The Fraternity has a some errata, but not on Strahd's alignment
http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/TheVault/RL_Errata.htm
The only law he truly respects is his own, though he is wise enough to abide by others' rules if it's in his best interest. Oh, he cares about his villagers but only inasmuch as they are "his" villagers and thus his to dispose of in any way he pleases. Typical case of "these are my toys and, no, I don't share them".
He isn't Chaotic though. On that we agree.
I hate the 3rd ed rule that state that "all ... are ... alignment". So, if your like me, you'll forget this rule.
Exactly which Evil alignment Strahd falls into can be debated, due to varying interpretations of the character and the Law/Chaos axis. Given Strahd's often arbitrary enforcement of his laws, his acts of passion, and the fact that most of his 'lawful' behavior seems rooted in possessiveness rather than any commitment to a code or higher ideal, I think you can make a good case for Chaotic Evil, especially if you take the view (which several designers espoused) that the I, Strahd novels feature a large dose of self-serving propaganda.
Matthew L. Martin
More like NE to me.
I agree. He's lawful to an extent, but not random or lawless enough to be considered Chaotic, IMHO. Maybe somebody should ask T. Hickman.
I agree. He's lawful to an extent, but not random or lawless enough to be considered Chaotic, IMHO. Maybe somebody should ask T. Hickman.
Judging bythe modules, Hickman's Strahd was a pretty straightforward CE--he had a tragic background, but he had no 'code of honor' or interest in anything outside his own goals.
Matthew L. Martin
Another good reason to play Strahd as CE is to point out the contrast between him and the very LE Azalin. Strahd killed his brother because he stood in the way of Strahd's whims (Tatyana). Azalin killed his son because he saw him as an unfit ruler. One is driven by emotion, the other by adherence to "what should be". This conflict is very CE vs. LE.
I agree completely.
He passes his laws and expects them to be followed, but delegates officials to run his lands. Definitely *not* CE behavior, and NE would mean he wavered back and forth between lawful and chaotic behavior. I don't really see that happening in any of the canon material he's featured in. Sure there are occasional lapses, but 90% of the time he's lawful in behavior. That makes him Lawful Evil as far as I'm concerned.
He started out as a soldier because of family custom and went about doing all the things he was supposed to do as the first born. I figure there is little doubt he started out as lawful but where he is now is another question. Part of I, Strahd was his disillusionment about his youth spent in family obligations. One could argue that he's gone neutral or chaotic as a result of that but keeps with his lawful tendencies out of habit. This might turn into an alignment debate. Is alignment determined by drives and goals? or is it determined by the methods someone uses to reach those goals? Personally I tend to go with the latter since most everyone is driven by emotions and such in some way.
In Vampire of the Mists he's definately more chaotic, or neutral at the very least, what with his temper tantrums, promiscuity, and showing up at places unannounced.
If you ask me, that's got more to do with his going through the "juvenile phase" of being a vampire (as described by Van Richten), than any inherent bent in Strahd's personality. He was still relatively new to his powers, when Jander Sunstar met him, and got quite carried away by his own supernatural prowess and dark lusts. Once his conflict with the gold elf gave him a bit of a reality check, by forcing him to realize that he *could* still get himself killed through his own lack of discipline, Strahd wised up and returned to the Lawful behavior which had characterized his mortal life.
Maybe someone ought to ask the writers of the original adventure.
I can't see him as being anything but LE. He strikes me as too calculating, cool and basically has only one "emotional" or random outburst and thats the girl he can never have (sounds like half the captain-save-a-hos I know). Other than the girl issues, he calculating, organized, directive and executive. LE seems to fit him more than anything.
CE would mean erratic and sometimes just outta control. I dont see him as CE unless it concerns the girl, an event that happens very rarely. Then I say yes, he does loose it and starts to screw up and snap and get short sighted and get outta control and become emotional, uncontrolled and undisciplined when he pursues the girl. So when he is in deep pursuit and thought of her, when the stimuli is there, sure, bump him to CE and call it even.
Otherwise, he's LE all the way.
I dont see him as CE unless it concerns the girl, an event that happens very rarely. Then I say yes, he does loose it and starts to screw up and snap and get short sighted and get outta control and become emotional, uncontrolled and undisciplined when he pursues the girl.
I don't even see this as a breach of LE alignment; one point of deviation does not constitute an alignment change. Indeed, the very fact that he tends to "lose it" when Tatyana is at issue -- and to screw things up royally, as a consequence -- suggests that he's neither very adept at, nor accustomed to, thinking with his heart (or fangs) rather than his head. His well-ordered thinking goes astray, his plans fall to pieces, and his temper gets out of control, because it's so contrary to his habits to be operating on passion, not coldly-rational calculation.
