Hypothetical scenario and ethical implications

[RaspK_FOG]

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

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

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

[tcharazazel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The points we got so far:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

[Athos69]

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

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

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

[tcharazazel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Osprey]

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

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

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

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

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Several things to comment on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Raesene Andu]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Raesene Andu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A_dark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Raesene Andu]

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

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