Hypothetical scenario and ethical implications

[anacreon]

Something I thought about yesterday.

Suppose a good-aligned realm (human, elven or dwarven), that borders on a realm populated by orogs/goblins/other evil humanoids. Now suppose that the aforementioned good-aligned realm (lets call it realm A ) is the subject of nonstop raids and sneak-attacks from that evil humanoids controlled realm (which will be known as realm B ). Realm a decides that enough is enough and launches an attack against realm A, during which 3 low-populated provinces (say, provinces levels 0, 1, and 1) are occupied and divested by realm A.
Realm A decides to put its conquests to good use, drives as many evil humanoids as possible out of the conquered provinces, and begins to settle them with members of its own population.

The question is, can realm A still be considered good-aligned, or has it changed alignment and should now be considered neutral or even evil?

In our world realm a should certainly be considered evil, what it is doing should be referred to as ethnic cleansing. But is the same true in Cerilia? In our world no humanoids exist, and no human can be categorically labled as "Evil", but that is possible in Cerilia. The god of battle, conflict and storms is considered chaotic good in Cerilia (which I always found odd). And historically, that is basically what the Cerilian humans did to the elves, and still many human realms (both present and histoical) are considered good.

I don't know the answer to this.

[Raesene Andu]

If you go with the very strict definition of evil, then as soon as realm A massed its troops and invaded realm B then they crossed the line from good into evil. It doesn't mean that the people of that realm are necessarily evil, but it's leaders certainly have crossed over to the dark side, especially using their military power to forcibly evict an entire population.

I had something very similar happen in my campaign once, where a regent running Cariele invaded the Five Peaks and then proceeded to try and depopulate the region of goblins and other "evil" races. What happened was that the entire goblin population of those realm took up arms (at least all those who were able) and the PC found himself tossed out of the Five Peaks and his palace burned down around him by a rampaging mob of goblins.

In the case of most realms it is only a small portion of the population involved in the evil acts, and to tarnish an entire society on the acts of a few individuals is wrong. Perhaps it would better to look at the cause behind the raids. Why are the goblins of realm B raiding realm A? Is it because they need food or resources to support their population. It is unlikely to be just because the race is evil.

Oh, and Cuiraecen may be CG, but his followers can be any non-lawful alignment, including NE and CE.

[A_dark]

Divestiture is neither good nor lawful (book of priestcraft), so IMHO, the realm has certainly deviated from good...

[anacreon]

Divestiture is evil? Always? And what if it's used to take back provinces that were conquered and divested?

[tcharazazel]

heheh, touche. There are of course exceptions to every rule, however, while using violent means to take back what is rightfully yours doesnt make it good, it doesnt make it evil either.

Heh, even though all the paladins who are good (all except Avani's) would go out there and fight to reclaim it...



Then of course, where is good without evil... or evil without good... you cannot have good without evil, thus evil is good, Can I get an Amen? That's the spirit! Doesn't doing good feel good? Doesn't sinning feel good, Hell yeah! Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Can I get another Amen? Let us spread the good will of the Lord by going out, drinking some holy wine, loving one another, and singing the joys of living! Amen!

[Raesene Andu]

The BoP covers the topic of divestiture quite extensively (pg 70-81). It suggests that stipping holdings away from a regent using divestiure is an evil act, unless (and this is a big if) it is used to take them away from a tyrant or usurper. Even in this case the BoP suggest that the divested province be given a chance to make their own way before the so called "good" regent claims them as his own. If they decide to join the liberators empire then so be it, but if they decide to become a new nation then the liberator cannot claim them as his own as still purport to be "good".

On the matter of previous claims to the provinces, that depends how old the claim is. Many tyrants attempt to justify their conquering of provinces through some ancient claim to the land, often going back hundreds of years to a time when their great, great, great, great... great third cousin once spent a night in a local tavern or something similar. If it is a recent event (within the last year or so) then this may be justified, but some ancient claim is not.
The elven kingdoms could effectivly lay claim to much of Cerilia, but any attempt to take it by force from its current inhabitants would be seen as an evil act.

In summation, Divestiture is not a good act, but occassionally may be used by good regent as passed off as a necessary evil.

As an example, if your empire invades the Gorgon's territory, defeats his armies and conquers say three provinces in Markazor, most people would see that as a good act. However, your actions from that point on will determine just how good it is. If you slaughter all the goblins in the province, drive them from the land and move in your own settlers, then it becomes and evil act (although it may not be seen so by the human kingdoms, but we all know what humans are like). If you instead offer the newly conquered kingdoms freedom to rejoin the league of nation as a free goblin kingdom opposed to the Gorgon and his evil minions, then you can committed a very good act, as possibly gained an important ally and vassel. If you just conquer the provinces and add them to your empire without displacing the current inhabitants and treating them as you would any other citizen, then it is still a good act as you have driven off the tyrant in the Gorgon and given freedom to the enslaved people.

Attacking another kingdom whose citizens occassionally raid your lands is a different matter, unless their ruler is obviously a tyrant or major evil power.

[ConjurerDragon]

A_dark schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2666

>

> A_dark wrote:

> Divestiture is neither good nor lawful (book of priestcraft), so IMHO, the realm has certainly deviated from good...

>

The Book of Priestcraft also mentions that divestiture can be seen as a

good act if it is used against awnsheglien like the Gorgon and that

certainly applies also to other evil, monstrous rulers.

bye

Michael

[ConjurerDragon]

tcharazazel schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2666

>

> tcharazazel wrote:

> heheh, touche. There are of course exceptions to every rule, however, while using violent means to take back what is rightfully yours doesnt make it good, it doesnt make it evil either.

>

> Heh, even though all the paladins who are good (all except Avani`s) would go out there and fight to reclaim it...

>

>

And the Paladins of Avani certainly would do so as well to support the

lawful ruler who only tries to reclaim the lands that have been stolen

from him...

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

If religion is the dominant moral compass, then the human lands will be dominated by the ideologies of the human gods most prominent and influential there. So Haelyn's version of morality tends to be dominant in most of Anuire.

I don't really believe in some objective view of alignment as defined by some invisible cosmic power greater even than the gods (for D&D). This is particularly true in the BR world, where the gods exist quite seperately from the standard D&D planar cosmology. They are much more "human" in that thery have their own realms and aren't all that concerned with their clerics' or worshippers' alignments. What they're concerned with are their spheres of influence and their particular dogma and worldly agenda. Like Ruornil's clerics fighting the Shadow World's encroachment, or Haleyn's paladins upholding justice and chivalric virtues, or Cuiraecen's warriors "fighting the good fight" and giving their personal best whenever they commit themselves to battle...

So morality, and thus what is deemed good or evil in the BR world, is something I see as very socially constructed, not cosmically defined. It's all relative...I like to draw parallels to medieval Europe, where things like the Crusades were considered (in their day) righteous acts condoned by God, the most moral and noble quest a knight or soldier could undertake. Yet this was little more than a blatant act of war, full of all of war's brutality, greed, corruption...but did the crusaders ever come home facing a Church tribunal for commiting war crimes? Not that I ever heard...they were just infidels, right?

Racism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are, unfortunately, rather common historical themes, and I prefer the BR world to reflect that kind of brutal, gritty reality rather than being some bs fantasy setting where "good" and "heroic" are somehow based on 20th century ideals of humanitarianism. Morality has had different standards for different races for most of history.

Even in the PHB, it says only evil rangers may choose their own race as a favored enemy. But good rangers can be specialized at killing anything else. Can we get a more blatant example of racially-based morality? in a game based on monster-slaying, things like killing other races simply cannot be judged too harshly, or there will be a lot less "good"-aligned adventurers in the world.

So the same goes for realms. I can't imagine the people of Alamie, for instance, judging their Duke as evil if he goes and slaughters thousands of goblins and barbarians in the Five Peaks. After all, those damned goblins have been attacking, raiding, enslaving, raping, and killing the Alamiens for time out of mind. Besides, they're goblins...

Now where the evil creeps in, IMO, is when you get down to the details. For instance, when the regent gives the order to kill every man, woman, and child found, well...if word of this were to spread back home, there might be a hushed pall settling over the land for a while. The Neseriens might be outraged, maybe some of the Haelynites too, but most would get over it in time, life would go on, and overall the regent would probably get approval from the majority of his subjects for investing those 3 new provinces into his realm...

Truth is, racism is a deeply-ingrained part of this world...I think the BoP's views on it are distinctly biased by a LG Haelynite's version of morality, and should be viewed in such a light rather than as some universal code of morality even the gods must follow...please.

Osprey

[Athos69]

Also keep in mind that the dwarves, a theoretically LG race has been locked in a genocidal war with th orogs for centuries. Do you think that the dwarves would hesitte to slaughter every last orog in a warren, just because there are unarmes females and children present?

Damn straight that the dwarves would be (to use a modern term) "ethnicly cleansing" entire areas for their own settlement. The Orogs wouldn't hesitate in the least, and this is a war of survival.

[Raesene Andu]

In every campaign I've every run my PCs have done many of the nasty evil things mentioned above, including attempting to slaughter entire populations of goblins. In fact, in the last gaming session, the evil elven sorcerer went on the warpath against the dwarves in a village because he thought they were taking over "his" village. He killed several dwarven priests, desecrated the temple of Moradin and ended up driving most of the dwarves out of town. The people of the village never went up in arms over this, they thought he was doing the right thing, although he had no doubt that what he was doing was wrong and evil :)

Unfortunately society (whether modern, during the crusades, or in Anuire) is a particularly nasty beast that will support the most heinois activities for the "good" of the nation and when these activities happen out of sight, in another nation or province, then the people remain completely unaware that their ruler might be slaughtering an entirely innocent population (or even a partially innocent population) for the sake of conquering (better to say stealing) their lands and resources and adding their provinces to his empire. Once it is all over and done with I have no doubt that the average person in the kingdom will be quite satisfied with the job done, the goblins are dead and the kingdom is a peace, it is obvious to them that the regent has done some good at last and their tax gp have been well spent. The returning soldiers would probably even be showered with praise. It doesn't change the fact that what happened was still evil, the people of the realm may have supported it, but those that carried it out were still commiting an act of evil.

As for the actual game effects of such an event, well I'd give the PC a boost to his bloodline and RP score. Why? Because he has won a major victory against a longstanding enemy and the people of his realm are very supportive of his rule, thus boost his bloodline and RP. I doubt it could be justified as an alignment infraction (as far as RP loss/gain goes) although the regent does still have blood on his hands.
As far as the whole regency loss/gain goes, I always base that on how the regent's followers see him, not others. So if his people support him and think he has done a good job then he has ruled well and gets a boost to his bloodline, but it he starts occupying his own provinces to get rid of an enemy, or starts losing land to the goblins, his people will quickly turn away from him.
Of course, all this means that a regent who is to be regarded as a good ruler has to invade the goblin realm or he will potentially suffer a loss to his bloodline when his people start looking at him as indecisive and weak. So the rules are geared towards forcing a regent into making the hard choice of going to war, commiting acts of evil for the sake of societies good... just like real life...

