Paladins, Priests, and Alignmen

[Galwylin]

At 04:02 AM 9/24/98 -0700, Brian Stoner wrote:
>I have come to the conclusion that the alignment system is flawed...at
least the
>good-evil spectrum.

Its flawed in that it tries to label a range of actions of which humans are
most likely to have varying degrees of. But that's minor...

>Consider: is good-evil defined by the god(s), culture, the
>DM, the player?

I would say the culture but the alignment system isn't set up on a cultural
axis but an individual one. Haelyn maybe a lawful good god but that
shouldn't mean in a society that values chaos he is seen as good.

>Lancelot was a man of honor, but not faith.

I think its important to remember 'was' is the key word describing
Lancelot. He does represent my view of paladins though in that each one
will eventually fall from their status. The code they live by is just too
strict for humans to fulfill all their lives.

>The concept of honor is
>perhaps encompassed in "lawful", but is faith encompassed in "good"?

An evil priest that serves his evil god is doing good? Sounds strange, but
I think so. Keeping one's faith is a good act no matter what that faith is.

>And this brings us back around
>to my original assertion: the good-evil alignment spectrum is flawed
because of
>so many possible perspectives on good and evil.

Its really comes down to what the alignment system is attempting to gauge.
Across cultural lines, it is near useless. Individually, I think its
useful to help see the world through the character's eyes. I personally
would rather have the gods not be given alignments. Worship is worship no
matter where it comes from and gods would be able to cross cultural lines
much easier.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Galwylin
>An evil priest that serves his evil god is doing good? Sounds strange, but
>I think so. Keeping one's faith is a good act no matter what that faith
is.
I disagree. If your faith encourages evil actions, and you carry it out,
you may be all right with the faith, but you are still evil.
I personally don't think that evil/good is relative to anything. There
are plenty of absolutes floating around, but the P(oliticall)C(orrect)
movement is so hesitant to condemn anything as wrong, because they want to
encourage free flow of ideas, sharing of feelings, and all that other PC
shit. They try to say everyone has their own point of view, and should
determine such personal things for themselves. A murderer may not see
anything wrong with his actions, but he is still evil. He is welcome to his
own point of view, but it is wrong in this case.
The Alignment axis of good and evil is supposed to represent that, I
think. It is set on an absolute scale, rather than a cultural or individual
one. So an ancient Aztec priest, sacrificing people right and left, may be
a fine upstanding citizen, but he is still evil on the absolute scale.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[BenandAmy]

I agree. Good and evil should be considered universal, but the alignment
system really is flawed. Try replacing the word "lawful" with "control", and
the word "chaos" with "freedom". Now what do you have? And what does that do
to good and evil?

By the way, GO BUCKS!!!!!!
- -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel McSorley
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Paladins, Priests, and Alignments


>From: Galwylin
>>An evil priest that serves his evil god is doing good? Sounds strange,
but
>>I think so. Keeping one's faith is a good act no matter what that faith
>is.
> I disagree. If your faith encourages evil actions, and you carry it
out,
>you may be all right with the faith, but you are still evil.
> I personally don't think that evil/good is relative to anything. There
>are plenty of absolutes floating around, but the P(oliticall)C(orrect)
>movement is so hesitant to condemn anything as wrong, because they want to
>encourage free flow of ideas, sharing of feelings, and all that other PC
>shit. They try to say everyone has their own point of view, and should
>determine such personal things for themselves. A murderer may not see
>anything wrong with his actions, but he is still evil. He is welcome to
his
>own point of view, but it is wrong in this case.
> The Alignment axis of good and evil is supposed to represent that, I
>think. It is set on an absolute scale, rather than a cultural or
individual
>one. So an ancient Aztec priest, sacrificing people right and left, may be
>a fine upstanding citizen, but he is still evil on the absolute scale.
>
>Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[Daniel McSorley]

From: BenandAmy
>I agree. Good and evil should be considered universal, but the alignment
>system really is flawed. Try replacing the word "lawful" with "control",
and
>the word "chaos" with "freedom". Now what do you have? And what does that
do
>to good and evil?
>
I have always interpreted lawful as more of disciplined, respectful
self-control. Not neccessarily external control. Chaos to me, similarly
indicate a lack of discipline, which I don't see as a very desireable thing.
It is very possible to be free, and still exercise self-discipline.

