Paladins of Cuiraecen (Was Bloodline Influence) [Archive]

Peter Lubke

09-20-2002, 05:51 AM

On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 15:18, daniel mcsorley wrote:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> Which leads me to ask this question... How are paladins of Cuiraecen dealt
> with in the conversion to 3E? Since those paladins are CG... And that
> doesn`t seem to be in line too much with 3E rules (though another setting
> has paladins of a CG deity).
>
> Hopefully VERY harshly. It`s perhaps the single most unbalanced
> character class since the cavalier-paladin -- no I take that back,
> including the cavalier-paladin.

Which one, the CG 2nd edition Cuiraecen paladin? I`m not sure I
grok your objections.

The paladins of Cuiraecen as detailed in BoP (2nd Ed, original BR)
should in the conversion to 3e be severely stripped of powers and
abilities. (Of course the 2e paladin class itself is unbalanced - but
the Cuiraecen version is many times more so)

As for paladins being CG, it`s almost an oxy-moron. Like army
intelligence. Organized chaos. Almost but not quite, I can see some
possibilities - but religious orders of CG paladins - no. Wandering
champions - yes. etc etc (because it`s a fantasy world does that mean
`anything` is possible?)

--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-20-2002, 09:10 AM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-20 07.44:

> As for paladins being CG, it`s almost an oxy-moron. Like army
> intelligence. Organized chaos. Almost but not quite, I can see some
> possibilities - but religious orders of CG paladins - no. Wandering
> champions - yes. etc etc (because it`s a fantasy world does that mean
> `anything` is possible?)

There is very litte organisation implied in the paladin`s abilities. In
fact, some of their abilities (the non-maintenance mount, limited healing)
implies that they are loners, or at least very capable of acting as
independent agent.

The thing that I find to be a remnant of earlier editions when it comes to
the paladin is the LG alignment restriction. Rangers used to have to be good
- why could not paladins have gotten a similiar lightening of restrictions
and be restricted to any good alignment?

That said, one of the few good prestige classes from Defenders of the Faith
was the Holy Liberator. The sad thing with that one, however, is that all
abilities get delayed by five levels compared to the paladin`s (since it is
a prestige class). The companion is the worst case here - by the time the
Holy Liberator gets his companion, it is to weak (comparatively) to be of
much use.

And yes, the blackguard has the same problem.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-20-2002, 09:37 AM

On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 18:30, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-20 07.44:

> As for paladins being CG, it`s almost an oxy-moron. Like army
> intelligence. Organized chaos. Almost but not quite, I can see some
> possibilities - but religious orders of CG paladins - no. Wandering
> champions - yes. etc etc (because it`s a fantasy world does that mean
> `anything` is possible?)

There is very litte organisation implied in the paladin`s abilities. In
fact, some of their abilities (the non-maintenance mount, limited healing)
implies that they are loners, or at least very capable of acting as
independent agent.

Oh sorry, I should have been more specific. Holy orders of
paladins. But didn`t I say almost ? Yes I agree, especially for
Cuiraecen.

The thing that I find to be a remnant of earlier editions when it comes to
the paladin is the LG alignment restriction. Rangers used to have to be good
- why could not paladins have gotten a similiar lightening of restrictions
and be restricted to any good alignment?

Alignment restrictions are not restrictive at all and should not be seen
as any kind of impediment or penalty. What`s going to happen )for
example) if an assassin helps an old lady across the street - lose his
assassin guild gold membership? Rangers used to be part druid (and thus
got some powers from `other` powers - although why they had to be `good`
to get stuff from a supposedly `neutral` power is a mystery. The ranger
has been the most officially tinkered with class ever - more even than
the bard). The `lawful` restriction of the paladin comes from their
interpretation as chivalric warriors - a code of honor beyond their
personal ability to redefine. Given such powers as they were/are, such a
restriction (to a specific path/ethos/morality) is understandable. If
there were many such choices - then I`d favor scrapping the paladin
altogether - as all we have is warriors with different powers depending
on their `path` in life (a kind of `way of the warrior` thing).
Personally, and this flies in the face of modern computer-based
role-playing (which is 3e in essence too), I don`t like
class-development. A character should be defined by his actions,
(character development through adventure), as opposed to his class
(class development through level increases and detail).

That said, one of the few good prestige classes from Defenders of the Faith
was the Holy Liberator. The sad thing with that one, however, is that all
abilities get delayed by five levels compared to the paladin`s (since it is
a prestige class). The companion is the worst case here - by the time the
Holy Liberator gets his companion, it is to weak (comparatively) to be of
much use.

My games have an almost 1st edition flavor to them (or even pre-1st),
with any improvements from subsequent editions thrown in (e.g. priest
spheres). On a review of class equality, my paladins have combat skills
equal to priests (although a wider range of weapons and more hit points)
and they gains spells starting at 4th level. There are no ability score
requirements for paladins (or any other class). Choosing a class is part
of choosing a role to play.

And yes, the blackguard has the same problem.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-20-2002, 06:48 PM

Which leads me to ask this question... How are paladins of Cuiraecen
dealt with in the conversion to 3E? Since those paladins are CG... And that
doesn`t seem to be in line too much with 3E rules (though another setting
has paladins of a CG deity).
-----------

Hopefully VERY harshly. It`s perhaps the single most unbalanced
character class since the cavalier-paladin -- no I take that back,
including the cavalier-paladin.
----------

Um... Lost reference... What exactly is a cavalier-paladin? Is that the 2E
kit that I glossed over once or twice because it seemed a bit... unlikely
for any of my characters? Or is that a 1E reference?

__________________________________________________ _______________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-20-2002, 08:29 PM

At 11:39 AM 9/20/2002 -0700, William Bolitho wrote:

>What exactly is a cavalier-paladin? Is that the 2E kit that I glossed over
>once or twice because it seemed a bit... unlikely for any of my
>characters? Or is that a 1E reference?

I believe Peter`s referencing the combo class from 1e in Unearthed
Arcana. There was later a kit as well, but UA made the paladin a sub-class
of the cavalier (also presented in UA) and ratcheted up his power by giving
him all the abilities of the cavalier class (including things like weapons
of choice that gave additional "to hit" bonuses, the ability to parry
successful attacks, additional saving throw bonuses, and one or two other
things) in addition to those standard for 1e paladins. I used it once or
twice, and using what passed for "balance" in 1e character classes it was
OK. It just forced paladins into an even more narrow interpretation than
they had before.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Eosin the Red

09-20-2002, 08:29 PM

>>>>>How are paladins of Cuiraecen

Green Ronin has a new supplement that may be worth taking a look at. Book of the Rightious has a new CLASS called the Holy warrior. There are several permutations depending on your characters domain selection at first level (much like clerics select domains). A Holy Warrior with the Domains: Good & Law becomes a paladin, while others get other special effects. I have yet to get to the FLGS to buy this book but the PDFs are inspiring. Green Ronin (as John will attest) generally puts together well written, balanced and thought out supplements.

Something to look at.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Azrai

09-20-2002, 09:13 PM

Orginally posted by Birthright-L
How are paladins of Cuiraecen dealt with in the conversion to 3E? Since those paladins are CG... And that doesn`t seem to be in line too much with 3E rules (though another setting
has paladins of a CG deity

Thats not true. in the d&d game it was always possible that paladins in special campaign worlds could have an alignment different from lg. this is also the case in the 3. edition, for example in the Forgotten Realms.

question is, if this rule is a good one.

Peter Lubke

09-21-2002, 03:52 AM

On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:16, Gary wrote:

At 11:39 AM 9/20/2002 -0700, William Bolitho wrote:

>What exactly is a cavalier-paladin? Is that the 2E kit that I glossed over
>once or twice because it seemed a bit... unlikely for any of my
>characters? Or is that a 1E reference?

I believe Peter`s referencing the combo class from 1e in Unearthed
Arcana. There was later a kit as well, but UA made the paladin a sub-class
of the cavalier (also presented in UA) and ratcheted up his power by giving
him all the abilities of the cavalier class (including things like weapons
of choice that gave additional "to hit" bonuses, the ability to parry
successful attacks, additional saving throw bonuses, and one or two other
things) in addition to those standard for 1e paladins. I used it once or
twice, and using what passed for "balance" in 1e character classes it was
OK. It just forced paladins into an even more narrow interpretation than
they had before.

"Balanced" ? - apart from certain suicidal tendencies ;-} these guys
were almost unstoppable -- dragon? charge it -- his fear attack cannot
hurt me, nor his breath weapon, and I`ll strike him dead before he can
lay a glove (er, nail) on me.

The kit was nothing like the original cavalier.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-21-2002, 07:50 AM

On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 04:39, William Bolitho wrote:

Which leads me to ask this question... How are paladins of Cuiraecen
dealt with in the conversion to 3E? Since those paladins are CG... And that
doesn`t seem to be in line too much with 3E rules (though another setting
has paladins of a CG deity).
-----------

Hopefully VERY harshly. It`s perhaps the single most unbalanced
character class since the cavalier-paladin -- no I take that back,
including the cavalier-paladin.
----------

Um... Lost reference... What exactly is a cavalier-paladin? Is that the 2E
kit that I glossed over once or twice because it seemed a bit... unlikely
for any of my characters? Or is that a 1E reference?

April 1983 (at the height of the 1e madness of adding extra powers to
everyone except wizards to stop their rampant domination of the original
campaigns - blackmoor, greyhawk etc - as the wizard characters in such
had reached high levels - Bigby, Elminster, Mordenkainen etc)

Cavalier - a new sub-class of fighter of gentle or noble birth (rich
buggers) following the `code of chivalry` - good alignment - (so
paladins aren`t a big change), mounted combat, knowledge of horsemanship
- steeds with bonus hit points, able to parry more effectively than
fighters, always the finest armor (nothing less than plate armor will
do) - their ability scores for strength, dexterity, and constitution
increase with each level gained, their multiple attacks are gained
earlier, and they get more of them (up to 5x with a crossbow!), at 10th
level they have 5 (count them 5!) weapons of specialization, can double
specialize in broadsword, horse mace, scimitar. Eleven cavaliers can
fire bows while mounted at +3/+3. With a lance (either mounted or not!?)
they are +1 per level of cavalier to damage (plus charge bonus where
applicable). Immune to all fear, AND radiate protection from fear in a
10 foot radius, mind attack spells (or magical phenomena) have a 90%
chance of never affecting a paladin (better than the elf who is only so
protected vs sleep and charm), including beguilement, charm, domination,
hold, hypnosis, magic jar, possession, mind blast(psionic), sleep,
suggestion etc. THEN they still get a saving throw at +2, (or +4 for a
cavalier paladin). They can survive up to -13 negative hit points and
still function - although they cannot attack. They heal more rapidly
than any other character class. First level hit points could be as high
as 28! A 3rd level cavalier can vault into the saddle wearing bulky
armor and have the animal underway in 1 segment (impressive huh?), at 11
level they can handle of griffon or similar mount as a steed. They
ALWAYS have retainers from 4th level on who serve for nothing more than
upkeep and training (as if he can`t afford to actually pay them -
tight-fisted bastards).
S15 I10 W10 D15 Co15 Chxx <= Cavalier stats (minimum)
S15 I10 W13 D15 Co15 Ch17 <= cavalier paladin

A cavalier-paladin has all the above plus: detect evil, protection from
evil 10 foot radius, immune to disease, lay on hands, cure disease, save
at +2 against everything, turn undead, cast spells, a SUPER DOOPER
warhorse - I mean combined with cavalier this is one nasty mean
mother-f**ker.

Oh - you have to be good (say your prayers etc), only have a magical
suit of armor (how many can one wear anyway?), 6 magical weapons, a
magical shield, and 4 other magical devices. (yeah right! - 12 magical
items - pinch me, that`s a `restriction`?), and you have to be `nice` to
other cavaliers. Paladins don`t attract a body of men - but cavaliers
attract followers like rangers do.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

09-21-2002, 10:59 AM

Hey, the paladin of Cuiraécen is one of the best character classes! If I would play a paladin, then ONLY one of Cuiraécen...

marcum uth mather

09-23-2002, 09:23 PM

so whats to stop paladins of Eric and othere nonsence. in the paladins handbook it says there are only paladins of LG. other aliments have othere kits to make them special

kgauck

09-24-2002, 12:28 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "marcum uth mather" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 4:23 PM

> so whats to stop paladins of Eric and othere nonsence. in the
> paladins handbook it says there are only paladins of LG. other
> aliments have othere kits to make them special

According to BR core rules, rangers are paladins of Eric. Why can`t any
kind of faith have a champion, whether a PrC or a core class? The only
kind of faith that I would not allow a divine warrior for are faiths that
don`t have warriors. Eric combats the humanoids, so a divine champion makes
sense. Ruornil combats the Shadow, so he should get paladins, an idea
supported on page 30 of the Medoere PS. I think that the paladins of each
faith might differ in their specific features, but there is no reason they
should not exist.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-24-2002, 02:13 AM

> According to BR core rules, rangers are paladins of Eric. Why can`t any
> kind of faith have a champion, whether a PrC or a core class? The only
> kind of faith that I would not allow a divine warrior for are faiths that
> don`t have warriors. Eric combats the humanoids, so a divine champion makes
> sense. Ruornil combats the Shadow, so he should get paladins, an idea
> supported on page 30 of the Medoere PS. I think that the paladins of each
> faith might differ in their specific features, but there is no reason they
> should not exist.

This is precisely why I also think Paladins and other (un)holy warriors
should be prestige classes that rely on Fighter and Cleric levels. I`m
going to start working on this, in fact. IMO, there should be different
holy warrior prestige classes for each order in the setting. One for
paladins from Haelyn`s Aegis, an anti-paladin class for the Hand of
Azrai, etc...

--
/ Adam Theo, Age 23, Tallahassee FL USA
// Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
// Pager: (850) 709 7738
=//=====
// || Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
|| "Building Ideas by Bringing them Together"
|| Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
|| "The Next Generation Communications Protocol"
|| "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American Buddhist"

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-24-2002, 05:13 AM

Paladin and Holy Warrior are a way of life from the beginning. A paladin
is one kind of holy warrior. My issue with the paladin is that paladins
are better warriors in some cases that warriors themselves. If paladin
is to be a base class then it must be balanced against warrior - never
quite being as good in general as a warrior, but gaining great advantage
against evil in the service of their god as carried out in a lawful-good
manner. (apologies to Cuiraecen`s paladins)

As such they should not be a Prestige Class. Of course if they are to be
the super-warrior that the paladins of Cuiraecen are: then they should
be a prestige class!

On the concept of Holy Warrior generally: I do not think that every god
needs a holy warrior `class`. I do not see that Ruornil`s war against
Shadow is sufficient to justify paladin status for warriors of that
faith. Priests of some gods may grant favors (eg spell tattoos) or teach
abilities to their temple warriors, but generally such things can be
handled quite adequately without recourse to a class apart.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-24-2002, 07:07 AM

At 02:43 PM 9/24/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>Paladin and Holy Warrior are a way of life from the beginning. A paladin
>is one kind of holy warrior. My issue with the paladin is that paladins
>are better warriors in some cases that warriors themselves. If paladin
>is to be a base class then it must be balanced against warrior - never
>quite being as good in general as a warrior, but gaining great advantage
>against evil in the service of their god as carried out in a lawful-good
>manner. (apologies to Cuiraecen`s paladins)
>
>As such they should not be a Prestige Class.

I`m not following your logic. The paladin class is superior to standard
warriors in some cases. The paladin _should_ be so balanced, or slightly
less powerful than a standard warrior. Doesn`t it follow that the paladin
should be a prestige class since prestige classes are generally ratcheted
up power-wise from standard classes?

>On the concept of Holy Warrior generally: I do not think that every god
>needs a holy warrior `class`. I do not see that Ruornil`s war against
>Shadow is sufficient to justify paladin status for warriors of that
>faith.

No? That one`s one of my favorites.... Doing battle with the forces of
darkness, let alone the undead forces of the SW? That`s right out of the
paladin credo. Nesirie seems less apt to have her own paladins than
Rournil to me.

>Priests of some gods may grant favors (eg spell tattoos) or teach
>abilities to their temple warriors, but generally such things can be
>handled quite adequately without recourse to a class apart.

I`ll grant you that not every god needs "paladins" per se. One of the
issues here, I think, is that folks trip over the term "paladin" a
bit. They can`t see non-standard paladins because the term paladin has
become so stereotyped into the lawful good warrior/knightly virtue mold
that any variation seems contradictory. Holy warriors is also similarly
wrapped up in a sort of fanatic fighter concept. A "paladin" as in a
non-priest who embodies virtues espoused by the god (and that aren`t
covered by priesthood) is not such a stretch, however. Rangers as paladins
of Erik, for instance, has already been mentioned, but couldn`t rogues
occupy a similar role in Sera`s or Eloele`s worship, bards in
Laerme`s? These "paladins" need not be straight rangers, rogues or bards,
but could have hybrid powers on a similar power level as the paladin (and
made prestige classes.) The Dwarven Defender PrC could be interpreted as a
sort of paladin of Moradin.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-24-2002, 07:23 AM

Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote at 02-09-24 08.55:

> A "paladin" as in a non-priest who embodies virtues espoused by the god (and
> that aren`t covered by priesthood) is not such a stretch, however. Rangers as
> paladins of Erik, for instance, has already been mentioned, but couldn`t
> rogues occupy a similar role in Sera`s or Eloele`s worship, bards in Laerme`s?

There is a set of "champion" prestige classes for the Forgotten Realms that
are just this - but their powers are a lot less spectacular than those of
the paladin.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-24-2002, 08:47 AM

On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 17:14, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote at 02-09-24 08.55:

> A "paladin" as in a non-priest who embodies virtues espoused by the god (and
> that aren`t covered by priesthood) is not such a stretch, however. Rangers as
> paladins of Erik, for instance, has already been mentioned, but couldn`t
> rogues occupy a similar role in Sera`s or Eloele`s worship, bards in Laerme`s?

There is a set of "champion" prestige classes for the Forgotten Realms that
are just this - but their powers are a lot less spectacular than those of
the paladin.

seems fair to me.

Would you keep paladin as a base class then? or not ?

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-24-2002, 09:05 AM

On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 16:55, Gary wrote:

At 02:43 PM 9/24/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>Paladin and Holy Warrior are a way of life from the beginning. A paladin
>is one kind of holy warrior. My issue with the paladin is that paladins
>are better warriors in some cases that warriors themselves. If paladin
>is to be a base class then it must be balanced against warrior - never
>quite being as good in general as a warrior, but gaining great advantage
>against evil in the service of their god as carried out in a lawful-good
>manner. (apologies to Cuiraecen`s paladins)
>
>As such they should not be a Prestige Class.

I`m not following your logic.

Key phrase -- "if paladin is to be a base class"

The paladin class is superior to standard
warriors in some cases. The paladin _should_
be so balanced, or slightly
less powerful than a standard warrior.

Should but usually isn`t. While I don`t play or DM 3e, my paladins
aren`t full 2e either. They have only priest progression in the combat
arena, but gain 1d10 hit points per level and are unrestricted in choice
of weapons and armor. They cannot specialize in any weapon, but do gain
spells starting at 4th level. As such their standard combat abilities
lie between warrior and priest. Against evil however, they are more
effective than a standard warrior.

Personally, I like paladins as a base class and agree with Ariadne that
they have a long and proud history as such. I think they are a pain to
adventure with, but denying the early levels the opportunity to undergo
the pain of having a paladin in the party ... well it just wouldn`t be
the same.

One of the funnest (is that a word? - my spell checker thinks so)
sessions I`ve ever DM`ed was the "the Great Paladin Hunt". I just loved
the hang-gliding wight brothers, Orbille and Wilburr. All the paladins
had a good time too. (all PC`s were paladins, and they weren`t the
hunters - they were the huntees)

Doesn`t it follow that the paladin
should be a prestige class since prestige classes are generally ratcheted
up power-wise from standard classes?

>On the concept of Holy Warrior generally: I do not think that every god
>needs a holy warrior `class`. I do not see that Ruornil`s war against
>Shadow is sufficient to justify paladin status for warriors of that
>faith.

No? That one`s one of my favorites.... Doing battle with the forces of
darkness, let alone the undead forces of the SW? That`s right out of the
paladin credo. Nesirie seems less apt to have her own paladins than
Rournil to me.

>Priests of some gods may grant favors (eg spell tattoos) or teach
>abilities to their temple warriors, but generally such things can be
>handled quite adequately without recourse to a class apart.