[anacreon]

OK, Reasene Andu, let's talk about an actual situation in Rjurik. The two southern provinces of Lluabraight have been conquered and settled by the humanoids of the Giantdowns in recent years. If the elves manage to get the provinces back, should they be considered evil if they deport all those new settlers from these provinces? I think not.

While we're on the subject, can elves invest/divest at all? I mean, they have no priests to cast these spells for them...

[Raesene Andu]

And depose the almighty Ghuralli? I think not.

A little more seriously now. The situation in Lluabraight is a little different than the initial scenario. Although I have a personal dislike for all things elvish and wish Ghuaralli and his humanoid hordes a long life, in this case the elves would probably feel justified in invading and kicking out the humanoids to reclaim their provinces. The vast majority of Cerilia's citizens would agree with their actions in this case and feel no sorry over the deaths of Ghuralli's horde, who are undoubtably evil.

However, it would depend how they went about this act. Just because the orogs and other humanoids slaughtered the elven inhabitants or kicked them out of the provinces, does not mean that the elves can do exactly the same and then still claim that they are good. That sort of thing just leads to a vicious cycle of death and destruction where one side attacks the other because the other side attacked them because the first side attacked them because of the attack commited by the second side which it claims was in retaliation for the attack by the first side... and so on. As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Lluabraight cannot conquer and depopulate those provinces and still claim the upper moral ground, as soon as they cross that line they are just as bad as the humanoids. In fact, Lluabraight is well known for its abuses, so I wouldn't consider it to be a good aligned realm at the moment.


On the matter of elven investiture, divestiture, this is another bit of info that comes up in the Book of Priestcraft. To make things easier, I'll write out the whole section for you.

ELVEN INVESTITURE
Since elven cultures have unique views on the roles of gods and priests, they do not have any priest regents to cast the investiture spell. Instead, elf regents enjoy some special rules concerning investiture and similar matters.
An elf regent can simply choose to crown a successor, designate an heir, recognise a transfer of holdings or provinces, accept an oath of vassalage. The result is automatic. The only necessity is that all involved parties agree to the transfer. For example, if an elf noble and an elf king choose to alter the terms of their vassalage oath, or the king chooses to give the noble a new holding, they need only agree that this is an acceptable arrangement and the regency is mystically transferred as if the investiture spell had been cast. The concerned regents must still expend a domain action to perform the transfer.
Most elf regents (depending on their domain) do not actively select their heirs, but instead allow the land to decide when the time comes.


So to clarify that even further, elves and gods have pretty much the same connection to the land. When some of the gods power came to humans, they also gained this connection to the land (remember that much of what a regent gains is due to his connection to the land and its people) and with the aid of a priest are able to invest provinces and so forth. For elves, this comes naturally and they can do so automatically, they need not even be blooded, but a blooded ruler does have an advantage due to RP etc. To divest a province an elven ruler must occupy it for at least 1 full domain turn (effectivly contesting the rule of that province) wander over and take good look around his new province and its his. He still needs to spend an action, and it is subject to normally RP bidding wars, but no priest is required. A human, or other ruler would need a regent priest to be present to cast the investiture spell.

If you've read the Shadow Stone novel it has an example of Elven investiture, when the young Aelies is transferred control over the Erebannien by his mentor. It could be just as quick for humans, but they and their gods do like a good ceremony (besides the gods would probably get a bit annoyed if they were left out of things. The actual process of human investiture might just be a simple matter of placing a crown on the head of the new king to announce to the people that he is their new ruler, but the ceremony and celebrations may go on for days.

There is no way for an elf to divest a regent of his bloodline, or strip away his entire kingdom in a ceremony as with the investiture spell IMO. They must do things the hard way.

[Beruin]

I believe we have two topics here, occupying and divesting a province on the one hand and ethnic cleansing or to say it clearly genocide on the other.



With regard to occupation and divesting, I do not think that this is necessarily evil. Starting a war of agression without provocation is certainly evil, but a war in Cerilia could start for other reasons. If the good aligned realm A was attacked and managed to win the war the spoils of this war can be seen as legitimate gains. If the war began for other reasons like escalating trade or border conflicts, it would not necessarily constitute a good and just war, but neither an evil war. I think that most rulers/realms in Cerilia see war as the ultimate solution to a problem, as "continuing a policy with other means" to quote the Prussian General Clausewitz.Such a war would be seen as morally neutral. Between human and/or civilized realm wars like this would probably end with armistice and peace negotiations. Territory gained through these negotiations would be regarded as legitimately earned and would not change the alignment of a realm or its ruler(s) even though the losing party was probably forced to cede these provinces and might seek revenge.



Genocide/ethnic cleansing however is a different matter. This is an absolutely evil act in my view, even with regard to evil humanoids. After all, humanoids in D&D are portrayed as evil because they were raised in a brutal environment and an evil society (and of course to provide antagonists for the players), but their ways can be redeemed. Putting non-combatants to the sword or deporting them in large numbers would be regarded as abhorrent at least by parts of the population and by other realms as well. Therefore, the right thing to do for a realm that wanted to stay good is to try and accommodate the new inhabitants into their realm. This is a difficult process of course, but not impossible. For a time, crime and unrest might be a real problem in the new provinces, but in the end, realm A might find that it now has a sizeable population of loyal humanoid citizen who are at least neutrally or even good aligned.



In conclusion, as a DM, I would not punish my players for divesting a province or two after they won a war they did not start, but I would come down hard on them for trying to impose a genocidal or deportation policy. Paladins and good aligned clerics would certainly loose divine favor, other characters would be subjected to alignment changes and other repercussions would also occur. I would make it as difficult as possible to control the concerned provinces, humanoid realms would certainly seek to avenge their slaughtered brethren and other neighboring rulers might also object when faced with a greater number of humanoid refugees creating unrest in their realms.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing might have a part in the game when creating a truly despicable villain, but I would not like to condone such acts on part of my players.

[Osprey]

There seems to be an assumption that a good-aligned regent cannot start a war of aggression, that such an act is not good.

Was Roele not a Lawful Good regetn by all accounts?

Was not the Anuirean Empire forged through conquest more than any other means?

As I see it, a war in Cerilia can be fought, even started, by any alignment of regents without infringing on that alignment. It is how the war is justified that will determine how the people see it (and I agree with Raesene that gains/losses of regency are primarily determined by a realm's subjects for all except source regents). Roele justified the Imperial wars of conquest as a good thing. A LG regent can easily justify imposing their own rules and laws, and say it is for the greater good. While many may chafe and resent these rules, I'd say that Roele wasn't lying: every realm integrated into the Empire would have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, peace, and stability. So killing a few thousand resisting enemies (who might also be good, believing they fight for the freedom of their realms) could be justified as "the price of unity."

This is extremely relevant, of course, in any contemporary Anuirean campaign where the PC's or the regents they support try to re-unite the Empire. With that kind of historical precedent celebrated by most Anuireans, a great deal could be justified in the name of unification, and yet the would-be Emperor could yet remain a good-aligned regent.

But yes, I'd say genocide of any race is pretty darned brutal, although if it happens in foreign territory a lot of the ugly truth will probably get swept under the rug, especially if a battlefield victory and new provinces are gained.

Osprey

[Athos69]

I would also pint out that a race-specific God, such as Moradin would likely not care at all if the same Orogs that have been destroying his Children for centuries were to get a good taste of the same treatment. Moradin's primary concern is the health and safety of his children -- not to be the shining paragon of all that is saccharine coated in the world. Keep in mind too that he and Torazan are arch-enemies...

[Osprey]

I would also pint out that a race-specific God, such as Moradin would likely not care at all if the same Orogs that have been destroying his Children for centuries were to get a good taste of the same treatment. Moradin's primary concern is the health and safety of his children -- not to be the shining paragon of all that is saccharine coated in the world. Keep in mind too that he and Torazan are arch-enemies...

And isn't every major Cerilian deity a race-specific god? Haelyn, Sera, Avani, Belenik and Kreisha, and Erik - all patron gods of a specific race of humans...and then there are the non-human deities like Moradin and Torozan, of course. Racism is quite endemic to the BR world I'd say.

Osprey

[Athos69]

True, but don't get confused between a Racial God, one who's worshipper base is exclusively made up by members of a chosen race, and a Cultural God, one whose worshippers come primarily from one culture, but have adherents in other cultures as well.

Moradin is a Racial God. He is concerned with the survival of his children, and doesn't give a damn for other cultures or races out there, save those that are trying to wipe his people out.

The Human pantheon tend to be Cultural gods. While they believe in Human supremacy, they are also in competiton with the other Human deities, and thus tend to concentrate more on their own cultures (from before Deismaar).

I would hazard the supposition that the Human gods would not support this kind of brutal genocidal policy, because they can still gain worshippers from conquered lands.

[tcharazazel]

So Athos what you are saying is that the gods determine what is good and evil, while the people do not, correct?

However, if so, then a racial god like Moradin who is LG would allow his people to attempt to genoside of all other races, whose racial gods who oppose him and justify it as a holy crusade...

Heh, if its the gods who determine it and not the people, then Raesene's point about the people generaly viewing the regent's actions a justified/good would be wrong. Even though its obvious that all non-source regents get their RP from the belief of their people...

Maybe this factor would be more appropriate for the temple regents, while the land and guild regents would rely more upon the people's belief in him for collecting RP. The justification for this is that temples, their followers, clergy ect, would likely follow what the god's morals, ie what is good and evil. Thus allowing for different gods to determine what they view as good and evil that may not agree with the entire province, which makes sense as a temple may not control all of the political power in the province, ie there are multiple temples in the province with political power.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by "tcharazazel"
Heh, if its the gods who determine it and not the people, then Raesene's point about the people generaly viewing the regent's actions a justified/good would be wrong. Even though its obvious that all non-source regents get their RP from the belief of their people...

But I think Raesanes point was not that conquering the realm and the ethnic cleansing would be justified/good on a moral level, but that it could be justified/good from the viewpoint of the populace, and that is where the regent derives the RP bonus. Those can be two seperare standards.

I would view it as questions of alignment infringements will be based upon what temple a regent follows, while questions of regency gains is based upon the viewpoint of the populace. If a regent manages the information flow correctly that viewpoint will be based upon incomplete information.

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to intervene here: alignment is not a matter of how one feels about his actions, it is more about what actions he will generally take in any given situation.

For example, a LG ruler's idealism will probably make him accept the responsibility (even the bad credit as an evil of the world uncleansed) to do what is good for his people, to the point of being even a little oppresive when it comes to people out of his jurisdiction, influence, or banner; he has no say for this people. Furthermore, if such a ruler is doing that against a conqueror or usurper, the more he will want to do that! Or, he would be more good than lawful and act appropriately to hostages, setting them free, allowing for ransom to be retrieved so as to rebuild the kingdom, etc.

On the other hand, that is what a LG ruler would do, who puts his duty (in this case to his people) first, no matter what. A NG character would care for the well-fare of all if possible. A CG ruler would be a lot different, caring only for his people to the point of being opressive or murderous at times. What makes him good is that he will care for others and will act in such a manner only as an answer to violent acts. In other words, he would never initiate a war just because he thinks this would be best for his people: he knows they will suffer during the war, and he will also dislike the idea of attacking someone just to take his land; if that other would attack first, then he would have made his move and proven himself unworthy of his trust, thus an enemy to be vanquished.