> By the way, GO BUCKS!!!!!!
I don't believe it. Now I'm going to have to get a non-campus email
address since football season has started up. :)

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@not osu, not really, I don't have anything to do
with the damn football team, please!osu.edu

[David Sean Brown]

> I agree. Good and evil should be considered universal, but the alignment
> system really is flawed. Try replacing the word "lawful" with "control", and
> the word "chaos" with "freedom". Now what do you have? And what does that do
> to good and evil?
Not quite sure what you are getting at here..chaotic doesn't necessarily
maen freedom, nor does lawful preclude it. Chaotic means jsut what is
says..the person acts inn a chaotic, or random fashion. Their actions
don't follow any real predictable order or pattern. They may be deeply
involved in a mission (for example), then suddenly give it up to explore a
newly discovered cave...then get bored with that and decide to see if they
can climb that mountain over there ...whereas a lawful type PC you should
be able to (more or less) have an idea where they are at...you can expect
them to do what they say with less (not none) chance of them becomine
"flighty" and abandoning it. They tend to live within the laws of the
area, but are still free to act as they wish within it..

Perhaps I missed the jist of what you were trying to say..if so, let me
know ;)

Sean

[Samuel Weiss]

>chaotic doesn't necessarily
maen freedom, nor does lawful preclude it. Chaotic means jsut what is
says..the person acts inn a chaotic, or random fashion. Their actions
don't follow any real predictable order or pattern.<

Hold up. Not in the least.
Chaotic does not mean "roll a die to determine each action". It means
precisely the opposite of Lawful, the putting of indivdual needs and desires
above that of the group.
With your examples, should a Chaotic charater feel the desire to explore a
cave instead of continuing on with a particualr mission, he would go off and
do so, not caring one whit whether his comrades, king, or country will
suffer for it. Were he Good, he would try to insure his whims caused no harm
to others or impeded them from acting upon their individual needs and
desires. Were he also Evil, others needs or desires would concern him not at
all.
No Chaotic person shopuld ever consider rolling a die, or changing his mind
just "because". That is insanity, not the Chaotic axis of AD&D alignment.

Samwise

[David Sean Brown]

> Chaotic does not mean "roll a die to determine each action". It means
> precisely the opposite of Lawful, the putting of indivdual needs and desires
> above that of the group.

If you like, look up the word Chaos in a dictionary..roughly it meams
without order..says nothing about without guilt, remorse or compassion.
Just because a person is Chaotic (good/neutral/evil aside for the moment)
doesn't mean that he/she is going to allow his/her actions to put others
in danger..that is the good/evil aspect of the whole thing..as I said, a
chaotic person does things simply because they happen tio strike his fancy
at that point in time or seem really "cool"



> No Chaotic person shopuld ever consider rolling a die, or changing his mind
> just "because". That is insanity, not the Chaotic axis of AD&D alignment.

Insanity is exaclty the example used to describe Chaotic Neutral
people..those who do things on a whim "just because" They don't take any
time to think about the effect for good or evil on other people...take a
look at the example of a CN player in the rule book (as an example)

Sean

[BenandAmy]

- -----Original Message-----
From: David Sean Brown
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, September 24, 1998 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Paladins, Priests, and Alignments


>> I agree. Good and evil should be considered universal, but the alignment
>> system really is flawed. Try replacing the word "lawful" with "control",
and
>> the word "chaos" with "freedom". Now what do you have? And what does that
do
>> to good and evil?
>Not quite sure what you are getting at here..chaotic doesn't necessarily
>maen freedom, nor does lawful preclude it. Chaotic means jsut what is
>says..the person acts inn a chaotic, or random fashion. Their actions
>don't follow any real predictable order or pattern. They may be deeply
>involved in a mission (for example), then suddenly give it up to explore a
>newly discovered cave...then get bored with that and decide to see if they
>can climb that mountain over there ...whereas a lawful type PC you should
>be able to (more or less) have an idea where they are at...you can expect
>them to do what they say with less (not none) chance of them becomine
>"flighty" and abandoning it. They tend to live within the laws of the
>area, but are still free to act as they wish within it..
>
>Perhaps I missed the jist of what you were trying to say..if so, let me
>know ;)
>
>Sean
>
You're right, but these points only pertain to a very superficial level
of a character's motivations.
The point I'm making here is that the alignment system doesn't really allow
for more complex characters, only more
black-and-white distinctions. A character, for example, that believed in
having as little government as possible,but
that the laws put forth by that government should be strictly obeyed--would
be described as what? Chaotic Lawful Good?
It's a little contradictory, that's all.

[Galwylin]

At 02:53 PM 9/24/98 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
> I disagree. If your faith encourages evil actions, and you carry it out,
>you may be all right with the faith, but you are still evil.

Umm, no one said they weren't. The devotion is what I was speaking of.
Everyone seeks it. Your family, your church, your nation.

> I personally don't think that evil/good is relative to anything. There
>are plenty of absolutes floating around, but the P(oliticall)C(orrect)
>movement is so hesitant to condemn anything as wrong, because they want to
>encourage free flow of ideas, sharing of feelings, and all that other PC
>shit. They try to say everyone has their own point of view, and should
>determine such personal things for themselves. A murderer may not see
>anything wrong with his actions, but he is still evil. He is welcome to his
>own point of view, but it is wrong in this case.