Also, NE does not imply swaying between lawful and chaotic.
Just saw this thread, and I'd have to say that Strahd is definitely LE..... CE makes no sense with his overall character. He rules a land and has laws he expects to be obeyed....
I would have to disagree with that line of reasoning. It leads to the conclusion that all rulers (who caring about ruling, at least) are Lawful in alignment. The acts that seem "Lawful" are always entirely selfish in nature; when he punishes thieves, for example, it is because they are stealing from his servants. Strahd is of a vindictive and possessive bent, but neither of those qualities imply Lawful alignment.
At the same time, when one considers the entire body of evidence (discounting the claims of propoganda), it is unclear as to whether he is CE or merely NE with Chaotic tendencies.
I would have to disagree with that line of reasoning. It leads to the conclusion that all rulers (who caring about ruling, at least) are Lawful in alignment. The acts that seem "Lawful" are always entirely selfish in nature; when he punishes thieves, for example, it is because they are stealing from his servants. Strahd is of a vindictive and possessive bent, but neither of those qualities imply Lawful alignment.
At the same time, when one considers the entire body of evidence (discounting the claims of propoganda), it is unclear as to whether he is CE or merely NE with Chaotic tendencies.
Not all rulers, just Strahd. He's lawful because of the laws he upholds without fail. He's EVIL because those laws are of a selfish nature. The fact that there are laws, and that as long as his servants follow said laws they have little to no chance of ever seeing him, speaks of his lawful nature. Strahd will typically not kill innocents, and if he does, it's dire circumstances. He feeds on the criminals of his land, and when he can't, he will typically not kill - just take enough to live on.
He's clearly LE in my mind...and another arguement I like to use is Lord Soth. Lord Soth is lawful evil. How? Because he follows the code and measure? He also uses power words to stun, blind and kill at will - not exactly fair, is it?
If Lord Soth is Lawful Evil, then so is Count Strahd....and yes, I realize that this arguement is purely correlational....LOL
Strahd will typically not kill innocents, and if he does, it's dire circumstances. He feeds on the criminals of his land, and when he can't, he will typically not kill - just take enough to live on.
That's... not really supported by the source material.
Strahd will typically not kill innocents, and if he does, it's dire circumstances. He feeds on the criminals of his land, and when he can't, he will typically not kill - just take enough to live on.
Indeed, I think you are confusing with other vampires from fiction, such as possibly Jander, and Anne Rice's vampire.
Strahd assumes what he is
Joël
But here's a question: If Strahd doesn't kill innocents, then why are Barovians afraid to advertise that they have a young daughter of marrying age in their families?
(I.E., where do his vampire brides come from?)
Yes, people do tend to come off well in their autobigoraphies.
But here's a question: If Strahd doesn't kill innocents, then why are Barovians afraid to advertise that they have a young daughter of marrying age in their families?
(I.E., where do his vampire brides come from?)
That's a good point. But does that make him purely chaotic? Again, I'd say that reinforces his evil, rather than a chaotic nature. To me, he's obviously Lawful, especially based on the laws of his land. Just because HE himself is above said laws, doesn't make him chaotic to me - that makes him evil. But the fact that there are indeed laws, and an established caste system within his society that he expects to be followed without exception, screams lawful.
That's just where I'm coming from... I think we may be confusing "evil" with "chaos."
That's a good point. But does that make him purely chaotic?
Didn't say it did. I merely pointed out that a primary example you gave for why he's lawful only holds true when it's Strahd himself holding history's pen.
Personally, I think he's chaotic evil. However, I also think he thinks he's lawful neutral.
To me, he's obviously Lawful, especially based on the laws of his land. Just because HE himself is above said laws, doesn't make him chaotic to me - that makes him evil. But the fact that there are indeed laws, and an established caste system within his society that he expects to be followed without exception, screams lawful."
Nah, that's been my primary reason.
But here's a question: If Strahd doesn't kill innocents, then why are Barovians afraid to advertise that they have a young daughter of marrying age in their families?
I imagine the locals tend to describe this issue in terms of the risk this or that local undead fiend poses, never (or very seldom) daring to mention Lord Strahd. (And, for that matter, are the young women more likely to meet up with a lesser vampire?)
(I.E., where do his vampire brides come from?)
Actually, IIRC at least one of his undead brides (the banshee perhaps?) chose to stay with him. Being a pretty young woman doesn't mean you can't be evil, or tempted by power and alleged 'immortality'.
