# "The Godfather" and Alignment



## Rhialto (Dec 5, 2002)

You know, considering the various debates we get on the alignment I've decided to try a fun one.  As a result of watching *Godfather I*& *II* recently, I'd like to know what alignment you consider Don Vito Corleone?

I'll give my opinion later, after I've seen a few others.

And we're talking about Don Vito, not Michael, or the Mafia in general.  In fact, we're talking about the *Godfather* movie Mafia, not the real world Mafia--there are simularities between the two, but they are different animals.


----------



## kengar (Dec 5, 2002)

whee! first vote! 

I voted LE because Vito Corleone was ruthless and never hesitated to kill or have someone killed if it were expedient. He also had a rigid code he followed and worked towards preserving the group he identified with; his family.


----------



## tleilaxu (Dec 5, 2002)

obviously LE


----------



## KDLadage (Dec 5, 2002)

Lawful Neutral

He believes in a rigid structure, but not necesarilly the one that society at large believes in. Thus, he will adhere to the laws of his own code of ethics, but ignore any and all laws that get in his way. In other words, he is lawful, and believes in a common good; he just disagrees with a lot of people on what what is common and good.

Given his love of family and the concern he had for his neighborhood, I would never characterize him as evil. After all, he was the one that refused to allow drugs to enter into his turf and was shot because of this. He wanted nothing to do with these things as it represented 'dirty money' to him.

He is not good, as he has a defined group that he would consider worthy of protection, where-as I would characterise a good person as not making such distinctions or as someone that saw beyond to the "greater good" and based his choices upon that ideal.

I would not characterise him as neutral-anything or chaotic-anything due to his strong and almost overpowering desire for order (again, not necessarilly the same order that the whole of society was working for, but he did not want a turf war (chaos) nor to upset the balance of the five families (neutral, selfish).


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 5, 2002)

Hmm one vote for lawful neutral, is this from made-man?


----------



## BryonD (Dec 5, 2002)

LE

Clearly some Neutral and even Good aspects, but overwhelmingly evil.

Not chaotic.  Very structured.  Ignoring the laws of goverment does not in itself require a chaotic outlook.


----------



## VorpalBunny (Dec 5, 2002)

Neutral Evil.  

He lives outside the law of society, but believes in and follows structure and law when it suits him.  However, he is willing to ignore that order and structure for personal gain or to protect his interests (business and personal).


----------



## Citizen Mane (Dec 5, 2002)

I ran with Lawful Neutral, but I'd add some Evil tendencies.  If we want to take LE, then Michael's our boy, AFAIC (mainly based on GF, II). 

Best,
tKL


----------



## KnowTheToe (Dec 5, 2002)

Lawful evil if you ask me, but I do not really study the Allignments too closely.  I never really understood their purpose.  Anyway I got my vote in before the off topic poll is closed.


----------



## novyet (Dec 5, 2002)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> *I ran with Lawful Neutral, but I'd add some Evil tendencies.  If we want to take LE, then Michael's our boy, AFAIC (mainly based on GF, II).
> 
> Best,
> tKL *



I too say LN, with evil tendencies.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 5, 2002)

His Grace Vito Corleone, Count of Black March

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

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

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


----------



## Rhialto (Dec 5, 2002)

Now it's my vote.  I'm siding with the sizable LN minority myself. (With perhaps evil tendencies).  Vito operates by a code, and though he is ruthless, he is rarely malicious.  Vito usually gives people a way out before he gets violent (or has his men get violent).  He has his limits--he won't support the narcotics business, even though it will be profitable, for both pragmatic, and personal reasons.  And he repays even the smallest favors, and asks that others do the same.

And Michael at the end of *Godfather, Part II*--definitely Lawful Evil.  Hell, arguably by the end of *Part I*...


----------



## La Bete (Dec 5, 2002)

LN - with *serious* E tendencies....


----------



## Squire James (Dec 5, 2002)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Rhialto (Dec 5, 2002)

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

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


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 5, 2002)

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


----------



## The Serge (Dec 5, 2002)

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## KDLadage (Dec 5, 2002)

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



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

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



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



_As many have illustrated in the past, the order of Paladins, as depicted in the game, will murder (even to the point of genocide) any people they feel falls into their definition of evil, all in the name of their Diety -- and thus, within the bounds of an organized, hierarchical, and traditional religious framework._



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



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



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



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



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



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



> Michael Corleone is als LE.  However, he is far more Lawful about his behavior.  Corleone stopped his behavior for a self act... the love for _his_ natural family (not all that selfish, but it was not for a greater good).  Michael killed his own brother because it was a business move.  Anyone who cross The Corleone Family was dealt with in the appropriate manner, and betrayal of the Family meant execution and this extended to his brother.  Still, he's consumed with guilt and loss because he loved his brother.
> 
> The silent scream Corleone issues near the end of _The Godfather_ indicates that even a terribly evil and selfish person can love.  Michael loved his daughter immensely... so much that he was trying to pull out of the Family Business (actually, she was only one part of the equation).  Her death really hurt him... but he was still LE.
> 
> I do think that LE will likely have more room for love, than NE and especially more than CE, but only a few mortal beings are capable of so profound an evil as to be oblivious to a degree of love.



