Paragon & Praetoria - D&D Alignments?

Ultraman? (that would be the inspiration of the original tyrant, I think)
Here we can see that we have 3 carbon copies of Superman:
Reichsman -> Overman (Earth-10)
Tyrant -> Ultraman (Earth-3) [that would change with GR]
Statesman -> Superman (Earth-1)

I would say the vast amount of references to "Emperor Cole" would be sufficient. Just because an arc made 1000 years ago has him named "Tyrant" isn't enough for me.

Let's use a real-world example. We call a country Germany. Ask a German where they're from (in their native tongue) and see what they say. Just because Primal Earth calls him Tryant, doesn't make him "Tyrant".

Another one that's perhaps more apt. We had a President George W. Bush. I would call him something else altogether.

Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean disorganized, per se. It could be organized, but it'd be always in flux, very dynamic. Arachnos is organized, but chaotic. It's organized around the idea of four factions constantly vying for the upper hand, around the idea of "might makes right" and some kind of social darwinism, where infighting is encouraged to help "weed out the weak". It's organized in such a way as to maximize it's chaotic nature.

Now ultimately in the game none of the factions gets the upper hand for long... as soon as one does, Arbiter Daos steps in and smacks them down hard. Daos might be arguably Lawful Evil (or at least Neutral Evil : he doesn't personally care about order, but he's not letting things go to hell on HIS watch).

Things to remember about the D&D alignment paradigm:

Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are not just ideas. They are, in fact, cosmic forces that are constantly struggling against each other to try and shape (or unmake) the world.

Pairing one of the four with "Neutral" means they are purely that thing. For instance, Modrons are Lawful Neutral; they are Pure Law Incarnate

SUPERNATURAL beings who have an alignment are a manifestation of those forces. Devils are Lawful Evil Incarnate, for example.

Non-supernatural beings who have an alignment have that alignment based on their tendencies not necessarily on their nature. In 2nd edition, if someone acted against their alignment, they'd take penalties, but 3e did away with that: alignment became more flexible. A Chaotic Evil person could certainly do a Lawful deed or a Good deed, but isn't terribly likely to do either, at least not without a reason to do so. If they start doing Lawful or Good things often for some reason, their alignment will shift along the axis.

In any case, if someone's alignment is in doubt, you judge them by their ACTIONS rather than their intent: since good, evil, law and chaos are real cosmic forces with an objective reality in D&D, actions can be objectively Good or Evil, for instance, independent of the intent behind it. Murdering someone in their sleep is an Evil act, for instance, because it's Murder, even if the victim is a cruel tyrant and with his murder you save thousands of lives. Murder is Objectively Evil in the D&D alignment paradigm, even if it's motivated by good intent.

Obviously not many of us adhere to such moral absolutism in the modern world. We tend to take motive into account as much as action. But our world isn't one governed by two pairs of opposing cosmic forces constantly struggling to gain the upper hand.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

I've always mentally mapped Law/Chaos and Good/Evil to "do you think rules are inherently positive" and "are you a d*ck". Arachnos may have rules and structure, but most anyone who thinks that they can get away with it will cheerfully violate them right up until the point someone more powerful catches them.

So if I understand it, you're saying Dan Rather is unaligned? Or at least variable?

That'll really disappoint the folks at Fox News. They went to a lot of trouble to assign him a specific alignment.

Not really. Because when you hit 50 you WILL have given LR his hat and say to him thanks but from now on, I do not consider you to be a person that van give me orders. Now if you ask nicely and pay handsomely you can hire me. And no I will not attempt to take over your spot yet.

With Cole I doubt this will work out. He got a vision and he is ruthlessly enforcing his ideas of Utopia's. So he expects his hired flunkies to jump when he twitches his little pinky. Most high level villains will not bow to anybody anymore. Including self styled Emperors. So they end up as being enemies to the system.

Some will join the resistance but a lot will consider that a folly and check out how to improve themselves.

In Arachnos, rules are quite literally made to be broken.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

If they keep the current Praetorian set up, then it seems that all the superpowered people under Tyrant are fighing and betraying each other to gain more power and influence - like Neuron and Anti-Matter - and they seem pretty independent too - like Shadowhunter doesn't really seem to serve Tyrant very much - he's just running wild in the forest with his wolves.
So I think it's posisble for a villain to see Praetoria as an opportunity to rise very high, but still be their own boss, and with the longterm view of maybe taking Tyrant's place.