Besides, "marriageable age" for Barovian girls is only about 13, and whatever his other sins, I don't recall ever hearing Strahd accused of messing with little girls. But there are other vampires -- and not necessarily males, either; remember the 'bloofer lady', Lucy Westenra's nickname among the children she attacked? -- in Bavoria who might not be so particular, not to mention other monster-types (or even human predators).
Lawful Evil characters and creatures will stick to their rules not because they like them or find them convenient, but because their conception of the world makes it nigh-unthinkable to go against them. Even the most erratic despot might still demand and expect that their dictates are followed as according to their will in relatively stabile patterns (Exhibit A: the all-CE Abyssal Lords in general, and possibly Graz'zt and his realm of Azzagrat in particular), but unless he truly places himself somewhere in this system, with some kind of legal (or equivalent) reasoning for how his power works, he is not really LE.
It may be useful to think of the various Evil alignments as loosely corresponding to the Freudian concepts of Id, Ego, and Superego, with each of these being the dominant force in the Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful varieties respectively. That is, Chaotic Evil reasons along the lines of the Id with a focus on the drive to obtain its desires no matter what, Neutral Evil along the lines of the Ego with a pragmatic consideration of how things can be obtained given the circumstances, and Lawful Evil along the lines of a Superego not approving of obtaining objectives unless it happens in the "right" fashion (the LE conception of "right" is of course usually to the detriment rather than betterment of those the LE individual interacts with, but that makes it no less rigid). This does not mean that CE people do not make plans, or that LE ones lack desires, but rather that when the two clash one will lose out (the CE villain will be inclined to throw reason to the wind, the LE one to withdraw in anger).
Believing as I do, then, it seems to me that Strahd is NE. He sees the law, his minions and allies, and his subjects as tools to which he has no obligation. He will not let anything, neither pride, nor slight nor his supposed long-lost love lead him into destruction, they can merely make him gamble if the odds are good. Too flexible to be LE, too held back to be CE. He seems LE because he is mostly in control, rules his lands in a relatively static way, and operates in a manner often taking the long view. And he seems CE since his defining sin was so strongly tied to passion and rage.
Of course, the above is primarily based on considerations from the 2nd Edition, and ultimately it is probably for the best to pick an alignment for Strahd based on what one needs him for in one's campaign, as the parameters of his situation and the outline of his character seem to allow quite a few interpreatations.
The only reason I care so much about his alignment is for ddm game.
In that case, I assure you that his treatment in the Arthaus books is entirely moot.
Based on the campaign setting material, however, I think Lawful fits better. In the setting products, Strahd has been consistently portrayed as a man with strong principles. That is, he clings to ancient Barovian traditions, continues to rule in the same outward fashion as his ancestors, arranges to fake his death and succession every generation, keeps an organized network of burgomasters and boyars, honors his centuries-long agreement with the Vistani, and has recently been encouraging trade through the Old Svalich road passing right beneath his castle. I don't think a strictly CE ruler would care if his monstrous nature was known or not, whether his authority stemmed from an official mandate or not, or whether there was a need to maintain an organized economic network within his domain (a CE despot would just take what ressources he needs by force, rather than imposing carefully calculated taxes). Nor would he keep his dark magicks and monstrous servants "under wraps" most of the time, as he seems to be doing in the setting books.
I think that the fact that there seems to be so sudden a controversy regarding Strahd's alignment is that the character has become so complex as to outgrow the simple alignment qualifiers. In essence, all three evil alignments might suit Strahd, depending on one's point of view or preferred image of him. If you'd pin him as Chaotic, you probably prefer to run him as he appears in the original module: a tyrannical, fiendishly clever monster preying on his fearful subjects. If you like him to be Lawful, you likely favor the careful tactician featured in the Elrod novels.
The only reason I care so much about his alignment is for ddm game. He will almost definitely be getting his own mini, whether it's a promo, in blood war, or in the set after "Unhallowed" - so his alignment really matters to me. If they give him LE alignment, then I can use him in a warband with Lord Soth, and my other nasties. If they make him CE, then I hope they will give him the ability to bring in LE commanders (since this does match his actual personality anyway, he had Lord Soth and Azalin under his control.) If they do either of those, I will be happy. If he's just straight CE, then that will put a damper my plans.... ;)
I'd defiately shell out for the Strahd mini if they made one (and that's saying a lot for me). I have a feeling that he'd likely be lawful not really because of his character but because chaotic evil already has a vampire commander. (but then again, they may decide to keep with the trend) There's also the possibility that he'd be a split like Ryld, useable with lawful or chaotic. That might suit him best with his occasional mood swings.