[tcharazazel]

I guess I wasnt clear enough, in my next paragraph then, Jew.


Maybe this factor would be more appropriate for the temple regents, while the land and guild regents would rely more upon the people's belief in him for collecting RP. The justification for this is that temples, their followers, clergy ect, would likely follow what the god's morals, ie what is good and evil. Thus allowing for different gods to determine what they view as good and evil that may not agree with the entire province, which makes sense as a temple may not control all of the political power in the province, ie there are multiple temples in the province with political power.


But I think Raesanes point was not that conquering the realm and the ethnic cleansing would be justified/good on a moral level, but that it could be justified/good from the viewpoint of the populace, and that is where the regent derives the RP bonus. Those can be two seperare standards.



You see, I mean they are 2 different points... they are not arguements on the same level, and thus they are not counter arguments for each other for which the way good or evil acts are determined.

Sorry, if I wasnt clear enough for you. Heres a better way to phrase it anyway:

Ok, as I see it when we begin to discuss the beliefs of gods we are no longer talking about the landed and guild regents, as was the general basis of the previous part of the discussion. We are now talking about the temple regents.

The points we got so far:

1) The people's belief in the regent is what determines his RP collection. (true for all regents except source regents)

2) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered evil by some of the good gods, it may not be considered evil by the people. For example, genociding the goblins in the spiderfell who have raided their provinces for centuries. (It would be genocide as they have no where to run except into hostile lands if the conquering regent doesnt allow them to stay in the spriderfell.)

3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name)

4) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered good by some of the good gods, it may not be considered good by the people. For example, giving charity to goblins, whom the populace hates.

5) If a temple regent does an act that is considered good by his/her diety, it will likely be considered good by the temple followers.


Now, if a landed regent is also a temple regent... then the regent is more likely to follow the morals of his/her diety than the morals of the populace. A fact that may be a good reason why there arent very many land and temple regents.



I would view it as questions of alignment infringements will be based upon what temple a regent follows, while questions of regency gains is based upon the viewpoint of the populace. If a regent manages the information flow correctly that viewpoint will be based upon incomplete information.

Who says that a landed or guild regent needs to follow a diety? Sure they can go to the temple and just appear to appease the temple regents of the area, however, he doesnt need to believe in any of it.

What I was doing was breaking it down, as its unfeasible to think that the entire populace would all go to 1 temple if that temple is one of 3 in the province. If the temple regent were dependant upon the rest of the populace for regency then why wouldnt the temple regent get RP = province level?

There is no way anyone can manage the information flow for large scale wars, as there are hundred of witnesses to the acts committed, the army, who will talk when they get back and are apart of the populace.



Rasp, aye, I wasnt talkin about feelings either. However, I was talkin about what set of rules a regent is more likely to follow, the moral rules set by the populace or the moral rules set by the gods. Heh, there often times is a big difference.

For example, if the regent was raised in a temple of Haylen by LG temple followers, even if he chooses a different path than to join the clergy, his idea of LG would likely be much different than a guildmaster's LG son raised by his father and tutors to take over the guilds. In general, you could expect the temple child to strickly abide by Haylen's version of good and evil, and the guild child to stick to the guild's verion of good and evil. So, they would both agree to stick to their word and do what they belief to be good and just, however, their ideas of what is good and just maybe very different. The temple child may always believe that it is good to tithe his money to the church, while the guild child would believe that wasting money in such a maner would be a crime, as he was taught that all the temples are corrupt. The temple child would probably see sending people out of work would be a horrid thing, while the guild child would see contesting out other guilds as a good thing because he would then be able put in his own people who obviously must be better. There are plenty of examples that could show their differences in what they believe to be good and just. And it is this belief that would determine their actions.

A simpler example is the difference between a LG samurai and a LG paladin. The samurai belives that it is good to die for honor, even taking his own life to preserve honor. However, the LG paladin would see committing suicide as an evil act and would bar him from his diety's paradise if he did so.


Thus, as you can see its important to understand the basis for the character's LG beliefs, instead of just saying all LG people act in this manner. Naturally, this would apply to all the allignments, LG is just an easy example.

[Athos69]

But they are all tied together. The perception of the populace will be shaped by the religious dogma of the dominant temple. So, indirectly, the ruler's actions are going to judged according to the temple's teachings.

Using the Dwarves as an example again, Moradin's Forge teaches that the survival of the Dwarven people is paramount. The Orogs are such a severe threat that the war is a war of survival. Anything that can be done to preserve the Kingdom is acceptable.

If the people are receiving these teachings from the temple, and there is no other temple to gainsay it, then a ruler acting within these parameters will be seen to be doing Moradin's work.

[tcharazazel]

But they are all tied together. The perception of the populace will be shaped by the religious dogma of the dominant temple. So, indirectly, the ruler's actions are going to judged according to the temple's teachings.

Using the Dwarves as an example again, Moradin's Forge teaches that the survival of the Dwarven people is paramount. The Orogs are such a severe threat that the war is a war of survival. Anything that can be done to preserve the Kingdom is acceptable.

If the people are receiving these teachings from the temple, and there is no other temple to gainsay it, then a ruler acting within these parameters will be seen to be doing Moradin's work.


Dwarves are an example that would nearly always have just 1 temple and thus 1 set of religious teachings and moral guidance. For Dwarves, I agree with you that the temple will have a strong indirect maybe even direct effect upon the populace's moral beliefs of good and evil.

However, for the majority of Cerillia the Dwarves are not a good example as most of Cerillia is human, and humans don't follow 1 god, they follow a pantheon of gods.

Keeping this pantheon in mind, who said there always is 1 dominant temple? If there are 3 prominant temples in the province, all relatively the same level of power, then which is the dominant temple that influences the populaces beliefs? Of course all 3 would influence the populace's beliefs of good and evil, and that can be a large difference of what is good and evil. So, I stick with my 2 points concering the difference:



2) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered evil by some of the good gods, it may not be considered evil by the people. For example, genociding the goblins in the spiderfell who have raided their provinces for centuries. (It would be genocide as they have no where to run except into hostile lands if the conquering regent doesnt allow them to stay in the spriderfell.)

4) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered good by some of the good gods, it may not be considered good by the people. For example, giving charity to goblins, whom the populace hates.



If you notice, I say that, "it may not be considered evil by the people," and "it may not be considered good by the people." Thus, leaving open the possiblity that 1 temple/diety has strong influence over the populace, however, this will never be the norm in a society that worships a pantheon of gods. Therefore, it is more likely for there be a difference in opinion between the dietys' verisons of good and evil vs. the populace's version of good and evil which is likely to be more of a mix between the different temples' teachings and their own personal interests.


One final point, the populace is also more likely to be grounded in simple ideas and simple life, as the majority of the populace is peasants. So, expecting everyone to understand or agree with a dominant temple's view of things is really expecting a lot. Don't forget that even if a temple is dominate this can reflect policital power and influence, not neccessary that the entire populace would completely understand or totally agree with what the temple says to be good and evil. If they do not understand why something is good or evil then how can they be expected to know when a situation arises that is not in the temple teachings, even if it is similar to one in the teachings, what course of action is good or evil.

For example, if the temple of Neserie was the dominant temple of a realm that gets contunial raiding from pirates, the people would probably not view the regent's act as evil if he eliminates the pirates. However Neserie would likely view the act as evil because the regent did not even try to ask the pirates to stop and use diplomatic means to do so first. If the Regent was a devote follower of Neserie he would have tried the diplomatic approach first, however, its obvious that he is not that devote yet that doesnt seem to bother people that much...

What it boils down to is that short lived people, ie humans, generally take short term views and seek the things that will improve their immediate well being and justify them by whatever means they have on hand, whether it is from a diety or survival ect.

[Osprey]

Using the Dwarves as an example again, Moradin's Forge teaches that the survival of the Dwarven people is paramount. The Orogs are such a severe threat that the war is a war of survival. Anything that can be done to preserve the Kingdom is acceptable.

If the people are receiving these teachings from the temple, and there is no other temple to gainsay it, then a ruler acting within these parameters will be seen to be doing Moradin's work.

So what, exactly, remains "Good" about the dwarves, as supposedly the Forge is LG? If survival is the paramount moral compass, doesn't that strike you as more like neutrality?

If I were to place a more apt alignment on the dwarves of Moradin's Forge, it would be Lawful Neutral. Highly structured, honorable (your word is your bond), tradition-bound, dogmatic...all lawful characteristics. But good? When a person or group or religion starts using things like "survival at all costs, ye who are true believers" then pretty much means anything can be justified...and that, by any moral standards I know, is definitely not "good." Because good is rarely so practical...

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Several things to comment on:

There is no reason to justify that a LG paladin would think that suicide is an evil act. That is a 20th century look at things (and not always true there eithe - remember Dr Kevorkian?)

IMO temple alignments do not come from their god, the alignment of the temple shifts to match that of its prefect. There are LG and LN temples of Haelyn and even possibly LE ones (I just haven't read of any nor does it really make sense to me, but per the 2nd ed rules the possibility exists).

War is not an evil act. This is one of the reasons that Haelyn is the god of noble war. It is how the war is conducted that would make it evil.

Conquering lands is not in and of itself evil. Forcing divestiture most likely is. But, investiture when the loser cedes the land or portions of it to the winner is not the same as divestiture nor is it divestiture when claiming lands from a fallen foe.

Questions to ask include: Was it evil for Suris Enlien to do what she did to claim Moedoere? How about Roesone's independence?

The BoP talks about state religions (pg 70) and when they have influence (and how much) of the populace. It also talks about faith at war (pg 71) which gives some discussion as to the church's role in a war. There is no mention of evil in any of these writings.

[Raesene Andu]

If you are talking about temples, then the important thing to remember about the Cerilian gods is that they (at least most were) originally human. This makes them far more human, therefore far more flawed. Also the gods do tend to represent portfolios and beliefs more than one strict alignment and these beliefs can be open to interpretation by the god's followers.

If we look at the example of Haelyn, a LG god who can have LG, NG, CG, LN, and even LE followers. He is the god of Courage, Justice, Chivalry, and Rulership, not the god of being sickingly nice to all creatures big and small. If we just focus on one part of his portfolio, that of justice, this can mean many things, depending on the interpretation of the cleric/paladin who is delivering the justice. Even if a LG paladin commits an act that might be considered morally or eithically evil (at least if you see things the way I do), say for example, chopping the hand off a thief, this does not violate the tenates of his alignment if it is the punishment demanded by the law and the society of which he is a part. The paladin would even likely look on the deliverance of this punishment as his duty as an agent of Haelyn's justice, although he might fell sad that such a duty fell to him. Even if a LG nation goes to war against an ancient evil enemy that has attacked them, kills hundreds, even thousands of enemy soldiers, captures lands from the enemy, divests them and conquers them, this may still not be viewed as evil act by their god if it done in self-defence and it was the only way for the LG nation to defend itself and to end the war.