I`ll grant you that not every god needs "paladins" per se. One of the
issues here, I think, is that folks trip over the term "paladin" a
bit. They can`t see non-standard paladins because the term paladin has
become so stereotyped into the lawful good warrior/knightly virtue mold
that any variation seems contradictory. Holy warriors is also similarly
wrapped up in a sort of fanatic fighter concept. A "paladin" as in a
non-priest who embodies virtues espoused by the god (and that aren`t
covered by priesthood) is not such a stretch, however. Rangers as paladins
of Erik, for instance, has already been mentioned, but couldn`t rogues
occupy a similar role in Sera`s or Eloele`s worship, bards in
Laerme`s? These "paladins" need not be straight rangers, rogues or bards,
but could have hybrid powers on a similar power level as the paladin (and
made prestige classes.) The Dwarven Defender PrC could be interpreted as a
sort of paladin of Moradin.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

09-24-2002, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Of course if they are to be the super-warrior that the paladins of Cuiraecen are: then they should be a prestige class!
Please tell me, why exactly a paladin of Cuiraécen is so overpowered in your opinion? All what is different is his CG alignment and that he can multiclass freely as a fighter. And?

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Would you keep paladin as a base class then? or not ?
Naturally yes!!!!

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Personally, I like paladins as a base class and agree with Ariadne that they have a long and proud history as such. I think they are a pain to adventure with, but denying the early levels the opportunity to undergo the pain of having a paladin in the party ... well it just wouldn`t be the same.
Thank you! And you're right, it wouldn't be the same! Yes, a paladin is a lot more effective against evil, but this IS his destiny, or not? If a paladin stops acting against evil, he stops to BE a paladin...

Peter Lubke

09-24-2002, 02:12 PM

On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 22:26, Ariadne wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=955

Ariadne wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Of course if they are to be the super-warrior that the paladins of Cuiraecen are: then they should be a prestige class!
Please tell me, why exactly a paladin of Cuiraécen is so overpowered in your opinion? All what is different is his CG alignment and that he can multiclass freely as a fighter. And?

Okay .. as a base class ... what does a warrior/fighter have that a
paladin of Cuiraecen does not?
... now reverse the question - what does a paladin of Cuiraecen have
that a warrior does not?

Consider your answer from the perspective that BOTH are followers of
Cuiraecen and both are dedicated to the tenets of CG, also that it is
unlikely for any character to wear more than one suit of magical armor,
or to have more than 4 magic weapons, or to have in total more than 10
magic items -- alignment and dedication are a choice, freely taken and
not forced, and therefore not restrictive in any way.

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Would you keep paladin as a base class then? or not ?
Naturally yes!!!!

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

Personally, I like paladins as a base class and agree with Ariadne that they have a long and proud history as such. I think they are a pain to adventure with, but denying the early levels the opportunity to undergo the pain of having a paladin in the party ... well it just wouldn`t be the same.
Thank you! And you`re right, it wouldn`t be the same! Yes, a paladin is a lot more effective against evil, but this IS his destiny, or not? If a paladin stops acting against evil, he stops to BE a paladin...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-24-2002, 02:24 PM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-24 16.05:

> alignment and dedication are a choice, freely taken and
> not forced, and therefore not restrictive in any way.

The issue is not if you are choosing to play an alignment - the issue is if
you are accepting penalties for violating that alignment. That is a real
restriction.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-24-2002, 04:37 PM

On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 00:18, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-24 16.05:

> alignment and dedication are a choice, freely taken and
> not forced, and therefore not restrictive in any way.

The issue is not if you are choosing to play an alignment - the issue is if
you are accepting penalties for violating that alignment. That is a real
restriction.

why would a real paladin violate his alignment?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-24-2002, 04:55 PM

Ariadne writes:

> Thank you! And you`re right, it wouldn`t be the same! Yes, a
> paladin is a lot more effective against evil, but this IS his
> destiny, or not? If a paladin stops acting against evil, he
> stops to BE a paladin...

Yeah, see? That`s just what I mean. The term "paladin" is so wrapped up in
a particular description that it just confuses matters to describe paladins
of other alignments or dieties. I`m pretty sure that if one just wrote up a
system of paladin-like character classes for any god it wouldn`t garner
nearly the objections that just describing such classes as "paladins of X"
does.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-24-2002, 05:09 PM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-24 18.15:

> why would a real paladin violate his alignment?
>

Read any knightly romance or do some roleplaying, and you will find plenty
of temptations for paladins. Some reasons might be

* A temptation to take personal revenge rather than fight the good fight

* Conflicting loyalties - friends, family, liege, god, love, all with their
own demands. What if a good-aligned fellow fighter against evil commits a
crime?

* Harsh descisions - whichever way you go, someone suffers

* Unpopular orders - a superior can order you to do most anything. Need not
be an evil act - merely a distasteful one. Disobeying a legitimate authority
is a chaotic trait, still a no-no

* Expediency - some things are easier if you have flexible ethics. Why not
simply kill the villain, rather than try your outmost to bring him to
justice?

* Honor - having either too much peronal honor, or not upholding your honor

* Indescision. War rages between two good nations. Which way should the
paladin turn?

* Personality development. Sometimes, a charcter`s personality grows in
unexpected directions. Lawful Good might no longer feel like the best
alignment for expressing a growing personality. Unlike other characters, a
paladin loses his power if he changes in this way.

* Character development - A painful choice between personal power (magic
items and such) and doing the right thing

*Over-zealousness. Becoming merciless in pursuit of the law. Bigotry.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-24-2002, 06:01 PM

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> Personally, I like paladins as a base class and agree with Ariadne that
> they have a long and proud history as such. I think they are a pain to
> adventure with, but denying the early levels the opportunity to undergo
> the pain of having a paladin in the party ... well it just wouldn`t be
> the same.

Paladins started out as a base class. So did assassins, which are now a
prestige class. I`ve never seen anyone rail against that as much as the
paladin fans do about their personal favorite.

Probably the only reason 3e kept them that way was because of the
anticipated complaining fans.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-24-2002, 07:25 PM

daniel mcsorley writes:

> Probably the only reason 3e kept them that way was because of the
> anticipated complaining fans.

I agree. As further evidence there are several aspects of the paladin
character class that are un-3e like. Their special "off the path"
limitation when it comes to multi-classing, the way paladins can lose their
class abilities for behavior, but gain them back again (in a manner of
speaking) through a prestige class. There`s some interesting engineering
going on with that class.

When it comes to making paladins (or similar classes for other gods) a
prestige class, I think the argument is essentially twofold.

1. There`s the balance issue. The paladin as a character class is probably
the strongest without delving into the ghoulish nightmare that is the D&D
magic system. The paladin`s class abilities tend to increase per level
where other classes gain a whole new ability. The distinction may seem
unimportant, but since the paladin as a class only gets a few class
abilities it looks like it is more or less balanced with other classes.
Since those class abilities are constantly improving, however, the paladin
gets what is in effect two or three class abilities per level. Prestige
classes, however, are more likely to break this particular rule, and
generally represent a powering up process anyway so making the paladin a
prestige class would fit more in line with certain existing class paradigms.

2. There`s the role-playing issue. It`s absolutely possible for a character
to begin life as some sort of divinely inspired holy roller and all the
aspects of the champion of a particular deity. Esthicially, however, some
folks (myself included) think it might be more logical for a character to
prove himself BEFORE joining the favored ranks of holy warriors such
paladins. You could definitely use a character class that was a religious
or otherwise idealistic warrior type, but going straight into the powers and
fraternity of paladins is a step that should IMO require some sort of
in-game effort rather than assuming that`s part of the background of a PC.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-25-2002, 01:07 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Foss" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:39 AM

> That`s just what I mean. The term "paladin" is so wrapped up in
> a particular description that it just confuses matters to describe
> paladins of other alignments or dieties. I`m pretty sure that if one
> just wrote up a system of paladin-like character classes for any
> god it wouldn`t garner nearly the objections that just describing
> such classes as "paladins of X" does.

Which is unfortunate, because all a paladin means is champion. Its derived
from the place name Palatium, or Palatine Hill in English. The same source
also gives us palace. Or in other words, the palatinus would protect the
palatium. Palace guards is what we`re talking about. Charlemagne`s 12
paladins were his personal body guard and his lead commanders. His, well,
lieutenants, as we might say in BR. Roland is the most famous of these
because his last stand was imortalized in the Song of Roland.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-25-2002, 01:50 AM

On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 03:01, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-24 18.15:

> why would a real paladin violate his alignment?
>

Read any knightly romance or do some roleplaying, and you will find plenty
of temptations for paladins. Some reasons might be

Sorry perhaps - I should have said why should a paladin *want* (i.e.
desire) to violate his alignment. Consciously. To choose freely to do
so. "freely" being somewhat flexible. A paladin character can choose to
forgo being a paladin at any time - you don`t have to commit an evil act
to do so - you don`t have to change alignments to do so - you could
still stay lawful good (just not as awful good perhaps). You can
role-play the struggle and the triumph, or the struggle and the downfall
-- victory or tragedy -- works for me either way.

But it was actually: "real paladin" as in "real man"
like: "How many real men does it take to change a light bulb?"

Remember "lawful alignment" does not mean "legal" and never ever ever
has in D&D.
Lawful (short definition): "For the greater good" "The needs of the many
outweigh the needs of the few"
(yes, Spock was a paladin in a previous life - or one of them)

* A temptation to take personal revenge rather than fight the good fight

all characters wrestle with temptation - why should paladins be any
different?

* Conflicting loyalties - friends, family, liege, god, love, all with their
own demands. What if a good-aligned fellow fighter against evil commits a
crime?

who chose this road? do you now choose another?

* Harsh decisions - whichever way you go, someone suffers

that`s life - choose wisely

* Unpopular orders - a superior can order you to do most anything. Need not
be an evil act - merely a distasteful one. Disobeying a legitimate authority
is a chaotic trait, still a no-no

not at all. Disobeying an recognized authority for personal gain would
be, but not if it were in the best interests of the protected community.
Again the conception that "lawful alignment" has a legal restriction is
false. While in a good society - most laws and rules are for the public
good, even in such a society it is the duty of all good men to challenge
those that are not. The American Constitution is the most well-known
codex of such principles today, and look how many laws are struck down
or modified due to Constitutional challenges.

* Expediency - some things are easier if you have flexible ethics. Why not
simply kill the villain, rather than try your outmost to bring him to
justice?

Justice is an add-on for Haelyn, in fact it`s a frequent add-on to the
code of a paladin -- but it`s not a core ethic, not one for which a
paladin would be stripped of paladin status. Kill the villain if that`s
what he deserves ( Secondly, a paladin of Haelyn has the right to
dispense justice - which implies the responsibility for the execution of
same - whether personally or by proxy ).

* Honor - having either too much personal honor, or not upholding your honor

Pride - personal issues, putting oneself first before others is not the
way of a paladin. This fall from grace is involuntary. A starting
character with too much honor or not enough should not choose (or be
chosen) to be a paladin. A player that want to play a paladin that
doesn`t make the grade should soon find themselves stripped of paladin
status -- that`s what the rule is for.

* Indecision. War rages between two good nations. Which way should the
paladin turn?

to peace .. to duty .. he`s not bound by paladin ethics to support
either side, nor is he to be punished for supporting either. There`s no
rule that says a paladin can`t fight against a good or neutral enemy.
While there is an argument that good v good is a win for evil, this is
not true. Think instead of the greater good, a united good, being
stronger against evil -- wars usually end sometime, quicker and less
blood shed the better. But peace first.

* Personality development. Sometimes, a character`s personality grows in
unexpected directions. Lawful Good might no longer feel like the best
alignment for expressing a growing personality. Unlike other characters, a
paladin loses his power if he changes in this way.

(see Pride and Personal issues)

* Character development - A painful choice between personal power (magic
items and such) and doing the right thing

(see Pride and Personal Issues)

*Over-zealousness. Becoming merciless in pursuit of the law. Bigotry.

(see Pride and Personal Issues)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-25-2002, 01:50 AM

On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 05:19, Gary Foss wrote:

2. There`s the role-playing issue. It`s absolutely possible for a character
to begin life as some sort of divinely inspired holy roller and all the
aspects of the champion of a particular deity. Aesthetically, however, some
folks (myself included) think it might be more logical for a character to
prove himself BEFORE joining the favored ranks of holy warriors such
paladins. You could definitely use a character class that was a religious
or otherwise idealistic warrior type, but going straight into the powers and
fraternity of paladins is a step that should IMO require some sort of
in-game effort rather than assuming that`s part of the background of a PC.

Counter role-playing issue.
Characters are more idealistic early on. Life makes them more pragmatic,
more realistic we might say. Power corrupts, the struggle to rise within
authority brings compromise. The higher level characters are more likely
to be unable or unwilling to fight the good fight.

Remember the rule for loss of paladin status came about when the
original D&D paladin player got powerful. (Lord Robilar) -- Ernie Gygax.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius

09-25-2002, 03:11 AM

Kenneth Gauck:
> According to BR core rules, rangers are paladins of Eric.
> Why can`t any
> kind of faith have a champion, whether a PrC or a core class?
> The only
> kind of faith that I would not allow a divine warrior for are
> faiths that don`t have warriors. Eric combats the humanoids,
> so a divine champion makes sense. Ruornil combats the
> Shadow, so he should get paladins, an idea supported on page
> 30 of the Medoere PS. I think that the paladins of each
> faith might differ in their specific features, but there is
> no reason they should not exist.

I actually like to have different types of holy warriors for each god. I
can see undead + Shadow fighting Paladins of Ruornil, and I can also see
wilderness-protector-types who are likely to be rangers of some sort.
The idea that there are some gods of fighting and others who do ont have
armed followers is silly to my mind, especially in a place as martially
inclined as Cerilia.

I notice that someone mentioned something about Neseriean paladins as
well, I tend to think that these sorts of "holy champions" are more
likely to be Devoted Defenders multiclassed with something else that is
appropriate (Templar? Divine Champion?) who are tasked with escorting
priests and priestesses of Neserie as they womble about doing good
works, healings and peacemaking.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-25-2002, 03:37 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:45 PM

> I notice that someone mentioned something about Neseriean paladins as
> well, I tend to think that these sorts of "holy champions" are more
> likely to be Devoted Defenders multiclassed with something else that is
> appropriate (Templar? Divine Champion?) who are tasked with escorting
> priests and priestesses of Neserie as they womble about doing good
> works, healings and peacemaking.

I have been thinking about such characters, holy champions of Nesirie, in a
Rjurik context. There are viking stories of heros who fought sea monsters.
So I think that a Rjurik PrC for Nesirie might be just such a figure.
Skills and special abilities for operating longboats, staying on the water,
fighting sea monsters. According to BoP, her paladins had then 1st level
granted power of water breathing or water walking once per day. That`s
probabaly a little over the top for me, but it does set the stage for what
such a character could do. I`d prefer the ability to endure minutes of
airlessness, perhaps even x minutes per level. Perhaps such a character
could take one five foot step per level on water. The kind of thing that
would make him the primier on-the-water combatant. No doubt feats that
improve water capabilities like Endurance, and Skill Focus (Swiming), as
well as my own Hold Your Breath would be common for such a character.

In the much less sea-faring Anuire, perhaps the guardian principle is the
dominant theme for paladins of Nesirie. Guardians not only of priestesses,
but also of grave sites. Their they protect the memory of the dead
(preventing the defilement of a cemetary) as well as ready to combat the
possibility that some necromancer or other sinister force would seek to
steal the dead for some profane purpose.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

09-25-2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Starfox

* Personality development. Sometimes, a charcter`s personality grows in unexpected directions. Lawful Good might no longer feel like the best alignment for expressing a growing personality. Unlike other characters, a paladin loses his power if he changes in this way.
Very easy decision, if you think LG isn't the right: Become a paladin of Cuiraécen... ;)

Starfox

09-25-2002, 04:07 PM

The argument that paladins are not limited by their code of honor because
everyone can suffer from the same temptations/alignment problems that
paladins do is lame.

Of course characters other than paladins can fall for temptations; what is
unique for Paladins is that they get punished for doing it. Thus things that
are merely good roleplaying for a fighter, becomes a deadly power issue for
a paladin. And that is what the whole Code of Honor issue is all about.

/Starfox

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-25-2002, 04:21 PM

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 01:14, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:45 PM

> I notice that someone mentioned something about Neseriean paladins as
> well, I tend to think that these sorts of "holy champions" are more
> likely to be Devoted Defenders multiclassed with something else that is
> appropriate (Templar? Divine Champion?) who are tasked with escorting
> priests and priestesses of Neserie as they womble about doing good
> works, healings and peacemaking.

I have been thinking about such characters, holy champions of Nesirie, in a
Rjurik context. There are viking stories of heros who fought sea monsters.
So I think that a Rjurik PrC for Nesirie might be just such a figure.
Skills and special abilities for operating longboats, staying on the water,
fighting sea monsters. According to BoP, her paladins had then 1st level
granted power of water breathing or water walking once per day. That`s
probabaly a little over the top for me, but it does set the stage for what
such a character could do. I`d prefer the ability to endure minutes of
airlessness, perhaps even x minutes per level. Perhaps such a character
could take one five foot step per level on water. The kind of thing that
would make him the primier on-the-water combatant. No doubt feats that
improve water capabilities like Endurance, and Skill Focus (Swiming), as
well as my own Hold Your Breath would be common for such a character.

In the much less sea-faring Anuire,
???????????????????????????
"much less" ???? --- are you reading the same source books?
Khinasi and Brecht, then Anuire, then Rjurik, lastly Vos - and nothing
for the elves (sob!), or dwarves (they`d sink anyway being made of
stone).

perhaps the guardian principle is the
dominant theme for paladins of Nesirie. Guardians not only of priestesses,
but also of grave sites. Their they protect the memory of the dead
(preventing the defilement of a cemetary) as well as ready to combat the
possibility that some necromancer or other sinister force would seek to
steal the dead for some profane purpose.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-25-2002, 04:47 PM

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 01:57, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
The argument that paladins are not limited by their code of honor because
everyone can suffer from the same temptations/alignment problems that
paladins do is lame.

Of course characters other than paladins can fall for temptations; what is
unique for Paladins is that they get punished for doing it. Thus things that
are merely good roleplaying for a fighter, becomes a deadly power issue for
a paladin. And that is what the whole Code of Honor issue is all about.

It`s a choice --- for the PLAYER not the character. To choose to stray
from the path is a player decision - to play a paladin or not. To seem
to struggle with the choice is role-playing, even to give in could be.
It`s very similar to a player choosing to change class from warrior to
mage (although in a more spectacular manner)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-25-2002, 04:58 PM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-25 18.26:

> It`s a choice --- for the PLAYER not the character. To choose to stray
> from the path is a player decision - to play a paladin or not. To seem
> to struggle with the choice is role-playing, even to give in could be.
> It`s very similar to a player choosing to change class from warrior to
> mage (although in a more spectacular manner)

Yes, and in the case of the warrior-mage, the player gets away with it,
while in the case of the pladin, the player gets punished for his actions by
having his character loose abilities. Just proves my point.

/starfox

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-25-2002, 05:54 PM

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 02:51, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-25 18.26:

> It`s a choice --- for the PLAYER not the character. To choose to stray
> from the path is a player decision - to play a paladin or not. To seem
> to struggle with the choice is role-playing, even to give in could be.
> It`s very similar to a player choosing to change class from warrior to
> mage (although in a more spectacular manner)

Yes, and in the case of the warrior-mage, the player gets away with it,
while in the case of the pladin, the player gets punished for his actions by
having his character loose abilities. Just proves my point.

huh? the player gets away with it in both cases. If a player no longer
wishes to play a paladin then they can always switch to warrior, in the
other case (switching to mage - 2e at least, 3e I understand is a
free-for-all) it`s not so easy (under official rules). -- no one forces
a player to choose a paladin, and no one forces the player to choose not
to.

Playing a paladin means being a champion of good. Playing a mage means
using spells as a primary method of achieving goals. While there`s no
rule against playing a mage that never memorizes or casts spells, it`s
not very sensible. (they aren`t acting very mage-like) A DM could argue
that there is no basis for the character having the ability to cast
spells if they never study magic or try to cast them.

Playing a champion of good that doesn`t champion good -- doesn`t entitle
the character to the tools to champion good. Quid pro Quo after all. The
alignment of lawful-good is an essential defining characteristic - to be
a paladin is to be good - not "you have to be good to be a paladin".

/starfox

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-25-2002, 09:56 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:05 AM

> In the much less sea-faring Anuire,
> ???????????????????????????
> "much less" ???? --- are you reading the same source books?
> Khinasi and Brecht, then Anuire, then Rjurik, lastly Vos - and nothing
> for the elves (sob!), or dwarves (they`d sink anyway being made of
> stone).

