Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DarkSoldier 10-31-03, 05:27 AM	After looking at the People's State of Mordengard (a Chainmail faction for those who don't play), I had an idea to play a communist dwarf. I plan on taking the stereotype to the max: hokey Russian accent, preference for vodka instead of ale, and he TWF's with a hammer and sickle (the people's weapons!). The problem is that I don't know what alignment I should give this guy. Should I go NG or LN? What other suggestions should I consider when playing a Red? Or maybe my idea's just a load of Bolshevik?
Arilou_skiff 10-31-03, 05:33 AM	"A load of Bolshevik"? :D "A load of the majority?" (they weren't, but that's not the point) Depends on what kind of character you want to play. Cold-war James-Bond villain? (In that case LE) Radical revolutionary? (CG) Any alignment can fit you know... Depends what you want to play :D
Leap 10-31-03, 06:28 AM	Communism itself, is a Lawful situation (no real doubt on that as it is fundamentally based upon valuing an orderly and reliable society). The question is whether or not is it Good, Neutral or Evil……………….. Personally, based upon the idea of State ownership and the amount of policing that necessitates, I would seriously doubt whether it could genuinely be called “Good”.
Arilou_skiff 10-31-03, 06:41 AM	Leap: The goal of the communist society is a society where the state is no longer needed. According to Marx after the Revolution there will come the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but this will only be a temporary government, as time passes it will become unneccessary and the state will wither away. There's a reason communism and anarchism are considered sister-ideologies.
Vel_Ziliuse 10-31-03, 08:51 AM	There are several types of Communism. Anyway I think it should be Lawful Good. Why Good? Beacause it should aim at the end of the slavery of man over man (or dwarf over dwarf). Finally I fear that D&D does not like shades of grey, make him good or make him evil.
Tzor 10-31-03, 10:07 AM	Systems may or may not have alignments, people under the system definitely do, and one can be as much chaotic as one can be lawfull. Since dwarves tend to be lawful, I think having him lawful would be approproate. He can be good or neutrual, depending on how you want to play him. Remember never to sweat the details. After all, the Soviet Union never qualified as "commuism" under Marx's definitions. Communism is whatever communist rullers defined it to be. And when you think of it, that's pretty chaotic. It's almost like ice cream, you can find it in almost every flavor. So go with the general flavor of Russian pessissism and Russian pragmatism and so forth. Life is tough, but you are tougher.
Mr. VanderMeer 10-31-03, 10:17 AM	I don't know what alignment you should choose, but I can just see that dwarf in my mind. :rofl:
Kolo 10-31-03, 11:19 AM	Let's see... Ideas of everyone being equal and serving the people in the image of "the state", following whatever precepts you receive "for the greater good", regardless of wether you understand them... Sounds Lawful Neutral to me.
Morka 10-31-03, 11:26 AM	I would say LN. But many rulers (like Staline) were LE. I think pressing people to denounce friends is LE. OTOH, a small community sharing all the local products with the community members is CG. The more the community is growing, the more it needs to be lawful.
The Deceiver 10-31-03, 11:55 AM	Some Communists were noble idealists, longing to bring freedom, happiness and prosperity to the poor. Others were nothing more than murderous bastards. As Mordengard represents an idealized fantasy version of Communists, I think your character should opt to be lawful good.
aleshandre 10-31-03, 02:44 PM	If you are planning on going socialist republic style communist, then LN is probably the best. If you are planning on going pure communism, go CG (all law abolished so that people's natural goodness can prevail).
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-31-03, 04:25 PM	The idea was CG. But humans being in charge of things invariably starts the slide to LE.
JosephKell 10-31-03, 04:32 PM	True Communism is just Ultruistic behavor: Putting others ahead of yourself. If everyone in the communist society worked to help others, it works. Thus, True Communism is Good, because it helps others for no reason other than to help. And since it requires a steadfast dedication to the community. So Lawful or Neutral (with Lawful Tendencies) seems it. LG or NG (leaning towards LG). But Communism quickly desolves to neutral evil as people realize they can cheat the system. So many Communist leaders are Neutral Evil (Neutral Greedy).
TheGreyMage 10-31-03, 05:11 PM	I'd put Stalin as either NE or CE, his slaughter of party members and civilians wouldn't really count as lawful and besides he made it seem like he was the most important person in the communist revolution. He was a "me first" kind of ruler.