However, war for any reason, is still an evil act. Many people die, there is suffering visited on both nations. So even if the cause if just and right, the act itself is still wrong and evil. As for LG charcters getting involved in a war, they can still do so without violating their alignment if they fight in self-defence, or to protect those unable to protect themselves. They cannot, however, start a war for the sole reason of capturing territory, no matter how evil their enemy is, because war itself is evil can only be excused in the most extreme of circumstances. If the evil nation had attacked them, then the LG nation/character is justified in striking back if it is for the good of his people. In another situation, perhaps the evil nation has attacked the good one with its armies, been defeated in the first battle and is now suing for peace before its lands are attacked in response. The LG nation would now have to agree to listen to the evil nation's ambassadors and potentially agree to peace on just terms. They could not ignore the ambassadors, continue the battle and attack the evil nation, or demand extravagent reparations and still consider themselves to be LG. IMO the LG ruler would have violated his alignment if he did that. This is important to remember in BR because there are regency losses for violating alignment, depending on how serious the infraction is.

In the initial situation proposed by this thread, a good nation was being raided by humanoids from an evil nation. If the good nation was supposed to be LG, then I think it would still be hard to justify any sort of war against the humanoid nation. Kill or imprison the raiders, demand that the humanoids stop raiding, sure, but starting a war, slaughtering hundreds or thousands (and of course then there are the deaths among the good nation's soldiers as well) over some raids is still not an act of good. If the raids had been going on for years, and many citizens of the good nation had been killed, kidnapped, or had suffered, then a case could be made for war, but if it is just some minor raiding for livestock and only a couple of people had been killed, then dispatching the troops to the border to stop any more raiders would be a better course of action.


Now in the case Moradin's Forge and the Dwarves of Baruk-Azhik. While it is certain that they are at war with the Orogs and the dwarves will kill any orog they spot in their caves, there is no evidence they are commiting genocide. In fact, RoE even that that Grimm Greybeard is considering attacking the orog caves in force to end their threat, but this means that he has not yet done so. IMO, the dwarves are maintaining a strong defence against the orogs and killing any of their raiders that are on their way to attack the dwarven caverns, but have yet to make any move against the orog caverns and therefore it can be considered that they have until now only been defending their nation against attack, not going on the attack themselves. These are the actions of a good nation, not an evil one, although I don't doubt that most dwarves would like nothing better than to see every orog in Cerilia killed, they have yet to commit genocide.

As for Moradin's Forge, the temple itself, there is no evidence it has been advocating the complete anniallation of the orog race. However, there is evidence that the priests have made overtures to the dwarves of Mur-Kilad, a recognised nation of evil, it the attempt to win back the hearts and souls of the dwarves who live there, not with swords and oppression, but with words and the teachings of Moradin, and despite the danger they face from the Hand of Azrai and the other minions of the Gorgon. If the orog chiefs all got together and sent emissaries to Ruach Rockhammer asking for peace between their two peoples, it is likely that the priest would hear him out, because an end to the war between the orogs and dwarves is in the best interests of the dwarven people.

[Raesene Andu]

War is not an evil act. This is one of the reasons that Haelyn is the god of noble war. It is how the war is conducted that would make it evil.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be the nature of evil. From my rather one sided point of view I do consider war in any form to be evil because of the suffering and destruction caused. However, it is an evil that can sometime not be avoided if you are forced to go to war in self defence when your only other option is to die or become a supporter of evil.

To look at a BR example, if the evil Red Kings of Aftane are about to invade Ariya, then Ariya is justified in defending itself and fighting off the attack, because if they didn't they would be conquered and the people of Ariya would be killed or forced to serve the evil Red Kings. Ariya would not, however, be justified in attacking first because it thought that the Red Kings was planning an invasion. Even if it had proof, it would still be better to confront the Red Kings with the proof and demand they withdraw and stand down their troops than launch a war to stop them.

As another example say a realm is in the grip of an evil tyrant who abuses and murders his own people, taxes the land dry, and generally behaves in a nasty way. A good nation could not justify a war against the tyrant, no matter how evil he was, because in doing so they would be commiting acts of evil themselves. Even if his people were free as a result, if anyone dies as a result of their war, then the good nation has still committed evil, because it was through their direct action that these deaths occured. Unless he directly attacks them, there is very little the good nation can do to aid the people of the tyrant's nation without themselves being tainted by evil.



Questions to ask include: Was it evil for Suris Enlien to do what she did to claim Moedoere? How about Roesone's independence?

Roesone was certainly justified. The Black Baron took control of a wild, abandoned land and gave it order. He then did the right thing and contacted the land's former owner and asked to be given the title of baron. Only when Diemed betrayed him did he go to war against them, and then it was defend himself. I don't think Roesone was a particularly good person though, he wasn't called the Black Baron for nothing.

Medoere is a slightly difference case. Suris Enlien was perhaps justified in opposing the coming invasion force, because they were coming to kill her and her followers. Anyway, it was Ruornil that killed the Diemed soldiers, Suris' followers had very little to do withit (except maybe with their faith in Ruornil). Pretty naughty of Ruornil IMO, I can see where Eloele gets her rebellious streak... :)
Suris was not, however, justified in killing her father, no matter that he had threatened her, or even that he had murdered her uncle. That was without doubt an act of evil, an act of revenge. That Ruornil still supported her afterwards, pretty much underlines that he is not considered to be a good diety.



The BoP talks about state religions (pg 70) and when they have influence (and how much) of the populace. It also talks about faith at war (pg 71) which gives some discussion as to the church's role in a war. There is no mention of evil in any of these writings.

Hence this discussion :)
The BoP can not be considered comprehensive, I don't think it gets into the ethical or moral side of arguments. Of course, this is after all, a discussion of hypothetical situations, the rules are fairly clear on most matters to do with divestiture, war, etc. If anyone would like a clarification on what exactly to do in a certain situation as far as the BR rules go, I'm happy to explain things. Of course, what does get in the way of rules to do with good/evil a lot of the time is the fact that every person on this planet has a differing opinion of what the nature of good and evil is.

[A_dark]

A very interesting debate.... irdeggman made some points I wanted to make too...

I would like to say though one thing. I think it is a bit dangerous to differentiate between good and evil depending on the justifications of the players, because an intelligent player can justify anything according to his alignment. This is why the DM has to has some fixed standards regarding what is good and evil. The question is how the DM decides these things. In my opinion, and due to the way that AD&D is structured, we should apply 20th century logic and ethics. Genocide is evil, divestiture is evil (investing lands when the loser cedes them is not), war is evil. A self-defence war might be less evil, but certainly not good... perhaps neutral. If a paladin can avoid going to war, he should do try...

Roele's campaign had nothing good about it, but if you're the god's brother, you can get away with those things :D

Roesone was not a good person indeed. Even though his provinces were neglected by Diem, he still stole them/divested them and that's unlawful, at least.

Also, I beleive that it is wrong to mix the regenvy point rewards with alignment deviations. The former has to do with the level of acceptance by the people (the people of the Magian like him much better than the Vos of Pipryet and are pretty happy with his harsh rule), while the latter has to do with the standards that the DM has set for the alignment. A PC can use justification to avoid regency loss and explain to his people what he is doing, but he shouldn't be allowed to do the same to the DM.

If someone believes that an act he commits is good, this does not mean that the act itself is good. In the ancient greek tragedy of Orestis, the good son of Agamemnon kills his mother (who killed her husband) in revenge after Athena herself advised him to do it. He believe it was a good thing to do. The gods did not agree and the Furies were sent after him. The act itself matters, not the justification for it.

[Raesene Andu]

Yes, as mentioned previously, regency loss/gain is primarily how the people of a nation/organisation see their regent, it has little to do with how evil he is. If you look at Anuire, the large nation there is Ghoere, ruled by an evil man who levies heavy taxes and has an oppresive system of laws. Yet Gavin Tael's bloodline is obviously flourishing. He has a major bloodline (max stcore of 48 if rolled randomly on the original tables) yet he has a bloodline score of 49, so somewhere along the line his family's bloodline has had a major boost, most likely when it conquered Bhalaene and Gieste and formed Ghoere. That was a likely a war conducted for selfish, evil reasons, yet his family's bloodline has been boosted by that event, not weakened.

So, a regent who always does the good thing, never starts wars or does anything that could be considered evil, it most likely going to be consider a very poor, weak regent, and his bloodline is going to fade, while a bloodthirsty tyrant who panders to mob and expands his domain through wars is going be seen as a strong, successful regent and his bloodline is going to be boosted as a result. Regency is a bit like a popularity poll really.

[Osprey]

Whew! Remind me to never, EVER play a Lawful Good regent...


In my opinion, and due to the way that AD&D is structured, we should apply 20th century logic and ethics. Genocide is evil, divestiture is evil (investing lands when the loser cedes them is not), war is evil. A self-defence war might be less evil, but certainly not good... perhaps neutral. If a paladin can avoid going to war, he should do try...


I disagree wholeheartedly. Applying 20th century standards cart blanche is entirely inappropriate here. The closest to this a DM can justify is that the universal cosmology (the Planar cosmology of D&D) sets limitations for alignment that transcend even the Cerilian gods. And even this I think is inappropriate for the Birthright world, where they very obviously live in their own disconnected little universe mostly (entirely?) seperate from the Outer Planes and their accompanying definitions of good, evil, law, and chaos.

To me, this is a refreshing chance to create a a set of alignments quite distinct from standard D&D definitions. While certain truisms, particularly along the Law vs. Chaos axis, would still correlate, morality (Good vs. Evil) is, and always has been, a very slippery sloope, and its definitions continue to be debated even into the 20th century. And there's still no consensus on the issue today, otherwise we wouldn't be out there killing each other under various moral clauses of justification. No matter how flimsy those justifications may seem to an educated person, the sad fact is that the majority of people buy into it and call it "good."

Now, IRL, I totally agree with Raesene and A-Dark. Whatever the reasons, war is an act of evil: killing, destroying, and the inevitable rape, abuse, and suffering that goes with it, these are terrible things that cause death, pain, trauma, and heaps of suffering. The reason this is my opinion is because I don't believe the ends justify the means. But this is an extremely sophisticated view that is extremely rare ina medieval world.

So if I am to apply my 20th century morality to the BR world, the net result would be quite blatant: the number of truly good-aligned persons in the world would be reduced to a mere handful, and the number of good regents even tinier. I mean single digits if not just one or two or maybe three.

BUT: it is obvious that D&D and Birthright use a more general medieval moral code, having a much more generous view of violence and morality that allows for killing in the name of...

In BR, I think the gods and historical precedence (which are deeply intertwined) set the standards for morality. As any character within the setting has no exposure to 20th century Earth morality, how can a DM possibly use those alignment guidelines to judge the morality of their actions? This is ludicrous. Good role-playing in BR (or any setting) demands that every character think, act, and believe as a person raised in that world, conditioned by the values and actions appropriate to the culture and their family, friends, etc. All of who are likewise conditioned.

Anuirean Morality: As was pointed out, Haelyn is the god of Noble War, Justice, Leadership, etc. How can Roele possibly be held up as an exception to the rule? I'm sorry, the founder of the Empire would not be an exception, he is the paragon example by which every other Anuirean regent is measured, second only to Haelyn in his purity of being and purpose.