First, why consider paladins for Nesirie in cultures for which there is no
worship of Nesirie? When Vos, sidhe, and dwarves begin that worship, I`ll
consider their worship in my discussion of their paladins.

Second, the books are full of evidence that the Anuireans are not a great
sea power. Much of the trade in the south is described as being conducted
by Khinasi sailors, and in the Khinasi texts there is no mention of visiting
Anuireans. At least one Khinasi guilder has moved into Anuire. Likewise,
the Tael Firth is sailed by Rjurik seamen, where again its a Rjurik guilder
who has moved into Anuire. On the back of seapower, so prospers trade. The
Brecht and the Rjurik have marine units, not so the Anuireans. The
decriptive material emphisizes the fishing of the Rjurik, Brecht, and
Khinasi, while speaking much more about the bountiful Anuirean agriculture.

I`d also say that the Brecht lead in seafaring peoples, that they would be
most likely to have sea-oriented character classes and PrC`s because every
Brecht realm has a nautical interest, every one has a population on the
coast. The Khinasi with their horse-based pastoralism have much more going
on that has nothing to do with the sea. They may have the ancient sea
tradition of the Masetians, and they may have some very nice technology
(thank you Avani), but they are not as reliant upon the sea as the Brechts
are.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-25-2002, 10:14 PM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-25 19.43:

> Playing a champion of good that doesn`t champion good -- doesn`t entitle
> the character to the tools to champion good. Quid pro Quo after all. The
> alignment of lawful-good is an essential defining characteristic - to be
> a paladin is to be good - not "you have to be good to be a paladin".

Yes - but playing a wizard that suddenly turns into a warrior does not
remove yur ability to cast spells - you only choose not to use those
abilities. A palandin actually looses his abilities, which is a limitation.

Again, there is n functional difference between the statements "to be a
paladin is to be good" and "you have to be good to be a paladin" in the game
- merely semantics. In both cases, your choices as a player are restricted -
hence it is a restriction on the character class.

But we are not really listening to each other`s arguments here, so I guess
we can quit this discussion.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

marcum uth mather

09-26-2002, 07:57 PM

i remember onced i played a palidin. we were questioning a duragar dwarf. he would not answer are questions. i was going to kill him. as soon as i cut his neck i lost my powers. i had took the life of a helpless foe, who was unable to defend himself. anyway what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is above and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight. now if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible, as druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not be, for the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions. a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose. Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG good could give powers like that. it is only after a few levels that a palidin gets priest spells. this comed with his longevity as a power of good. a chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not care about there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals of magic. a LG deity will want morels in there champions, the other gods dont care, or at lest souldn't because of there aliment. to make a long story sort i REALY think palidins sould only be LG. let the other faiths use crusadersfor 2ed, or what ever 3ed kit fits

kgauck

09-26-2002, 09:34 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "marcum uth mather" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:57 PM

> what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is above
> and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight. now
> if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the
> resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible,
> as druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not
> be, for the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions.
> a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his
> ethose. Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions.

This assumes that only law and goodness are a proper ethos upon which to
build a rigorous code of behavior. A druidic paladin, or a paladin of CG
would have alternate ethical dilemas, alternate codes to uphold. All you
need to create an ethical dilema is a conflict between two desirable things.
Take a druid of Erik, he is both patron and protector of the Rjurik people,
and the forest. So a proper dilema would pit those two things against one
another. Nature vs people is a fine ethical dilema. A CG paladin of
Cuiraécen values fighting tyranny, especially LE tyranny. What happens when
a LG power wants to join forces? The CG paladins are acustomed to working
along. If they join the LG power, are the selling out to the establishment,
joining in a more benevolant, velvet gloved oppression? On the other hand,
they can`t go this mission alone. They need the ally to succeed. So if
they don`t combat this tyrant, they are turning the backs on the oppressed.

> a chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not
> care about there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals
> of magic. a LG deity will want morels in there champions, the
> other gods dont care, or at lest souldn`t because of there aliment.

But don`t their alignments have imperitives as well? Just as a good fighter
can shirk the performance of some good act without fear, the paladin of a LG
diety must undertake any action, even at grave risk to himself. In the case
of Haelyn, fear of consequences should not permit exceptions. Duty must be
done. Likewise, doesn`t a LE paladin have an imperitive obligation to
impose a dominance of the strong over the weak. To make order by means of
cruelty? Let`s not just agree to follow my rules, I will slay half the
village and then open negotiations. How about that? Gods` special codes of
behavior may come from their portfolios. Sure I can just be a wizard and
pursue the goals of magic. But why can`t I be a wizardly paladin of Ruornil
and enforce a rigid interpretation of the Five Oaths in the Khinasi lands?
Why can`t I create Al-Habrim, wizard with divine granted feats (I took them
through training at the Temple of Rilni) which allow me to Track, Detect
Necromancy, grant me the Favored Enemy - Oathbreaker. I hunt down the likes
of Quirad al-Dinn and those like him. I may not shirk my duty. It does not
grant me much by way of reward, for most of the treasure captured is profane
in mine eyes.

All you need for a paladin is a code that has to be adhered to strictly. It
doesn`t have to be LG, in fact it doesn`t even have to be an alignment code.
If I can invent a strict code for a character, I can give him special powers
to advance the tenants of the code, and punish the character by withdrawl of
said powers when the code is ignored.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-26-2002, 11:54 PM

At 09:57 PM 9/26/2002 +0200, marcum uth mather wrote:

>a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose.

Chaotic good characters can kill helpless opponents? This is IMO part of
one of the common misconceptions regarding the alignment system. Being
chaotic does not vitiate the goodness (or evil) of one`s alignment any more
than being lawful does. A CG paladin could not have killed the dwarf
prisoner without also losing his abilities.

Killing a helpless foe is an alignment violation under most circumstances
for any good-aligned character. Such an action falls under the good-evil
scale as well as the law-chaos one. In fact, it may not fall under the
law-chaos issue at all. Killing helpless people (even if they are both
evil and former opponents) is an outright evil act. It`s also an unlawful
act when one presupposes a code of conduct in which opponents who ask for
quarter are kept from harm--but there are many societies that have a
decidedly lawful emphasis in which prisoners can have no such
expectation. It is just as "lawful" to assume a defeated foe will be
enslaved, stripped of all his belongings, killed outright, treated very
harshly in some sort of imprisonment, ransomed, humiliated, otherwise
mistreated or some combination thereof. I`d have stripped a CG paladin
from his divine abilities for the same event. It doesn`t matter if the
action violates either the law-chaos or the good-evil axis of alignment for
such a character because an alignment violation to a paladin is an
alignment violation. One or the other is enough.

Chaotic may or may not mean a character can break his/er word or the rules
of his society, but it`s just as easy to interpret that a chaotic character
is more likely to weigh the matter and make the moral decision based on
circumstance rather than have an over-riding principle that must be
obeyed. For example, in many modern police situations an adult may have a
child hostage. Often these lovely people hold a knife to the child`s
throat during negotiations with the police. The police will promise such a
criminal just about anything he wants in an effort to prolong the situation
until they get an opportunity to either take the guy out or otherwise
separate him/er from the child. Now, IMO neither a lawful good or chaotic
good character should have any qualms about lying under such
conditions. The moral issue of lying is far outstripped by the need to
prevent a potential child murder. Morally, lies told under duress are not
lies. They are forced actions. Not lying and potentially provoking a
harmful act on an innocent is a more immoral act. A chaotic character
would not hesitate to lie under circumstances, and a lawful one wouldn`t
either. But if the circumstances were less dire a chaotic character just
finds the circumstances needed to lie much sooner than a lawful one does.

I can imagine circumstances in which a good-aligned character could kill a
helpless being. What if there was a situation in which the very existence
of the helpless being was threatening the lives of innocent people? A
creature that spread a deadly disease, for instance, might need to be
destroyed regardless of its intent or whether it is helpless when the
opportunity arises. It could be justifiable to kill someone who convinces
the players/PCs that he will commit evil acts in the future even if he is
currently helpless. In general, however, offing a helpless foe without
significant justification should be considered an evil act.

>Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG
>good could give powers like that.

Lawful good alignment doesn`t have any particular ability to create magical
powers that I`ve ever heard, nor would I personally want to go with such an
interpretation. A paladin should always be aware of the holiness of his
actions, but that doesn`t mean that holiness is both lawful and good.

When it comes to issues of alignment, I`ve been considering going with a
point system. Alignment points would then be awarded at the same time as
XP with the actions of characters during play influencing their overall
score. A character might get 2 "good" points, and 3 "chaos" points and be
described as chaotic good. Later, he could get a few "law" points, making
him lawful good. If nothing else a paladin (or other alignment oriented
class) could have a minimum score required in order to maintain his/er
class abilities. I`m not real happy with the "whamm-o" alignment effects
that occasionally crop up in D&D, and such a system could graduate the
process a bit. A paladin could certainly still fall in the course of a
single adventure if he went out and did things that were as nasty as some
of the stuff presented in issue #300 of Dragon (which was really rather
mild IMO) but a single, relatively minor alignment violation would not--and
I think should not--be the kind of thing that would make a paladin lose his
powers. Using that kind of point system would also help quite a bit in
determining things like the results of a Detect Evil/Good spell. It could
be used as a prereq for prestige classes (like what the paladin ought to
be) and could be an influence on a reputation score system to determine
things like cohorts and followers. I haven`t really fleshed out the
thought entirely, but I`m leaning towards such a system.

Issues of alignment become even more hazy when it comes to
regents. Sometimes one has to make political choices that are at odds with
moral ones, and that`s the kind of thing I see influencing an alignment
system. Will players pick expedience over morality? Can they still
exemplify their goodness or maintain their love of freedom while ruling
over a populace? That`s the kind of thing I`d like to portray in such a
system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-27-2002, 01:45 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:40 PM

> Chaotic good characters can kill helpless opponents?

I`m glad you raised that issue, I forgot in the midst of all my other
points.

> When it comes to issues of alignment, I`ve been considering going with a
> point system. Alignment points would then be awarded at the same time as
> XP with the actions of characters during play influencing their overall
> score.

Its a good idea to use such a system. It could be used just as a kind of
fame or renown system. But it could also be used the way honor is for
samuri in Rokugan. As you say, powers could be contingent on maintaining a
certain alignment score. In that vein I want to mention Mongoose book The
Quintessential Cleric deals with codes of behavior and transgressions pretty
nicely. They identify minor vows, sacred vows, and mortal vows. The minor
vows are strictly human. The church invented these vows for its own
purposes (so they might be found in the IHH, but not the WIT) and the diety
in questions cares not. Sacred vows are required by the god for proper
veneration. These apply only to clergy and sacred others (paladins, &c).
They include things like wearing special clothes, carrying a visible symbol,
avoidance of certain weapons, requirements to act under specific conditions,
don`t fraternize with members of certain sects, and stuff of that kind. The
book suggests that breaking a sacred vow has consequences, but is easily
redeemed by some special effort. You might lose the ability to memorize new
spells until you have atoned. You might lose granted powers (and paladins
have lots of those), you might be under a -1 penalty cloud until atoned.
Atonement includes ritual penance of some kind, further oaths of obediance,
and either a gift of (they suggest) 300 gp/level or equivalent service.
Service normally requires direct action against an enemy of the faith.

Mortal vows are core beliefs, and violating them is very serious. While
sacred vows allow for atonement, violations of mortal vows often are beyond
atonement. Evil faiths tend to be less forgiving in this regard. The book
gives some nice examples of vows for each alignment.

However, as I mentioned in my last post, portfolio is also a nice place to
get good stuff too. Take running from the enemy. Some faiths could not
care less. And its certainly not an alignment issue. But it may be a
serious issue for Haelyn, Cuiraécen, or Belinik.

I brought up the issue of honor, because I was working on the NIT and Haelyn
worshiping folks in Talinie. But really, any organization could have its
own code. Consider the following.

Instead of using classes and PrC`s to represent this, you can just use
organizations. In Rokugan, if you are a member of the Lion clan, you can
learn Lion feats. Likewise, if you are a hunter of oathbreakers, you can
learn feats to hunt down and combat those who break the Five Oaths. One way
to monitor fitting behavior is a point system. Pick key aspects of
behvaior, especially those which also will influence NPC`s and you have a
combination renown/obediance system. A knight may be honorable because he
wants the respect of his peers. A paladin of Haelyn is honorable because he
wants to serve his god.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-27-2002, 04:10 AM

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 05:57, marcum uth mather wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=955

marcum uth mather wrote:
i remember onced i played a palidin. we were questioning a duragar dwarf.

Questioning, as in polite conversation - or questioning as in
interrogation?

he would not answer are questions. i was going to kill him. as soon as i
cut his neck i lost my powers. i had took the life of a helpless foe, who
was unable to defend himself.

(Assuming interrogation). Had this dwarf done something himself that was
worthy of the punishment of death? Would the paladin`s protected group
be put at significant risk if the dwarf were allowed to go free? Had the
dwarf resisted arrest violently? (assumes crime or evil-doing against
paladins` protected group)

Killing a being for just being a duergar dwarf would be an evil act.
(life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a good guide) Having
apprehended an evil-doer however and having rendered such evil-doer
"helpless" does not preclude the paladin from exercising the full weight
of justice or retribution.

anyway what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is
above and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight.
now if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the
resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible, as
druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not be, for
the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions. a CG palidin
could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose. Palidins
must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG good
could give powers like that. it is only after a few levels that a palidin
gets priest spells. this comed with his longevity as a power of good. a
chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not care about
there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals of magic. a LG
deity will want morels in there champions, the other gods dont care, or
at lest souldn`t because of there aliment. to make a long story sort i
REALY think palidins sould only be LG. let the other faiths use crusaders
for 2ed, or what ever 3ed kit fits

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-27-2002, 04:41 AM

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 07:33, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "marcum uth mather" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:57 PM

> what i am trying to say is a palidin is special because he is above
> and beyond the call of good. he will only fight the good fight. now
> if we were to allow palidins of othere faths, it would violate the
> resone for being a palidin. a druidic palidin would not be plosible,
> as druids are N and can go ether way. CG palidins sould also not
> be, for the fact they dont have to make the morel dilema decsions.
> a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his
> ethose. Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions.

This assumes that only law and goodness are a proper ethos upon which to
build a rigorous code of behavior. A druidic paladin, or a paladin of CG
would have alternate ethical dilemas, alternate codes to uphold. All you
need to create an ethical dilema is a conflict between two desirable things.
Take a druid of Erik, he is both patron and protector of the Rjurik people,
and the forest. So a proper dilema would pit those two things against one
another. Nature vs people is a fine ethical dilema.

A CG paladin of
Cuiraécen values fighting tyranny, especially LE tyranny. What happens when
a LG power wants to join forces? The CG paladins are acustomed to working
along. If they join the LG power, are the selling out to the establishment,
joining in a more benevolant, velvet gloved oppression? On the other hand,
they can`t go this mission alone. They need the ally to succeed. So if
they don`t combat this tyrant, they are turning the backs on the oppressed.

I know what you are trying to say is that dilemmas exist for any extreme
alignment. In this example there`s no real dilemma for the paladin of C
- at least not yet - unless it`s a choice between benevolent velvet
gloved oppression and full out evil tyranny, in which case he must find
a way to play them against one another so the people are not oppressed
either way. Overall however a paladin`s first priority is to good.

> a chapion of a god of magic could not be a palidin. they to not
> care about there actions just as long as they are pushing the goals
> of magic. a LG deity will want morels in there champions, the
> other gods dont care, or at lest souldn`t because of there aliment.

But don`t their alignments have imperitives as well? Just as a good fighter
can shirk the performance of some good act without fear, the paladin of a LG
diety must undertake any action, even at grave risk to himself. In the case
of Haelyn, fear of consequences should not permit exceptions. Duty must be
done. Likewise, doesn`t a LE paladin have an imperitive obligation to
impose a dominance of the strong over the weak. To make order by means of
cruelty? Let`s not just agree to follow my rules, I will slay half the
village and then open negotiations. How about that? Gods` special codes of
behavior may come from their portfolios. Sure I can just be a wizard and
pursue the goals of magic. But why can`t I be a wizardly paladin of Ruornil
and enforce a rigid interpretation of the Five Oaths in the Khinasi lands?
Why can`t I create Al-Habrim, wizard with divine granted feats (I took them
through training at the Temple of Rilni) which allow me to Track, Detect
Necromancy, grant me the Favored Enemy - Oathbreaker. I hunt down the likes
of Quirad al-Dinn and those like him. I may not shirk my duty. It does not
grant me much by way of reward, for most of the treasure captured is profane
in mine eyes.

All you need for a paladin is a code that has to be adhered to strictly. It
doesn`t have to be LG, in fact it doesn`t even have to be an alignment code.
If I can invent a strict code for a character, I can give him special powers
to advance the tenants of the code, and punish the character by withdrawl of
said powers when the code is ignored.

Well said. I particularly like your point about the imperatives of the
paladin class.

It is difficult however to draw upon other such generalized followers of
codes to form many `character classes`. The paladin is a well known late
medieval figure. The samurai is perhaps yet another example. There are
many singular examples, but few generic ones. In some settings such
examples may occur - the Rilni `paladin` is a good example of such a
possibility. I certainly wouldn`t support making one such
`elite-warrior-priest` without a strong reason however. (for example, in
standard BR, I wouldn`t support such a paladin of Rilni - the regulation
of such oaths seems to be more the duty of the wizard class themselves)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

09-27-2002, 05:06 AM

On Fri, 2002-09-27 at 09:40, Gary wrote:

At 09:57 PM 9/26/2002 +0200, marcum uth mather wrote:

>a CG palidin could have killed the dwarf. it would not violate his ethose.

Chaotic good characters can kill helpless opponents? This is IMO part of
one of the common misconceptions regarding the alignment system. Being
chaotic does not vitiate the goodness (or evil) of one`s alignment any more
than being lawful does. A CG paladin could not have killed the dwarf
prisoner without also losing his abilities.

Killing a helpless foe is an alignment violation under most circumstances
for any good-aligned character. Such an action falls under the good-evil
scale as well as the law-chaos one. In fact, it may not fall under the
law-chaos issue at all.

Killing helpless people (even if they are both
evil and former opponents) is an outright evil act.

Whoa! This is taking rather extreme `right-to-life` view that is not
held by LG paladins. A CG paladin maybe, but even then it`s a rather
dicey statement. But I see below that you come to a more balanced view.

It`s also an unlawful act when one presupposes a code of conduct in which
opponents who ask for quarter are kept from harm--but there are many societies
that have a decidedly lawful emphasis in which prisoners can have no such
expectation. It is just as "lawful" to assume a defeated foe will be
enslaved, stripped of all his belongings, killed outright, treated very
harshly in some sort of imprisonment, ransomed, humiliated, otherwise
mistreated or some combination thereof.

Yes.

I`d have stripped a CG paladin from his divine abilities for the same event.

Yes, a CG paladin has a much harder time of it - a point that many
people ignore.

It doesn`t matter if the
action violates either the law-chaos or the good-evil axis of alignment for
such a character because an alignment violation to a paladin is an
alignment violation. One or the other is enough.

Actually, that`s not entirely true according to directions given for
alignment violations by paladins. The lawful aspect is meant to be
secondary to the good aspect - with lighter penalties for non-lawful
acts than for evil acts.

Chaotic may or may not mean a character can break his/er word or the rules
of his society, but it`s just as easy to interpret that a chaotic character
is more likely to weigh the matter and make the moral decision based on
circumstance rather than have an over-riding principle that must be
obeyed. For example, in many modern police situations an adult may have a
child hostage. Often these lovely people hold a knife to the child`s
throat during negotiations with the police. The police will promise such a
criminal just about anything he wants in an effort to prolong the situation
until they get an opportunity to either take the guy out or otherwise
separate him/er from the child. Now, IMO neither a lawful good or chaotic
good character should have any qualms about lying under such
conditions. The moral issue of lying is far outstripped by the need to
prevent a potential child murder. Morally, lies told under duress are not
lies. They are forced actions. Not lying and potentially provoking a
harmful act on an innocent is a more immoral act.

Exactly, a good point.

A chaotic character
would not hesitate to lie under circumstances, and a lawful one wouldn`t
either. But if the circumstances were less dire a chaotic character just
finds the circumstances needed to lie much sooner than a lawful one does.