Arilou_skiff 10-31-03, 05:13 PM	Someone once said that all revolutions are (roughly) comprised of three kinds of people: Those who want change, those who want power and those who want to fight.
Strife 10-31-03, 05:30 PM	I'd vote for LN, as the point of altrusim being good could be argued. And Stalin was most assuredly CE.
The One and Only... 10-31-03, 06:35 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff Leap: The goal of the communist society is a society where the state is no longer needed. According to Marx after the Revolution there will come the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but this will only be a temporary government, as time passes it will become unneccessary and the state will wither away. There's a reason communism and anarchism are considered sister-ideologies. Except that anarchism and communism aren't considered sister ideologies. Bakunin criticized Marx all the time, claiming that Dictatorship of the Proletariot will always turn into Dictatorship over the Proletariot. Futhermore, you are lumping all forms of anarchism under left-anarchism. There are many others, such as the radically libertarian anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism regards government as unnecessary because all of its functions can be better performed by private institutions. Moreover, many anarcho-capitalists do not believe in any public property - oceans should be sectioned off and sold, people should purchase access to air, etc. Anarcho-capitalism regards itself as the only true form of anarchy because it does not prevent humans from working for other humans by choice (a restriction of freedom). There is a large difference between communism, which called for a totalitarian state to be indefinitely instated, and anarchist theories.
Arilou_skiff 11-01-03, 05:57 AM	Originally posted by The One and Only... Except that anarchism and communism aren't considered sister ideologies. Bakunin criticized Marx all the time, claiming that Dictatorship of the Proletariot will always turn into Dictatorship over the Proletariot. Futhermore, you are lumping all forms of anarchism under left-anarchism. There are many others, such as the radically libertarian anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism regards government as unnecessary because all of its functions can be better performed by private institutions. Moreover, many anarcho-capitalists do not believe in any public property - oceans should be sectioned off and sold, people should purchase access to air, etc. Anarcho-capitalism regards itself as the only true form of anarchy because it does not prevent humans from working for other humans by choice (a restriction of freedom). There is a large difference between communism, which called for a totalitarian state to be indefinitely instated, and anarchist theories. Yes, Bakunin criticized Marx, but then siblings usually quarrel :D It is quite clear that their respective ideologies are/were closely related. (that closely related ideologies still can fight and hate each other is a well-known fact...) They're not the same, but they're very similar. Anarcho-capitalism seems like an oxymoron to me: Any sort of ownership requires laws, laws requires a lawgiver, a lawgiver means that the system is no longer anarchic.
The One and Only... 11-01-03, 12:11 PM	Anarchy merely requires a lack of government, not a lack of law. Polycentric legal systems would be employed; each individual could choose his own set of laws to abide by. These legal systems would be subject to market forces, and be enforced by independant defense firms. That's the theory, at least.
Arilou_skiff 11-01-03, 01:59 PM	Originally posted by The One and Only... Anarchy merely requires a lack of government, not a lack of law. Polycentric legal systems would be employed; each individual could choose his own set of laws to abide by. These legal systems would be subject to market forces, and be enforced by independant defense firms. That's the theory, at least. Law is a function of government, with no force to enforce it isn't law but merely a set of rules agreed to by several parties. If each person would choose which set of laws he would abide by then the law becomes meaningless.
MalakiTyrel 11-01-03, 02:02 PM	You have received good responses so far. As an ideology, communism is the epitome of CG. It is focused on sharing wealth with others, doing good for the sake of doing so, total freedom, and a state of total equality (since the class wealth system would be non-existant). In practice, though, the "communist" governments are LE. Complete subjugation of its people, laws that restrict freedom, and importance of the government (and its representatives) over its people are LE traits. Those that hold to the communist ideology will run the full spectrum of alignment though. The easy answer is that your dwarf (great concept by the way) can be any alignment you wish. The closer he follows the ideology, though, the closer he will be to the CG alignment.
The One and Only... 11-01-03, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff Law is a function of government, with no force to enforce it isn't law but merely a set of rules agreed to by several parties. If each person would choose which set of laws he would abide by then the law becomes meaningless. Law has not always been provided by the government through the course of history. Private defense firms would enforce it. I don't believe Communism could be called Chaotic in any form, since Chaos focuses on freedom. Communism focuses on equality. Economic freedom does not mean equality.