This being the case, we are left with a view that war can in fact be justified as good and noble, if the overall reasons are noble. And here precedent says, "Wars of unification which lead to long-term peace, prosperity, and stability, are wars waged for noble ends." Thus they are ultimately a good thing, IF they succeed. If they fail, however, the destruction and misery wrought will surely find the instigator judged and found wanting.

Wars fought only defensively? Please...this is as un-Anuirean as it gets. I agree that in this case, morality is not solely at the discretion of the player/character, that should be a given. I think in general, the temples are looked to, especially in Anuire, to be the highest earthly source of moral authority. With their powers of agitation, coronation, and Interdiction, it should be obvious that the temple regents were designed to play spiritual and moral authorities in the BR world. So what the local temple regents say about a landed regent's actions (including wars) should play a heavy role in how the landed regent's subjects see him, particularly if strong Decrees are made to this effect. Which ultimately means a temple regent has the power to influence gains and losses of regency, a balance of power I find very appropriate and necessary in BR.

But again, even the temple regents are deeply steeped in the dogma of their deity, and should be appropriately biased when it comes to pronouncing judgement and defining morality. And Priests of Haelyn really can't condemn a successful war of unification, so long as the resulting unity really does bring all the positive stuff it was meant to. OTOH, wars fought to bring a realm under an oppressive iron grip are obviously corrupt, and why the hell is Antia Maericore (HA) sitting around on his butt letting Gavin Tael get away with it all? Neutral Good, yeah, right...probably just too scared to act, or looking for a strong ally before confronting the Baron of Ghoere.

Well, that about wraps up my rant, but I want to repeat one thing for emphasis:

Morality can only be judged from within the context of a world-setting. If you (as a DM or player) want a full range of alignments within a world that is distinctly different from our own, then you must be willing to impose a different set of moral definitions from our own. Otherwise, it's not really a different culture, just versions of contemporary people dressed up in medieval clothes playing re-enactment games. And oh yeah, there are monsters there too, but don't hurt 'em unless you're evil...

Osprey

[Athos69]

Osprey wrote:

Morality can only be judged from within the context of a world-setting. If you (as a DM or player) want a full range of alignments within a world that is distinctly different from our own, then you must be willing to impose a different set of moral definitions from our own. Otherwise, it's not really a different culture, just versions of contemporary people dressed up in medieval clothes playing re-enactment games. And oh yeah, there are monsters there too, but don't hurt 'em unless you're evil...

HUZZAH!

[tcharazazel]

first off, damn who else is having fun :D

irdeggman

There is no reason to justify that a LG paladin would think that suicide is an evil act. That is a 20th century look at things (and not always true there eithe - remember Dr Kevorkian?)


Dude, go read a history book or the Bible about the beliefs of Christianity... They have never condoned suicide and it sent you to Hell...

irdeggman

IMO temple alignments do not come from their god, the alignment of the temple shifts to match that of its prefect. There are LG and LN temples of Haelyn and even possibly LE ones (I just haven't read of any nor does it really make sense to me, but per the 2nd ed rules the possibility exists).


Hahahaha! you are quite the contradiction there, "temple alignments do not come from their god... There are LG and LN temples of Haelyn and even possibly LE ones." As the cleric must be within a certain degree of the deity’s alignment, under the rules, then the temple alignment obviously must come from their god! Otherwise, we could see CE temples of Haelyn, now then couldn’t we.

Raesene

If you are talking about temples, then the important thing to remember about the Cerilian gods is that they (at least most were) originally human. This makes them far more human, therefore far more flawed. Also the gods do tend to represent portfolios and beliefs more than one strict alignment and these beliefs can be open to interpretation by the god's followers.


Of course the temple regent determines the temples alignment. I've been talking generalizations here, and in general the deity's alignment is the common one for a temple of that deity. Of course there are exceptions to the norm, however, we should not point them out and say see this exception disproves the rule when we are discussing in general still. It would be like reaching into a bucket of apples every day and pulling out a god apple. Then one day you pull out a bad apple and saying all the apples must be bad, without even checking the rest, not very logical considering that most of the apples have been good already.

[A_dark]

But, Osprey, if you use medieval morality to judge good vs evil, then you might get very violent and brutal paladins, which I think is not really what was intended in the game. Genocide wasn't "evil" in medieval Europe (Aztecs died from Spaniards... Cortez...), slavery wasn't "evil" in Renaissance Europe (dunno about medieval Europe) etc etc... Personally I cannot imagine a paladin acting against goblins as Cortez acted against Aztecs... And how about a paladin acting against the Rjurik or Vos as Cortez acted against the Aztecs?

[Athos69]

This is starting to impinge a bit too closely on modern-day, real-world religion, but I would ask you to look at the track record of Christianity through history. Looking at their actions from the early formation through to the Protestant Schism, I don't think that the actions of that church fits nicely into the LG stereotype. LN maybe, but definately not LG.

The First Inquisition. The First (Cathar) Crusade. The Second through Fifth Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition. The betrayal and execution of the Knights Templar. The 30 Years War (and every other Catholic/Protestant war).

Not exactly the Faith of peace and "Love thy neighbour", is it?

[tcharazazel]

Raesene

As another example say a realm is in the grip of an evil tyrant who abuses and murders his own people, taxes the land dry, and generally behaves in a nasty way. A good nation could not justify a war against the tyrant, no matter how evil he was, because in doing so they would be commiting acts of evil themselves. Even if his people were free as a result, if anyone dies as a result of their war, then the good nation has still committed evil, because it was through their direct action that these deaths occured. Unless he directly attacks them, there is very little the good nation can do to aid the people of the tyrant's nation without themselves being tainted by evil.


There is something you are forgetting, the holy crusade. The holy crusade would allow people to go out to fight for justice and good, and start a war in order to save people from their evil oppressors. Of course, if they are LG once they have slain the evil tyrant they would hand the lands back to its inhabitants possibly after seeing that order has been restored and that the realm has a new good leader, who will not oppress the people.

Raesene

Of course, what does get in the way of rules to do with good/evil a lot of the time is the fact that every person on this planet has a differing opinion of what the nature of good and evil is.

Heheh, most definitely. Al Capone thought he was a good guy, even though he was a killer, and generally considered an bad guy by the public.

Raesene

So, a regent who always does the good thing, never starts wars or does anything that could be considered evil, it most likely going to be consider a very poor, weak regent, and his bloodline is going to fade, while a bloodthirsty tyrant who panders to mob and expands his domain through wars is going be seen as a strong, successful regent and his bloodline is going to be boosted as a result. Regency is a bit like a popularity poll really.

Yep, and gaining the support of the people is what matters to the regent if they want to keep in power. The evil regents may not care what the people think. However, they would want to ensure they keep getting their regency from the people, as it is power, so they would have no qualms just lying to the people to keep their support.

[tcharazazel]

Osprey

As any character within the setting has no exposure to 20th century Earth morality, how can a DM possibly use those alignment guidelines to judge the morality of their actions? This is ludicrous.


Morality can only be judged from within the context of a world-setting. If you (as a DM or player) want a full range of alignments within a world that is distinctly different from our own, then you must be willing to impose a different set of moral definitions from our own. Otherwise, it's not really a different culture, just versions of contemporary people dressed up in medieval clothes playing re-enactment games. And oh yeah, there are monsters there too, but don't hurt 'em unless you're evil...


Preach on Brother!

A_Dark

Personally I cannot imagine a paladin acting against goblins as Cortez acted against Aztecs... And how about a paladin acting against the Rjurik or Vos as Cortez acted against the Aztecs?

Well, just because you are unable to understand the mentality, moral guidance, and beliefs of the time, does not mean that its the way there were back then. You need to expand you short-term personal view into a broader view at least. It helps with roleplaying anyway. When you strip away all the comforts of modern living and realize the majority of people lived in squalor and little better than slaves, that life is cheap, people died at an early age, justice was extracted without any jury of peers, ect, ect ect. You soon realize that what was considered good at that time is a far cry from what you would consider good.

What do you think about cannibalism? For some of those tribes in South America it was considered good, and a traditional practice, however, others considered it totally evil and of Satan! So, to try and judge what is good and evil by using your own personal modern-day standard, is like being the typical American tourist in Europe, who doesn’t give a damn about the culture and just wants some photos to say he’s been there.

Rasp

Not exactly the Faith of peace and "Love thy neighbour", is it?

Heheh, sure it is... so long as you believe killing hundreds of thousands of people = loving them. The only person who ever managed to Love thy neighbor is Jesus, and mayb a couple saints since him.

[tcharazazel]

Heh, ok well it seems like my 5 points have held true so far then and after this last bit of discussion, maybe we could add a couple points

1) The people's belief in the regent is what determines his RP collection. (true for all regents except source regents)

2) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered evil by some of the good gods, it may not be considered evil by the people. For example, genociding the goblins in the spiderfell who have raided their provinces for centuries. (It would be genocide as they have no where to run except into hostile lands if the conquering regent doesnt allow them to stay in the spriderfell.)

3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name)

4) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered good by some of the good gods, it may not be considered good by the people. For example, giving charity to goblins, whom the populace hates.

5) If a temple regent does an act that is considered good by his/her diety, it will likely be considered good by the temple followers.

6) The basis for determining any alignment/morality issue, should be grounded in the context of the game, and not in our modern day views. The context of the game includes our approximate historic views of the Middle Ages to Rennaisance time periods.

7) If the landed/guild regent does an act that is considered evil by the temple regent, and the people generally didnt think that the act was evil, the temple regent may attempt to rile up the people against the landed/guild regent to force the regent to seek amends. Keeping in mind that the people need to be convinced that the act was indeed evil.

8) If the landed/guild regent does an act that is considered good by the temple regent, and the people generally didnt think that the act was good, the temple regent may attempt to get the people to support the landed/guild regent's action. This would be like positive reinforcement of the regents choice of action.


If I were to change anything, I would just clarify #3:

3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name) Of course the temple alignment is determined by the temple regent, however, this doesn't mean that the temple regent is above his/her deity who grants the regent the power to cast spells.

As we all know, the cleric must obay, in some respects at least, the wishes and code of the deity if the cleric wishes to remain within the good graces of the deity and continue to cast divine spells. Otherwise, the cleric would need to attone or find a new diety to worship, that is more inline with the cleric's views.

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me to intervene once again: you are referring to Medieval Europe at one point acting as if it was different from nowadays world (which it was), and now you turn around and present Medieval political actions the same way they then presented them - as "religious acts."

What a load of you-know-what that excuse of theirs in the Dark Ages was...

The Inquisition, the Crusades, all of this were not really religious acts; they were the actions of politically and economically hungry wolves of people, their greed unleashed upon the world! I cannot stand having such examples being compared to Christianity!

Paladins, you say? Ideals? Paladins were nothing more than a noble order of knights, and even knights were not what most people are used to thinking.

Let me put it this way: Christianity, however strange that may sound, is not exactly "lawful". One of Christianity's teachings is that to allow one's soul to rest it is best to lie than tell the truth. The commandment says: "Thou shall not swear oaths false.", not "Thou shall not lie." Liing in itself is not evil; liing is evil when it is done for one's own gain alone.