The relationship between truth-telling and law/chaos is not quite so
easy to generalize as that. It`s as tricky as the distinction between
morals and ethics. A lawful character is more likely to be ethical
rather than strictly moral. (I`m assuming both are good here) e.g.
Consider a very small child that a character finds crying. The child is
crying because another child told them that there was no Santa Claus.
Morally it`s wrong to lie, but if the society adopts this fiction, it`s
the responsibility of the adult population to maintain it (ethically
correct to lie).

I can imagine circumstances in which a good-aligned character could kill a
helpless being. What if there was a situation in which the very existence
of the helpless being was threatening the lives of innocent people? A
creature that spread a deadly disease, for instance, might need to be
destroyed regardless of its intent or whether it is helpless when the
opportunity arises. It could be justifiable to kill someone who convinces
the players/PCs that he will commit evil acts in the future even if he is
currently helpless. In general, however, offing a helpless foe without
significant justification should be considered an evil act.

Whew! (paladins of Haelyn are also responsible for Justice which can
mean taking responsibility for offing those that are deserving of that
fate - while theirs is a granted legal right, it applies to LG paladins
everywhere - but is NOT an imperative for CG paladins, although that
does not mean that they may not do so)

>Palidins must be always aware of the holiness of his actions. anly a LG
>good could give powers like that.

Lawful good alignment doesn`t have any particular ability to create magical
powers that I`ve ever heard, nor would I personally want to go with such an
interpretation. A paladin should always be aware of the holiness of his
actions, but that doesn`t mean that holiness is both lawful and good.

When it comes to issues of alignment, I`ve been considering going with a
point system. Alignment points would then be awarded at the same time as
XP with the actions of characters during play influencing their overall
score. A character might get 2 "good" points, and 3 "chaos" points and be
described as chaotic good. Later, he could get a few "law" points, making
him lawful good. If nothing else a paladin (or other alignment oriented
class) could have a minimum score required in order to maintain his/er
class abilities. I`m not real happy with the "whamm-o" alignment effects
that occasionally crop up in D&D, and such a system could graduate the
process a bit. A paladin could certainly still fall in the course of a
single adventure if he went out and did things that were as nasty as some
of the stuff presented in issue #300 of Dragon (which was really rather
mild IMO) but a single, relatively minor alignment violation would not--and
I think should not--be the kind of thing that would make a paladin lose his
powers. Using that kind of point system would also help quite a bit in
determining things like the results of a Detect Evil/Good spell. It could
be used as a prereq for prestige classes (like what the paladin ought to
be) and could be an influence on a reputation score system to determine
things like cohorts and followers. I haven`t really fleshed out the
thought entirely, but I`m leaning towards such a system.

Yeah, DMs are supposed to do this by feel and intuition - a pretty
subjective exercise in my experience. Work on it.

Issues of alignment become even more hazy when it comes to
regents. Sometimes one has to make political choices that are at odds with
moral ones, and that`s the kind of thing I see influencing an alignment
system. Will players pick expedience over morality? Can they still
exemplify their goodness or maintain their love of freedom while ruling
over a populace? That`s the kind of thing I`d like to portray in such a
system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-27-2002, 08:04 AM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-09-27 07.01:

> Whew! (paladins of Haelyn are also responsible for Justice which can
> mean taking responsibility for offing those that are deserving of that
> fate - while theirs is a granted legal right, it applies to LG paladins
> everywhere - but is NOT an imperative for CG paladins, although that
> does not mean that they may not do so)

But justic is not done by single individuals. To be lawful, justice should
be based on some sort of legal system. Thus, unless the criminal is actively
resisting, he cannot be killed out of hand unless some general order to
"kill all orcs" has gone out. And even that is questionable to a paladin -
such orders are more of a LN alignment.

However, a paladin CAN often give sentence themselves - after a very short
hearing, and with his compatriots as the jury. Doing so shifts more of the
responsibility of any wrongs comitted onto the paladin, so this
responsibility should be taken with care. Self-righteousness is another
temptation of vice!

Now, I happen to like bigoted paladins. IMC, paladins of Avani (who is LN)
favor law over goodness any day, and can be pretty strict and even
overbearing n their execution of justice, and still remain paladins. Also
IMC, Avani sponsors both paladins and blackguaards - as long as they are
lawful. But this is strictly IMC.

A CG vigilante-type character, on the other hand, can be judge, jury and
executioneer all by himself - as long as he is able to keep his consience
cean. Which can of course be very difficult.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-27-2002, 10:37 AM

Peter Lubke wrote:

>Whew! (paladins of Haelyn are also responsible for Justice which can mean
>taking responsibility for offing those that are deserving of that fate -
>while theirs is a granted legal right, it applies to LG paladins
>everywhere - but is NOT an imperative for CG paladins, although that does
>not mean that they may not do so)

Yeah, that`s one that I skipped entirely, and I`m sure there are many other
situations in which it would not be an alignment violation. Executing a
condemned criminal is a perfectly justifiable reason for a good character
to kill a "helpless" person. When it comes to what constitutes a legal
execution, of course, there`s a lot of grey area. The early to
mid-medieval standard being that knights and other sanctioned individuals
can carry out justice in their lord`s name, and what passes for "due
process" could be pretty abrupt. I`d draw a bit of a distinction between
how a chaotic good and a lawful good character would reach the point at
which they were willing to perform an execution, but in general you`re
quite right that execution is the kind of thing a good aligned character
would be able to do without resulting in an alignment violation.

Having said that, and while I don`t view execution as an evil act, I don`t
think I`d let a good-aligned paladin work that job for very long and
maintain his class abilities. It`s not an alignment violation per se, but
it`s also not exactly the kind of gig a champion of one`s faith seeks out
unless that somehow ties into the faith itself, which is relatively
rare. Oh, I`m sure there could be a justification for a character in such
a role, and I`m not saying that executioners are evil as a profession, but
it`s generally an unpaladin-like thing to pursue. Many moons ago I had a
campaign setting that featured an Guild of Executioners similar to Gene
Wolfe`s _Sword & Citadel_ series (which I recommend for anyone with a taste
for warped fantasy fiction.) Back then kits were the big thing and my
Executioner kit didn`t require such characters to be evilly aligned. It
made for some interesting characters and most were quite good in most
senses of the word, but I wouldn`t go so far as to describe such a
character in the same terms as a champion of his mythos--despite what
happens to Mr. Wolfe`s intrepid anti-hero.

For an entertaining read on the subject of those who have executed the law
in its most final form and the act itself check out _Lord High Executioner_
by Howard Engel.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-27-2002, 12:42 PM

On Thu, September 26, 2002 11:33 PM, Peter Lubke wrote

> I know what you are trying to say is that dilemmas exist for any
> extreme alignment. In this example there`s no real dilemma for
> the paladin of C - at least not yet - unless it`s a choice between
> benevolent velvet gloved oppression and full out evil tyranny, in
> which case he must find a way to play them against one another
> so the people are not oppressed either way. Overall however a
> paladin`s first priority is to good.

Well it doesn`t look like a dilema because you have a plan for dealing with
the dilema. The plan may give you a comfortable way to handle the situation
(until the LG allies feel like they`re getting played) but if it just
results in a LN regime, the CG heros can hardly go away happy. I`m not sure
that a CG`s first priority is to good. Even Cuiraécen may be more
interested in rooting out that law which is a bad law (not Haelyn`s law or
acceptable to Haelyn) than in fighting evil. My use of paladins of
Cuiraécen is mostly to combat tyranny, not assertively spread compassion and
good will. Are they activly forces of chaos, but limited by their
compassion and goodness, or are they just untamed and chaotic forces of
goodness.

marcum uth mather`s paladin had an alignment violation. Under different
contexts, his actions may have been allowed. Alignment wasn`t the only
factor at work. The DM has alignments interpreted by specific faiths. A LG
priest of Avani and a LG priest of Haelyn are going to differ in the
application of the lawful and the good. I tend to think that forces of
Cuiraécen will tend to trust the forces of Haelyn, and be suspicious of
those of Avani.

In part I see the relationship of Haelyn and Cuiraécen as having something
of the Shiva creator/destroyer aspect to it. When`s Haelyn`s creation gets
a spot of rot on it, Cuiraécen`s forces clean it out more effectivly. Then
Haelyn`s people rebuild it.

> It is difficult however to draw upon other such generalized
> followers of codes to form many `character classes`.

It takes imagination and a close reading of the descriptive texts. You
focus on one or two of the elements of a code and say in addition to the
general stuff, we`re really specific about this stuff here.

> In standard BR, I wouldn`t support such a paladin of Rilni - the
> regulation of such oaths seems to be more the duty of the wizard
> class themselves)

I kind of imagine a "paladin" Rilni as wizards who have "sacred" access to
the feats neccesary to enforce the code. Such a list of Rilni taught feats
might include, Detect Necromancy, grant me the Favored Enemy - Oathbreaker,
and others that were fitting, like Turn Undead or Divine Health. He may
continue to fight with spells rather than swords, but he`s still a holy
champion.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

09-27-2002, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by kgauck

A CG paladin of Cuiraécen values fighting tyranny, especially LE tyranny. What happens when a LG power wants to join forces? The CG paladins are acustomed to working along. If they join the LG power, are the selling out to the tablishment, joining in a more benevolant, velvet gloved oppression?
A CG paladin and a LG paladin would work together perfectly, I think. They want to fight evil both (LE or CE is irrelevant). O.K., the CG paladin might have problems to be commanded around, but they would find a conscience (if the LG paladin is a little bit open minded). IMO this law-chaos discussion is meaningless, if they can smite evil (of all kind)!

Originally posted by geeman

Chaotic may or may not mean a character can break his/er word or the rules of his society, but it`s just as easy to interpret that a chaotic character is more likely to weigh the matter and make the moral decision based on circumstance rather than have an over-riding principle that must be obeyed.
You're right, Gary. IMO chaotic good means that you can break your word, if you gave it to some evil (and sometimes neutral) creature. A CG character would never break his word, given to someone good. His law problem is only, that he doesn't know, how to behave with a law (he has his own moral code).

Originally posted by peter lubke

Killing a being for just being a duergar dwarf would be an evil act.
That's right. The only thing a paladin could do, is killing the duergar in the defense of somebody else (a "normal" dwarf, that was kidnapped by him, for example), or if the duergar has attacked him (so that he can kill him in a "honor" fight). A captured duergar must stand under the paladin's protection...

Lord Rahvin

09-27-2002, 06:12 PM

> Killing a being for just being a duergar dwarf would be an evil act.[/quote]
> That`s right. The only thing a paladin could do, is killing the duergar in the defense of somebody else (a "normal" dwarf, that was kidnapped by him, for example), or if the duergar has attacked him (so that he can kill him in a "honor" fight). A captured duergar must stand under the paladin`s protection...

---

Has anyone actually had this happen in their games?!
I don`t know about you guys, but I`d be pretty upset if my
Rog(2)/Brd(1)/Pal(9) lost all of his Paladin abilities simply because me and
the DM couldn`t agree on whether it was LG of me to kill the Duergar. And
as a DM, it can ruin the adventure if suddenly one of your PCs (especially
the warrior/healer) loses 9 levels of class abilities (not to mention any
divine feats like Extra Turning and such) without a good pre-determined
plot-related reason.

Even the concept of whether you`re going to be doing nothing but good deeds,
or whether you`re picking from the lesser of two evils, or hunting down
Khinasi oathbreakers, or battling tyranny, or whatever... really isn`t up to
you when you take the paladin class. It`s up to the DM, and often you have
no idea what your adventures are going to be like.

It seems like these reasons alone are enough to say that we should be
rethinking the paladin and his role in the game.

Two minor points while I`m ranting on the subject anyway:

* If anyone should have these alignment-violation penalties, it should be
clerics, not paladins. For some reason, we can usually rationalize clerics
changing alignment (usually be converting to another god) but not paladins.
Yet, clerics are the ones that get to atone paladins and send them on
adventures and make holy swords and stuff.

* I like the idea that paladin abilities come from the divine legacy of a
bloodline rather than granted by a god. This gives us a little freedom to
have paladins that don`t necessarily associate with the church(es) anymore.
Furthermore, I like the idea that not only can paladins keep their
abilities, but special care is taken to only bestow these powers on people
who will be truly trustworthy of the power (i.e. Prestige Class trials and
requirements). This way we still keep the noble champion theme, but have
plenty of room for fallen paladins and intelligent (rationalizing) players.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

09-27-2002, 06:13 PM

Carl Cramér <carl.cramer@home.se> wrote at 02-09-27 09.44:

> But justic is not done by single individuals. To be lawful, justice should be
> based on some sort of legal system. Thus, unless the criminal is actively
> resisting, he cannot be killed out of hand unless some general order to "kill
> all orcs" has gone out. And even that is questionable to a paladin - such
> orders are more of a LN alignment.
>

Now let me elaborate on some of my own arguments with an example from
fiction.

For those of you who watch Xena Warrior Princess, the episode Crusader
[http://www.swd.net.au/cgi-bin/geos/geos.cgi/episode/xen/076] outlines the
conflict between what is essentially a paladin with the ability to detect
evil and a chaotic good, self reliant champion (Xena) who doubts the
validity of such supernatural powers.

In this episode, the "paladin" (the term is never used) chooses to execute
those who her detect evil ability tells her she cannot convert to goodness.
We are never told if her power is genuine, or if she is merely insane, but
her track record is good.

If we use this as an example of classic LG * CG conflict, the LG character
would indeed kill those she cannot convert - as an ethic of consequence -
while the chaotic good would not, from an existentialist standpoint, as she
believes you cannot take on this much responsibility for another person, and
that anyone can grow away from evil over time. This existentialism is also
what makes her dislike the supernatural power to detect evil -
existentialism requires each of us to take responsibility for our own
actions, without leaning on the moral support of "higher powers".

[It could be argued that the Crusader in this episode of Xena was really CG,
too, because she was self-justified. But her entire crew had a decidedly
lawful outlook (in a very chaotic world, mind you). Her lawful authority
came from her supernatural patron - much like that of a paladin does.]

This opposes my previous argument. So, what do I want to say with this? I
want to say that the whole concept of alignment is only a rough outline. It
is up to the players to fill it with consistent meaning.

Some LG paladins will execute prisoners, especially those of evil races,
from of an ethic of consequence - to maximize the potential future good.
Even if one goblin prisoner in ten could convert to good, the damage caused
by the other nine is not worth the risk. This path is often taken by
paladins of Avani IMC. Another might hold that the good book (or whatever)
says "thou shalt not kill" and refrain from killing unless absolutely
required. A third might want to appeal to lawful authority, and send
prisoners to be processed by a system of justice - shared responsibility is
a lawful trait. This is what a paladin of Haelyn would do.

Similarly, a chaotic good paladin of Cuiraecen (to return to the title of
the thread for a moment) could either take the Xena approach above, or the
vigilante approach that "some people are just not worthy to live" and be
done with the problem - though this is a stance I would not really call good
unless used *very* selectively. Another possible CG approach, especially for
a paladin of the god of fighting, is to simply defeat, humiliate, and chase
away the enemy with an admonition to do good. This is an ethic that refrains
from taking any long-term responsibility at all - consequences do not matter
as long as you fight the good fight. Which is all right if you are chaotic
and very much in the spirit of knightly romance.

What would a Neutral Good paladin of Nesire do? Not restricted by either law
or chaos, the neutral good character must still choose between the ethics of
consequence and the ethics of moral behavior. But I think the central tenet
of a neutral good character would be to pick your battles - don`t fight
unless you are sure you fight for good, don`t fight unless there is
absolutely no other way to solve the conflict. It is better to try to
negotiate and educate evil opponents on the futility of their ways, than to
kill them. Sometimes it might even be better to martyr yourself than to
fight. Criminals of the worst sort have to be punished to set an example,
but rehabilitation is always better for lesser crimes. At the same time, a
rigid system of justice is just a necessary evil - not something you really
want. This approach is even more problematical than either the lawful or
chaotic approach - but did you expect it to be easy to be the epitome of
goodness? IMC, paladins of Nesire are mostly concerned with peacekeeping,
charity, moral education and (and this is their big thing) with fighting the
influence of the shadow world - rather unproblematic issues from an ethical
standpoint. They are very unlikely to take sides in any conflict.

For both LG and CG, I think sparing life is the more "good" approach. It is
also the approach filled with the most interesting roleplaying
opportunities. So I suggest that this is the one we require of our
"paladins" unless there is some in-game reason to do otherwise - such as if
the DM envisions a world where the paladin can simultaneously be a fighter
for good and an oppressor of liberty, which I do IMC.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

09-27-2002, 10:23 PM

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> I`d be pretty upset if [...] lost all of his Paladin abilities simply
> because me and the DM couldn`t agree on whether it was LG of me to...

This is one of the many reasons I earnestly wish the entire concept of
"alignment" had never been introduced into D&D at all. IMO, if it exists
at all, it should be merely a roleplaying tool with no game mechanical
effects whatsoever -- a shorthand personality description, that might just
as well be handled by assigning every character a Myers-Briggs Type.

I can accept in principle the idea of a rigid code of ethics and the
making of a sort of "contract" with a diety that says "If I follow these
rules, I get extra powers; if I break the rules, I lose the powers."
However, I do not believe that a 9-cell D&D alignment expresses such a
code anywhere near clearly enough to be playable. DM and player would
have to work out exactly what the full parameters of the oath are in full
detail before I`d be at all comfortable having any consequences from it.
After all, as we`ve clearly seen so far, the alignments can mean very
different things to different people, and I want at all costs to avoid
trouble based on different unspoken assumptions about morality. To say "A
Lawful Good character would never do X" is to go about things backwards.
The proper method is to say, "my concept for this character is that he
believes this list of things; that has overlapping elements with these
three different alignments depending on who you talk to." However, a code
can still be perfectly well defined and rigorous and adhered to without
wavering even if it doesn`t fit the alignment system well.

> kill the Duergar.

So to be specific, what I mean is that I want the player to be able to say
when the character is created, "I want to play a paladin whose oaths say
it is OK to kill the duergar in the aforementioned situation. What god
should I pick as my patron?" The problem with the DM saying "you went
against your beliefs so I have dropped a piano on you" is that while
sometimes people can willfully violate their beliefs, the way the
discussion has gone so far it seems more like what the player really did
was play the character as it had always been conceived -- that the DM
misinterpreted the oaths the character had made, because the player would
not have wanted to play a character of the type the DM thought was being
played.

> It seems like these reasons alone are enough to say that we should be
> rethinking the paladin and his role in the game.

Absolutely. If the class is to be (that is, *become*) playable without
the danger of sudden acrimonious debates about the nature of morality
interrupting a game session, we must find a way to loosen the grip of the
foibles of the alignment system from around its throat.

> * I like the idea that paladin abilities come from the divine legacy
> of a bloodline rather than granted by a god.

I like this idea. If I were to adopt it, I might actually start allowing
paladins in my game at all. However, since paragons of the bloodlines
would be so different, it doesn`t seem like a single class would cover
them at all well, so you`re back to seven different prestige classes.

> This way we still keep the noble champion theme, but have plenty of
> room for fallen paladins and intelligent (rationalizing) players.

This is one of my other fundamental objections to the alignment system as
implemented: every single one of the descriptions assumes that the
character is a blithering idiot. There has to be room for people to
actually think about their actions, or the whole thing is useless.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

09-27-2002, 11:13 PM

At 06:15 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > I`d be pretty upset if [...] lost all of his Paladin abilities simply
> > because me and the DM couldn`t agree on whether it was LG of me to...
>
>This is one of the many reasons I earnestly wish the entire concept of
>"alignment" had never been introduced into D&D at all. IMO, if it exists
>at all, it should be merely a roleplaying tool with no game mechanical
>effects whatsoever -- a shorthand personality description, that might just
>as well be handled by assigning every character a Myers-Briggs Type.

Every time I take that test and the results are always the same: IDGC. I
Don`t Give a Crap. (Sorry, couldn`t resist.)

I have personally experienced very few occasions where a DM took away a
paladin`s class abilities permanently. I did it temporarily once when a PC
paladin was seduced by a succubus, but the loss of class abilities was the
adventure hook for the forthcoming day or two of play, and I discussed
several options with the player for how to treat the event and we mutually
came up with that result. I wasn`t terribly inclined to have him lose his
paladinhood for the event as the DM since A) I set it up as part of a later
plot in which the paladin`s cambion son would appear as a foe in a later
adventure, so I`d stacked the deck against the paladin, and B) because I
thought the later appearance of his demon-spawn son would be punishment
enough. The PC didn`t know he`d been duped until afterwards, and there
were no particular chastity vows involved in the paladin`s ethos, so I
didn`t consider it much of an alignment issue. But the player felt his PC
should atone and I figured he`d might as well have a good motivation to
make the atonement more significant and rewarding, so we went with a loss
of his powers.