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


----------



## The Serge (Dec 5, 2002)

KDLadage said:
			
		

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



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



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

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



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



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

> *As many have illustrated in the past, the order of Paladins, as depicted in the game, will murder (even to the point of genocide) any people they feel falls into their definition of evil, all in the name of their Diety -- and thus, within the bounds of an organized, hierarchical, and traditional religious framework.*



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

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

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



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

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



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

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

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



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

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



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



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

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



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



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

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



At least we agree on something!  

Your arguments are excellent by the way.


----------



## KDLadage (Dec 5, 2002)

You use the word people. I have seen games where the Paladin will easilly slay entire tribes of Orcs -- not because they did an evil act, but becuase they are Orcs -- and thus, _deserve_ to die.

This is what I was refering to.

But in the end -- its all good (pun intended). 

Alignment is (greatly, in my opinion) a matter of perspective. If there is such a thing as elemental evil -- and thus, Orcs all qualify as inherently evil, by nature) then perhaps my judgements are off. But since I disagree with the very notion of an elemental evil, then this is where my opinion is founded.


----------



## The Serge (Dec 6, 2002)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *You use the word people. I have seen games where the Paladin will easilly slay entire tribes of Orcs -- not because they did an evil act, but becuase they are Orcs -- and thus, deserve to die.
> 
> This is what I was refering to.*



Well, to be fair, IMC Dwarves are largely LG.  As a race, they hate Goblins and Giants and do everything they can to kill them... largely because in their experience, these creatures are wholy evil and dangerous.  This includes Dwarven Paladins.  However, the Dwarven Paladin we had in our campaign was willing, on occasion, to consider letting Goblins go if they weren't committing an act of evil (of course, this never happened).

Now, to me, a Paladin going out of his way to slaughter a group of Orcs indiscriminately just because she _things_ they're up to no good is evil.  If, however, she kills Orcs in order to stop them from committing an act of evil against people, then she's fine.  In my mind, such games that do what you describe are either being played immaturely or are being played simplistically (and there is a difference).

But that's just me.  



			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

> *But in the end -- its all good (pun intended). *







			
				KDLadage said:
			
		

> *Alignment is (greatly, in my opinion) a matter of perspective. If there is such a thing as elemental evil -- and thus, Orcs all qualify as inherently evil, by nature) then perhaps my judgements are off. But since I disagree with the very notion of an elemental evil, then this is where my opinion is founded. *



I agree with you to a point.  I think that each DM is responsible for clarifying alignments in his/her campaign setting.  I attempt to have a very broad alignment canvas.  I can see Evil beings as capable of love... I can also see an entire race of Evil beings.  I can see Good characters as capable of hate just as I can see an entire race of Good beings.  

But, I do think that when we're talking about alignment for the core D&D that the explanations in the Core Rule Books are fairly clear and that they can be applied to questions like the one that got this entire discourse started.

Now, let me shut up and let other people get involved.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 6, 2002)

woo-hoo - less than 12hours since the first post, and the paladin arguement came up! Excellent work guys! 

Unfortunately your argument was disturbingly civil and reasoned. Grumble...


----------



## tleilaxu (Dec 6, 2002)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> *Now it's my vote.  I'm siding with the sizable LN minority myself. (With perhaps evil tendencies).  Vito operates by a code, and though he is ruthless, he is rarely malicious.  Vito usually gives people a way out before he gets violent (or has his men get violent).  He has his limits--he won't support the narcotics business, even though it will be profitable, for both pragmatic, and personal reasons.  And he repays even the smallest favors, and asks that others do the same.
> 
> And Michael at the end of Godfather, Part II--definitely Lawful Evil.  Hell, arguably by the end of Part I... *




If that is your definition of LN i'd hate to see what you consider LE. Look at all the evil stuff he does in the flashbacks of Godfather 2.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Dec 6, 2002)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> *Now it's my vote.  I'm siding with the sizable LN minority myself. (With perhaps evil tendencies).  Vito operates by a code, and though he is ruthless, he is rarely malicious.  Vito usually gives people a way out before he gets violent (or has his men get violent).  He has his limits--he won't support the narcotics business, even though it will be profitable, for both pragmatic, and personal reasons.  And he repays even the smallest favors, and asks that others do the same.
> ...
> 
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Darkness (Dec 6, 2002)

Moved to *Fantasy & Sci-Fi Books, Movies & TV*.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 6, 2002)

KDLadage said:
			
		

> *As many have illustrated in the past, the order of Paladins, as depicted in the game, will murder (even to the point of genocide) any people they feel falls into their definition of evil, all in the name of their Diety -- and thus, within the bounds of an organized, hierarchical, and traditional religious framework. *




The problem with this is that Evil is an absolute force in standard D&D - you can't do something Evil and still be a Paladin, even if your god teaches that it is true.  They will kill, even to the point of genocide, but only if it is a Good act (or, in certain circumstances, Neutral).


