Hypothetical scenario and ethical implications

[Osprey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osprey

[Athos69]

Osprey wrote:

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

HUZZAH!

[tcharazazel]

first off, damn who else is having fun

irdeggman

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

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

irdeggman

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

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

Raesene

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

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

[A_dark]

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

[Athos69]

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

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

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

[tcharazazel]

Raesene

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

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

Raesene

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

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

Raesene

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

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

[tcharazazel]

Osprey

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

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

Preach on Brother!

A_Dark

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

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

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

Rasp

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

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

[tcharazazel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[RaspK_FOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tcharazazel]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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