But I digress; excuse me for bursting out, but I will not stand feeling that people talk based on misconceptions: "Half the knowledge is worse than no knowledge." as my forefathers said.

[tcharazazel]

The Inquisition, the Crusades, all of this were not really religious acts; they were the actions of politically and economically hungry wolves of people, their greed unleashed upon the world! I cannot stand having such examples being compared to Christianity!


You are bringing your modern view of religion into a medieval context, and that of course would never work. True, many things were done out of political and economic gains. However, there have been no real acts done by rulers, or anybody for that matter, that did not offer some potential gain and this holds true to today still. There always must be some motivator for the ruler to choose a course of action.

Heheh, the ends justify the means. Just because the Christian god would never sanction such actions as religious doesn't mean that the people didn't view them as religious actions. The Pope sanctioned them, and that was good enough for most people to consider them religious actions.

So, in general religious actions back in the middle ages were something done in the name of their god and determined by their religious leaders. For the common peasant, that was good enough. Of course the nobility and religious leaders used this to their advantage for political and economic gain. People have been doing that with every frigging hierarchical system ever created. It’s in human nature, apparently.

In other words, BR is a Fantasy world where we can take examples from the historic real world and pretend that rulers weren't actually lying to the people, rather they actually meant it. Of course it's not real, we all realize this, at least we all should. Yet, we can all look beyond what really happened and realize that the BR view of people's motivations would be more idealistic than they really were. If we do not then any Good alignment would be uncommon, and the majority of people in the BR world would be neutral to evil, which is contrary to the whole BR theme. The gods would then also be mostly neutral and evil, and the couple of good gods would have little power and few followers.


With regard to Christianity being lawful, I would have to agree that in the Middle Ages before the schism, it was lawful. There was a hierarchy, a strong belief in maintaining rituals, and a law and moral code that was adhered to (well for the most part). Don't forget that the 10 commandments were written in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. So they were made during a much different time period than the New Testament. Thus, it’s not logical to expect people to maintain the same view presented by you, throughout the centuries, after it was first made.

In Modern times the Catholic and Orthodox faith certainly maintains a lawful alignment, with their heavy emphasis on smells and bells, heheh, I mean ritual. However, to say all parts of Christianity are lawful would of course be wrong.

[irdeggman]

OK, being a church leader (Vice President, will be president next year in part of the standard 3 year committment) of a church under the United Church of Christ denomination I feel I need to set some things in perspective here:

Saying that Christian churches are lawful good is in one way a stretch and in another perfectly accurate. They do all live by their own interpretations of Christ's doctrine. Some have more structure and rules than do others. But pretty much saying they are all lawful is a matter of interpretation (basically it is a comparision issue). They are or are not lawful as compared to something else. When compared to Muslim traditions they aren't lawful in any way shape or form. There is a whole lot more structure there than in pretty much any Christian adapatation. Same with the Jewish faith, there is a whole lot more structure and organization there than even the Roman Catholic structure.

The Old Testament was from the Jewish texts and the Laws are what have been referenced here. The New Testament (Jesus' teachings and spread of Christianity) specifically had that the 2 commandments that were most important were to to Love the Lord thy God above all others and to Love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else is supplemental to those two.

The following is a link to our church's website (woefully out of date) and an article I wrote, so people can get an understanding of at least some of my personal feelings and beliefs.

http://www.tidewaterucc.com/WH%20Newsletter.htm

Note that what I am talking about as far as BR and fantasy go is a game, plain and simple and not to be confused with how I (or anyone) should live their life. By its very nature the game is epic and stretches the imaginations. If we put too much real life into it then it loses the wonder of being a game.

So much for the preaching back to the game. . .

[geeman]

I haven`t participated in this thread, though I`ve been reading it

carefully and with much interest. Kudos to all, BTW, on the tone in which

most of the posts have been made. Often these are the kinds of discussions

that degenerate into name calling and snide remarks, so it`s good to see

folks in the community discussing things with such maturity, especially

since everyone has also managed to remain pretty much on topic. Keep it up!



When it comes to medieval morality I would like to throw out one

thing. Often what gets defined as "medieval morality" employs a heavy dose

of modern context to the situations being discussed. That is, it assumes

more modern circumstances in what is an entirely medieval conflict. We

should try to avoid "armchair morality" that assumes the people involved

are not engaged in a much more desperate struggle than was really the

case. That is not to say that the good/evil of an action is determined by

the predominant morality of the culture at large--which I think is

untrue--but that the situational issues are often broader than they are

presented. The kinds of situations that are often being discussed would be

evil in a more modern context because many modern wars are "wars of choice"

to use a recently coined term. In earlier times, however, competition for

resources was a much more proximate thing than it is now. When discussing

the genocidal acts of European settlers to the New World, for instance, one

should bear in mind that life expectancy amongst European settlers was a

good ten to fifteen years higher than it was for those who remained at

home. If life expectancy in the first place is in the mid- to late 30`s

that`s a pretty significant jump. The same diseases that wiped out native

Americans by the millions were often in full force in Europe and though the

population had built up a level of immunity they still killed thousands of

Europeans every year. Earlier European colonists, of course, had a

substantial rate of death, but after footholds in the New World were

established one could live there longer and with a lower rate of infant

mortality than one could in most European cities. In that context,

European migrants to the New World are fleeing a force more deadly than the

Mongol invasion, and we should bear in mind that their migration is not

entirely willful in the first place.



While there are a lot of factors involved, it is safe to say that when

population density reaches a certain point average life expectancy starts

to go down, and a population can either improve their technology to support

the higher density, diminish or expand. Technical progress, unfortunately,

is a generally slow process, so the choice is more often life (by

expansion) or death (which is what diminishing represents.) If one defines

the primary concern of "good" as having reverence for life, then one is in

a situation in which one must face the unpleasant reality of choosing life

for the largest number of people possible, which leads to other people

losing out. As unpleasant a reality as this is, certain lifestyles and the

cultures they support must end for what is essentially the greater

good. People often pile an amazing amount of rationalizations upon that

situation in order to justify choosing one group over the other, but in the

final analysis the morality of the conflict is based on the total numbers

of people who will survive. The reality, of course, is that there is a

broad overlap of all these issues, but what is so often debated in modern

times is (in simplistic terms) that we can employ technological solutions

to resolve the issue rather than resort of expansion or diminished

populations. That option was not as readily available in pre-Modern times.



In such a situation certain overt acts are unequivocally evil. Handing out

smallpox infested blankets to native peoples is definitely an evil act. I

don`t think anybody could contest that with much credibility. However,

most of what gets lumped into that same category--the mere presence of

Europeans in the New World which spread disease because such people were

carriers, for instance--is really not an evil thing by definition. These

are, after all, people in competition with other people not simply for the

sake of competition, but for the resources to survive. "Ownership" of land

or claiming land is not in and of itself an evil thing to do for all that

it is in conflict with the latter-day reinterpretation of the culture of

many native Americans in that 20th century New Age kind of way. Native

peoples competed with other native peoples before Europeans arrived and

many elements of that native/native conflict were at least as horrific as

things done by the settlers. That`s not to cast native Americans as evil,

it`s merely to point out that in conflict people do unpleasant things in

order to survive, and we should try to employ the same standard when

examining one as the other in as objective a manner as possible.



To put all this in a D&D/alignment context, I`d suggest a couple of

things. Alignment is a very blunt tool. Good/neutral/evil and

law/neutral/chaos. There`s not a lot of room for variation there. In the

past I`ve suggested a point value like that presented by Monte Cook in

order to express alignment (or some other system of "allegiance") because

it not only works better but allows for more articulation of a character`s

morality. If using strictly the alignment system, however, one can still

use a bit of that kind of thinking without going all out with points and

ratings. I`d suggest that what determines a character`s (or a realm`s)

alignment isn`t single actions, but the sum total of their actions. A

character (or realm) that committed an overtly evil act is not necessarily

evil any more than a devoutly evil character who has a lapse of conscience

and rescues a toddler from a burning house becomes good. They may not be

"pure of alignment" in a way that might be demanded of a paladin, but they

can still be one or the other. With that in mind, a war would not

necessarily change the alignment of a realm--even if one considers war an

absolute evil--especially if the circumstances of that war were morally

ambiguous. As long as the nation on the whole is more good than evil (or

more good than neutral, really) the alignment need not change.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Heh, ok well it seems like my 5 points have held true so far then and after this last bit of discussion, maybe we could add a couple points

1) The people's belief in the regent is what determines his RP collection. (true for all regents except source regents)

2) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered evil by some of the good gods, it may not be considered evil by the people. For example, genociding the goblins in the spiderfell who have raided their provinces for centuries. (It would be genocide as they have no where to run except into hostile lands if the conquering regent doesnt allow them to stay in the spriderfell.)

3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name)

4) If a landed/guild regent does an act that is considered good by some of the good gods, it may not be considered good by the people. For example, giving charity to goblins, whom the populace hates.

5) If a temple regent does an act that is considered good by his/her diety, it will likely be considered good by the temple followers.

6) The basis for determining any alignment/morality issue, should be grounded in the context of the game, and not in our modern day views. The context of the game includes our approximate historic views of the Middle Ages to Rennaisance time periods.

7) If the landed/guild regent does an act that is considered evil by the temple regent, and the people generally didnt think that the act was evil, the temple regent may attempt to rile up the people against the landed/guild regent to force the regent to seek amends. Keeping in mind that the people need to be convinced that the act was indeed evil.

8) If the landed/guild regent does an act that is considered good by the temple regent, and the people generally didnt think that the act was good, the temple regent may attempt to get the people to support the landed/guild regent's action. This would be like positive reinforcement of the regents choice of action.



If I were to change anything, I would just clarify #3:

3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name) Of course the temple alignment is determined by the temple regent, however, this doesn't mean that the temple regent is above his/her deity who grants the regent the power to cast spells.

As we all know, the cleric must obay, in some respects at least, the wishes and code of the deity if the cleric wishes to remain within the good graces of the deity and continue to cast divine spells. Otherwise, the cleric would need to attone or find a new diety to worship, that is more inline with the cleric's views.

So how does one justify Haelyn (LG) having LE priests? The logic fades. I prefer that the deity is more concerned with their portfolio than alignment, now if Good is part of their portfolio that is another issue.

Pretty much the way 3.5 does things as far as deities go is via their portfolios (see
Deities and Demigods (3.0 but still works) for examples of how gods use mortals or need them in actuality (pg 16) or The Complete Divine for why character serve their god(s) (pgs 5-6)).

Portfolios are what the god is responsible for hence what he is concerned with.

[tcharazazel]

irdeggman

So how does one justify Haelyn (LG) having LE priests? The logic fades. I prefer that the deity is more concerned with their portfolio than alignment, now if Good is part of their portfolio that is another issue.


Oh im so glad you finaly brought that up, i was waiting for you to do so, heheh.

Heres my response to the whole issue about allowing clerics be 2 steps away from their deity.

After all the talk on the theoretical/ethical thread, its brought up some old thoughts about the cleric's alignment not having much restrictions upon it, something that bugged me about the BR version of clerics.

Honestly, as the cleric gets his/her power from her deity, the deity should really be determining who deserves to gets to use their power. As such, it doesn’t really make sense for evil clerics to get power from a good deity, just like it doesn't make sense for chaotic clerics to get power from a lawful deity.