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Dec 6, 2002)

A lot of posters have mentioned Corleone's anti-drug angle to upgrade him from evil to neutrality.  While I would argue that the very point of the Godfather movies points out how ridiculous an alignment system really is, I'd rather not get into that.  But, I do have to disagree with those who think Vito shied away from the drug trade out of humanitarianism.  It seemed plain to me that Vito knew that the judges, cops and politicians whose hypocrisy and corruption he'd worked so long to cultivate would not stand for drugs.  Narcotics would be the dealbreaker.  And that's pretty much how it worked out in real life, too.

As for me, I voted LE.  He was capable of doing anything to provide security for his family, up to and including murder.  That's something I just can't see a LN doing.  But, as I said, the central dichotomy of the Godfather characters' lives makes pigeonholing them pretty hard.


----------



## kengar (Dec 6, 2002)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *A lot of posters have mentioned Corleone's anti-drug angle to upgrade him from evil to neutrality.  While I would argue that the very point of the Godfather movies points out how ridiculous an alignment system really is, I'd rather not get into that.  But, I do have to disagree with those who think Vito shied away from the drug trade out of humanitarianism.  It seemed plain to me that Vito knew that the judges, cops and politicians whose hypocrisy and corruption he'd worked so long to cultivate would not stand for drugs.  Narcotics would be the dealbreaker.  And that's pretty much how it worked out in real life, too. *




"It makes no difference to me how a man makes his living."

"I wish you good luck in your business insofar as it doesn't interfere with me or my family's."

 -Vito Corleone to Salazzo "The Turk" about turning down his request to help him in the narcotics trade.

Immediately thereafter he sends for Luca Brasi, his most loyal & ruthless killer.


----------



## Rhialto (Dec 6, 2002)

Well first of all, we can't take everything that the mafiaso say during their business meetings as gospel truth--they each stretch the truth, coach their opinions in pleasant terms, and occasionally lie outright.  A good example is Roth's comments about Moe Green in *Part II*--while claiming to show his businesslike nature, he is actually revealing some of his motives for trying to kill Michael.  In the case you're mentioning, Vito, in a business meeting, explains his pragmatic motives for wanting to avoid the trade.  However, it is definitely implied that he has underneath the pragmatic motives a distaste for the narcotics business itself.

And explain and illustrate the difference between Vito sending for Brasi to kill his enemies, and a king sending for a party of adventurers to kill his enemies.  Use clear examples.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Dec 7, 2002)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> *And explain and illustrate the difference between Vito sending for Brasi to kill his enemies, and a king sending for a party of adventurers to kill his enemies.  Use clear examples. *




And the answer is:

Depends on who the enemy is.

If a king hires adventurers to take out a marauding red dragon, that's pretty unimpeachable.

Two criminals trying to whack each other is not necessarily an evil act in and of itself, but you have to examine motive.  Was St. Corleone looking to rid the world of evil Virgil Sollazzo, or was he trying to protect his business interests?  My heart says the former, but my gut says the latter. 

And killing for selfish gain is pretty evil in my book, whether or not it's a jerk like Sollazzo.


----------



## Henry (Dec 8, 2002)

EDIT - thinking of the wrogn character. It's been a long time since I saw 'em!

For Vito, I have to go with Lawful Neutral. He's a man who came to his position by violence, but it is violence born of necessity, as we find out later. He has Evil tendencies, because the hardness of his life has instilled this in him, but it is not there to the degree that the Law of the family rides in his life.

For Michael, DEFINITELY Neutral Evil, but with Lawful tendencies imparted by his father. He follows Law, even if it is the law of the Family, but can go outside of it when it suits him. No one ever said an evil person cannot have love for those closest to them. His ability to change as it suits, and to compartmentalize his mind in the fashion he does, shows an evil that is "purer" than that of his father.


----------



## Rhialto (Dec 9, 2002)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And the answer is:
> 
> ...




Are the adventurers the king hired to kill the dragon evil in your book too?  They are after all killing for gain...

And this hits the problem we so often reach--mixed motives.  The way you set it out, it's an either/or proposistion--Vito wants to kill Sollazzo because he's a treacherous pusher, or Vito wants to kill Sollazzo to keep his family business safe.  The thing is it can be _both_, and in this case, I think it is...


----------



## DarkSoldier (Dec 10, 2002)

One of these days, I'm going to have to rent the Godfather movies and add the Corleone family to my d20 Modern Net.Book of Fictional Characters.

Or, I could solicit aid from the learned members of this board.  Anybody wanna help?


----------