I have, however, heard of a lot more cases of DMs taking away a paladin
powers, often with little provocation. In one case a DM ruled that a PC
paladin lost his powers because he swore an oath of loyalty to the party
"above anything/everyone else" which the DM decided meant the paladin`s god
abandoned him and stripped him of his powers. The discussion of that
particular event went is on DND-L and can be found at
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A...d-l&F=&S=&P=623 (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0107E&L=dnd-l&F=&S=&P=623).

One guy I met many, many years ago thought that all paladins should be
castrati in order to prevent them from temptations of the flesh. It`s nice
when people wear their Freud right out there on their sweater vest for
everyone to see. It makes them easier to avoid.

For the most part, though, I haven`t seen a lot of DMs take away a
paladin`s powers.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-27-2002, 11:50 PM

In general, Ryan`s post (Friday, September 27, 2002 5:15 PM) is very well
stated. Overall, I would just emphisize that discussion ahead of time
prevents misunderstandings later, and that its bad play to punich a
character because the DM and player had a misunderstanding. That`s not to
much different than punishing a character because his player ate too great a
fraction of the pizza.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

09-28-2002, 12:31 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 7:45 AM

> A CG paladin and a LG paladin would work together perfectly, I
> think. They want to fight evil both (LE or CE is irrelevant). IMO
> this law-chaos discussion is meaningless, if they can smite evil (of
> all kind)!

The Law-Chaos axis is much more important to my campaign than the Good-Evil
one is. The two evil gods are clearly bad guys, the majority of other gods
regard them as enemies. The awnshegh are clearby bad guys, no dilema in
opposing them. The Shadow is clearly a bad place. The conflict with evil
is so unambiguous its just not interesting. The only real interest in evil
is when normally good aligned temples include the occasional evil character.
The interesting gray areas, the most challenging dilemas occur on the
Law-Chaos axis.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius

09-28-2002, 07:13 AM

To my mind, immediately executing evil creatures or individuals is
neither a Good nor a Lawful act.

We must not forget that people are able to change alignment with far
greater ease in 3e than they were under 2e (if you used the specific
rules, I know that I for one thought them to be perverse). I believe
that demonstrating the compassion of true Good is equally important for
a Paladin-type as punishing the guilty.

To take an exmaple from one of my own campaigns: a Paladin chose to free
some (evil) goblin prisoners that were found to to be held by some
(evil) kobolds after said kobolds had been dispatched in honest combat.
While these creatures were evil (to the Paladin`s detection abilities)
the character did not wish to kill unarmed and weakened prisoners.
Instead they were healed until they could move and set free in the hope
that an example of proper chivalric goodness might act as a converting
force on their conduct.

Detecting that someone is evil is a good reason to watch them, it
doesn`t provide a lawful reason to execute people (although it may if
the evil creature was some form of fiend and thus was correspondingly
"more evil").

YMMV.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius

09-28-2002, 08:40 AM

Kenneth:
> The Shadow is clearly a bad place.

Not always IMC, there are certain priests of Ruornil who are undertaking
some strange rituals designed to "free" the World Beyond (aka the Shadow
World) of the taint of evil.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius

09-28-2002, 08:40 AM

Gary:
> For the most part, though, I haven`t seen a lot of DMs take away a
paladin`s powers.

I`d have to agree with this. I imagine that if the deity enters into
some kind of pact with a paladin character then they will give "warning
signs" and portents that suggest that the deity/power is displeased
before revoking all the characters gifted powers over-night. If players
are going to have their characters ignore these signs then I figure that
they get what`s coming to them. However in my limited experience of
GMing for paladins most players pay attention to these sorts of things.

Dropping the proverbial hammer over minor infractions with no warning
seems a bit mean to me.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

09-28-2002, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by kgauck

The Law-Chaos axis is much more important to my campaign than the Good-Evil one is. The two evil gods are clearly bad guys, the majority of other gods regard them as enemies. The awnshegh are clearby bad guys, no dilema in opposing them. The Shadow is clearly a bad place. The conflict with evil
is so unambiguous its just not interesting. The only real interest in evil is when normally good aligned temples include the occasional evil character. The interesting gray areas, the most challenging dilemas occur on the Law-Chaos axis.
IMO the law-chaos axis isn't more than a discussion point between a LG and a CG character (or two other characters with same morale and different ethos). Yes, some things are clearly evil, but a paladin acts against evil (he would have 'detect chaos/ law'; as a class ability otherwise). I think of those 3rd Edition inventions like 'dispel chaos' or 'dictum' as mostly unnecessary (except they throw these spells against enemies with another ethos and another moral).

kgauck

10-01-2002, 11:37 AM

Alignment has its greatest impact on the sacred characters. Its important
in the divine realms, indeed in standard D&D, the outer planes are organized
by alignment. Spells and supernatural powers draw on alignment forces.
Alignment has a secondary use for reactions between characters, but is
easily gotten around when story needs require it. So, as I see it,
alignment is really about religion, and not about behavior. While religion
proscribes certain behaviors, its hardly the only source of behavioral
influence. As many have noted over the years, alignment can tend to subsume
all kinds of behavior description, though without being comprehensive. I
think alignment works best when it is strictly applied to religion and two
specific religious concepts. One is compassion, the other is creation.
Good aligned forces, whether gods or characters are strongly compassionate.
Evil aligned forces are not. Divine forces which are responsible for
creation make existence in specific ways. What is, has characteristics.
Reverence for these characteristics and the creation in general is lawful.
Hostility to creation, its specific characteristics, and the order of
creation, is chaotic. True chaos is the absence of creation - the
primordial nothing. Humans of a chaotic nature attempt to defy the natural
order designed by others, whether the creator deity, its successors, or its
human agents.

From these founding principles, the alignments as described can be
interpreted much as they are written, though some material seems incidental
or superficial. Lawful characters are said to be honorable. Well, to the
extent that honor is a socially positive characteristic, it can be regarded
as lawful. But a chaotic character could have a code too, just a code at
odds with the nature of things as they have been established by ascendant
divine powers. Such a character would be consistant, but consistantly
opposed to the existing order, an order created and buttressed by divine
agency. The lawful character looks at the world and says "It is right."
The chaotic character looks at the world and says, "It must be overthrown."

These two principles can be combined to create the four combination
alignments, in which both principles are taken to be fundamental.
Characters can also be based on other principles, but they would be neutral
with regard to the order of things and compassion. Neutral can mean balance
between principles, but it can also mean disregard of the principles of
order and compassion in favor of something else. Most gods will either
endorse existence as it is, or oppose it. Most will be compassionate for
the mortals, or reject compassion. So these are the two most important
guides to behavior for characters oriented to the divine. Others may exist,
but they will not have the universal importance that compassion and order
do.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-01-2002, 11:37 AM

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-01 05.57:

> But a chaotic character could have a code too, just a code at odds with the
> nature of things as they have been established by ascendant divine powers.
> Such a character would be consistant, but consistantly opposed to the existing
> order, an order created and buttressed by divine agency. The lawful character
> looks at the world and says "It is right." The chaotic character looks at the
> world and says, "It must be overthrown."

You are discounting the chaotic divine powers here. The difference between
the lawful and the chaotic is the point at which they think the system
should be overthrown. The absolutley lawful says never, the absolutley
chaotic says every time. But the moderate chaotic good will only want to
overthrow the system when it is bad - a slower degree of change is
acceptible if the basic system is sound. While the moderate lawful good can
accept changes to the system - as log as they are slow and deliberate.

Chaos is a force for freedom, individuality and change. Law is a force of
order, structure and rigidty. Neither Law nor Chaos is good or constructive
on it`s own. In fact, taken to extreme, both are highly destructive.

Bad chaos - anarchy, whim, excessive pride, inability to act coherently

Good chaos - personal honor, creativity, freedom, dynamism

Bad law - conservatism, rigidity, inability to change

Good law - loyalty, security, stability, rule of law

In DnD, the alignments that combine two factors, such as lawful good and
chaotic evil - are refeered to as extreme alignment. I think this is wrong.
I think that alignments like lawful neutral, where there is neither good nor
evil to balance the lawfulness - are much more extreme.

/Starfox

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

10-01-2002, 12:19 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:13 AM

> You are discounting the chaotic divine powers here.

I think I made allowances for them, I just did so briefly. Personal honor,
creativity, freedom, and dynamism are just nice ways of glossing over the
fact that you are more or less anti-social. Of course this is all from a
presumption of a pre-modern society with real divine forces in it. What we
might regard as the triumph of personal freedoms in our modern society (free
markets, free societies, democracy, &c) is foriegn to a pre-modern view.
For Aristotle, for example, only two kinds of creatures are free: gods and
beasts. The rest of us are social beings. So, while its possible for the
chaotic creature to go ahead and put the positive spin on their world view,
I don`t feel encumbant to say more than, "From the founding principles of
creation and compassion, the alignments can be interpreted much as they are
written in the PHB, including the final `why its best to be x` statements."

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

10-01-2002, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Starfox

But the moderate chaotic good will only want to overthrow the system when it is bad - a slower degree of change is acceptible if the basic system is sound. While the moderate lawful good can accept changes to the system - as log as they are slow and deliberate.
I agree with you. A chaotic good character doesn't know, what you want of him, if you dictate him any law. IMO he doesn't want to overthrow it actually, but he might do it, because he doesn't know how to handle with it.

kgauck

10-01-2002, 02:41 PM

On further thought, I think a better way to express my
meaning is to say that good lawful and bad lawful, or
chaotic, is only possible within the alignment system.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

10-01-2002, 04:45 PM

Could we relate the alignment discussion in some way to BR, folks? It is,
otherwise, the classic example of an off-topic subject for this particular
list.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-01-2002, 09:29 PM

What you say is interwsteing, In RL and romance, chaos is a strong force -
but mostly a negative one. And the chruch always espoused law. Cuirachen in
BR is a stong and well-regarded cult in with a chaotic agenda. In fact, this
is a major difference between BR and medieval Europe - the recognition of
"chaotic" values as something other than destructive, or at least the fact
that the divine order includes chaos as well as law.

I don`t know what repercussions this would have on the world, but it is a
definite difference against how things were RL.

[Was that bringing the alignment discussion back on topic? :-) ]

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-01 14.04:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:13 AM
>
>> You are discounting the chaotic divine powers here.
>
> I think I made allowances for them, I just did so briefly. Personal honor,
> creativity, freedom, and dynamism are just nice ways of glossing over the
> fact that you are more or less anti-social. Of course this is all from a
> presumption of a pre-modern society with real divine forces in it. What we
> might regard as the triumph of personal freedoms in our modern society (free
> markets, free societies, democracy, &c) is foriegn to a pre-modern view.
> For Aristotle, for example, only two kinds of creatures are free: gods and
> beasts. The rest of us are social beings. So, while its possible for the
> chaotic creature to go ahead and put the positive spin on their world view,
> I don`t feel encumbant to say more than, "From the founding principles of
> creation and compassion, the alignments can be interpreted much as they are
> written in the PHB, including the final `why its best to be x` statements."
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

10-02-2002, 01:29 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:07 PM

> [Was that bringing the alignment discussion back on topic? :-) ]

Perhaps I overlooked that fact that only the people reading us on the boards
(or those who follow the numerology of the messages) would see that this is
a continuation of the "Paladins of Cuiraecen" thread.

> What you say is interesteing, In RL and romance, chaos is a strong
> force - but mostly a negative one. And the chruch always espoused
> law. Cuirachen in BR is a stong and well-regarded cult in with a
> chaotic agenda. In fact, this is a major difference between BR and
> medieval Europe - the recognition of "chaotic" values as something
> other than destructive, or at least the fact that the divine order
includes
> chaos as well as law.

This would be true if we could imagine Cuiraécen taking over as the royal
figure of the pantheon. Personally, I can`t see that. I see the Stormlord
as chaotic because battle and weather is chaotic. And by that I mean both
messy and unpredictable. So, I veiw him as more a power you placate, rather
than one you embrace. I am refering to the general populace. The peasants
of the Maesil vally aren`t going to Cuiraécen and saying, "Oh, about the
weather, surprise me." and then later, "Hmm, floods, yeah, didn`t expect
that."

Also, Cuiraécen is subordinate to Haelyn. He is the chaos of chance in the
greater service of order. Battle in the cause of victory. And the way
storms bring enough change to flush an ecosystem, without neccesarily
changing the ecosystem. So I see the Stormlord`s presence as a question
like the theodocy dilema. But instead of asking, "why does a good god
permit evil" we`re asking "why does a lawful god permit chaos."

I have hinted about my use of paladins of Cuiraécen. I see them as the
deposers of tyrants. Tyrants are not the vision of Haelyn, but they do slip
in and do their damage to Haelyn`s cause. In a sense, using order against
order. Haelyn and Cuiraécen regard this problem most easily solved by
breaking the deadlock. Of course only the most pious and honorable knights
of Cuiraécen (the paladins) are charged with this authority. This prevents
its misuse, and keeps the force of change a healing agent, rather than a
destructive one.

Sera, on the other hand, I regard as corrosive to the social order, putting
greed before community. Every man for himself. Don`t cooperate, take your
chances going it alone. Again, only because Sera is not the head of the
pantheon is her influence not even more pernicious. Sera wants to advance
the cause of chaos. Cuiraécen does not. One of the ways I`ve represented
that is to have Cuiraécen`s agents use the ability to re-roll results to
avoid bad results for themselves (which has the effect of increasing
predictability), while agents of Sera use the re-roll results to eliminate
good results for their enemies. This has the effect of reducing the
predictability from the victim`s point of view.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 02:44 AM

I just read Ken Gauck post on alignment. Rather than flame him
mercilessly (I partly agreed with but one sentence in the entire post)
saying "no, you`re wrong" to everything - it was getting repetitive,
I`ll present a positive approach.

Much that is written about alignments has focused on `lawful-good`. The
paladin character is meant to be the paragon of lawful good. All other
characters are far far less restricted in their actions, allowing even
gradual changes in alignment. Actions that are completely at odds with
their general alignment are not prohibited so long as a pattern of new
alignment actions does not shift the character.

Even so, there are frequently quite ferocious debates about what a
paladin can and can`t do. Usually these center around the difference
between the dictionary definitions of `lawful` and `chaotic` and the D&D
definitions when used in the context of alignment. Another frequent
error is the assumption that what is not `lawful` must be `chaotic` -
although people tend not to make the same mistake with `good` and
`evil`. As well, there is often debate about whether a paladin`s dos and
do nots are affected by the society or the church/deity he belongs to.
(they are not - but that`s another story)

There are also common associations such as `law and order` or `order and
chaos`, which have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the definition of
alignments. Even recently someone suggested it was a nine-celled system,
yet nothing could be further from the truth.

The most frequently misunderstood alignment is chaotic. We live in (for
the most part) a society that in D&D terms would be called `lawful` (the
USA would be classified `lawful-neutral` even with the first amendment).
It is also a society based on law (dictionary definition this time) - so
there we have a potential source of confusion. What we don`t have is an
example of a chaotic society - except in some literature, the odd hippie
commune, and perhaps many schools. Yet D&D tries so very hard to give a
complete chaotic society - the elves are almost always chaotic in D&D
(and indeed in literature).

Chaotic is in essence placing the rights of the individuals above that
of the group. The American first amendment is an example of a chaotic
law (chaotic in the D&D sense, and law in the dictionary sense). This
law is neither good nor evil, it neutrally protects all. In a strongly
chaotic society, all individuals would be equal, a true democracy, with
no kings or queens, presidents, judges, high priests etc. In fact the
first amendment would be unnecessary as there would be nothing to
protect the individual from.

It is easy to see how the original definition of chaotic alignment
implied `evil` as well. In such a society there is no organization to
stop the strong from preying on the weak, and the most important `self`
will rise to dominate - caring only for `his` personal `rights` at the
expense of others. In a `chaotic-good` society the definition is
modified to include the clause `as long as the rights of others are not
limited`. That is, an individual has the right to do anything as long as
he doesn`t restrict the rights of others by doing so.

Consider the following scenario: Two men are having an argument, one
pulls a knife and stabs the other so that he dies. There are onlookers.

In a lawful society, the killer is a threat to society (as we say a
danger to society) because he is a future danger to the weaker
individuals within it.

In a chaotic society, the killer is seen as an immediate threat to
individuals.

There is nothing in the `chaotic alignment` that `goes against the
established order of things`.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 03:04 AM

On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 23:32, Ariadne wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=955

Ariadne wrote:

Originally posted by Starfox

But the moderate chaotic good will only want to overthrow the system when
it is bad - a slower degree of change is acceptible if the basic system is
sound. While the moderate lawful good can accept changes to the system -
as log as they are slow and deliberate.

I agree with you. A chaotic good character doesn`t know, what you want
of him, if you dictate him any law. IMO he doesn`t want to overthrow it
actually, but he might do it, because he doesn`t know how to handle with
it.

not `because it is bad`, but because it is oppressive. Be specific about
what `bad` means. Change is not necessary of and by itself.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-02-2002, 08:31 AM

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-02 03.03:

> This would be true if we could imagine Cuiraécen taking over as the royal
> figure of the pantheon.

I don`t see him doing this either. But at least he EXISTS - while in the
medieval Christian mythos, almost all the character models (except maybe
christ himself) are highly lawful, so there hardly exists any chaotic role
models at all. [I may be going outside my area of expertise here - I have
been looking for a good book on medieval saints and their cults for some
time.]

The knightly romances provide such role models, but these work out badly in
the end - the Morte d` Arthur has the [chaotic] romance between Lancelot and
Guineviere as the pivotal event that results in utter chaos. Their love was
very much a chaotic behavior, but also very chivalric - actually the very
definition of chivalric. But chivalric and christian virtues are NOT the
same.

I see Cuireachen as the god of chivalry. The god of courtly love, the god of
tournaments, the god of challenges and errantry. (Actually, a god of things
most modern people consider rather silly.) He is very loyal, but loyalty is
never a main virtue, nor is it absolute - a knight of Cuireachen keeps his
own mind and will oppose a legal but corrupt ruler. Of course, this is not
all Cuireachen is - even a Robin Hood type can worship him.

Sera, on the other hand, is the god of almost-modern capitalism. Her way of
building a society is the way of capitalism - if everyone strives to become
as rich as possible, the total wealth will increase. In Anuire, where this
is not an accepted credo, her influence is disruptive. Her worshippers often
seem little more than gangsters. In Brechtur, where her teachings are
accepted and the model of how people are expected to behave, her cult
contributes constructively to the growth of wealth - though still not to the
distribution of it. But in my mind, Brechtur is modeled on societies that
historically cropped up several hundred years later than those of Anuire.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 08:58 AM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 02:23, Gary Foss wrote:

Could we relate the alignment discussion in some way to BR, folks? It is,
otherwise, the classic example of an off-topic subject for this particular
list.

It was in relation I believe to paladins of Cuiraecen.

A paladin is on leave to visit his family. He reaches a village which is
under siege by a group of `bad guys`. They have managed to fight off one
attack during which the daughter of the hetman was kidnapped. Another
attack is imminent. With his help the chances of saving the village are
much better. Or, he could rescue the hetmans daughter - there is no
other individual who might conceivably have a chance. It is highly
likely that if the attack on the village goes bad the girl will never be
heard from again. It is also highly likely that the hostage was taken to
draw some of the villagers into a trap rescuing her.

Should he :
(a) Stay and help the villagers
(B) Attempt to rescue the girl

To me, the answer is very simple. A LG paladin must help the villagers -
even if the girl is the paladin`s betrothed or sister or mother or
anything. A LG paladin is one of those people that always does the right
thing regardless of what it may cost. A CG paladin must help the girl
and trust the villagers to help themselves. This would be true even if
the girl was a hated adversary.

There are for a paladin no other real choices. He cannot elect to do
nothing. He cannot be in two places at the same time.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

10-02-2002, 09:13 AM

Actually, to throw as much BR significance into this discussion as
possible... it`s not terribly difficult to interpret the BR model of
rulership (a single head man/woman in charge of all aspects of a particular
domain) as the chaotic ideal.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 09:38 AM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 18:14, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-02 03.03:

> This would be true if we could imagine Cuiraécen taking over as the royal
> figure of the pantheon.

I don`t see him doing this either. But at least he EXISTS - while in the
medieval Christian mythos, almost all the character models (except maybe
christ himself) are highly lawful, so there hardly exists any chaotic role
models at all. [I may be going outside my area of expertise here - I have
been looking for a good book on medieval saints and their cults for some
time.]