Arilou_skiff 11-01-03, 04:32 PM	Originally posted by The One and Only... Law has not always been provided by the government through the course of history. Private defense firms would enforce it. I don't believe Communism could be called Chaotic in any form, since Chaos focuses on freedom. Communism focuses on equality. Economic freedom does not mean equality. If only private defence firms do it than A) It isn't Law or B) Then effectively those firms have become the government and thus it is no longer anarchy. Law and anarchy are things that cannot coexist. I'd say that the *definition* of government is that it provides the Law :) Even if that Law is "Do as I tell you or get smitten" Also, I'd argue that a communist would argue that in order to be truly free one must be equal.
Navonod Semaj 11-01-03, 07:15 PM	Ladies and gents, please, did we learn NOTHING from the cold war? The concept of a communist society only functions in theory. A society where no man has any more or any less than his fellow man, where all work toward the common good. No man is above any other man, and all is honkey-dorey. Swell, eh? Now take a look back on history. When applied in real life, it becomes a heavily abused system. Stifled Productivity - Farmer Joe is no incentive to produce more than beyond one's quota, for Joe is alloted the same amount of food by the state wether he grows the minimum bushels of grain or a thousand times that. People get lazy. Heck, the Soviets got the nuke only because of their spies (*cough*Rosenbergs*cough*). Corrupt Government - In every case, from the U.S.S.R. to China to Cuba, the dictatorship rules with an iron fist. They allot themselves the best of goods, and mercilesly slaughter anyone who opposes them. And all the while, propaganda blares out about the greatness of the state, while Comerade Napoleon orders the grain bins to be filled with sand and a light coating of grain to impress of to the neighbor farmers on their visit. Now, why all this? Simply put, the world isn't populated by saints. The average person lives their life, with the purpose of caring for themselves and their family, and that takes up enough of their time. Communism does not build of the high points of human nature (competition, individuality, and the drive to improve one's lot), and thus implodes after 3/4 of a century. Idealists may mean well when instituting such a system, but remember the old adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I most highly recommend the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, which does an excellent depiction of the rise and degredation of a communist society. It's something of a parody of the Soviet Union, with references to all manner of aspects of it's history. I give it five :D :D :D :D :D . Sorry to divert from the main topic, but this had to be said. Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeat it.
Arilou_skiff 11-01-03, 08:18 PM	Originally posted by Navonod Semaj Ladies and gents, please, did we learn NOTHING from the cold war? The concept of a communist society only functions in theory. A society where no man has any more or any less than his fellow man, where all work toward the common good. No man is above any other man, and all is honkey-dorey. Swell, eh? Now take a look back on history. When applied in real life, it becomes a heavily abused system. Stifled Productivity - Farmer Joe is no incentive to produce more than beyond one's quota, for Joe is alloted the same amount of food by the state wether he grows the minimum bushels of grain or a thousand times that. People get lazy. Heck, the Soviets got the nuke only because of their spies (*cough*Rosenbergs*cough*). Corrupt Government - In every case, from the U.S.S.R. to China to Cuba, the dictatorship rules with an iron fist. They allot themselves the best of goods, and mercilesly slaughter anyone who opposes them. And all the while, propaganda blares out about the greatness of the state, while Comerade Napoleon orders the grain bins to be filled with sand and a light coating of grain to impress of to the neighbor farmers on their visit. Now, why all this? Simply put, the world isn't populated by saints. The average person lives their life, with the purpose of caring for themselves and their family, and that takes up enough of their time. Communism does not build of the high points of human nature (competition, individuality, and the drive to improve one's lot), and thus implodes after 3/4 of a century. Idealists may mean well when instituting such a system, but remember the old adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I most highly recommend the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, which does an excellent depiction of the rise and degredation of a communist society. It's something of a parody of the Soviet Union, with references to all manner of aspects of it's history. I give it five :D :D :D :D :D . Sorry to divert from the main topic, but this had to be said. Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeat it. So? That is completely irrelevant (not that I haven't made some irrelevant comments in this thread :D) He asked what alignment his communist dwarf should be: We answered. You didn't. And you *do* Realize Orwell himself was a socialist do you? :D He saw the Soviet Union as a betrayal against true socialism. It can be argued (I'm certain Marx would) That neither China nor Cuba nor the USSR were communist states, BECAUSE they exhibited the traits that you mentioned.
waternut101 11-01-03, 08:29 PM	I agree with Navanod, on the agruments about Communisim, but like it was said we are looking for an alignment. A true communist, NG...and idealist, looking for the good of all. A communist leader in practice, LE...rules are made by the strong, and followed by all that can be made to follow. A citizen of communism in practice, CN...does just enough to get by, and only follows rules, when made to. Cares little for anybody but himself and immediate family.
