What DnD alignment would this be?

>Doing things that end up with him in hell
>That traditionally means being evil
>To achieve a positive result for society

That's lawful evil. Nobody who's chaotic GOOD is going to do things that would result in them burning in hell.

Yeah true that, though D&D has pretty clear cut definitions of what is good or evil.

They don't like to get political about it and instead just go for the stereotypical trope of good guy and bad guy shticks.

But yeah, purely subjective.

>try to apply a fictional system to real life
>it doesn't work
Wow! What a surprise!

You can evaluate one particular quite without getting into everything someone has said and done.

I'd honestly almost say True Neutral, were I to assign an alignment. Lawful would imply a greater respect for, y'know, the law, but in a way he's serving the spirit of the law by fulfilling the ideal rule of a leader by benefiting his people, so it doesn't come off as Chaotic, either.

Meanwhile if he were only interested in helping himself or his family, I'd put him pretty solidly into Evil. His concern for his citizens would make him Good but the implied disregard for everyone else pushes him towards Evil.

So yeah. True Neutral leaning softly towards Evil.

Hey, when Bolsheviks could do it, anybody can...

Depends on the execution.

Going to hell means disregarding rules set by god, which can't be a lawful act.

Lawful Neutral of the personal code variety.

He's an elected official that, in his mind, needs to dirty his hands and do what others cant or won't in order to keep his people safe. Hes not a vigilante(although he has no problems with them) he's working within the legal system of his ridiculously corrupt nation to bring about what he thinks is a good thing

That quote is something Dr. Doom would say about his homeland,

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following laws, just a respect for order. LG doesn't give a shit about slavery ownership rights in Slavetown and LE's ideal is sitting at the top churning out oppressive laws that only apply to others.

Oh you.

Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, True Neutral

Can you repeat the question?

>"I don't care if i break rules in order to make the people live better"
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this, its definitely chaotic good

Dr doom would only care what his people think about him, wheter the reason to worship him is fear or happiness, he just dont give a shit

POLLANON STRIKES AGAAAAAAIN
strawpoll.me/10739353

The problem with them is that different editions have different definitions. I go by 2e, and 2e strongly puts this guy in LE

I know 4e has some weird alignment shit and anyone who learned in 4e is going to be biased toward that.

You either interpret the first part as Chaos and the second part as Good, or you interpret the first part as Evil and the second part as Law.

Sometimes the opposite ends of the spectrum have more in common with one another than they do with any other alignment.

4e cut out most of the alignment chart.

Yeah, weird shit.

I played 4e with my group for half a year and never learned that until I read it on 1d4chan after my group disbanded, which goes to show that 4e's biggest advantage is its refluffability.

first instinct was to say chaotic good, but he's clearly influenced by oath and duty, which is a lawful characteristic.

I'm going with Lawful neutral.

Guys, this is a modern character. d20 Modern doesn't have alignments, they have allegiances.

His sheet just says "Davao City".

"I don't care if I burn in hell" implies he's willing to do anything to support the paradise of the people he serves, including stuff that would put him in hell.

That's LN-leaning-LE at best.

If it's a metaphor for suffering neutral good, if it's actual doing evil to help people that's from chaotic neutral to lawful evil.

>pathfinder is superior for this, among many other reasons

Lawful evil and chaotic good both can cover the "ends justify the means" mentality so they're a weird overlap with them. At that point it's down to the little details on which one falls under

Would that also leave him open to being a true neutral?

None at all, words don't determine alignment in any edition of D&D.

i don't know

Yes. No. Maybe?

Vader is a prime example of lawful evil, and I don't think he had any reservations about, say, blowing up a planet to win his war and bring order to the Galaxy.

No, he won't break laws, just bend the laws to make order. His point is that using the system he'll do terrible things that will ultimately make order. Like Hitler, only cooler.

He's said that he will use his power to pardon people who kill drug addicts. Using a legal loophole to achieve your ends is Lawful Evil.

This.

It's kind of a thing that happens here from time to time.

The alignment system doesn't even work in fiction, it certainly doesn't work in DnD.

Edgelord Lawful Good

Duterte is an evil piece of shit.