There is nothing stopping a CE character from being a priest of Haelyn, however, Haelyn would never grant the character any powers. I would say this would hold true for anyone who is evil as Haelyn certainly is opposed to evil and would not want to be represented by evil people nor would he favor them with his power.

Now then, if the clerics’ alignments were solely dependent upon the sect and not the deity, the 2 steps away rule makes sense. However, the sect is not the one granting clerics their powers. The deity determines who gets to represent them and be favored with their power. Thus, as a deity would prefer to have those clerics who would best represent them, ie having an alignment close to the deity’s, it doesn’t make sense to have the 2 steps away rule. So, the sects and clerics should Both be within 1 step of the deity’s alignment.

Examples then for each alignment:

For a LG deity: the clerics can be LG, NG, and LN.
For a LN deity: the clerics can be LN, LG, LE, and TN.
For a LE deity: the clerics can be LE, NE, and LN.

For a NG deity: the clerics can be NG, LG, CG, and TN.
For a TN deity: the clerics can be TN, NG, NE, LN and CN.
For a NE deity: the clerics can be NE, LE, CE and TN.

For a CG deity: the clerics can be CG, NG, and CN.
For a CN deity: the clerics can be CN, CG, CE, and TN.
For a CE deity: the clerics can be CE, NE, and CN.


You understand that the logic really fades in the BRCS idea of allowing clerics to potentially be 2 steps away from their deity, and not my explanation for #3, which makes logical sense:


3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name) Of course the temple alignment is determined by the temple regent, however, this doesn't mean that the temple regent is above his/her deity who grants the regent the power to cast spells.

As we all know, the cleric must obay, in some respects at least, the wishes and code of the deity if the cleric wishes to remain within the good graces of the deity and continue to cast divine spells. Otherwise, the cleric would need to attone or find a new diety to worship, that is more inline with the cleric's views.

[tcharazazel]

Gary, I like your alignment by points idea, very cool. And I totally agree alignments are a very blunt tool to use. However, you seem to be arguing for an alignment change and not an alignment infringement, which is a different thing. As an alignment change would be the character choosing courses of action that reflect a different alignment over a long period of time. An alignment infringement would be like those 1 time examples that you gave.

As in the BRCS, pg 101, an alignment infringement results in a minor loss or possibly a major loss of regency. Of course, if the regent was acting in a manner that was similar to the realm's general alignment, such an infringement may actually be appreciated and approved by the public. If he were to actually change to the realm's alignment the public may consider it a great thing.


I also agree that historically, the people acted more on a survival instinct. Something that does not have as strong an influence upon our beliefs, actions ect, as we're gamers who obviously have free time to enjoy playing diverting games, think about abstract ideas, and argue for or against them. These are definite luxuries in the middle ages.

[tcharazazel]

irdeggman

Note that what I am talking about as far as BR and fantasy go is a game, plain and simple and not to be confused with how I (or anyone) should live their life. By its very nature the game is epic and stretches the imaginations. If we put too much real life into it then it loses the wonder of being a game.

That is so true, and I totally agree we should keep this idea on the front of our minds.

irdeggman

OK, being a church leader (Vice President, will be president next year in part of the standard 3 year committment) of a church under the United Church of Christ denomination I feel I need to set some things in perspective here:


Very cool :), always nice to learn more about yall. Heh, I just got enough credits to minor in religion, however, i decided against it as I could only pick one minor so I went with rhetoric. I studied the torah, the bible (early christianity), the Quran, hinduism, budhism, greek/roman and Norse mythology. All fun stuff, some of which i still keep up on, however, my knowledge in these areas wouldnt compare to some of my friends who were really interested on religion.

[anacreon]

Originally posted by A_dark@Jun 2 2004, 01:29 PM
In the ancient greek tragedy of Orestis, the good son of Agamemnon kills his mother (who killed her husband) in revenge after Athena herself advised him to do it. He believe it was a good thing to do. The gods did not agree and the Furies were sent after him. The act itself matters, not the justification for it.
OK, OK. I was waiting to get to the last message before I responded, but this was too much for me to take. So let me put my classics MA to good use.

Orestes killed his mother under divine mandate. Apollo himself ordered him to do so, and was right beside him all along the way. In general, in Greek vision Apollo is a much more positive deity than the Erinyes.
The Erinyes themselves do not need to be sent by anyone to avenge people. In this myth, actually, they represent the primitive and even barbaric way of life, in which blood relations are the only things that matter, and thus blood far outways the importance of contractual relationships (such as marriage). Because of this, the Erinyes are a subversive element in institutes of the Polis, and thus they are rejected by the Olympian Gods (Apollo is quite disdainful toward them, and expresses revultion by them). Fact is that the Erinyes are forced to litigate (much to their chagrine) on the matter against Apollo, with Athena as judge. Athena, in the end, rules against the Erinyes, and worship to them is included as part of the Polis only in order to placate them (and in no means in order to show acceptance of the values they stand for).

I think that this case works directly against your argument. It is the background and intentions that make the act of murder justifiable.

[Osprey]

But, Osprey, if you use medieval morality to judge good vs evil, then you might get very violent and brutal paladins, which I think is not really what was intended in the game. Genocide wasn't "evil" in medieval Europe (Aztecs died from Spaniards... Cortez...), slavery wasn't "evil" in Renaissance Europe (dunno about medieval Europe) etc etc... Personally I cannot imagine a paladin acting against goblins as Cortez acted against Aztecs... And how about a paladin acting against the Rjurik or Vos as Cortez acted against the Aztecs?

Hmm, we might get very violent and brutal paladins, aye?

Tell me, in D&D, why are paladins such strong fighters? Strong base attack bonuses, complete simple and martial weapon proficiencies, full armor proficiencies...sounds like a crusading knight to me!

If Christian Crusaders weren't the inspirational template for the classic paladins of D&D, then what the heck were? And are paladins of Haelyn all that different from the basic PHB versions? Not as far as I can tell. They pretty much define the standard if you ask me.

I think paladins can be some of the most viscious and brutal characters in D&D. Why? Because they're so narrow-mindedly focused on "fighting evil" that they can't see the forest for the trees. A lot (the majority even?) of atrocities are commited by zealots, because they more than most people are willing to do whatever is necessary, no matter how unpleasant or unsightly that may be.

If goblins are judged as irredeemably evil by a paladin, why wouldn't he be willing to kill every last one of the wretched villains? Is it not for the greater good of "true and gentle folk everywhere?" Is he not protecting the weak and less fortunate, those who would be the goblins' next victims of murder, rape, slavery, or torture?

It's all in how you spin it...but remember, every paladin is a warrior, and warriors excel at one thing above all else: killing. If a paladin is a character who excels at violence, then he darn well better have a system of ethics that justifies that killing while keeping his alignment, else he won't be a paladin for long. Which means every paladin has a list of those who can justifiably be slaughtered in the name of good.

Welcome to Birthright.

[tcharazazel]

For those who are unfamiliar with the pretext of the myth. Agamemnon killed his daughter before going to Troy as ritual sacrifice, generally considered to be done inorder to show his commitment. When Agamemnon returned from Troy his wife killed him, in revenge for the sacrifice of his daughter.

Then Orestes killed his mother by mandate of Apollo, ect. and basically the Erinyes are arguing that Agamemnon's wife's crime was less severe than Orestes' act.

[anacreon]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@Jun 3 2004, 09:06 AM
Agamemnon killed his daughter before going to Troy as ritual sacrifice, generally considered to be done inorder to show his commitment.
Sorry to be so tiresome and knitpicking, but that's just the way I am.
Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigeneia because Artemis demanded it. A short while before, Agamemnon killed a pair of deer calves (is that the right term?). Artemis, as protectress of all young animals, demanded retribution in the form of the sacrifice of Agamemnon's eldest daughter. As long as Iphigeneia went on unsacrificed no wind would blow on the Isle of Euboea, and thus the Greek fleets could not set sail to Troy. Agamemnon, as well as most Greek heroes had to sail to Troy or face the consequences of breaking an oath given to Hellen's father under Zeus' name.

[anacreon]

There is a name to applying one's own contemporary set of values on people from different eras: Anachronism. Being accused of anachronism is one of the worst things that could happen to any serious historian.

I think a similar thing can be said of Cerilia. A place where the two gods of war are considered Good (Haelyn and Cuiraecen) cannot consider war to be evil.

As for divestiture and ethnic cleansing being evil, if that is so, then ALL human ancestors (of practically all cultures) can and should be considered evil. They took Cerilia from the Elves by no other means than divestiture and ethinc cleansing.

As for time, not everything that humans consider a long period of time might seem so to members of other races: while 100 years would seem long to a 50 year old human, they might seem a shorter period of time for a 200 year old dwarf, and even shorter for a 1000 year old elf.

And as for settlers in occupied territories that were regained, I don't see any reason why throwing them back to wherever it is they came from should seem evil. If a country doesn't allow immigration in the first place (and is not considered evil for not allowing it) there is no reason why it should tolerate a coerced immigration, that would have inevitably disenfrenchized the original population of their lands and possessions.

[Raesene Andu]

There is a name to applying one's own contemporary set of values on people from different eras: Anachronism. Being accused of anachronism is one of the worst things that could happen to any serious historian.


Good thing none of us are serious historian then. In truth though, it is almost impossible for someone from our modern age to look back and truely understand how events in the past happened without using our own sets of values. Much of history is, after all, guess work.



I think a similar thing can be said of Cerilia. A place where the two gods of war are considered Good (Haelyn and Cuiraecen) cannot consider war to be evil.


And Cerilia is primarily seen through the eyes of its human inhabitants. To the humans of Cerilia Haelyn and Cuiraecen are good, so a lot of people hanging around Anuire and the other region probably do consider war to be good for the right reasons.

If you were an orog or goblin in Cerilia though, you would consider Karthathok or Torazan to be good deities and Haelyn and Cuiraecen to be evil (although that might be stretching thing a little, as goblin and orog religions are most likely based on fear, fear of what their god will do to them if they aren't good little orogs or goblins and capture lots of human sacrifices).

There is a 3rd god of war also, Belinik, and he most definitely is not considered to be good.



As for divestiture and ethnic cleansing being evil, if that is so, then ALL human ancestors (of practically all cultures) can and should be considered evil. They took Cerilia from the Elves by no other means than divestiture and ethinc cleansing.[/QUOTE}


Pretty much, humans thoughout the history of Cerilia have done some pretty bloody evil deeds, but remember history is written by the survivors. Roele has been mentioned a couple of times, this is the guy who conquered almost all of Cerilia by force of arms and imposed his own law. To those he conquered he was an evil tyrant who deprived them of their liberty, but to the Anuireans he was the greatest hero who ever lived (perhaps with the exception of Haelyn, who became a god), and unequalled force for all that was good and right about the empire.

The thing to focus on, is that the men and woman who shaped Cerilia are only evil in the eyes of their victims. To their followers they are heros and their victories were glorious triumphs.