Old French Admiral 11-02-03, 04:51 PM	If I recall correctly, in a true communism: on Tuesday, Sammy Q. Proletariat could work in a factory; on Wednesday, he could go out on a boat and be a fisherman; on Thursday, Sammy could show up at the hospital and practice neurosurgery; and on Friday, he could be an astrophysicist. It seems to me that if a true communism were possible, if would be utter chaos. Granted, everyone would work selflessly for the good of others, so it would be a benevolent chaos (CG anyone?). I agree that your dwarf could be of any alignment, but I vote CG or NG.
Strife 11-02-03, 04:51 PM	So his aligement would be LN (or LG) as a communist dwarf BUT if he ever decicdes to found a community, he will change aligement to LE or be ursurped. To me it's almost starting to sound as a PRC... :)
Leap 11-03-03, 04:03 AM	Arilou – The goal of the communist society is a society where the state is no longer needed. According to Marx after the Revolution there will come the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, but this will only be a temporary government, as time passes it will become unnecessary and the state will wither away. Well in practice it revolves around the state control of property (thus denying personal involvement / agency) and as such, is as thoroughly Evil as a system that enshrines private property (such as, capitalism). :) TOAO – Futhermore, you are lumping all forms of anarchism under left-anarchism. There are many others, such as the radically libertarian anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism regards government as unnecessary because all of its functions can be better performed by private institutions. Moreover, many anarcho-capitalists do not believe in any public property - oceans should be sectioned off and sold, people should purchase access to air, etc. Anarcho-capitalism regards itself as the only true form of anarchy because it does not prevent humans from working for other humans by choice (a restriction of freedom). Anarcho-capitalism is by and large NOT an anti-govt movement but a movement to BECOME the govt through private ownership; essentially it is how aristocracy arose in the first place. Essentially it is Lawful Evil. Navonod – Now, why all this? Simply put, the world isn't populated by saints. The average person lives their life, with the purpose of caring for themselves and their family, and that takes up enough of their time. Central control does not require saints, it requires sheep. Giving up personal involvement in life is only portrayed as a “moral good” by “evil people”. Communism does not build of the high points of human nature (competition, individuality, and the drive to improve one's lot), and thus implodes after 3/4 of a century. Idealists may mean well when instituting such a system, but remember the old adage "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". These are NOT the “high points” of human nature, they part of human nature which needs to be integrated into the social/sharing part. Modern politics seems to think in digital binary systems. :(
Tzor 11-03-03, 09:44 AM	Originally posted by Navonod Semaj Ladies and gents, please, did we learn NOTHING from the cold war? I think we learned a lot from the "cold war," only I'm not sure what it has to do with this case. The basic problem is that the definition of "communism" is not constrained to the specific dictatorships of the old Soviet Union or Soviet Union styled states. Moreover since "communism" according to Marx was supposed to evolve from an industrial society, and Russia was an agrarian society that became an industrial society through claming to be communist, living next to a fasist scoiety, the potential definition problem can get exceptionally complex. In the 18th century, there was a fear among the educated that democracy would lead to state owned property, a reason why the United States was established as a republic. This isn't to say that "capitalism" has always been a utopian ideal. It was the development of "unionism" that saved capitalism and proved Marx wrong ... the workers of capitalism and the owners of that cpaital could and did come to mutual working agreements. Of course what this has to do with someone playing a exceptionally sterotyped version of a Russian Dwarf making a crude parody of soviet references is completely beyond me. Almost every system has brutal examples, even capitalism. Feudalism also had its fair share of abuses and problems. Yet we are all content to use a hybred and ideal combination of feudalism and capitalism in most fantasy campaign worlds without undue comment.
Strife 11-04-03, 09:31 AM	As a matter of fact - Pre-Soviet Russia is not to be regarded as agrarian society - that's a missconception born and breeded by Soviet communists. Russia was less industrialzed after Soviet than before Soviet.
