expects its people to stand against any challenge of that tradition even if it would mean their death.


I've taken Empire out of the equation, (Bretonnian army that I already have will satiate my need to lead humans) now I'm still trying decide between High Elves or Dwarfs... which is proving quite difficult...

That's the beauty of the system. It appears to be based on cultural context at a glance, but actually each alignment simply represents a point of view. Good is selfless, Evil is selfish, Chaotic is independent and Lawful is conformist. Any of those alignments can be taken to an extreme that would be considered evil by most modern cultures - even Good. The best example of that would be the paladin class, who crusades around the world, slaying evil wherever he finds it. Even though those goblins may not have been doing anything wrong, he kills them because they're evil and he needs to kill them in order to protect his people.

The Paladin image is precisely one that I like to hang a hat on for the discussion of the alignment system. In some cases, he is the paragon of goodness... but in truth he is also a racist (speciesist?) a conformist, a tool of the order-- he is brainwashed, and he believes himself superior.

Such a tragic sort of image there. You're right to point it out.

Charistoph
10-11-2010, 22:09
The Paladin image is precisely one that I like to hang a hat on for the discussion of the alignment system. In some cases, he is the paragon of goodness... but in truth he is also a racist (speciesist?) a conformist, a tool of the order-- he is brainwashed, and he believes himself superior.

Such a tragic sort of image there. You're right to point it out.

From that perspective, High Elves, Brettonians, and Lizrdmen fit that same Paladin image very well.

Dwarfs are more pragmatic towards life and only get wriled up when a Grudge is involved, though they are as proud as any Elf or Knight, not that they'd admit it.

Pulstar
10-11-2010, 22:17
Of the two (HE or Dorf) I think the Dwarfs fit more of the LN alignment.

They have rules that they follow and are slow to change. They hold grudges, and are not afraid to cross a line to pay back those grudges. They also will cross a line if there is gold involved.

High Elf's on the other hand are much more free flowing. At any given point in time they might be LN, but that could be followed by years of not caring about anything...

Ar-Gimilzor
10-11-2010, 23:42
Yeah, I'd go with Dorfs. The whole stubborn tradition thing is their archetype, whereas Elves are a bit more about magic, pathos and mystery.