[QUOTE]And as for settlers in occupied territories that were regained, I don't see any reason why throwing them back to wherever it is they came from should seem evil. If a country doesn't allow immigration in the first place (and is not considered evil for not allowing it) there is no reason why it should tolerate a coerced immigration, that would have inevitably disenfrenchized the original population of their lands and possessions.


As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, it would depend on the length of time that has passed. If you look at the example of Lluabraight, in the eyes of the majority of Cerilians, they would be justified in kicking out the humanoids in the northern Giantdowns provinces and retaking those lands. Now look at Rhuobhe, he considers himself justified in killing humans and trying to take their lands because those lands were elven over a thousand years ago. In the eyes of the majority of Cerilians (even some of his own people) he is not justified in his crusade against all humanity and he is a evil monster. If his followers do eventually succeed in wiping out humanity and retaking Cerilia for the elves, however, Rhuobhe will be the greatest elven hero who ever lived.

So, there is a lot of difference between what is truely evil and what is considered evil, and a lot of it depends on which side you are on. The "good" races, humans, dwarves, elves, etc, are not going to be too upset about a whole heap of dead or deported goblins, in fact, they will probably welcome it. If they themselves suddenly found themselves kicked out of their homes and forced into another province it would be a thousand times worse. To an observer who feel no attachment to either race, then both events are equal, both equally evil.

As for the DM, the final judge in the whole matter, then evil should be judged based on the society the character/regent came from. If the regents are Anuirean, and the enemy goblins, then war is justified because goblins are evil and should be put down. Where things get tricky is when "good" characters start doing things that are obviously evil for gold or territory and trying to get away with it by claiming that their enemy is evil. An example here, would be an alliance of Roesone, Medoere, Aerenwe, etc, attacking Ghoere because Gavin Tael is obviously an evil tyrant and then dividing up Ghoere amonst themselves afterwards. That is an example of a war fought for their own greed, not for a good causes and the regents involved (if they were good) would have gone against their alignments.

Anyway, all arguments aside, it is almost impossible to exist in this world or any other without doing something that someone in the world is one day going to consider evil...


Hmmm, anyone know why the quote thingy didn't work on this post? Always has before.

[tcharazazel]

QUOTE (tcharazazel @ Jun 3 2004, 09:06 AM)
Agamemnon killed his daughter before going to Troy as ritual sacrifice, generally considered to be done inorder to show his commitment.


Sorry to be so tiresome and knitpicking, but that's just the way I am.
Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigeneia because Artemis demanded it. A short while before, Agamemnon killed a pair of deer calves (is that the right term?). Artemis, as protectress of all young animals, demanded retribution in the form of the sacrifice of Agamemnon's eldest daughter. As long as Iphigeneia went on unsacrificed no wind would blow on the Isle of Euboea, and thus the Greek fleets could not set sail to Troy.

Heheh, aye, the part about the showing his commitment was from a modern viewpoint by several historians, sorry for not making that bit clear.

Good to see you go all the way with the detail though :) and its fawn for baby deer.




Anyway, all arguments aside, it is almost impossible to exist in this world or any other without doing something that someone in the world is one day going to consider evil...


Excactly! So we must embrace our nature, realize that evil is good, and go on sinning. Besides, who really cares what people centuries later think of us? Heh, its not likely any will even remmeber us anyway.

[Beruin]

I`m still holding on to the view that good and evil should be absolute moral values, not just based on cultural background, at least as an ideal and esspecially with regard to paladins and clerics.



Otherwise you can throw the whole alignment system out of the window or replace it with a point-based system of allegiances. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does raise some rules related questions, like for instance what to do with the detect good/evil/law/chaos spells and abilities. Do they simply not exist if good and evil are solely based on the view of the beholder? or do they work differently? If so, how?



That said, however I do not believe that good characters have to throw away their weapons or necessarily make weak rulers. Violence in itself is not necessarily evil, at least in the context of D&D, but good characters must use care when resorting to violence. This is straight out of the Book of Exalted deeds which devotes several pages for explaining what constitutes good in D&D. To fight against an enemy is acceptable and even required when dealing with the doctrines of Haelyn or Cuiraecen, to slaughter defenseless goblin children is not.



With regard to good rulers going to war, there`s still enough room left for even a paladin to wage war on his or her neighbours. Wars of defense are of course okay as are wars to assist an ally or vassall. In other regards, war should constitute the last means to achieve a goal when other actions have failed. For example, a neighbouring realm blocks a trade route or tries to take over a holding. A good character should at first try to use diplomacy to protect his interests, but if this attempt fails he could go to war without infringing his alignment. The war would not be good war, because it is fought for selfish reasons, i.e. money, but good characters can protect their interests.



BTW, as far as I remember, the romans could only fight just wars according to their laws and for religious reasons. And every single one of their wars was a just war, at least so they said. Nevertheless they managed to acquire the greatest empire of their time. So do as the romans did, fight just wars and rule the world ;-)

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2666

>

> irdeggman wrote:

>

...



> 3) If a temple regent does an act this considered evil by his/her good diety, it will likely be considered evil by the temple followers, as they would generally follow the moral code set by the diety. (of course some clerics maybe able to swindle the people for a while, however, it wouldnt likely be long before some other clerics get messages from their diety telling them of the wrongs done in his/her name)

>...

> 5) If a temple regent does an act that is considered good by his/her diety, it will likely be considered good by the temple followers.

>

Diety?

Can the temple followers really consider it good that a temple regents

meals are sentient enough to judge the morality of his actions?

Cannibalism I say. ;-)

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

Raesene,

Not wanting to quote your entire post, I just wanted to say: well put, man! You've broken down and exposed the truth behind alignment in D&D: the myth of objective alignments is just that, a myth.

The fact is, good and evil (far more than law and chaos) are extremely subjective, and the standard alignments of D&D are very definitely grounded in Western heroic ideals. In fact, I'd wager you could get more clues to D&D alignments from Mallory's Morte d'Artur and Tolkien than anywhere else, at least for the formative inspirations for what defines good and evil in D&D. And since Cerilia, and Anuire in particular, are so heavily based on these same cultural frameworks, it works pretty well for our purposes here.

One thing I'd say, is that the evil races/worshippers probably don't call themselves evil, but neither would they claim to be good. I think the hallmark of the 'evil' races in D&D is that they consider things like morality to be signs of weakness. What matters is strength, skill, cunning, and success.

Over time, as I've sat around trying to get a handle on what evil is in D&D and in BR, the best answer I've come up with is this:

1. Evil is Selfish. While everyone has selfish tendencies, and there is always the temptation to give into these for any person, the evil character indulges in these urges.
2. To Indulge Without Restraint: This branches into a whole larger set of indulgences in appetites, the particulars of which vary from one person and culture to another. The seven deadly sins work as a good basic set of vices an evil person might indulge in or pursue, especially when this pursuit is at the expense of others: greed, lust, gluttony, vanity, envy, anger, and sloth. Now these of course can be changed or modified to fit a less Augustinian world, but the idea is there: there are basic human appetites that cause a lot of suffering to others when they are indulged in, especially in excess.
3. Evil is equated with Hobbes' Natural Law: humans at their most basic level are evil: selfish, cruel, and willing to do anything for the sake of survival. If you read through the PHB alignment descriptions, you'll find that this matches up pretty well with every evil alignment, the only differences are how structured the evil person is (Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic). But the morality is pretty much the same through all of them: "whatever it takes to get what I want."

Osprey

[anacreon]

Originally posted by Beruin@Jun 3 2004, 05:50 PM
I`m still holding on to the view that good and evil should be absolute moral values, not just based on cultural background, at least as an ideal and esspecially with regard to paladins and clerics.

Indeed.
There is a pretty lengthy philosophical debate as to whether moral is absolute or relative. Notwithstanding my opinions on the matter in real life, there is little doubt that standard D&D and Birthright as a result of that have selected to view their fantasyland as having absolute moral. The entire alignment system depends on it. Baatezu are evil, and are well aware of it, Aasimons (or angels or whatever WotC chooses to call them these days) are good. As a result monsters in the Monster Manual have an "Alignment" stat in their description, and the frequency estimate of that alignment. As far as D&D is concerned, this is not a matter of Point of View.

[tcharazazel]

Beruin

good/evil/law/chaos spells and abilities. Do they simply not exist if good and evil are solely based on the view of the beholder? or do they work differently? If so, how?


Well, for Evil and Good, if you look at the Detect Evil spell description its apparent that what is the strong influence of the spell is negative energy for evil. This is because the aura of a cleric who channels evil energy soon reaches overwhelming when compared to just an evil character. So, it's logical to believe that good would be positive energy.

As for Chaos and Law... heh, well they thankfully gave us some names for that also. Anarchic energy for chaos and Axiomatic for law.



Diety?
Can the temple followers really consider it good that a temple regents
meals are sentient enough to judge the morality of his actions?
Cannibalism I say. ;-)


Bloody woodworks...

Osprey

Not wanting to quote your entire post, I just wanted to say: well put, man! You've broken down and exposed the truth behind alignment in D&D: the myth of objective alignments is just that, a myth.

The fact is, good and evil (far more than law and chaos) are extremely subjective, and the standard alignments of D&D are very definitely grounded in Western heroic ideals.


Indeed, pity there are no more heros, heheh.



1. Evil is Selfish. While everyone has selfish tendencies, and there is always the temptation to give into these for any person, the evil character indulges in these urges.


I like what you came up with to describe evil, and of the two it is generally easier to describe.

Though, I would say that All people do things for selfish reasons, whether it is personal gain at the expense of others (evil), or for the pleasure they get from helping others (good). So, its not really tendencies or temptation because all people follow their desires, the diference is in the purpose/goal/motivation for the selfish interest.

True in D&D they put it as good isnt selfish, however, they really are just their desires generally help more than themsleves.

Here's a little evidence to help support Osprey's arguments:

Heheh, just read over the PHB descriptions of the alignments again... that's always good for a laugh. Yeah, its fairly obvious what each type means when you read over them. Examples LG = Crusader, and CE = Destroyer. Very cookie cutter, however, it does help clarify the ideas behind them... and show how idealistic they are.

Under the descriptions pg, 88: "'Good' impies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good Characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."


Here's one to support Raesene's argument for subjectivity:

The PHB pg 89 describes the first 6 alignments of LG to CN as being, "the standard for PCs. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains"... heheh, If thats not subjective and cookie cutter, I dont know what is.

[geeman]

At 04:12 AM 6/3/2004 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:



> Gary, I like your alignment by points idea, very cool. And I totally

> agree alignments are a very blunt tool to use. However, you seem to be

> arguing for an alignment change and not an alignment infringement, which

> is a different thing. As an alignment change would be the character

> choosing courses of action that reflect a different alignment over a long

> period of time. An alignment infringement would be like those 1 time

> examples that you gave.



That`s true. I was looking more back to the original poster`s question

about whether or not a domain that entered into a war with a nearby domain

could still be considered "good" on the whole rather than the RP penalty

alignment infringement of the BRCS. As an infraction I think you`re right

it could be considered one. On the whole, however, since most realms by

definition are stuck in a sort of moral compromise, most realms probably

aren`t so far away from neutrality as to warrant an alignment infringement

if the action on the whole can be considered "neutral" or not a negative

effect one what would be their point valued alignment.



Gary