TheBlackBart 11-04-03, 09:56 AM	Despite what their suporters and detractors would want us to believe, government mechanics have little to do with alignment. Some monarchies have been good, others have been evil. Some have been pretty loose, the monarch thinking mostly of himself and his circle of friends and family (wich is quite chaotic) and sometimes it was pretty strict, and just about everything would be regulated. Democracies and republics have been corrupted in the past, I wont give recent real world examples (CoC oblige) but think at the current Star Wars situation, what happened in Germany when Hitler was elected(!) and the governemnt of Athens, where neither women, immigrents or sons of immigrants could vote, and where slavery was still widespread. Communism... In my personnal interpretation, I'd say the basic idea was that the good of the many was its main goal. I'd say LG. But, just like democracy, when the system was designed, it was designed as utopia, flawless and good. Men have quickly corrupted the dream, making it LN or even LE... Good and evil is within each of us. There are no Evil or Good nations. Only Evil and Good people. That is true of D&D and the real world.
Arilou_skiff 11-04-03, 11:36 AM	Originally posted by Strife As a matter of fact - Pre-Soviet Russia is not to be regarded as agrarian society - that's a missconception born and breeded by Soviet communists. Russia was less industrialzed after Soviet than before Soviet. That is false, Russia was *clearly* more industrialized post-Stalin than pre-Stalin. Russia was, pre-communism, very industrialized in certain parts while the majority remained agrarian.
Strife 11-04-03, 03:37 PM	Almost made a very long post... until I read you post and saw it said post and pre "Stalin". You have the right conception of pre soviet russia, but what counts, when discussion degres of industrailzation, is how much you produce (and its market valu) and by how many percent of the population lives in cities. And by this my previous statement is true. How ever, if you want to count factories and machines, whatever they work or not, I grant you that post Stalin was way better than during Stalin. But figures supports the conlusion that when the Soviet union fell it was at the same level (of industrialization) as it had been before 1913. (for chist sake, during the 20's the production was about 12% of the production of 1913!) If you haven't read it already, read Skott, Staffan, Sovjet från början till slutet, Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag, 1992 and while you're at it Pipes, Richard, Den ryska revolutionen, Stockholm: Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, 2001 and the latter would be: Pipes, Richard, "the Russian Revloution" for all of you who don't speak, read swedish :)
Abnon 11-05-03, 12:14 PM	Originally posted by Vel_Ziliuse There are several types of Communism. Anyway I think it should be Lawful Good. Why Good? Beacause it should aim at the end of the slavery of man over man (or dwarf over dwarf). Finally I fear that D&D does not like shades of grey, make him good or make him evil. I was thinking that also... But then I realized that Marxist philosophy is based on revolution... Revolution obviously defies law... So I think they would have to be NG, as they are fully willing to disobey authority for the sake of instilling something better.
TheBlackBart 11-05-03, 12:56 PM	I don't know... Are the law of the land necessarily in accord with Law? Can a government be chaotic, or simply unlawful? If it is the case, is rebelling against such a government chaotic or unlawful? There is that common idea that is spread that chaotic people can't be strong leaders, follow ideals and be disciplined. I wouldn't know. But it feels strange, anyway. Because, if so, how can the leader of of a rebellion organize his troops efficiently? How can a Chaotic Good person really champion any good cause? Maybe you are right, and all governments are lawful or neutral, and all rebels are chaotic... But there must be some exceptions! Imagine a monarch, king by birthright, but who is Chaotic!?! Certainly in History we can find egocentric rulers, who ruled when they pleased, with every right but acknowledging no responsibilities... I'm confused... ponder:confused:ponder...
Abnon 11-05-03, 01:19 PM	That's why I said NG instead of CG... It seems to that he fully supports the ideals of just governing, but that he cares more about the intent of the system than the system itself... if that makes sense...
