Machiavellianism : What alignment do you think it is?

*clears throat for a rant*

Personally, I think that Machiavelli is a bit misunderstood these days. People will associate the term with craftiness, evil, and deceit. That's not how I interpret it. Having the ends justify the means doesn't equal being evil, according to Mac, it just means the use of whatever means possible to keep the general people in order. If assassination and murder are necessaary to uphold the social structure, so be it. However, Mac does not endorse evil or such to control a government, but that using it when necessary to keep order is. But Mac is not a proponent of an evil government; if justice and such can uphold a government better than tyranny and the like, than good should be used. However, Mac believes that people cannot be trusted with benevolence the whole time.

In my opinion, Machiavellianism doesn't equal Lawful Evil, but Lawful Neutral.

Yep I agree about the modern interpretation of Machiavellianism. People seem all too willing to take a lack of compassion to equate to evil intent. Here's a brief summary from the Oxford Interaction Encyclopedia:

"In apparent disregard of traditional morality, Machiavelli argued that princes should use cruelty, deception, and other such devices to strengthen themselves in the eyes of their people. 'Machiavellian' has since come to be applied to one who uses deception and opportunism to manipulate others, but this does a considerable injustice to Machiavelli's far subtler view of the relationship between ethics and politics. His fundamental belief was that a strong state was necessary to achieve all other human ends. This conviction also informed his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (1513-21), in which the achievements of the Roman republic were analysed in order to understand what successful republican government required. Machiavelli stressed the need for a vigorous political code of morality, in order to preserve the public spirit or virtu of the citizens from corruption. He wrote as a political realist, conveying lessons learnt by observing the world as it is."

Perhaps the key word there is 'realist.'

However the problem does not seem limited to poor old Mach. It works in other ways too. I was involved in some research into bionomics (comparisons between organic systems and business organisation) and came across people's perceptions of cruelty and kindness as applied to animal behaviour. As a colleague of mine used to like to say - nature is not cruel just pitilessly indifferent.

I also noticed a similar problem with regard to organisational behaviour and attempts to promote trust. One obvious approach is to be consistent and fair. But so few people seem to be able to grasp the concept that 'fair' does not equal 'nice.'

I suppose the problem is that people seem obsessed with judging things from their own perspective and trying to rationalise what they see into pre-conceived models of good and bad. Poor old Mac would probably dispair and rewrite his thesis to something along the lines of 'bugger this I'm not helping that lot anymore, they can fend for themselves.'

"Il prinice" is indeed an interesting lecture. I agree with Slappy that Machiavelli was a political realist, he spend his career as a political advisor and diplomat. As a political realist his aligment was rather lawful neutral but anything else. Cruelty as he suggested was always used to serve a higher goal - the stability of the state, ensured by the absolute power of the leader.

EDIT: Maybe Archangel ... ;)

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited March 18, 2002).]

I think you just blew a valve there Ragusa.

I agree with C'Jakob. Machiavelli is definately Lawfull neutral in my opinion.