What D&D alignment would you say Sylas is?
Chaotic Neutral would be my guess. He genuinly wants to stop the prosecution of mages, but he's also an extremist who's not afraid to murder anyone who gets in his way.
37 Comments
Well first, which version of the alignment system? They're all slightly (or even majorly) different. From the originals view where it's only a wilderness vs civilization dichotomy to the more nuanced and contradictory 3e. The current 5e's alignment is similar to 3e but they dealt with the more glaring contradictions by not bringing them up at all.
In the original D&D, Sylas is Neutral. Because there are only two extremes: Chaotic and Lawful, where Lawful actually represents civilization and honor while Chaotic represents animalistic, monsters, and the wilderness. Sylas is not honorable but he's also not aligned with the goblins. So he's Neutral.
In AD&D, Sylas is True Neutral. The version of the alignment system in AD&D is worded in such a way that intentions matter, so because Sylas' actions are motivated by the desire to do good, he is not evil. He's also not good, because murder. The Lawful/Chaos dichotomy wasn't changed from the original so he's still not aligned with the goblins, so he's Neutral.
In 2e, Sylas is Neutral Evil. In 2e we see Neutrality (on the good/evil alignment) shift into a weird morally blank running on instinct definition that does not fit Sylas. Evil, however, is defined as just not being good. Where good is defined as honesty, forthrightness, forgiveness, and being charitable. None of which describe Sylas. So he's evil. Chaotic has finally shifted away from just being a stand in for monstrous and wilderness, so you'd think one would put Sylas as Chaotic, however, Chaotic Evil is really strangely tied with being self-defeating and of low intelligence. And while I may believe that Sylas' actions are kinda self-defeating, he isn't stupid. Neutral Evil, however, fits well enough. They have no problem betraying their friends for personal gain, is in the description which describes the big moments in his story.
In 3e, Sylas is Chaotic Evil. So 3e is probably the alignment with the most written about it, and the most strange oddities and contradictions. Which fits 3e pretty well, I love it, but I also avoid using Grappling rules because I don't feel like reading through it every time. In any case, 3e makes a push for specific actions being what determines someone's alignment. With certain actions, such as murder, almost being worth "evil points" the same is true for "chaos" points. The intention does not really matter as much in 3e. And Sylas by my reckoning has lied and manipulated a lot (earning a bunch of chaos points as lying is a chaotic action), and murdered a lot of people that by our standards seem innocent (earning a lot of evil points). It's worth noting though, that, technically in this edition being Lawful does not mean following the government. But it does determine how someone can act to be in open rebellion. For example, Princess Leia from Star Wars was a rebel, she was also Lawful Good. Because she strived for order and honor within her rebellion and was trying to create a lawful society. Sylas isn't a rebel in that way. He seems to rule his rebellion through browbeating people, which also is a mark of Chaotic Evil.
In 4e, Sylas is either Good or Evil. 4e's alignment is weird. It really goes Super Good, Good, Unconcerned, Evil, Super Evil. Sure Super Good is called Lawful Good, and Super Evil is called Chaotic Evil, but the nuance of what makes a lawful or chaotic character is gone. In any case, Sylas doesn't really fit the definitions of any alignment perfectly. Unaligned means specifically not taking a stand, Sylas very much does not fit that. Evil is described as using rules to maximize personal gain, and nope. Good meanwhile gives a brief passage about the dangers of following laws that exploit others which seems to fit Sylas well, until you get to the part of not harming the unarmed and defending weakness. And remember, Sylas is a murderer. So he doesn't fit that either. It really depends on which part of Sylas you wish to emphasize. Though, personally, I think he's too complicated to fit into 4es surprisingly restrictive and limited system.
In 5e, Sylas is Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Good. So a return to the more interesting and complex alignments, however 5e does not seek to rigorously define everything about alignments and leaves a lot to player and GM interpretation. 5e's alignment is also a bit more motivated by the emotional state and meaning behind the actions taken than 3e was. We also kind of lose the, what I consider great, differentiation between Lawful and following the government. Now the description of Lawful in general does say that being lawful does not necessarily mean following the laws, but then literally every description of a lawful character defines them by following the laws of society. So, Sylas not Lawful. The intentionality really takes effect on the Good/Evil axis. So we get things like "Good is not nice" and "Chaotic Good try to help others, without care for what people think about their behavior" which, yeah that's Sylas. But Chaotic Evil "are destructive and take pride in the damage they cause" which, yeah that's Sylas. Amusingly, he does not fit the Chaotic Neutral alignment at all which is defined by whimsy and lacking maliciousness, which is not Sylas.
Neutral Evil.
Used Lux. In his story basically forced another to do something he wasn't willing to and will happily murder people who aren't responsible for certain actions just because they associate with those that did.
You don't form a worthwhile revolution by killing innocents, that's just murder.
Lawful Evil.
He has a reason and he'll do what it takes to get to it. But he'll also do it with brute force, no matter what.
Chaotic Evil, insofar as Law/Chaos refers to disciplined/undisciplined and Good/Evil refers to altruism/selfishness. Sure, Sylas has a goal that all of his actions are in service towards, which you could argue is Lawful, but the goal is clearly more important than the methods use to achieve it. "The ends justify the means" is hardly a Lawful stance, not even enough to bring him up Neutral on that axis. As for the other axis, you could argue that his intentions are good, what with him wanting to see mages freed from oppression and all, but his intention is also to destroy everything between him and that goal, which makes the matter a bit murkier. "Burn everything and everyone that doesn't stand with me to the ground- for the greater good, of course," doesn't really sound like a Good or even Neutral philosophy to me.
Is your character willing to sacrifice of themselves (time, property, even well being) for the good of others? If yes, then Good.
Is your character willing to sacrifice innocents (mental, physical, and/or material well being) for their own selfish ends? If yes, then Evil.
If no to both, then Neutral.
Does your character feel that giving up some personal freedom for the well being of society is right? If yes, the Lawful.
Does your character feel that personal liberty should be pursued, even if it damages society? If yes, then Chaotic.
If no to both, then Neutral.
On that scale, I would say Sylas would fall under Chaotic Evil. His goal is to disrupt society in the name of personal liberty, and he doesn't really care if he's killing non-mages to accomplish his goal.
For 5e funsies, what would you say Sylas' Bond, Flaw, and Ideal are?
I would say Chaotic Good leaning towards Neutral. He is willing to kill, but only when necessary, and he wants to stop injustice and help people though and willing to spare those who see his way or help him.
Not Lawful at all though, if he was Lawful, he would accept his fate and let himself be killed, he both literally and metaphorically breaks the chains of injustice for what he believes is right.
Definitely chaotic SOMETHING, he’s far from lawful.
Beyond that he’s not evil, his goal isn’t to rule Demacia or to hurt anyone, but to reveal the mages in their society and to free them.
However, he’s far from “good” he manipulated Lux, he’s killed presumably many Demacians, weather that hated mages or not, he’s very aggressive,
I’d say chaotic neutral too.
Chaotic Neutral, slightly leaning towards evil
Just wanted to point out that there are no innocents within an oppressive system. All those who do not fight against the system are supporting it; they are part of the system. Same goes for war: there really aren't any civilians, because every non-combatant is in some way a part of the supply chain that supports the army. Sylas is Chaotic Good, because he fights an evil system and as a revolutionary is diametrically opposed to the rule of law in favour of freedom. You could compare him to the heroes of the French revolution, who killed many nobles along the way.