Hadel Ionque 11-07-03, 11:48 PM	I'd say this whole threat is just a huge troll that grows larger and larger as people continuously feed it. Btw, I don't think Stalin is Evil, as a matter of fact I don't think he is anything at all, real life and D&D are totally different, you just can't apply one to the other. Evil is relative, as is good. I am sure plenty of people in the USSR thought stalin was good, while plenty of people in the US thought he was evil. Same thing with Bin Laden, while Bush may call him evil, a recent poll says that 90% of arabs support him, therefore, at least for them, he is good. I am sure plenty of arabs would classify Bush as evil, but is he? I don't know, and it is not for me to judge, specially by a system as broken as D&D alignment. You can't really label good and evil in the real world. (Well, stop me if I am trolling)
Hadel Ionque 11-07-03, 11:49 PM	*sighs* Double Post
MalakiTyrel 11-08-03, 01:28 AM	I don't want to touch on the topic of Bush with a ten foot pole. Let's just say that I do not think he is good in any way, shape, or form and leave it at that. Stalin was evil based on everything I have read about him. He seized power and ruled with an iron fist. The USSR was not a good example of what communism was supposed to be. Marx's idea was that eventually there would be no need for government. The USSR would never have moved towards this. Where Marx called for equality and total freedom, the USSR called for class division and limited rights. The USSR was only communist in name not in practice. There are Evil people in real life. There have been throughout history. There are also Good people in real life. They can be classified using the D&D alignments as a basis. They may not fit exactly but they are close enough to show a connection. Alignment is not supposed to be relative. The Good and Evil in D&D alignments are not supposed to be subjective. If they were, a paladin would never lose his favor since he could justify everything he did. Only if you permit justification to determine good and evil does alignment become subjective.
Strife 11-08-03, 07:01 AM	Hadel Ionque - If you dont' find Stalin evil you must be either a) a Stalinist b) in serious need of history lessons. if b) read "the Black Boook of Communism" and repent. and fear the burning gaze of my hamster... :behold:
Hadel Ionque 11-08-03, 12:50 PM	MalakiTyrel: This is my point exactly, alignment in D&D isn't relative, so it can't be applied to real life. Strife: Yes, I had history lessons, I know that Stalin killed a bunch of people. But so did the catholic church, and I am sure most of the people during the inquisition would say that the church was the incarnation of good itself. Quote: "Hadel Ionque - If you dont' find Stalin evil you must be either a) a Stalinist" Have you any idea of what youre saying? This is the stuff that wars are made of. "If you don't think I like do, you are surely evil and must die!" Anyway, my point really isn't that, I am just trying to say that evil is relative in the real world, so you can't apply it to a system like D&D alignment. D&D alignment is full of cultural bias.
DrakeRunner 11-08-03, 01:17 PM	"True" Communism, just like "True" Democracy, Monarchy, and Depotism, is Lawful Good. Every modern government concept is Lawful Good. But, thats the concept. Execution is different. All have been made evil, and all have been made good, all by the hand of man. A government type is not inherently aligned. It is the will of the people controlling the government that dictate the alignment of the nation. Although politicking in general is pretty Lawful, at least with modern concepts of politics. Chaotic nations aside, of course.
Arilou_skiff 11-08-03, 01:46 PM	That said ideologies aren't evil, people are.
MalakiTyrel 11-08-03, 03:40 PM	MalakiTyrel: This is my point exactly, alignment in D&D isn't relative, so it can't be applied to real life. Hadel Ionque, alignment can be applied to real life because it isn't relative. Anyway you slice it, Mother Teresa was a good aligned character. Anyway you slice it, Sadam Hussein is an evil aligned character. So was Hitler. Hitler believed he was fulfilling god's wishes by exterminating Jews. Regardless of what he believed the actions were still evil. It doesn't matter what kind of justification someone gives something, if it is an evil action it is still evil regardless. Alignment is absolute. Good and Evil in both the real world and D&D are absolute. They are not relative in any way. It doesn't matter if a real life person worships a deity that tells them to slaughter babies, if they do it is still evil. The same applies to characters in D&D. The hard part about applying D&D alignment to real life is not the Good-Evil axis but the Lawful-Chaotic axis. It is the Lawful-Chaotic axis that many people are not beholden to in real life (though my own dealings with most people would place them in the Neutral category in the Lawful-Chaotic axis). It is pretty simple to look at real life events and say whether the actions are good, evil, or neutral. I am not one who believes in relative morality. In my experience, those who use it are looking for ways to exploit things to their own benefit--something of a NE tendency right there. I would disagree with DrakeRunner that true communism is Lawful Good since true communism advocates the abolishment of government. Kind of difficult to have a "Lawful" alignment when there is no government. Granted no government does not necessarily mean no laws, but it is difficult to have laws and enforce them if there is no government to do so. The reason why communism doesn't work is because of man's natural tendency to try to improve his own situation. Whether that is through his ingenuity, competitiveness, or natural hard work, man's natural instinct is to make things better for himself. Communism rewards the group rather than the person since the community shares in the mans improvement. While it is a nice idea, in practice it fails because no one wants to kill themselves working hard for the good of others if others can do nothing and reap the same rewards as the hard worker. What you end up with is either stagnation as no one exerts any desire to improve things or something that moves away from true communism (meaning the "ideal" as Marx proposed) as some, but not all, try to improve things. The other way that commmunsim fails, is that man naturally seeks order in the things they do. Whether they need a lot of order or a little, man needs it naturally. Man naturally seeks order, purpose, and absolutes in all things they do. Communism fails to address this need because of its lack of order. Communism may work on a very small scale and might work for a small local community. But, the larger a community, the greater the need (and desire) for order. That order can only be given with some sort of governmental structure--whether it is a tribal council or a true governmental heirarchy. However, both of those are against the basic idea of communism because they place the importance of a few over the improtance of the many.