I don't know what brought in Political Correctness but my stance remains.
It is not easy to apply absolutes to humans. Much of what we think of as
evil now was perfectably acceptable 2000 years ago. Does that mean we've
reached a point where we can condemn those we've never met? I personally
think your language is offensive but I'm certain others don't. Where is
the absolute there? And why are there thousands of other examples showing
that absolutes only exist to a select few? Equating the free flow of ideas
and sharing of feelings with murder seems to be just a bit of a stretch to me.

> The Alignment axis of good and evil is supposed to represent that, I
>think. It is set on an absolute scale, rather than a cultural or individual
>one. So an ancient Aztec priest, sacrificing people right and left, may be
>a fine upstanding citizen, but he is still evil on the absolute scale.

But in his own culture, he is not evil. And religion is cultural and
anything but absolute except to its believers. Your absolute scale leaves
the god Haelyn where? He accepts good and evil priests yet his alignment
is lawful good.

This has been a Galwylin® Production

galwylin@airnet.net
http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

[GrimtoothX@aol.co]

In a message dated 9/24/98 6:35:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
samwise1@email.msn.com writes:

> Chaotic does not mean "roll a die to determine each action". It means
> precisely the opposite of Lawful, the putting of indivdual needs and
desires
> above that of the group.
It seems to me that even this may be wrong.... Wouldn't that be a selfish
desire, not Chaotic?

[David Sean Brown]

> You're right, but these points only pertain to a very superficial level
> of a character's motivations.
> The point I'm making here is that the alignment system doesn't really allow
> for more complex characters, only more
> black-and-white distinctions. A character, for example, that believed in
> having as little government as possible,but
> that the laws put forth by that government should be strictly obeyed--would
> be described as what? Chaotic Lawful Good?
> It's a little contradictory, that's all.

I see what you are saying..it really depends on how extreme you view the
system I suppose...in the example you gave, I would say the character is
lawful good...just not the extreme lawful of say a paladin, but not
lawless enough to be neutral..Personally, I feel the system used is pretty
flexible, in that with only 9 types, you can still make a character do
whatever you want and still fit within a particular align (providing they
aren't all over the road with their actions)..I suppose I'm a little more
leniant with my players use of the system than others

Sean

[The Olesens]

I must say thanks to those who wrote in on the Alignment part of this thread. I had a PC
(from Dhoesone) who I couldn't figure out an alignment for. This discussion helped.
Thanks again!

- -Andrew

[Crossfell@aol.co]

I believe the recent discussion proves that the alignment, as some have
already said, is inadequate. Different cultures definitely perceive law,
chaos, good and evil differently. Even worse people of the same culture can't
agree. I've had many discussions with players who wanted to play neutral
assasins. While their arguments had merit in their eyes it didn't hold water
for me.

So why bother with alignment? For the atheist and agnostic what power is
going to monitor their progress in life to the point that they'll take a level
away if a major diversion is made? Even worse, why include an element that is
a potential source of conflict between the players and the players and the DM?
It is a source of conflict to in several games I've been in.

For the devout worshipper surely following the tennents of their deity is
enough. If Haelyn is the deity of Noble War and making Laws than if his
priests follow these concepts they will surely be rewarded. Note that this
wouldn't prevent a priest from raiding the treasury for his own profit, as
long as the holy books don't specifically forbid it. Even if they do the gods
know we are human, and humans err. Just as long as they don't err to often or
to greatly. In my world I track how well they follow their god's areas of
concern. If they keep on track all is well and good, if not they find out and
pay the price.

DM's who want paladin's of all faiths to be holy warriors, well it's your
world and have at it! I don't believe it's logical though for the goddess of
thieves to have a knighthood. Should you insist on having these knights
consider a third option. Consider another class, call them Avatari. The
priests exist to preach to the masses (or the covert groups) encouraging
worship of their deity and generally spreading the faith. Paladins are the
mighty defenders of the church or champions of the deity's special causes.
Avatari on the other hand would be those few who did try to become like their
deity, as much as humanly possible at least. You could base them on the
avatar of the deity in question. Make them rise in levels as that of the
class that most closely epitomizes the god. Perhaps jack the points up some
to account for special abilities.