You`ve hit the nail right on here. Christian beliefs are highly lawful.
The whole concept of Christ dying for the sins of many is such a dead
giveaway. As such the models of such behaviour are also all highly
lawful.

The knightly romances provide such role models, but these work out badly in
the end - the Morte d` Arthur has the [chaotic] romance between Lancelot and
Guineviere as the pivotal event that results in utter chaos. Their love was
very much a chaotic behavior, but also very chivalric - actually the very
definition of chivalric. But chivalric and christian virtues are NOT the
same.

Exactly. Morte d` Arthur is a lovely bit of propaganda - and the reward
for its successful writing was -- a bishopric! The whole story is about
sin - and how it brings about a fall - the theme is repeated again and
again (M and Ygraine, Arthur and his sister, and :Lancelot and G). It`s
also about how the Britons were not worthy (because of their sins and
paganism), while the (pious Christian) Normans have saved them (from the
evil barbaric Saxons).

I see Cuireachen as the god of chivalry. The god of courtly love, the god of
tournaments, the god of challenges and errantry. (Actually, a god of things
most modern people consider rather silly.) He is very loyal, but loyalty is
never a main virtue, nor is it absolute - a knight of Cuireachen keeps his
own mind and will oppose a legal but corrupt ruler. Of course, this is not
all Cuireachen is - even a Robin Hood type can worship him.

Sera, on the other hand, is the god of almost-modern capitalism. Her way of
building a society is the way of capitalism - if everyone strives to become
as rich as possible, the total wealth will increase. In Anuire, where this
is not an accepted credo, her influence is disruptive. Her worshippers often
seem little more than gangsters. In Brechtur, where her teachings are
accepted and the model of how people are expected to behave, her cult
contributes constructively to the growth of wealth - though still not to the
distribution of it. But in my mind, Brechtur is modeled on societies that
historically cropped up several hundred years later than those of Anuire.

Historically Brechtur does seem out of time with respect to the other
cultures.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-02-2002, 09:38 AM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-02 04.37:

> The most frequently misunderstood alignment is chaotic. We live in (for
> the most part) a society that in D&D terms would be called `lawful` (the
> USA would be classified `lawful-neutral` even with the first amendment).
> It is also a society based on law (dictionary definition this time) - so
> there we have a potential source of confusion. What we don`t have is an
> example of a chaotic society - except in some literature, the odd hippie
> commune, and perhaps many schools. Yet D&D tries so very hard to give a
> complete chaotic society - the elves are almost always chaotic in D&D
> (and indeed in literature).

I don`t agree that the US is Lawful Neutral.

Please - my post is not an attack on the US - it is an attempt to put RL
alignments in perspective.

From a European standpoint, the US appears like a chaotic society, or at
least more chaotic that our society. Some examples.

You have more dynamism - which can be seen in your greater annual growth
figures.

Your social security arrangements are much weaker than ours, and society
takes much less responsibility for it`s weaker members. Much of your social
security network is based on charities, individual work and individual
contribution.

You have consumer advocates employed by non-state organisations where we
have state-appointed officials monitoring shoddy goods. And so on - the list
is endless.

Your courts base their judgements on the individual judgements of earlier
courts, while ours base theirs mainly on a written code - a principle you
call the "Code Napoleon".

You have a greater right to do what you please - but also a greater degree
of individual responsibility. The punitive damages - large sums of money
given to individuals that US courts can proscribe - would be unthinkable
here. In Europe, it is the state`s responsibility to provide order, and any
punitive payments go to the state - an individual can only hope for smal
compensation to releive suffering inflicted upon them.

Restricting the level of CO2 emissions in the US has been politically
impossible - because your individality will not accept the restrictions this
would put on your lifestyle. For us, the obvious answer is public transport
- and our public transport systems are generally more well-developed than
yours.

The US is also a nation built through the collision of cultures - the Great
Melting Pot. Most Europeans still see their nations as having a single
monolithic culture, and like this fact - though it is not really true, and
this perception is slowly beginning to change.

Thus, from a Eurocentric view, the US is comparatively individualistic,
dynamic and chaotic. That does not imply that the US is chaotic in "absolute
terms" - whatever that is. But to me, the US is an example of a society that
is a lot more chaotic than the one I live in - perhaps as chaotic as a
society can be without going to excess. So, my alignment classification of
US society would be Chaotic Good, not Lawful Neutral.

There is the Rule of Law in the US, yes, but laws don`t make a society
lawful. In fact, written laws is what makes individual rights possible. An
absolutely lawful society needs no laws, as anyone who breaks the social
order is immediately expelled and punished merely for his chaotic mind-set,
without actually having broken any particular laws.

Elven society is chaotic - but perhaps not more chaotic that US society,
because all the elves subsctibe to a common mind set and have a common
culture. There are no racial or cultural conflicts in elven society. All
individuals have a high level of personal development, that enables them to
live harmoniously together with great individual freedom. There simply is no
need of laws, because nobody does bad things. This is a Chaotic Good utopia,
where there are no sharp corners and no need for things like social
security. Very hard to compare to RL.

Chaotic Good is a much better alignment that Lawful Neutral for most
citizens. A Lawful Neutral society is a place like China - where the sitting
regime is mainly out to survive, and where any change is seen as a danger to
the social order. Such a society sometimes has to accept change in order to
avoid disaster, but such change is always slow and deliberate - or at least
it tries to be. Disruptive elements are put down even if they break no laws
- like the Falun Gong.

I would classify my own society (Sweden) as Lawful Good. Which is not an
wholly good thing - I think that Neutral Good is the high ideal of society,
balancing the rights of indiviuals against society. But I know of no such
society on Earth.

But all alignments are relative. Schindler [of Schindler`s List fame] was a
nazist who keept his slave workers alive because they keept his factory
running. He can be seen as Lawful Good in an otherwise Chaotic Evil society.
Yes, he is less Chaotic Evil because he is more rational. But that would not
make his actions [keeping slave labor alive] good if transplanted into a
more civilized society, where moral standards are higher. By the same token,
US is Chaotic Good compared to Europe, but perhaps not compared to Cerilia.

I know applying alignments to RL situations is controversial and dangerous,
flame bait even, but I feel this discussion has been so mature that I can
add said commentary to it without disrupting the list. What I want to do is
put the alignment of societies in perspective. These are my views only,
formed by the DnD definitions of 3E, but also by such litterature such as
Michael Moorcock and my historical studies.

/Carl Cramér

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 10:15 AM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 18:45, Gary wrote:

Actually, to throw as much BR significance into this discussion as
possible... it`s not terribly difficult to interpret the BR model of
rulership (a single head man/woman in charge of all aspects of a particular
domain) as the chaotic ideal.

`the chaotic ideal` ??

You may have to explain your reasoning there. I do not see it as any
ideal for any alignment. From a chaotic individual (esp CN or CE), I
could see such as desiring to lead, but ... The same can also be said of
LN, LG, and LE. From NE, NG, and N it`s a bit hard to argue either way
in this respect - certainly they may lead if it were thrust upon them
but it`s hard to see leadership as a driving force in their lives. But
ideals tend to be at the extreme edges of the alignment graph.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

10-02-2002, 10:56 AM

At 07:42 PM 10/2/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>`the chaotic ideal` ??
>
>You may have to explain your reasoning there.

Part of the D&D definition of chaos is that it lauds the individual over
the group. Placing a single person in charge to the extent that it occurs
in the BR domain rules displays an inherit distrust of the group
dynamic. Even the most consistent ruler is subject to periodic fits of
mercurial decision making. A system like the monarchial one described in
the BR domain system not only embraces those mercurial decisions, but turns
them into actions very quickly. BR rulers are, in effect, THE individual
whose position and authority express the chaotic ideal of the
individual--his rule is absolute, his whim law, his actions challenged only
by the rule of other absolute rulers (and the occasional random event or
loyalty shift.)

Would/could rulers of various alignments exist? Absolutely. I am not
saying regents must be chaotic, but that the system described by BR of a
single person in charge of the domain (whatever type of domain that might
be) is an expression of that chaotic ideal of individual authority. If one
wanted to express a more lawful ideal of rulership you could do so with
rulership models that allowed for rule by various forms of consensus. Some
of the shared rulership models that I sent to the list back in January
2001, for instance.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 10:56 AM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 19:05, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

I don`t agree that the US is Lawful Neutral.

Please - my post is not an attack on the US - it is an attempt to put RL
alignments in perspective.

>From a European standpoint, the US appears like a chaotic society, or at
least more chaotic that our society. Some examples.

I don`t live in the US. But yes, it is less lawful and more chaotic than
*some* European countries - are you Scandinavian perhaps? (I was being a
bit kind - to suggest that they are LE would probably start a flame war
- but they totter on the brink IMO - go on attack them - they seem
hell-bent on justifying their 600 billion dollar arms industry all by
themselves)

You have more dynamism - which can be seen in your greater annual growth
figures.

Your social security arrangements are much weaker than ours, and society
takes much less responsibility for it`s weaker members. Much of your social
security network is based on charities, individual work and individual
contribution.

You have consumer advocates employed by non-state organisations where we
have state-appointed officials monitoring shoddy goods. And so on - the list
is endless.

What you say here is correct. But, it`s not proof of chaotic behavior on
the part of government or even society as a whole. It IS proof of
individual chaotic behavior. It is also support that such lawful-based
activities are undertaken by private rather than public institutions.
But such institutions are still part and parcel of the fabric of US
society. Individuals within the US do not see themselves as their
brothers keeper - they leave this to `some organization`.

Restricting the level of CO2 emissions in the US has been politically
impossible - because your individality will not accept the restrictions this
would put on your lifestyle. For us, the obvious answer is public transport
- and our public transport systems are generally more well-developed than
yours.

I don`t know exactly the reasons that the US cannot meet these levels. I
suspect however, that it is just as impractical for them to do it as for
Australia. The only practical way Australia can meet the emission levels
is to slaughter three-quarters of its livestock population. The top
priority for CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation) is to discover a strain of bacteria that can be introduced
to pig, sheep, and cattle intestines to cause their internal digestive
systems to emit fewer harmful gases. (Our industrial output is a joke in
comparison - less than a fart in an elevator) There are four sheep, two
cattle and one-half pig for every single man, woman and child living in
Australia - this ratio alone should give you some idea of the difficulty
in achieving a good per head CO2 emission ratio - unless we can count
them (the animals in the per head) too.

The US is also a nation built through the collision of cultures - the Great
Melting Pot. Most Europeans still see their nations as having a single
monolithic culture, and like this fact - though it is not really true, and
this perception is slowly beginning to change.

Thus, from a Eurocentric view, the US is comparatively individualistic,
dynamic and chaotic. That does not imply that the US is chaotic in "absolute
terms" - whatever that is. But to me, the US is an example of a society that
is a lot more chaotic than the one I live in - perhaps as chaotic as a
society can be without going to excess. So, my alignment classification of
US society would be Chaotic Good, not Lawful Neutral.

Again, less lawful does not make them chaotic. The relativity of the
situation does not (IMO) affect whether they are lawful or not. The
question of whether they are more chaotic than they are lawful could be
debated - it`s just my opinion that - overall as a society they are
lawful - I`m not judging by their government alone.

There is the Rule of Law in the US, yes, but laws don`t make a society
lawful. In fact, written laws is what makes individual rights possible. An
absolutely lawful society needs no laws, as anyone who breaks the social
order is immediately expelled and punished merely for his chaotic mind-set,
without actually having broken any particular laws.

I think you should re-examine the logic in this paragraph. First
sentence is okay, I agree. Second sentence is a rather controversial
statement - and in strong conflict with the Bill of Rights - an
international charter. The third sentence is ... not necessarily
incorrect as such ... but implies that an absolutely chaotic society
would need laws while a lawful one would not.

Elven society is chaotic - but perhaps not more chaotic that US society,
because all the elves subsctibe to a common mind set and have a common
culture. There are no racial or cultural conflicts in elven society. All
individuals have a high level of personal development, that enables them to
live harmoniously together with great individual freedom. There simply is no
need of laws, because nobody does bad things. This is a Chaotic Good utopia,
where there are no sharp corners and no need for things like social
security. Very hard to compare to RL.

I agree.

Chaotic Good is a much better alignment that Lawful Neutral for most
citizens. A Lawful Neutral society is a place like China - where the sitting
regime is mainly out to survive, and where any change is seen as a danger to
the social order. Such a society sometimes has to accept change in order to
avoid disaster, but such change is always slow and deliberate - or at least
it tries to be. Disruptive elements are put down even if they break no laws
- like the Falun Gong.

Yes.

I would classify my own society (Sweden) as Lawful Good.

Good guess. (about the country - see above)

Which is not an
wholly good thing - I think that Neutral Good is the high ideal of society,
balancing the rights of indiviuals against society. But I know of no such
society on Earth.

Me neither. And I agree.

But all alignments are relative.

Oh now we`re going to disagree. We can say more chaotic or less lawful
for example, yes, but being less chaotic does not make one lawful.

Schindler [of Schindler`s List fame] was a
nazist who keept his slave workers alive because they keept his factory
running. He can be seen as Lawful Good in an otherwise Chaotic Evil
society. Yes, he is less Chaotic Evil because he is more rational. But
that would not make his actions [keeping slave labor alive] good if
transplanted into a more civilized society, where moral standards are
higher. By the same token, US is Chaotic Good compared to Europe, but
perhaps not compared to Cerilia.

Ultimately Schindler cared for his workers as people, as individuals.
But not all the slave workers (as a group), just his slave workers. To
the extent that he did good deeds even at his own expense - without
expectation of ultimate gain on his part - I`d classify him as a CG.
(Perhaps even a paladin of Cuiraecen in a LE society)

Comments regarding RL societies (as stated in following para), the Nazis
would be very Lawful. Their culture was of such a lawful nature that
`the fatherland` was not questioned by many German citizens until far
far too late. To the extent that their activities were evil they can be
said to be LE perhaps. Even the name gives it away `national
socialists`.

I know applying alignments to RL situations is controversial and dangerous,
flame bait even, but I feel this discussion has been so mature that I can
add said commentary to it without disrupting the list. What I want to do is
put the alignment of societies in perspective. These are my views only,
formed by the DnD definitions of 3E, but also by such litterature such as
Michael Moorcock and my historical studies.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-02-2002, 12:17 PM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-02 12.34:

> What you say here is correct. But, it`s not proof of chaotic behavior on
> the part of government or even society as a whole. It IS proof of
> individual chaotic behavior. It is also support that such lawful-based
> activities are undertaken by private rather than public institutions.
> But such institutions are still part and parcel of the fabric of US
> society. Individuals within the US do not see themselves as their
> brothers keeper - they leave this to `some organization`.

Tolerance for chaotic behavior makes for a chaotic nation - and thus lack of
law makes you (relatively speaking) chaotic. This is my POV. From this
follows the rest of my argument. Perhaps this is the fundamental point on
which we disagree?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 12:31 PM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 20:13, Gary wrote:

At 07:42 PM 10/2/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>`the chaotic ideal` ??
>
>You may have to explain your reasoning there.

Part of the D&D definition of chaos is that it lauds the individual over
the group. Placing a single person in charge to the extent that it occurs
in the BR domain rules displays an inherit distrust of the group
dynamic. Even the most consistent ruler is subject to periodic fits of
mercurial decision making. A system like the monarchial one described in
the BR domain system not only embraces those mercurial decisions, but turns
them into actions very quickly. BR rulers are, in effect, THE individual
whose position and authority express the chaotic ideal of the
individual--his rule is absolute, his whim law, his actions challenged only
by the rule of other absolute rulers (and the occasional random event or
loyalty shift.)

I see. Yes, somewhat, you could take that view. I do not however believe
that the rule of the BR regents is quite so absolute as a general rule.
There are the faith hierarchies for example - and for realm regents -
they must have a priest to invest their realm. Many of the guilds are
collectives with a selected head. The institution of the ruling classes,
as evidenced by the noble families in Anuire, by the `named` families in
Khinasi, speak to an institutional and hierarchical system that is above
an individuals fitness or capability -- as does to some extent the
inherent `blooded` ability or birthright. - some are born to rule and
some are not. Brecht is, well IMO, the poorest sourcebook in terms of
quality, you could go either way there. Certainly Vos realms are more or
less chaotic however - but even there the priests have a significant
voice.

That ruling individuals can be capricious or that they do not see
themselves as the collective (for example, as opposed to the British
Queen`s use of the royal `we` rather than the personal `I`) does not
make the system chaotic - but can mean that the individual is. But I
don`t see all BR realms as being quite so similar - certainly the
Gorgon`s realm is very like you say.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-02-2002, 12:50 PM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 21:49, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-02 12.34:

> What you say here is correct. But, it`s not proof of chaotic behavior on
> the part of government or even society as a whole. It IS proof of
> individual chaotic behavior. It is also support that such lawful-based
> activities are undertaken by private rather than public institutions.
> But such institutions are still part and parcel of the fabric of US
> society. Individuals within the US do not see themselves as their
> brothers keeper - they leave this to `some organization`.

Tolerance for chaotic behavior makes for a chaotic nation - and thus lack of
law makes you (relatively speaking) chaotic. This is my POV. From this
follows the rest of my argument. Perhaps this is the fundamental point on
which we disagree?

Yes perhaps it is. I see chaotic behavior in more active terms. I see
what you mean though - that if I allow my neighbor to do as he wishes
then I am de-facto supporting his rights to do as he pleases as an
individual. If my neighbor is playing loud music late at night, and I
ring the police - I am relying on the society to enforce a rule that
benefits the majority of members. If no such rule exists - or if it is
the customary behavior to go next door and ask yourself - and to have
that request granted on the basis that I have a right to silence as much
as he has a right to play music, we work things out as individuals.

I see most people as indulging in both lawful and chaotic behavior - and
I see most western society as less likely to support a single
individuals rights over that of the community at large. (whether by
legal right or by custom) A law passed to support the rights of citizens
to encrypt their e-mail, or which prevents their employers from reading
their e-mail (a recent Australian case in point) is supporting a chaotic
viewpoint. But such examples are rare. To me there are more active
examples of lawful behavior than there are active examples of chaotic
behavior.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

10-02-2002, 12:57 PM

@Carl Cramér: May be Sweden is lawful good, but the US-state I would classify more as anything else than good...
To quote your "save the nature" statement, I don't know if Sweden or Australia has done something for it, but the US (and it isn't an attack on the US too) is so far away from saving it, as Mount Celestia is away from the Abyss. From this point you are right, missing foresight might be non-lawful, but does it make them actually chaotic then? May be it is only an absolute neutral point of view...

To stop angering Gary ;) , I'll return to a more BR relevant statement.

Originally posted by Peter Lubke
I see Cuireachen as the god of chivalry. The god of courtly love, the god of tournaments, the god of challenges and errantry.
IMO Cuiraécen is a is a protector-god with individualistic methods (frightening and smiting his foes with lightning bolds and summoned storms). Naturally he is a god of war, but a Robin Hood character would follow him more often than a typical knight. The chivalry part is more Haelyn's role. This is another explanation for his (individualistic) CG paladins.

Raesene Andu

10-02-2002, 01:47 PM

I think you will find humanity is incapable of true chaos.

For example, these so called anarchists that keep showing up to protest at every meeting of world leaders over the past few years. They can not possibly be chaotic, because chaos implies disorder, randomness, and these protesters all, somehow, mange to turn up at the same place at the same time! (This always makes me laugh). This isn't chaos or anarchy, but merely another form of order.

Humans are, by their very nature, are creatures of order. Even organisations of criminals, rebels, anarchists, etc, can still be consider to be orderly, from a certain point of view. Even if deprived of law and order, a human society will automatically evolve a new form of order. Chaos would mean every member of society acting independently, doing what they wanted, when they wanted, however often they wanted. Such a society can not possible exist.

With the exception of the truly insane, everything done by a person is done for a reason, and reason impiles order. Even the world itself is ordered, structured, confined by rules and limits.

However, that said, it is chaos that leads to evolution, change, and life, without chaos we would not exist.

How does this apply to your current argument? Well if you look at today's societies, none can be considered as anything other than orderly, or lawful. The sole exceptions would be nations without a formal government (eg: Afganastan, Palistine, etc), but they are still a collection of relativly orderly parties or groups working towards different goels.

It is difficult to judge society by the method of alignment set out in the player's handbook as a society can rarely, if even, be moulded to fit one of the limited ideals presented, but if you take the 9 alignments as ideals, then most of the 'civilised' nations of this world would be Lawful Good.

Societies like the US, Australia, Europe, etc, when looked at as a whole are generally lawful and base their ideals on what they perceive as good. Any nation that does not get a choice in their leadership (Iraq, Pakastan, Zimbawie, etc) could be considered Lawful Evil, because they are still orderly and lawful societies, but advancement in that realm generally means a person has to become involved with a corrupt and evil regime (eg: Iraq, where most of the nations leaders are cronies of Saddam). Even this is perhaps being a little harsh, because generally the people of these nations aren't necessarily evil, but only their leaders.

Now I live in Australia and personally I believe the country to be little more than a fascist state, with the goverment out to control the actions the citizen, limit personal freedom, etc, but probably more that 90% of the population would disagree with me. Take the example of the Australian government locking up refugees in concentration camps out in the desert (all refugees, men, woman, and children) for years at a time. That policy has roughly 65% support among the australian population because it is percieved to be removing trouble makers (ie: someone who could cause disorder) from the society and promoting law and order.

If you actually take the time to read the alignment descriptions you will see what I mean. It is possible they could be applied to individuals (even then it is difficult), but almost impossible to apply to nations.

Starfox

10-02-2002, 02:07 PM

Ariadne <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG> wrote at 02-10-02 14.57:

> To quote your "save the nature" statement, I don`t know if Sweden or Australia
> has done something for it, but the US (and it isn`t an attack on the US too)
> is so far away from saving it, as Mount Celestia is away from the Abyss. From
> this point you are right, missing foresight might be non-lawful, but does it
> make them actually chaotic then? May be it is only an absolute neutral point
> of view...

Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are almost always large-scale, organized
efforts.

Central Heating
Reduced car traffic - more public transport
Increased tariffs on air transport
Tighter control over livestock and crop production
Enforced re-forestation
Replacing fossil fuel with neuclear or renewable power
Big, centralized power plants with emission control

All these require centralized rules and a centralized authority to enforce
these rules. Thus, a chaotic society will have a hard time accepting the
reduction of individual liberties inherent in such a policy. On top of that,
the benefit are distant and affect each individual but little - though the
effect on society as a whole is drastic.

Thus, though I would argue that reducing CO2 emissions is a good act, it
requires lawful methods to implement, and thus is hard for chaotic countires
to effect.

The chaotic good way to solve this would be to raise public awareness of the
problem to the point where nobody emitted CO2 unless they absolutely had to.
This way would work for the elves, but hardly in corporate America. It is
also slow.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-02-2002, 03:31 PM

In Birthright, there are nations that are described as chaotic - such as
Coeranys. This county is by no means an anarchy. This si the standard that I
have been applying when I say that there can be chaotic nations in the world
today. Of course, these countries still have forces of law and order - but
these forces are nowhere as dominant as in lawful nations.

Either pure law or pure chaos is insane, illogical and impossible - but that
does not stop some of us from being more lawful or more chaotic than others.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

marcum uth mather

10-02-2002, 04:29 PM

so how about them palidins?:P

Azrai

10-02-2002, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Raesane Andu

The sole exceptions would be nations without a formal government (eg: Afganastan, Palistine, etc), ..

Societies like the US, Australia, Europe, etc, when looked at as a whole are generally lawful and base their ideals on what they perceive as good. Any nation that does not get a choice in their leadership (Iraq, Pakastan, Zimbawie, etc) could be considered Lawful Evil, because they are still orderly and lawful societies, .
This goes to far. Now I'am really shocked about your oppinion. How can you dare saying the nations Iraq et al are evil and yourself not?

We are playing a game guys, Birthright, D&D and the alignment concept is fictional. You can not project it on real existing nations. this is close to racism.

Now I'am not wondering anymore about the current political situation.

Seriously: a despotic ruler alone can't result in such a "game" characterisation - I would not dare thinking of putting real nations in this matrix.

kgauck

10-03-2002, 01:01 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:13 AM

> In Birthright, there are nations that are described as chaotic - such as
> Coeranys. This county is by no means an anarchy. This is the standard that
> I have been applying when I say that there can be chaotic nations in the
> world today. Of course, these countries still have forces of law and order
> - but these forces are nowhere as dominant as in lawful nations.

1) I tend to regard chaotic societies as societies in trouble. Order has
broken down and things are going poorly. I quote this text from the 1st
Egyptian Intermediate Period: "All happiness has vanished, I show you a land
in turmoil. Each man`s heart is for himself. A man sits with his back
turned, while one slays another." When I see a realm describes as chaotic,
I make it an unhappy place, where the poor working stiff is getting it
coming and going. It just so happens that in such realms, the regent often
holds just a little bit of law, so I put the remaining law holdings in the
hands of bandits, criminals, petty tyrants, and anyone else who might abuse
their power.

2) Some of the societies Carl described as chaotic (America) I just regard
as internalized lawful, rather than externalized lawful. Some realms may
just be well ordered because a poweful authority is there to keep things
running smoothly. In other realms, the love of Haelyn or Avani might result
in lawful behavior even in the absence of any authority. Of course some
complex actions require more than just a bunch of lawful individuals, but a
coordinated group effort. Nevertheless, I can call a society chaotic, even
though I think societies are by the very nature lawful. Because I just
regard a lawful society as a fully functioning, healthy society, and a
chaotic society as one where too many ills have crept into the realm`s
governance.

> Tolerance for chaotic behavior makes for a chaotic nation - and thus
> lack of law makes you (relatively speaking) chaotic. This is my POV.
> From this follows the rest of my argument. Perhaps this is the
> fundamental point on which we disagree?

Though this was directed towards Peter, I think it touches the heart of our
difference as well. If we rephrased it to say "tolerance for corrupt
behavior makes a chaotic nation" then we have agreement there. But since I
see chaotic as being more than just individualistic, there is at least some
daylight in between our possitions.

re: Carl`s post of Oct 2, 02, 3:14am
> I see Cuireachen as the god of chivalry. The god of courtly love, the
> god of tournaments, the god of challenges and errantry. (Actually, a
> god of things most modern people consider rather silly.) He is very
> loyal, but loyalty is never a main virtue, nor is it absolute - a knight
> of Cuireachen keeps his own mind and will oppose a legal but corrupt
> ruler. Of course, this is not all Cuireachen is - even a Robin Hood
> type can worship him.

I see Cuiraécen as a proponant of Chivalry, but ultimatly, just a subscriber
to a Haelynite code. The code is what keeps his knights virtuous despite
the absence of an internalized lawfulness. The code itself is not lawful
per se, but it easily supports Haelyn`s lawful worldview. Tournaments,
challenges, errantry, certainly those as well.

> Sera, on the other hand, is the god of almost-modern capitalism.
> Her way of building a society is the way of capitalism - if everyone
> strives to become as rich as possible, the total wealth will increase.
> In Anuire, where this is not an accepted credo, her influence is
> disruptive. Her worshippers often seem little more than gangsters.

Well, not capitalism, but robber baronism. Smith`s capitalism works because
of an invisble hand which produces order. Sera is a greedier, more
exploiative power. Sera`s doctrine is about wealth, so it does produce more
wealth, but I think Avani produces a pretty fair amount of wealth with her
doctrine, and she`s hardly a materialistic diety.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Raesene Andu

10-03-2002, 01:56 AM

Orginally posted by Azrai
This goes to far. Now I'am really shocked about your oppinion. How can you dare saying the nations Iraq et al are evil and yourself not?

If you go back and read my whole post, you will see that I said it is almost impossible to fit real life societies into D&D alignments. Even in the case of Iraq it is difficult to consider it an evil society, and if you had taken the time to fully quote the paragraph I wrote you will see that I went on to say just that!

It is almost impossible to find a society today that could be considered anything less than lawful and also entire societies devoted to evil are also impossible. The average person in a so called evil state (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) is not evil, and in general they consider the nation accusing them of being evil as... you guessed it evil. In fact, I would consider most of the worlds leaders to be evil, because to get to where they are they have had to lie, steal, cheat, and in extreme cases murder. Anyone who can advocate the slaughter of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people, just so they can remove an enemy leader from power is not a 'good' man. I will end my comments here, I don't want to go too far and offend someone. My feelings on this matter are very strong, but perhaps best left for another forum.

I think it all just reinforces that the alignment system in D&D is totally worthless and should be scrapped. Even the individual alignments presented are so far off track as to be ludicrious. Why is a creature like a goblin, gnoll, or orog considered evil? From its point of view it is acting towards the good of its nation/tribe/clan. I guess D&D would be a fairly boring game without some enemies to kill though, and relating these 'monsters' to the human desire to destroy anything that is different is an easy step to make. Personally I find it very hard to create a creature that is completely evil, devoid of any good. Take dragons for example. They are race so ancient and powerful that every other species must be to them as ants are to us. Thus 'good' dragons are merely those who have try to protect the lesser races because they believe they have some potential or may be capable of some intelligent thought, while the 'evil' dragons are creatures that probably don't even consider the beings they kill as intelligent. They look at them as ant and stamp on them whenever they get the chance. Are they necessarily evil? Not really, and I think it is a mistake to go around catagrising everything into good and evil, lawful and chaotic.

Even Azrai, the shadow, the god of evil, is not necessarily 'evil'. He was just trying to bring some order to the world by wiping out the other gods. He realised that diversity breeds chaos and by destroying the other gods and installing himself as overgod of Cerilia, all would be well and peaceful in the world. Certainly some people had to die along the way, but they were evil followers of the other gods and their deaths could not be avoided.

We are playing a game guys, Birthright, D&D and the alignment concept is fictional. You can not project it on real existing nations. this is close to racism.

What a strange way of looking at things. Everyone is racist from a certain point of view. They probably don't consider themself to be, but they are. Everyone makes decisions based on their own experiences, beliefs, ideals, morals, etc. and as soon as you do so, you are commiting a form of racism, limited as it may be. Personally, I could find something to dislike about ever society and nation on earth, even my own, but does that make me a racist? I'm afraid I don't look at the world that way. To me there are only three groups or societies. There is ME, who is always right, never does anything wrong. There is my family and friends whose presence I tolerate for a variety of reasons and then there is the rest of the world, who are quite obviously insane, evil, monsters, at least until they move into catergy 2.

Starfox

10-03-2002, 06:21 AM

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-03 02.35:

> When I see a realm describes as chaotic, I make it an unhappy place, where the
> poor working stiff is getting it coming and going. It just so happens that in
> such realms, the regent often holds just a little bit of law, so I put the
> remaining law holdings in the hands of bandits, criminals, petty tyrants, and
> anyone else who might abuse their power.

Then you see chaotic the way I see evil. In historical use, a society
described as chaotic is indeed often evil or anarchic.

In Birthright, Coeranys is described as one of the happiest nations of
Cerilia - even if it is not well-organized. It is also typed as Chaotic
Good. This makes me think that the terminology used by the BR creators are
closer to mine than to yours.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

10-03-2002, 01:01 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Cramér" <carl.cramer@HOME.SE>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:53 AM

> In Birthright, Coeranys is described as one of the happiest nations of
> Cerilia - even if it is not well-organized. It is also typed as Chaotic
> Good. This makes me think that the terminology used by the BR creators are
> closer to mine than to yours.

I share little with the BR terms. They seem to think that chaotic is a term
for liberal (classically). The discriptions in the BoR seem totally
unrooted in a given stage of social development. I can`t imagine a society
with competing factions reflecting those points of view. Its like having
Edwardians (post Victorians) and hippies in the same political world. So, I
really just chuck the whole descriptions. This of course is one of the
reasons, IMO, I have so little problem with alignment in my games. The
other one is that I don`t put a whole lot of baggage onto that particular
cart. For me it describes one`s orienation towards compassion and the
social order. That`s all. Anything else is desribed elsewhere.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-03-2002, 03:07 PM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 23:50, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Ariadne <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG> wrote at 02-10-02 14.57:

The chaotic good way to solve this would be to raise public awareness of the
problem to the point where nobody emitted CO2 unless they absolutely had to.
This way would work for the elves, but hardly in corporate America. It is
also slow.

It may be slow but I think it is being effective. More people are
becoming concerned not only for what benefits them as individuals (CN
to CE) but what is good for other individuals as well. We are definitely
away from BR now though. There is a distinct rise in the number of
`green` parties in many countries, although `lawful` government would
have us believe that this is `bad` (cf `evil`) and destabilizing
influence on government - there should only be a choice between two -
it`s easier for people to come to grips with (yeah - right! - we`re all
too stupid to choose when there`s an alternative ?)

People are beginning to vote with their wallets too. They invest in
environmental companies. We buy eggs from `free range` farms even if
they cost 50% more etc. It`s not all doom and gloom.

On the other hand, I don`t expect it to swing so far that chaotics get
an overwhelming majority in any state. But I`d love for it to get 50-50
in my lifetime - alas the current world situation is far from ideal -
being tailor made for the `lawful`s to tell us why we need them to tell
us what to do.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-03-2002, 03:57 PM

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 07:27, Azrai wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=955

Azrai wrote:

Originally posted by Raesane Andu

The sole exceptions would be nations without a formal government
(eg: Afganastan, Palistine, etc), ..

Not completely -- how about Mugabe for instance? the government is
certainly formal.

Societies like the US, Australia, Europe, etc, when looked at as a whole are
generally lawful and base their ideals on what they perceive as good. Any nation
that does not get a choice in their leadership (Iraq, Pakastan, Zimbawie, etc)
could be considered Lawful Evil, because they are still orderly and lawful
societies, .

This goes to far. Now I`am really shocked about your oppinion. How can you
dare saying the nations Iraq et al are evil and yourself not?

Well, I`m not sure the US shouldn`t be regarded as evil but that debate
aside ... I do think Iraq qualifies (but does not justify military
intervention) ... their actions against the kurds and other minorities
show a distinct lack of `respect for all human life` - which would have
to be a central tenet of any good/evil debate. Of course that`s a
government policy and may not reflect the true feelings of the majority
of Iraqis.

We are playing a game guys, Birthright, D&D and the alignment concept is
fictional. You can not project it on real existing nations. this is close
to racism.

Fictional? --- er ..... so armor and swords are fictional too? The
alignment concept attempts to model real-life behavior - which is very
complex admittedly, which is why there is great difficulty in
classifying it into a simpler system - but neither fictional or racist.

No I`am not wondering anymore about the current political situation.

Seriously: a despotic ruler alone can`t result in such a "game"
characterisation - I would not dare thinking of putting real nations
in this matrix.

chicken! -- cluck cluck cluck
Are you saying that Medoere isn`t a real nation?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The above comments are meant as humorous parody and are not meant as any
genuine criticism of the character or person behind the Azrai
nom-de-plume (although one does wonder about the kind of person that
would take such a namesake --- can`t help myself sometimes --- besides
who would take on the god of evil?).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-03-2002, 03:57 PM

On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 15:53, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-03 02.35:

> When I see a realm describes as chaotic, I make it an unhappy place, where the
> poor working stiff is getting it coming and going. It just so happens that in
> such realms, the regent often holds just a little bit of law, so I put the
> remaining law holdings in the hands of bandits, criminals, petty tyrants, and
> anyone else who might abuse their power.

Then you see chaotic the way I see evil. In historical use, a society
described as chaotic is indeed often evil or anarchic.

In Birthright, Coeranys is described as one of the happiest nations of
Cerilia - even if it is not well-organized. It is also typed as Chaotic
Good. This makes me think that the terminology used by the BR creators are
closer to mine than to yours.

I agree with you Carl. Even if Ken is always right. -

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-03-2002, 03:57 PM

On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 23:47, Raesene Andu wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=955

Raesene Andu wrote:
I think you will find humanity is incapable of true chaos.

Firstly, I agree. Humanity is incapable of true chaos.
Secondly I think you have your idea of what chaotic alignment is way out
of whack.

For example, these so called anarchists that keep showing up to protest at
every meeting of world leaders over the past few years. They can not possibly
be chaotic, because chaos implies disorder, randomness, and these protesters
all, somehow, mange to turn up at the same place at the same time! (This
always makes me laugh). This isn`t chaos or anarchy, but merely another form
of order.

Of course they are chaotic (in alignment) -- it has absolutely nothing
to do with disorder, randomness.

Humans are, by their very nature, are creatures of order.

Disagree. Individual humans are chaotic creatures. Human societies are
`creatures` of order.

Even organisations
of criminals, rebels, anarchists, etc, can still be consider to be orderly,
from a certain point of view. Even if deprived of law and order, a human
society will automatically evolve a new form of order.

Note you said ` a human society` !!!!!! (also note the use of `humanity`
in the original premise, as well as `organizations of criminals`)

Chaos would mean
every member of society acting independently, doing what they wanted,
when they wanted, however often they wanted. Such a society can not possible
exist.

Exactly (unless there is universal consensus) - which is why humans curb
their natural instincts. It`s why `societies` have laws.

With the exception of the truly insane, everything done by a person is
done for a reason, and reason impiles order. Even the world itself is
ordered, structured, confined by rules and limits.

Not so. But the argument you make is founded on the belief that chaotic
alignment is disordered and random.
Null argument.

However, that said, it is chaos that leads to evolution, change, and life,
without chaos we would not exist.

So ? Let`s reiterate. Chaotic alignment has absolutely zero
relationship with the dictionary definition of `chaotic`. Lawful
alignment has absolutely zero relationship with the dictionary
definition of `lawful`.
Null argument.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-03-2002, 05:07 PM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-03 16.52:

> On the other hand, I don`t expect it to swing so far that chaotics get
> an overwhelming majority in any state. But I`d love for it to get 50-50
> in my lifetime - alas the current world situation is far from ideal -
> being tailor made for the `lawful`s to tell us why we need them to tell
> us what to do.

Did you miss my entire point? The pont here was not that this was the route
a chaotic individual takes - it was that this is how this problem would be
attacked in a chaotic society. Thus having 50% greens in parliament does not
make a state chaotic - though it would probably cause chaos. It is the grass
roots activity and `vote with your wallet` POV that shows that a SOCIETY is
chaotic.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Azrai

10-03-2002, 05:29 PM

Orginally posted by Peter Lubke
Fictional? --- er ..... so armor and swords are fictional too? The alignment concept attempts to model real-life behavior - which is very
complex admittedly, which is why there is great difficulty in
classifying it into a simpler system - but neither fictional or racist.

Again - I find it very dangerous to project the game-mechanics on the real world. even good and evil are purely simplified ethics. you will not find such a stereotypic character in real live.

chicken! -- cluck cluck cluck
...
genuine criticism of the character or person behind the Azrai
nom-de-plume (although one does wonder about the kind of person that
would take such a namesake --- can`t help myself sometimes --- besides
who would take on the god of evil?).

Oops, what do you want to say? Did I wrote something you did not like? No need for a comment like this.

marcum uth mather

10-03-2002, 06:29 PM

alllllll rigghhtttt.
mabey its not my place but this is a spot to discuss BR,not real world views. There are plenty of forums for that. we are all citicens of cerillia here. We sould all remember that. If people in my campain bait others into a argument, they are penilised, so lets keep it nise.

geeman

10-03-2002, 07:27 PM

At 08:29 PM 10/3/2002 +0200, marcum uth mather wrote:

>mabey its not my place but this is a spot to discuss BR,not real world
>views. There are plenty of forums for that. we are all citicens of
>cerillia here. We sould all remember that. If people in my campain bait
>others into a argument, they are penilised, so lets keep it nise.

Here, here. Once the alignment debate drifts off-topic it seems to always
go in this direction (or one like it.) Can we reel it in a bit, folks?

Thanks,
Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-04-2002, 01:58 AM

On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 02:43, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-03 16.52:

> On the other hand, I don`t expect it to swing so far that chaotics get
> an overwhelming majority in any state. But I`d love for it to get 50-50
> in my lifetime - alas the current world situation is far from ideal -
> being tailor made for the `lawful`s to tell us why we need them to tell
> us what to do.

Did you miss my entire point? The pont here was not that this was the route
a chaotic individual takes - it was that this is how this problem would be
attacked in a chaotic society. Thus having 50% greens in parliament does not
make a state chaotic - though it would probably cause chaos. It is the grass
roots activity and `vote with your wallet` POV that shows that a SOCIETY is
chaotic.

no no didn`t miss your point, am agreeing with it. Was trying to say
that for every person that thinks globally and acts locally, there`s
another person that thinks and acts differently. That from a practical
POV I am unlikely to see it in the near future as the majority behavior
- people are still very much "asking what their country can do for them"
types.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-04-2002, 01:58 AM

On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 03:29, Azrai wrote:

Again - I find it very dangerous to project the game-mechanics on the
real world. even good and evil are purely simplified ethics. you will
not find such a stereotypic character in real live.

I don`t think you are meant to find stereotypes in BR or D&D usually
either - with exceptions being demons, devils, etc. It is not a celled
system after all. Because your alignment is LE does not make you totally
evil - in fact in most cases a LE character will not show up as evil to
`detect evil` unless it`s as a faint trace. (psychopathic serial killers
excepted?)

All men/elves/whatever are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.

Those that promote such activities for others are considered good.
Those that deny such activities to others are considered evil.
Those that neither promote nor deny would be considered neutral.

Most beings will do some actions that are good, some that are evil, and
some inaction. Some will behave one way toward a particular group and
another way toward another group. This is true in RL as well as in BR or
any other fantasy world. I would expect in BR that a good character
should have more than one-third of their classifiable activities in the
`good` category.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-04-2002, 06:47 AM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-04 03.47:

> All men/elves/whatever are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness.

A rather chaotic statement, that. In lawful terminology, everyone has the
right to self-fulfillment working for the state, who will then provide
happiness for all.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Carl

[Who just could not resist]

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

10-04-2002, 06:27 PM

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Carl Cramér wrote:

> Then you see chaotic the way I see evil.

As I said, the alignment "definitions" themselves are so loose and broad,
and thus so varied in interpretation, as to not actually be very helpful
after all. Hence I think it makes everything much clearer if you just
junk them entirely. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who think they
are not loose or broad at all, but each of them has a different idea of
what the alignments specify, which just strengthens my point.

For the record, there are no paladins at all IMC -- just multiclassed
fighter/priests.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

blitzmacher

10-04-2002, 10:59 PM

IMC I let the PC's choose an alignment but I don't hold them to it, simply because everyones ideas on what is lawful or chaotic or good and evil varies. Instead I focus on alignment when it comes to how an NPC acts. I don't hold paladins to being lawful good only. I think each deity should have their own paladins, but thats my opinion.

kgauck

10-05-2002, 01:33 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:03 PM

> As I said, the alignment "definitions" themselves are so loose
> and broad, and thus so varied in interpretation, as to not actually
> be very helpful after all. Hence I think it makes everything much
> clearer if you just junk them entirely.

Actually, I think in general that when the DM makes a clear statement that
defines his thinking, players are inclined to play it that way. The same
thing is true when the DM announced they will use an alternative injury
system, an alternative healing system, an alternative armor class system, an
alternative listing of simple, martial, and exotic weapons, has added
dieties, races, spells, or introduced any other tweak or innovation. Rules
lawyers aside, players tend to respond pretty well to a DM`s vision if its
articulated and consistent.

I could abandon the alignment terms, but then a player knows nothing about
Haelyn, Cuiraécen, or Belinik (et al). If I instead use those terms, but
re-define them, players can know what Avani, or a priest of Avani, is likely
to find acceptable. It does require a bit of a translation ("OK, so Avani
is Lawful Neutral, so that means she`s indifferent to questions of
compassion, but an advocate for social order"), but then so does every real
change to the system. I actually find that the most common point of
confusion is an adjustment to the equipment lists.
"Hey, that knight is fighting one handed with that bastard sword, is he
getting a -4 attack penalty?"
"No, he`s Anuirean, that`s a martial weapon for him."

Once play gets going, all of your changes, even the really dramtic ones take
hold and the players get into it. The problem with alignment here, is that
we`re conversing as equals, so no one ever feels inclined to accept anyone
else`s interpretations, except occasionally for the sake of argument. As
you mention, the interpretations of alignment are numerous, so
inter-subjectivity remains elusive.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

10-09-2002, 10:30 PM

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
>
> > As I said, the alignment "definitions" themselves are so loose
> > and broad, and thus so varied in interpretation, as to not actually
> > be very helpful after all. Hence I think it makes everything much
> > clearer if you just junk them entirely.
>
> Actually, I think in general that when the DM makes a clear statement
> that defines his thinking, players are inclined to play it that way.

I concur. However, in my (admittedly limited) experience, DMs tend to be
much more clear in their statements about alternate injury / combat / etc.
systems than they are about alternate alignment systems -- indeed, many
DMs using very different alignment systems think their way is the way the
book says to do it, and everyone _else_`s way is "alternate". Since the
overwhelming majority of people who read the combat rules interpret them
in the same way, it is easy to tell when you are using house rules; since
almost no one reads the alignment section the same way as anyone else,
almost everyone is using house rules but almost no one knows it.

> I could abandon the alignment terms, but then a player knows nothing
> about Haelyn, Cuiraécen, or Belinik (et al). If I instead use those
> terms, but re-define them, players can know what Avani, or a priest of
> Avani, is likely to find acceptable. It does require a bit of a
> translation ("OK, so Avani is Lawful Neutral, so that means she`s
> indifferent to questions of compassion, but an advocate for social
> order"), but then so does every real change to the system.

Fine. I ask you, however, then why do you bother to retain the
terminology of the alignment system? Why not simply say, "Avani is
indifferent to questions of compassion, but an advocate for social order,"
and leave it at that? Concise and easy to both remember and apply, with
no need to shoehorn yourself into preexisting labels that people will
reflexively misinterpret. Give every religion (indeed, every temple
faction) its own one-sentence description, and the players a cheat sheet
if necessary, and to me it seems that everything is clearer than if an old
encoding system`s technical terms are redefined.

> The problem with alignment here, is that we`re conversing as equals,
> so no one ever feels inclined to accept anyone else`s interpretations,
> except occasionally for the sake of argument. As you mention, the
> interpretations of alignment are numerous, so inter-subjectivity
> remains elusive.

And even if people *try* to accept others` interpretations, they will
frequently decode into their own set of definitions simply by reflex, and
then have to work to retranslate everything into the new set. I just
think it`s easier and clearer all around if those names are avoided, and
short descriptions used directly. If you absolutely need a shorthand in
your campaign, then call Avani "Orderly Noncompassionate" or suchlike, and
give a paragraph for each of those -- better to define new terms than
reuse ones people have very strong and quite different ideas about.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

10-09-2002, 11:15 PM

At 06:13 PM 10/9/2002 -0400, Ryan "Squeagle" Caveney wrote:

>I just think it`s easier and clearer all around if those names are
>avoided, and short descriptions used directly. If you absolutely need a
>shorthand in your campaign, then call Avani "Orderly Noncompassionate" or
>suchlike, and give a paragraph for each of those -- better to define new
>terms than reuse ones people have very strong and quite different ideas about.

I played in a non-BR campaign quite a while ago in which the "alignment"
system had several different categories. Essentially "law" was broken up
into two or three groups, as was chaos. Good and evil had several
categories as well. I don`t recall how many since it was a long time ago,
but the players seemed to like it. I found it something of a muddle, but I
only played briefly with that DM. I might have found it more useful had I
grown more familiar.

When it comes to issues of alignment, however, I think BR is
problematic. Because players can operate at the domain level they often
have to make decisions regarding a community as a whole. That`s exactly
the kind of thing that alignment supposedly represents, but in most
campaigns players wind up never having to actually confront those
issues. In practice, alignment is a square peg in the round hole of the
domain rules since trying to actually abide by the law-chaos ideal as
presented is impossible. Often rulers are presented with issues that
create an alignment paradox. No right answer. So rather than try to
redefine the alignment system I prefer to only take issue with serious and
obvious alignment violations.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-10-2002, 07:09 AM

Ryan B. Caveney <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET> wrote at 02-10-10 00.13:

> ...why do you bother to retain the terminology of the alignment system? Why
> not simply say, "Avani is indifferent to questions of compassion, but an
> advocate for social order," and leave it at that? Concise and easy to both
> remember and apply, with no need to shoehorn yourself into preexisting labels
> that people will reflexively misinterpret. Give every religion (indeed, every
> temple faction) its own one-sentence description, and the players a cheat
> sheet if necessary, and to me it seems that everything is clearer than if an
> old encoding system`s technical terms are redefined.
>

There are many alignment-specific effects in DnD - Protection from Evil,
Detect Evil, Holy Word, Dispel Evil - and all permutations of these. It
takes quite a rewrite to make all of this work with a different system of
alignments.

In my Feng Shui games, "Evil" is defined as anything that is spiritually
opposed to your own belefis. Thus, both sides in a conflict can detect the
other as "evil" if their differences are fundamental enough. Simplifies
things a lot.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

10-10-2002, 03:34 PM

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Carl Cramér wrote:

> There are many alignment-specific effects in DnD - Protection from
> Evil, Detect Evil, Holy Word, Dispel Evil - and all permutations of
> these. It takes quite a rewrite to make all of this work with a
> different system of alignments.

Yes, and I dislike them all. =) I think the various Protect/Detect/etc.
spells are better written with respect to "weirdness", as in Prot/Det/Disp
Summoned, Animated, or Extraplanar Entities. Holy Word and its other
alignment variants, on the other hand, I view as just another "Power Word,
Verb" spell -- I shift all the others down one level, and use the
description almost as written, except with the caveat that the caster can
affect either everyone in an area, or select up to some number of specific
targets, rather than having the spell choose on its own.

> In my Feng Shui games, "Evil" is defined as anything that is
> spiritually opposed to your own belefis. Thus, both sides in a
> conflict can detect the other as "evil" if their differences are
> fundamental enough. Simplifies things a lot.

I agree that this is how it ought to work if it is done at all. I am
somewhat fond of the idea of a war priest and a healing priest in the same
party detecting each other as evil, and I`ve played in such campaigns.
However, since the idea of a D&D Joe McCarthy wandering around casting
Detect Communist all day really doesn`t make me happy, I prefer to have
such personal philosophical preferences generally not interact with spells
at all. Since all of them basically say "only if the entity in question
is really powerful", I think it`s better just to make the spells
officially be "Detect the Really Powerful", et al.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

10-10-2002, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Birthright-L (Carl Cramér/ Starfox)
I am somewhat fond of the idea of a war priest and a healing priest in the same party detecting each other as evil, and I`ve played in such campaigns.
I don't think a war and a healing priest see each other as evil. A war priest (usually) isn't evil (especially those of Cuiraécen)! They make war against evil and have their own ways. But even a priest of Cuiraécen has healing qualities (in 2nd Edition lesser than in 3rd). And if you have a 2nd Edition priest, you can slip through holes to get healing spells (My own priestess has created "healing water", 4th level spell, as "cure serious wounds" and sphere: Elemental Water [and Healing]).

You see, there exist war priests who fight AND heal! He would see himself as evil, if we follow your theory...

kgauck

10-10-2002, 10:27 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:24 PM

> I don`t think a war and a healing priest see each other as evil. A
> war priest (usually) isn`t evil (especially those of Cuiraécen)! They
> make war against evil and have their own ways.

I will go on record as not being fond of a relativistic alignment system for
BR. But, Adriadne`s reply totally misses Carl`s mark, at least as I read
it. In a generic way, guys whose purpose it is to do battle, and guys whose
purpose it is to heal injuries might well see each others as rivals. In BR,
the god of battle, Cuiraécen, can also heal. His D&D alignment is
irrelevant, since Carl was basically just re-defining evil as "he who has
purposes opposed to mine". In effect this is elevating portfolio to the
rank of alignment. Perhaps priests of Sera detect those who have taken
oaths of poverty or reject luck in favor of reason. Sera might grant spells
that protect valuables for harm or defend against the thought sphere or
knowledge domain spells. Good and evil as defined by the PHB (or by me for
that matter) are irrelevant in such a system. Sera is master of wealth and
luck and could protect them while identifying and opposing all who would
seek to attack wealth and luck. Sera would regard those opponants as
"evil". They are the bad guys from Sera`s perspective. Who happens to be
altruistic, compassionate, or oppressive and hateful have nothing to do with
who Sera will find offensive.

For a more storied appoach, one could look to the list of Foes in the BoP as
the list of "evils" to be detected, protected against, or attacked. In this
case, spells would work against the devoted followers of Cuiraécen, Haelyn,
and Belinik. According to the BoP, they are her enemies and therefore,
"evil". Detect good would reveal fellow followers of Sera as well as Eloéle
and Nesirie.

It makes as much sense as anything else.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-11-2002, 07:43 AM

Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-10-11 00.21:

> I will go on record as not being fond of a relativistic alignment system for
> BR. But, Adriadne`s reply totally misses Carl`s mark, at least as I read
> it. In a generic way, guys whose purpose it is to do battle, and guys whose
> purpose it is to heal injuries might well see each others as rivals.

I wasn`t talking about simple rivalries, but deep-rooted conflicts. A war
priest anda healer would not detect one another as evil unless the conflict
between their faiths was one fo the fundamental conflicts of their
respective religion. In Cerilia, clergy of Belnik and Kriesha would register
as evil to he clergy/paladins of Andurias and Cureachen, but the various
good/neutral dieties would not register to one another as evil. Nesire
(healer) and Haelyin (war priest) basically want the same thing - they just
go about it differently. Nor would Belnik and Kriesha register one another
as evil, despite their deep differences - their conflict is not fundamental
enough, it is only a rivalry.

Better examples of relativistic alignments come from RL * medieval Islam and
Christianity would detect each other as evil, regardless of where you place
them on the DnD alignment scale, simply because they are involved in a
life-or-death struggle over the souls of the community. In fact, medieval
christianity would detect almost every other faith as evil.

Nor would any of the greek gods with all their differences (even the ones
defined as evil in DnD) detect each other as evil - that `honor` is reserved
for their cosmological enemies, the titans.

But I agree with Kenneth here - I don`t think a relativistic alignment
system is a good Idea in Birthright and I`m not using it here, either - I
was just showing a possible alternative.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Ariadne

10-11-2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by kgauck

Detect good would reveal fellow followers of Sera as well as Eloéle and Nesirie.
I don't think so! It will only reveal GOOD followers of Nesirie, Sera or Eloéle, not all of them. If I understand you right, a priest of Belinik casting "detect evil" would reveal a priest of Healyn? IMO only, if this priest is actually LE. I don't like this relativistic alignment system too. I see good as good, and evil as evil (and the priest of Belinik needs a "detect good" for a "normal" priest of Healyn). If everyone sees his opponent as evil, it will be very confusing...

kgauck

10-11-2002, 02:44 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:32 AM

>If everyone sees his opponent as evil, it will be very confusing...

But, in a very real way, that`s how the world works. Hence the reminder
that there are two sides to every story. In BR, I like a stark good vs
evil, so I make sure that evil is pretty bad. Adventures that oppose evil
have to do with abominations or Kriesha/Belinik. I have not yet (though may
at some point) used an NPC who is sufficiently evil to hatch truly
diabolical schemes.

Most conflict takes place in a more gray area, IMC.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L

10-11-2002, 03:55 PM

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Ariadne wrote:

>
Originally posted by Birthright-L (Carl Cramér/ Starfox)
> I am somewhat fond of the idea of a war priest and a healing priest in
> the same party detecting each other as evil, and I`ve played in such
> campaigns.

Actually, that was posted by me in a response to Carl.

> I don`t think a war and a healing priest see each other as evil.

That depends on the campaign -- the specifics of how the religions are
designed. In the one I was talking about (which was not at all related to
Birthright specifically), followers of the warrior religion were not
allowed to be healed during combat, because their god considered it
"cheating". The healing priests were forbidden to enter combat against
anything other than the undead, and required to preach nonviolence at
every opportunity. The difference between the two faiths was vast.

> A war priest (usually) isn`t evil [...] They make war against evil

But what if you have a religion that says war itself is the greatest evil,
and may never be made for any reason? This is not readily expressible in
terms of the D&D alignment system, but as a real-world philosophy, it has
a long history and a fair number of adherents. Such a philosophy denies
the very concept of a "war against evil", since it considers all wars to
be inherently evil regardless of purpose. Such people ought to detect a
"lawful good paladin" as evil if said paladin believes war is sometimes
justified. The paladin might detect the pacifists as evil, if he saw them
as protecting the country (which he calls evil) he was waging war (which
he calls justified) against. Yes, it makes things complicated, but as far
as moral issues go, I think that`s generally a good and realistic thing.

> You see, there exist war priests who fight AND heal! He would see
> himself as evil, if we follow your theory...

I didn`t say they were impossible -- indeed, I`d consider them the most
useful kind for a typical adventuring party. And while I generally think
that no one ever sees themselves as evil, your war-and-healing priest
might well think both the war-only and the healing-only priests I referred
to were evil -- or maybe just stupid. =) However, different campaigns
have different religions, or temple factions which interpret those
religions differently, that might or might not lead to the kind of
conflict of which I was giving a possible example. If you like
in-character religious debates, such a setup can be a lot of fun. If you
don`t, it can be very tiresome indeed.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-12-2002, 06:40 AM

On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 00:25, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariadne" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:32 AM

>If everyone sees his opponent as evil, it will be very confusing...

But, in a very real way, that`s how the world works.

This is simply not true. Good and Evil are absolutes and rely on no
contextual information whatsoever.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-12-2002, 06:40 AM

On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 01:13, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Carl Cramér wrote:

> There are many alignment-specific effects in DnD - Protection from
> Evil, Detect Evil, Holy Word, Dispel Evil - and all permutations of
> these. It takes quite a rewrite to make all of this work with a
> different system of alignments.

Yes, and I dislike them all. =) I think the various Protect/Detect/etc.
spells are better written with respect to "weirdness", as in Prot/Det/Disp
Summoned, Animated, or Extraplanar Entities.

You are entirely correct. That is EXACTLY how they were written. Read
the 1st Ed DMG. Detect evil will NOT reveal a character whose alignment
is chaotic evil. It will reveal a vampire or demon.

> In my Feng Shui games, "Evil" is defined as anything that is
> spiritually opposed to your own belefis. Thus, both sides in a
> conflict can detect the other as "evil" if their differences are
> fundamental enough. Simplifies things a lot.

I agree that this is how it ought to work if it is done at all.

I 120% disagree. And for good reason. How opposed would you have to be?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Starfox

10-12-2002, 09:02 AM

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-12 08.30:

> You are entirely correct. That is EXACTLY how they were written. Read
> the 1st Ed DMG. Detect evil will NOT reveal a character whose alignment
> is chaotic evil. It will reveal a vampire or demon.

That was then. This is now. It was also a change from the first edition PH,
were a paladin could ruin almost any investigation by simply detectig who
was the bad guy. And if I remember right, characters started raditating
evil at lvl 6.

But your way is really quite easy to implement under 3E - just define a
minimum strength of evil aura (as per the definition under the Detect Evil
spell) that is required to detect as evil or for evil-specific powers to
work. This is a minimal patch. The only problem is that Holy Word (that can
kill anyone who does not register as good) suddenly becomes a spell with a
friendly-fire threat.

My solution is instead to say that a character has to be quite bad to
actually have an evil alignment. You can do loads of bad things without
actually having to be evil - normal greed, fear, prejudice and so on does
not make you evil unless you really act out on it. This gives sort of the
same end result - lesser bad guys don`t actually have an evil alignment, and
thus don`t register on these spells.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-12-2002, 11:11 AM

On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 18:24, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-12 08.30:

> You are entirely correct. That is EXACTLY how they were written. Read
> the 1st Ed DMG. Detect evil will NOT reveal a character whose alignment
> is chaotic evil. It will reveal a vampire or demon.

That was then. This is now. It was also a change from the first edition PH,
were a paladin could ruin almost any investigation by simply detectig who
was the bad guy. And if I remember right, characters started raditating
evil at lvl 6.

Only if they were VERY evil. A character of any level could radiate evil
if they were currently actively involved in an evil act. e.g. If a
character was currently intent on murdering another (not in the next ten
days but in the next ten seconds or so) then regardless of their actual
alignment (they may even be normally good for example) they will radiate
evil at that time.

But your way is really quite easy to implement under 3E - just define a
minimum strength of evil aura (as per the definition under the Detect Evil
spell) that is required to detect as evil or for evil-specific powers to
work. This is a minimal patch. The only problem is that Holy Word (that can
kill anyone who does not register as good) suddenly becomes a spell with a
friendly-fire threat.

Depends where you draw the minimum strength line. Personally, I`d make
it that you had to be intrinsically evil by nature (demons, vampires
etc) or extremely evil in your actions (tortured someone last night,
murdered a friend last week etc).

My solution is instead to say that a character has to be quite bad to
actually have an evil alignment. You can do loads of bad things without
actually having to be evil - normal greed, fear, prejudice and so on does
not make you evil unless you really act out on it. This gives sort of the
same end result - lesser bad guys don`t actually have an evil alignment, and
thus don`t register on these spells.

They can still have an evil alignment without `detecting as evil`. But
here again, `bad` guys aren`t necessarily evil as you say.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.