Strife 11-08-03, 04:24 PM	Originally posted by Hadel Ionque MalakiTyrel: This is my point exactly, alignment in D&D isn't relative, so it can't be applied to real life. Strife: Yes, I had history lessons, I know that Stalin killed a bunch of people. But so did the catholic church, and I am sure most of the people during the inquisition would say that the church was the incarnation of good itself. Quote: "Hadel Ionque - If you dont' find Stalin evil you must be either a) a Stalinist" Have you any idea of what youre saying? This is the stuff that wars are made of. "If you don't think I like do, you are surely evil and must die!" Anyway, my point really isn't that, I am just trying to say that evil is relative in the real world, so you can't apply it to a system like D&D alignment. D&D alignment is full of cultural bias. Do you have any idea of what you are saying? I haven't accused you of being evil, just defending it. If we had discussed Hitler I doubt you would have defended him, even when Stalin was about ten times worse. So IF you defend Stalin then you must really like him and thus you are a Stalinist. And if you had history lessons then you know HOW he killed a "bunch" (and I must say that a "bunch" is rather offensive when you talk about millions) of people, right? Which by the way, the church never did, and the figures we have today are probably exagregated. And no, Evil is not realative, and its people like you who makes it possible Killing isn't evil, its HOW you kill 'em.
MalakiTyrel 11-08-03, 05:31 PM	Strife: Yes, I had history lessons, I know that Stalin killed a bunch of people. But so did the catholic church, and I am sure most of the people during the inquisition would say that the church was the incarnation of good itself. I would not say that. My personal opinion is that "righteousness" is one of the paths to evil. The inquisition, the Crusades, and the witch trials are all examples of evilness in what is considered a "good" thing--the church. Just because someone follows a religion doesn't exclude them from being evil. Again, subjective morality is one of the tendencies of evil alignments in D&D. Wickedness in any form is a symptom of evil and is not limited to certain people. A preacher can be evil even if he does his job. Jobs and religious beliefs do not exclude someone form being evil. Good and evil are absolutes. They are not subjective.
Arilou_skiff 11-08-03, 05:34 PM	Originally posted by MalakiTyrel I would not say that. My personal opinion is that "righteousness" is one of the paths to evil. The inquisition, the Crusades, and the witch trials are all examples of evilness in what is considered a "good" thing--the church. Just because someone follows a religion doesn't exclude them from being evil. Again, subjective morality is one of the tendencies of evil alignments in D&D. Wickedness in any form is a symptom of evil and is not limited to certain people. A preacher can be evil even if he follows his religion. Jobs and religious beliefs do not exclude someone form being evil. Good and evil are absolutes. They are not subjective. Actually I'd say the Inquisition had a pretty god-damn OBJECTIVE belief of good and evil.
MalakiTyrel 11-08-03, 05:39 PM	Killing someone because they believe something different than church dogma is not an "objective" belief.
Abnon 11-08-03, 05:40 PM	If you want to get totally philosophical, you could argue that no character is 'evil' in their own mind, as many philosophers have claimed that no man intentionally does evil; only that he preceives evil differently than another man...
TheBlackBart 11-08-03, 05:48 PM	Actually I'd say the Inquisition had a pretty god-damn OBJECTIVE belief of good and evil. Say what? It had a very clear-cut vision of what Good and Evil was, but I wouldn't say it was objective, and certainly not right. Anyway, this thread is really going off-topic. The purpose of this thread was to determine the alignment of a communist in D&D. Not in the real world. Wether alignment is objective or relative in the real world is of no importance. And sterile. It will only get a WizO to lock this thread... I already given my opinion on this. No government system has a stated alignment in D&D, except for anarchy, which is simply lack of government. His vision of communist will determine his alignment. If the one who started this thread wants more details, he should write his definition of comunism, through the eyes of his character. Then, we could say if his vision suggests an alignment over another. Without saying names such as Marx and Lenine, who have nothing to do in D&D. And Bush and Hussein, whom I have yet to wonder how come they came up in that discussion...
MalakiTyrel 11-08-03, 05:52 PM	I would agree with that to an extent, Abnon. However, the alignments are not subjective. They don't measure how a character sees good and evil but how they act in regards to it. In other words, a paladin can see himself doing good when he practices genocide and barbeques babies but that doesn't mean that he is doing a good act. A man can delude himself into thinking he is LG but his actions may place him as LE. His true alignment is LE not LG as he believes.
Arilou_skiff 11-08-03, 06:23 PM	Originally posted by MalakiTyrel Killing someone because they believe something different than church dogma is not an "objective" belief. It's very objective: Everyone who obeys church dogma is good, everyone else is evil. Simple. A subjective belief would be that everyone who BELIEVES he follows church dogma is good.
DarkSoldier 11-08-03, 07:00 PM	I did not start this thread with the intent to watch it spiral into a proto-flamewar. I know how evil Stalin was; he intentionally slaughtered, starved, or imprisoned over 20 million of his own people. The only reason the Allies hooked up with him was because Hitler was the more immediate threat. But I didn't ask about Stalin, Hitler, the Crusades, or anything else. I just wanted some advice from some people more knowledgeable about the ways of communism (be it through school or first-hand), because I was seriously entertaining the idea of playing a Communist dwarf in a game. Unfortunately, I'm not joining that game anymore (it's too far). I think this thread has run its course and is now no longer necessary.
MalakiTyrel 11-08-03, 07:41 PM	It's very objective: Everyone who obeys church dogma is good, everyone else is evil. Simple. A subjective belief would be that everyone who BELIEVES he follows church dogma is good. Arilou Skiff, sorry but no. Believing it is good to kill someone who does not believe in church dogma when your own church says that murder is against god's law is subjective morality at the highest level. It is also an example of hypocrisy. The Inquisition had the same motivations and justification as the Crusades and the witch trials. It was no less an example of subjective morality than they were. Once again, belief of an action's "goodness" does not make said action good. To DarkSoldier, sorry about the derailing of your thread. I do believe the first page should give some good advice should you decide later to try this character concept.
little black bill 11-10-03, 03:30 PM	Lawful Evil:D
little black bill 11-10-03, 03:31 PM	Double post sorry
Arilou_skiff 11-10-03, 03:53 PM	Originally posted by MalakiTyrel Arilou Skiff, sorry but no. Believing it is good to kill someone who does not believe in church dogma when your own church says that murder is against god's law is subjective morality at the highest level. It is also an example of hypocrisy. The Inquisition had the same motivations and justification as the Crusades and the witch trials. It was no less an example of subjective morality than they were. Once again, belief of an action's "goodness" does not make said action good. To DarkSoldier, sorry about the derailing of your thread. I do believe the first page should give some good advice should you decide later to try this character concept. I'm sorry, but according to christian dogma it never says "do not kill" it says "do not murder". Which is a huge difference. I'm not saying that the Inquisition's actions where objectively good, I'm saying they had an objective view of good and evil.
MalakiTyrel 11-10-03, 04:50 PM	I'm sorry, but according to christian dogma it never says "do not kill" it says "do not murder". Which is a huge difference. Agreed--which is why I used the term "murder" and not "kill" in my post. What the Inquisition did was murder. It was subjective morality because they did not follow their own dogma in regards to punishment of the "heretics". Their view of good and evil was not objective because it was a distortion of their own beliefs. An objective view of good and evil would have prevented them from violating their own god's law to punish "heretics". However, their view was that anyone not following the accepted church dogma (including astronomers and scientists) could be put to death--which was a violation of their own dogma. The Inquisition was a tool used by power hungry church officials to ensure obedience of the populace through fear. That is not an example of an objective view of good and evil.
DrakeRunner 11-10-03, 07:12 PM	You guys always manage to turn this into a religion debate. All this about the Inquisition is irrevelant, you people just want to argue about religion.