Cheers,

Steve

[Samuel Weiss]

That example from the 2nd ed. PHB is stupid. Ignore it. That is a madman,
not a Chaotic Neutral. Read the description of Chaos vs. Law again.
Law puts the group and the need sof the group first.
Chaos puts the individual and the desires of the individual first.
They put their wants first. If they agreed to do something else, so what?
They heard this rumor of a great magic item somewhere, so you can take your
quest and shove it. But they don't just decide it is time to go feed the
ducks because it is unexpected.
A Lawful person might hear about their arch nemesis being helpless just over
the hill, but they signed on for a mission, and they must keep their word,
serve their king and country, and do what they are supposed to first.
Personal matters can wait.
For someone who wants very few laws, but insists that those that do exist be
followed, it is called Neutral Good/Neutral Evil/Neutral Neutral. Neutrality
on that axcis does not mean follow the law one day, break it the next, no
more than Neutrality with regards to Good and Evil means commit murder one
day, open an orphanage the next.
Finally, there seems to be a misunderstanding being Good the alignment and
good meaning either beneficial or according to the precepts of a group or
proficient. An Evil priest is Evil, however, he may be quite good at being
Evil, following the precepts of his EVil religion, or does things that
benefit only himself.
Example: Killing someone and taking all their money is quite good for me. I
get lots of money for not much effort. If I do can kill 30 or 40 people a
day, obviously I am quite good at what I do. SInce I hang out with thieves,
they all think I am quite the good killer and thief, having lived up to the
highest standards of their society.
I am also an unrepentantly Evil SOB.
That is alignment in AD&D. Defining what Good and Evil specifically consist
of, is different, but most always remain consistent or the whole alignment
system collapses. A proficient Evil Priest is never Good because that is
what his culture or faith believes in and calls for. It just doesn't work
that way.

Samwise

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Galwylin
>I don't know what brought in Political Correctness but my stance remains.
>It is not easy to apply absolutes to humans. Much of what we think of as
>evil now was perfectably acceptable 2000 years ago. Does that mean we've
>reached a point where we can condemn those we've never met?
(That's political correctness: to be afraid to condemn someone for doing
something wrong, because it was their belief then.)
> I personally
>think your language is offensive but I'm certain others don't.
I apologize, I didn't mean to offend anyone.

>> The Alignment axis of good and evil is supposed to represent that, I
>>think. It is set on an absolute scale, rather than a cultural or
individual
>>one. So an ancient Aztec priest, sacrificing people right and left, may
be
>>a fine upstanding citizen, but he is still evil on the absolute scale.
>
>But in his own culture, he is not evil.
That means his culture is evil, which is the point I was trying to get
at. If a culture accepts something bad, that doesn't make it acceptable,
that makes the culture bad as well.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[David Sean Brown]

> That example from the 2nd ed. PHB is stupid. Ignore it. That is a madman,
> not a Chaotic Neutral. Read the description of Chaos vs. Law again.
> Law puts the group and the need sof the group first.
> Chaos puts the individual and the desires of the individual first.
> They put their wants first. If they agreed to do something else, so what?
> They heard this rumor of a great magic item somewhere, so you can take your
> quest and shove it. But they don't just decide it is time to go feed the
> ducks because it is unexpected.

Just curious then..why the difference between the word Chaos, and the word
Chaotic? They mean the same thing...Chaotic means to act in a fashoin
without order, and thus unpredictable. The example in the PHB is
perfectly suited to this alignment as far as I can see...back on this
whether selfish is a Chaotic only characteristic or not..

[Jim Paterson]

At 06:20 PM 24/09/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Hold up. Not in the least.
>Chaotic does not mean "roll a die to determine each action". It means
>precisely the opposite of Lawful, the putting of indivdual needs and desires
>above that of the group.
>With your examples, should a Chaotic charater feel the desire to explore a
>cave instead of continuing on with a particualr mission, he would go off and
>do so, not caring one whit whether his comrades, king, or country will
>suffer for it. Were he Good, he would try to insure his whims caused no harm
>to others or impeded them from acting upon their individual needs and
>desires. Were he also Evil, others needs or desires would concern him not at
>all.

>No Chaotic person shopuld ever consider rolling a die, or changing his mind
>just "because". That is insanity, not the Chaotic axis of AD&D alignment.

I remember reading a definition of "chaotic neutral" which described it as
'an insane or close to insane type of character'

I'll go with the first interpretation of chaotic. You do what you thinkis the
most appropriate action in any given situation, so long as it conforms with the
other half of the alignment; The other PCs and the DM should be suprised by
your reactions, which would be not according to the book, in most situations.
It is a hard alignment to play well because of this.




Cheers; Jim Paterson

[James Ray]

I can agree with THAT. "Good" and "Evil" (same with "Law" and Chaos"), in
my opinion, are absolutes. Is it Good or Evil to kill? Is it Lawful or
Chaotic or lie? Are there situations that change those definitions? THAT
lies at the heart of role-playing. The "Aztec Priest" example, though
(slaughtering people left and right...)...a GOOD priest would view the
essential ritual merely as a distasteful necessity. An EVIL Priest would
ENOY it.

James

- ----------
> From: Daniel McSorley
If a culture accepts something bad, that doesn't make it acceptable,
> that makes the culture bad as well.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu