Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KhanJackalMoreau 04-27-05, 03:20 AM	Ok. Silly, I Know, but hey. My apoligies to DC. I'm trying to explain the concept of chaotic vs lawful to some people tonight. It's a pretty important distinction. While not getting as much press in the text as good vs evil, most of the arguments you see going on around us today are lawful vs chaotic. Starting from the premise that lawful doesn't mean "following the law at hand" but "adhering to a codied set of laws and rules" we drited into popular fiction, and then inevitably into Superman vs Batman. We argued it back and forth, and somebody brought up an interesting point. Batman is far more the Paladin than Superman. Although Batman is a vigilante, a lawbreaker, the "laws" he breaks are painted as chaotic and unjust, favoring the rich while unduly punishing the poor. He himself holds to a strict set of rules, and goes about it very strictly. Lawful to the core. Superman is my usual go-to guy for Paladins, but I was presented with a very troubling thought from the idea-man tonight. He said that Superman was as chaotic as he was good. I'm a DC fan, so I started to disagree, but his points were as follows. He just isn't concerned with justice. He lets his conscience dictate to him what he should and should not do. Sometimes he follows the laws of the United States. Sometimes he leaves the planet for months at a time. He doesn't seem to have any guidelines with criminal punishment. Anyway. Had a healthy discussion about Law vs Chaos, and I wanted to share.
Flushmaster 04-27-05, 03:39 AM	You know, that's actually quite perceptive.
Ut-Napishtim 04-27-05, 04:39 AM	Generally in my perspective a lawful character likes order, strategy, planning, preparation, and discipline. Obviously they also tend to follow the law of the land and uphold it in that they consider the authority important to maintaining order and discipline throughout the land. Naturally good characters will also think it's important that that authority is benevolent, fair, and just, while evil ones will try and twist or use it to their advantage. Chaotic characters on the other hand don't like anyone telling them what to do, prefer to just 'wing-it' over strategy, are often unprepared or unpredictable, and are prone to wandering off on their own without informing the other party members because even if they're good their own personal freedom, ideas, urges, whims or fancies are the most important factor in their decision making process. Naturally good ones will often put their own agenda on hold to help someone being repressed or because there's a big cash payoff for them in it, while an evil one is almost completely unconcerned with anything but their own gratification and don't care what they have to do to get it. So lawful characters tend towards the team leader/team player archetype and tend to fill rolls like the coach or center - or even the towel boy if it's all they can do to help the team. Chaotic characters on the other hand are the spoiled all-stars that hold out for 50 million more when they already have 550 million, miss practices, use steroids, show up late to games, get involved in drug-induced high speed chases with the police, beat their pregnant wives (when they're not out scoring with groupies,) and often refer to themselves in the third person.
Thorak 04-27-05, 07:12 AM	Your point only holds if you see Batman as the guy from the later movies and/or the 1960s TV show. For those who actually read the comics, however, Batman is insane. There's a reason every single Batman villain is insane and gets put away in Arkham Asylum rather than a jail cell. Because their insanity is intended to be a twisted reflection of Batman's insanity. Batman is a multiple personality. There is Bruce, and the Bat. Bruce is like you see; kind, decent, generally a good guy. The Bat exists because Bruce wasn't strong enough to cope with the murder of his parents. The Bat is Bruce's need for, not justice, but vengeance. The two identities are aware of each other and use each other freely, but as Bruce gets older, the Bat gets antsier and antsier at being kept from dealing out the hurt he so desperately wants to. That's why, in the recent cartoon where Bruce has retired and is training a new Batman, he's psychotic. I haven't watched the whole series, but I recall one episode had Bruce yelling through the radio for the new Batman to kill the badguy, and the new Batman yelling back about how that would be wrong. The Bat won out, and Bruce is nearly gone. Batman is borderline. If his parents had been shot by cops accidentally, he'd have turned into a cop-murdering psycho. He only gets by because his victims are criminals, and the Bruce personality is able to keep the Bat's darker urges in check. He makes a great character, with a tortured psyche, but he's not really Paladin material. Bruce might be, but the Bat is most definitely not. The Bat wants to show them their entrails so they suffer like he's suffered. He's Chaotic, and probably Evil. Bruce is able to temper that. It's like the Crow. Nobody could call him Good. He exists for vengeance, and to inflict suffering and death on those who killed him. He's definitely heroic, but heroes don't have to be Good.
Seeker95 04-27-05, 09:03 AM	I too would call Batman insane, which means his alignment is indeterminate. Sometimes he is lawful good. Other times he is chaotic good. Yet other times he is lawful neutral. Superman, on the other hand, is in my view, more neutral good than lawful good. He's willing to do the right thing at the expense of following the rules, but is not willing to obey the rules at the expense of doing the right thing.
aleph_woodenglenn 04-27-05, 02:00 PM	While I woulde be tempted to call Batman chaotic good, and Superman Neutral Good. I don't think it would be right Batman would be Neutral (though leaning towards Chaotic) Good. Naturally it depends on where in the Batman schema you are looking, however his vigilantism would typically be construed as Chaotic. However, he has a fairly firm moral code. On the other hand, he is rather volatile...so he more or less toes the line on the C/L spectrum, he frequently protects the innocent from LE or CE bad guys, so he is largely good, though he shows little benevolence to Evil when given a chance (batman has a very high level of inconsistency throughout the years / media) I concur with the ones that say Superman is the LG Paladin. While there have been times when his adherence to the law could be questioned, he has a fairly consistent respect for a clearly ordered reality. The big problem with these characters is that they have been presented in so many ways throughout the years. Both started out LG. No doubt about it. As the story line has grown there has been some oscillation, But I believe both remain good, thought the Bat's vigilantism shies from lawfulness.
Thorak 04-27-05, 04:22 PM	Seeker nailed, in one short sentence, what I was trying to get at. The writers of Batman aren't, for the most part, inconsistent (the later movies and the TV show notwithstanding), they're portraying different stages in his life. When the balance between Bruce and the Bat are at varying levels. Is he borderline nutso? The Bat's risen to power. Is he a noble force for Good? Bruce is in control, for the most part. The two personalities are struggling for dominance; that's part of what makes Batman such an interesting character. If you're going to discuss Batman's alignment, you have to look at it as an average of the two personalities'. The Bat is Chaotic Neutral/Evil. Bruce Wayne is Neutral or Lawful Good. They manage to work out compromises (break the law only to catch criminals, freely unleashed violence when capturing them, but stop short of killing them, etc), but that's what they are, compromises. Each isn't really happy with the situation. Bruce wants a nice peaceful life without being tortured by his past. The Bat wants vengeance and blood.
Sulaco 04-27-05, 04:50 PM	"Alignment argument". Isn't that a bit redundant? :smirk:
Azual 04-27-05, 04:51 PM	soemthing i find very interesting: The majoritys alignment is always the good. ... that makes absolutely no sense, does it? Lemme try and paint it. When you have a society that (let's say) is cannabalistic. They think its good to eat grandma, but the outsider doesn't. Now, society (or the majority) views someone we believe to be good as EVIL. Only when you have a majoritythat says, "yeah, i kill people for fun and i like it!" is it evil. Really, from the perspective of the evil people, they are usually trying to do the right thing. :D
JMalone 04-27-05, 05:25 PM	Generally in my perspective a lawful character likes order, strategy, planning, preparation, and discipline. Obviously they also tend to follow the law of the land and uphold it in that they consider the authority important to maintaining order and discipline throughout the land. Naturally good characters will also think it's important that that authority is benevolent, fair, and just, while evil ones will try and twist or use it to their advantage. Chaotic characters on the other hand don't like anyone telling them what to do, prefer to just 'wing-it' over strategy, are often unprepared or unpredictable, and are prone to wandering off on their own without informing the other party members because even if they're good their own personal freedom, ideas, urges, whims or fancies are the most important factor in their decision making process. Naturally good ones will often put their own agenda on hold to help someone being repressed or because there's a big cash payoff for them in it, while an evil one is almost completely unconcerned with anything but their own gratification and don't care what they have to do to get it. So lawful characters tend towards the team leader/team player archetype and tend to fill rolls like the coach or center - or even the towel boy if it's all they can do to help the team. Chaotic characters on the other hand are the spoiled all-stars that hold out for 50 million more when they already have 550 million, miss practices, use steroids, show up late to games, get involved in drug-induced high speed chases with the police, beat their pregnant wives (when they're not out scoring with groupies,) and often refer to themselves in the third person. Something tells me you do not like the Chaotic alignment. Them's fightin' werds around me. :fight!:
Nuntius128 04-27-05, 07:29 PM	Something tells me you do not like the Chaotic alignment. Them's fightin' werds around me. :fight!: Hmph. *smug arm-crossing* Fighting at the drop of a hat. Chaotic indeed. so predictable. :dancin:
Seeker95 04-27-05, 08:36 PM	soemthing i find very interesting: The majoritys alignment is always the good.Not in D&D. Good is an absolute. No relativism involved. It can also be argued it is not the case in the real world either. But the real world is off limits here.
wordserpent 04-27-05, 11:36 PM	I was more of a Dark Horse and Marvel reader Myself so I couldn't really say anything about Batman or Superman. But the Crow? Evil? It's like the Crow. Nobody could call him Good. He exists for vengeance, and to inflict suffering and death on those who killed him. He's definitely heroic, but heroes don't have to be Good. How many innocents did the Crow kill? What about the Heroin addicted mother that he 'saved' from addiction? How many of those murderous thugs that participated in the rape and murder of his fiance didn't deserve what they had coming to them? Should the Crow have tried to perfoem a 'citizen's arrest'? I'm going by the movie here so if the comic was different then I'm probably way off base.
KhanJackalMoreau 04-28-05, 12:55 AM	The Batman I've read about just doesn't seem to mesh up. The Dark Knight Returns. Kingdom Come. Those are my primary backgrounds with the guy, other than various TV shows, movies, and such. I've picked up and read titles over the years, and I do own quite a few trade paperbacks, but I haven't had a montly subscription in many, many years. In his younger days he may have strayed into lawful neutral, but chaotic? It's like the above post about alignment relativism. It's entirely possible for a nation to have laws that aren't lawful. Or a justice system that isn't lawful. Or police that aren't lawful. A nation that allows justice to be dictated by money, or a police force that doesn't follow it's own rules is neutral, or chaotic. Take... oh, Gotham on the River. Metropolis city in a generic fantasy setting. If the police force in that town is corrupt, and villains run amuck, a vigilante LG style character would be well within his alignment to take it upon himself to clean things up. Has Batman strayed? Of course. But really, it was more the Superman idea that caught my ear. He's the best example of a character that wants to be LG, but keeps forgetting the L for the G. Bah. Ah well. Fun stuff. This is less about the specific Batman vs Superman, than the shining do-gooder vs the vigilante, as it pertains to the LG Paladin vs the CG freedom-junkie.
Ut-Napishtim 04-28-05, 04:47 AM	Something tells me you do not like the Chaotic alignment. Them's fightin' werds around me. :fight!: Huh? I felt that was a pretty accurate assessment. What's the problem? :thinks:
Thorak 04-28-05, 08:23 AM	I was more of a Dark Horse and Marvel reader Myself so I couldn't really say anything about Batman or Superman. But the Crow? Evil? How many innocents did the Crow kill? What about the Heroin addicted mother that he 'saved' from addiction? How many of those murderous thugs that participated in the rape and murder of his fiance didn't deserve what they had coming to them? Should the Crow have tried to perfoem a 'citizen's arrest'? I'm going by the movie here so if the comic was different then I'm probably way off base. First; I didn't say the Crow was Evil. I said the Crow wasn't Good. Neutral is a distinct possibility, and in fact what I was thinking. My point was that some people have the mistaken impression that heroes are inherently Good. Which isn't true. "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." Right. The Crow's altruistic and respects innocent life. "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Right. The Crow exists to hurt and kill those who hurt him and his loved ones. "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships." Right. Sounds exactly like the Crow. Doesn't kill the innocent, but doesn't care a whole lot about people he has no relationship with. He's not out to save the world, he's out for vengeance on those who hurt him and those he loved. I stand by my point.
simen_88 04-28-05, 09:45 AM	How many innocents did the Crow kill? What about the Heroin addicted mother that he 'saved' from addiction? How many of those murderous thugs that participated in the rape and murder of his fiance didn't deserve what they had coming to them? Should the Crow have tried to perfoem a 'citizen's arrest'? I'm going by the movie here so if the comic was different then I'm probably way off base. You don't have to kill innocents to be nongood. The morphine addict was the mother of his friend. He didn't necessarily do it for the sake of the mother, but her daughter. And he torched a fence. That certainly wasn't a good act. Also, the guy was immortal, so he could easily have subdued the bad guys. But he chose to kill them in painful ways, like burning their crotches.
SammasterT 04-28-05, 10:06 AM	And he torched a fence. That certainly wasn't a good act. Also, the guy was immortal, so he could easily have subdued the bad guys. But he chose to kill them in painful ways, like burning their crotches. Well, the fence did put a price tag on the miserey of others, thus encouraging the scum of the earth to go out and inflict misery on the suffering and not-so-suffering masses. Is the Mob-Boss somehow less guilty than the Hitman because he didn't actually pull the trigger? And he could have subdued the bad guys, but what then? Court? Imprisonment? All those funds being devoted to a scum, whose only gonig to become more of a scum and make more scummy friends, as he passes through the system, whilst the offended gets used by the state so it can make a point about whose in charge and then is kicked to the curb and given nothing. Go Crow!!!
Sulaco 04-28-05, 11:45 AM	It's like the Crow. Nobody could call him Good. He exists for vengeance, and to inflict suffering and death on those who killed him. He's definitely heroic, but heroes don't have to be Good. I do. He is punishing the wicked. He is Chaotic, no question about that, but he is Chaotic Good.
Thorak 04-28-05, 12:37 PM	I do. He is punishing the wicked. He is Chaotic, no question about that, but he is Chaotic Good. Punishing the wicked has nothing to do with being Good. Especially when he's primarily concerned with punishing those who directly caused him to suffer. He's not trying to save the world by cleaning up all the scum. He's just trying to off those who offed him. Neutral characters can punish the wicked just as much, they just do so with little regard for the dignity of those they're punishing, and only do so because of personal relationships with others, not because of some high-falutin moral view. And, IMHO, the Crow clearly falls there. He tortures the crap out of his victims. As they tortured him and his loved ones, admittedly, but it's still torture. And he only attacks the ones who hurt him or those he had a personal relationship with, or those who get between him and them. He is the incarnation of "an eye for an eye". That's not exactly a very Good concept.
Sulaco 04-28-05, 12:46 PM	He is the incarnation of "an eye for an eye". That's not exactly a very Good concept. "An eye for an eye" is one of the oldest and most enduring human concepts of good.
Athryn 04-28-05, 12:54 PM	"An eye for an eye" is one of the oldest and most enduring human concepts of good. It's a concept of justice, not good. And it's wrong.
simen_88 04-28-05, 12:56 PM	"An eye for an eye" is one of the oldest and most enduring human concepts of good. Or of lawfulness. Mercy is a good concept. "An eye for an eye" means disregarding human dignity for the sake of dealing out punishment.
Zucrous 04-28-05, 09:31 PM	(cracks knuckles, prepares to write in depth discussion about the human psychie and how it relates to the figures batman, and superman, then realizes how pointless and utterly silly it is to do so) LOL Bravo, bravo I thought that maybe,just maybe this wasn't going to go beyond my knowlage of superheroes ( I dont know that much except that batman wears black, and superman looks like a gender confused hippie) but since I have mostly no idea what u are talking about I would like to stress how lazy people choose chaotic becuase its easy to be a the loner, while people who enjoy actively engaging their characters in their enviroment and with the rest of the party choose lawful. Being chaotic just means u wanna smash stuff. So I am finished
Thorak 04-29-05, 12:18 AM	"An eye for an eye" is one of the oldest and most enduring human concepts of good. Athryn and simen_88 already answered this, but I'll tag on something else. Yes, it's in the Bible. That don't make it an "enduring concept of good". It comes from the Old Testament. You know, the one that has bears ripping apart children for laughing at a bald man? That turned a woman into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed her God and glanced backwards? I could go on and on. The Old Testament is very much about Law, not Good. At least, not as D&D defines the concepts. And nobody take this as a criticism of Christianity; I myself am a devout Christian, and this isn't the place for religious discussion. I only included the above to clarify my greater point; if it doesn't relate to the concept of Good, don't bother citing it, and for this purpose, Good darn well better agree with the D&D concept. Since that's what we're discussing.
MysticTraveler 04-29-05, 01:10 AM	I'm not going to touch alignment in the real world... ...but as far as D&D is concerned, the PHB page 104 clearly spells out what each alignment means and I'll not repeat it. From the D&D perspective, I agree that the Crow would be neutral on the good-evil axis. It's all about what motivates us to do things rather than the effects of our actions. We often have mixed motives, which complicates things, but the primary motivations determine alignment. If the Crow were motivated by good, as per D&D's definition, he'd be more interested in protecting innocent people still alive, and irrespective of whether or not he knows them personally. Rather, he is motivated primarily by personal vengeance against those who have murdered his loved ones. As understandable as this desire is, it is decidedly neutral behavior. Interestingly, on a related note, for those who are not familiar with animal totems, the crow (as in the animal itself) was revered by native american tribes as the knower of universal law. The Book of Great Spirit's Laws (a.k.a. God's Laws) is said to be bound in crow feathers, and the animal is believed to be an undead creature that visits us and reminds us of these higher spiritual laws, laws above our own made up mortal laws. Shamans with "crow medicine" are said to be so intimate with universal law, they have the power and responsibility to bend it and shapeshift (like druids).
The Philosopher King 04-29-05, 10:35 AM	"An eye for an eye" means disregarding human dignity for the sake of dealing out punishment. Gotta jump in here. An eye for an eye is in fact the exact opposite. As part of a law code, its purpose is to limit vengeance in punishment. "Injury is to be repaid in exact kind, but no more, upon the perpatrator" is not as catchy, but is the idea. It's lawful neutral, not necessarily good. Just being pedantic, not trying to hijack. I'd have to go for The Crow as LN as a result. As to Batman, I can't get away from the campy 70s version, so my opinion is invalid :)
Sulaco 04-29-05, 12:28 PM	Or of lawfulness. Mercy is a good concept. "An eye for an eye" means disregarding human dignity for the sake of dealing out punishment. Not every culture sees this the same way. The ancient Romans, for example, viewed mercy as a character flaw. "An eye for an eye" is the ultimate form of justice, and any society that views itsefl to be good should hold justice as paramount IMO.
Sulaco 04-29-05, 12:30 PM	Athryn and simen_88 already answered this, but I'll tag on something else. Yes, it's in the Bible. That don't make it an "enduring concept of good". It comes from the Old Testament. It was written down in The Bible and it is from there that most people know it, but it is a far older and more enduring concept.
KhanJackalMoreau 04-29-05, 12:36 PM	Eh. Justice CAN be good. Lawful good, to be exact. Mercy is Good. Justice is Lawful Good. Chaotic Good isn't very just, it's fair. I see a distinction there, maybe I'm hallucinating.
Seeker95 04-29-05, 01:00 PM	Justice CAN be good. Lawful good, to be exact. Mercy is Good. Justice is Lawful Good. I would argue that while justice "can" be good, it is not inherently good. More specifically, justice *cannot* be evil. Mercy is good. Justice is lawful. Two completely different spectra. So much so that they can be mutually exclusive in many circumstances.
JStegmaier 04-29-05, 01:01 PM	Eh. Justice CAN be good. Lawful good, to be exact. Mercy is Good. Justice is Lawful Good. Chaotic Good isn't very just, it's fair. I see a distinction there, maybe I'm hallucinating. Justice above all else is Lawful Neutral. Lawful Good encompasses justice, but also cares about good, while Lawful Neutral cares for justice only, caring little for either good or evil. "An eye for an eye" is Lawful Neutral--the death penalty for murderers, for instance, is all about punishing the wrong-doers (Lawful Neutral), were as prison sentences are about metting out justice and hopefully rehabitating the criminal, i.e. Lawful Good.
simen_88 04-29-05, 01:56 PM	Gotta jump in here. An eye for an eye is in fact the exact opposite. As part of a law code, its purpose is to limit vengeance in punishment. Or to make sure enough vengeance is dealt. In this case, it definitely was about making sure someone is punished enough. EDIT: Sulaco, although the romans, and many other people as well, disagree with what is good and bad, alignment as discussed in this thread is clearly defined in the PHB.
Thorak 04-29-05, 03:31 PM	It was written down in The Bible and it is from there that most people know it, but it is a far older and more enduring concept. How does it being older than it's more common Biblical portrayal somehow make it inherently "gooder"? Does that mean that the older something is, the "gooder" it is? Then I guess we should go back to animal sacrifice and slavery, since those were common in ancient times. Or maybe you're nitpicking at a comment because you realize you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to your actual argument. I used the Bible only because I assumed that was where you were coming from. Since the Bible is often seen as a book of how to be Good. If you're just going to be talking about Babylonian law codes, I have absolutely no idea how you're tying it to being Good or not, when it's very clearly going to be stuck on the law/chaos axis. And before we start talking about the Romans, let's remember; they were racist imperialists convinced of their own superiority, who only recognized other peoples as their equals if they couldn't crush them militarily, who engaged in slavery and blood sport at various times throughout their reign. And, for that matter, under Roman law a father had the right to kill his wife and children, not to mention slaves, if he so chose. And there was also no concept of "rape". Women could be forced to have sex, and it wasn't a crime. The Roman crime that is called "rapina" is one of kidnapping; rapina is the verb "to sieze". It had no sexual connotations at the time. So whatever the Romans may have thought isn't really significant. Their culture is, on several levels, not Good by the measure D&D uses. Very Lawful, yes. Not Good.
Andrew_980 04-29-05, 04:57 PM	the problem is that the alignments are not fully defined, only given vague descriptions without good examples of situations. Also because of this vagueness there is room for interpretation and room for folks to quote a ill-defined lines as gospel and demand others follow their version of the "true" way an alignment works
The Philosopher King 04-30-05, 09:09 AM	And before we start talking about the Romans, let's remember; they were racist imperialists convinced of their own superiority, who only recognized other peoples as their equals if they couldn't crush them militarily, who engaged in slavery and blood sport at various times throughout their reign. I agree with you that the Romans are not exaclty relevant to the discussion at hand. Nevertheless, calling them racist imperialists is... not necessarily accurate. It all depends on what period we're actually talking about for some of it, of course. Anyway: Romans developed a massive cultural cringe the first time they moved even slightly outside of Latium. They adopted large segments of Etruscan spirituality, and later took on Hellenistic philosophy and parts of their cultural identity quite enthusiastically. I don't see how they're particularly racist. As to imperialism, well this is a tricky subject. While the Romans did go through periods of rampant expansionism, sheer basic imperialism of the "expand at all costs" school is notably absent. They made sure to attempt to justify almost every war they engaged upon, and sheerly imperialist motives were often blamed for major disasters, to whit Crassus at Carrhae, the Caudine Forks, and the corrupt proconsuls who kept poking Mithridates, as some examples. They refused sheer imperialism. THeir own brand of hegemonic imperium was fine of course - when Romans do it, it's cute. :) As to seeing as equals those they couldn’t defeat, that’s just wrong. Neither the Picti nor the Germani were ever defeated by the Romans, and neither was ever seen as anything more than a bunch of barbarians. So what I’m saying is that it’s more complex than a quick facile gloss makes it seem. Which, I believe, was your point to begin with. ;) Oh, and to whoever said it, mercy is not necessarily a character flaw for Romans. Humanitas and Clementia went through a variety of iterations but clementia, especially, was usually seen as a virtue. Witness praise of Caesar for his pardoning of Italian cities, or his hilarious distress at not getting to pardon Cato Uticensis. Or to make sure enough vengeance is dealt. In this case, it definitely was about making sure someone is punished enough. I’ll agree that it’s about making sure the punishment is “enough”, but it’s definitely restrictive, not vindictive. The punishment is to be proportional to, and not exceed, the crime. Vengeance is assumed, and the law wants to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand, otherwise you’ll get a series of avenging and re-avenging, which will eventually put rather a scar in a people. Josephus, writing in the later 1st century AD, refers to the Mosaic Law as including a weregild type clause in these situations – the one who maimed another shall be maimed in the same way unless the victim is willing to accept “eye-money.” Post-biblical law tended to give the same ideas – proportional punishment or a fine. ANYway. I can never seem to post ON topics lately :)
SammasterT 04-30-05, 10:40 AM	Then I guess we should go back to animal sacrifice and slavery, since those were common in ancient times. Well, consdering we still regularly eat meat, and animal sacrifice is generally ALL about slaughtering an animal within a sacrilized context for the purposes of consumption, and considering that some Jews still won't eat meat that has not been slaughtered by a Rabbi, whats the, errr, beef? Is it better to have them (the animal) treated inhumanely and killed en masse, with no due consideration and a great deal of psychogical disconnect from reality of the matter for the most of us, at a slaughter house? If anyone thinks that animal sacrifices is so evil, then the first thing they really need to do is get the meat off the table and eliminate it from their diet, because what we do today is a far cry worse than humanely putting an animal to death in a sacralized context with full respect for its existence and the good we get from it. Regarding the matter of vengeance; Teutonivc law was founded onb a fundamental beleif in freedom, didn't cultivate police forces and allowed for kindred's to pursue wreak, vendetta, vengeance. Along with this, the words and concepts of good and evil are Teutonic in origin. With that said, while the feud was allowed, and even deemed the honourable route to go at some places and in some times, eventually it will disrupt the rest of the community, the wellbeing of the community being the root of the very concept of goodness. So, while permissable, ultimately vengeance, that is, feuding was not consdiered the best of acts by a people who knew how to pursue the vendetta. As for executing criminals not being good, while apparently imprisoning him of ra substantial amount of time is good, that is a real brain twister. Its absurd really. The offended deserves the resources it takes to house, guard and (fail to) rehabilitate the offender far more than the scum in question. Giving these resources to offender, and using the offended only to prove whose in charge, ie. "the Law", is tantamount to evil. Especially considering that according, notonly to cops, but even to Supreme Court Judges these days rehab isn't what goes on in prison and criminals tend to walk out worse than they were going in. But thats good, right?
Thorak 04-30-05, 12:35 PM	I agree with you that the Romans are not exaclty relevant to the discussion at hand. Nevertheless, calling them racist imperialists is... not necessarily accurate. It all depends on what period we're actually talking about for some of it, of course. Anyway: Romans developed a massive cultural cringe the first time they moved even slightly outside of Latium. They adopted large segments of Etruscan spirituality, and later took on Hellenistic philosophy and parts of their cultural identity quite enthusiastically. I don't see how they're particularly racist. Take, for example, the word "barbarian". Does it have bad connotations outside D&D? You betcha. What does the word mean, historically? "Not-Roman". Sure, the Romans were willing to take on what they saw as good qualities about other people, and in some ways held the Greeks up as examplars, but they still saw themselves as superior to all others. It's a racism of their own superiority, rather than other peoples being useless. And yes, I'm grossly overgeneralizing, because I didn't want to write twenty thousand words or more examining Roman racist attitudes through the various periods. As to imperialism, well this is a tricky subject. While the Romans did go through periods of rampant expansionism, sheer basic imperialism of the "expand at all costs" school is notably absent. They made sure to attempt to justify almost every war they engaged upon, and sheerly imperialist motives were often blamed for major disasters, to whit Crassus at Carrhae, the Caudine Forks, and the corrupt proconsuls who kept poking Mithridates, as some examples. They refused sheer imperialism. THeir own brand of hegemonic imperium was fine of course - when Romans do it, it's cute. :) As to seeing as equals those they couldn’t defeat, that’s just wrong. Neither the Picti nor the Germani were ever defeated by the Romans, and neither was ever seen as anything more than a bunch of barbarians. True, in part. The Germanic tribes were never completely crushed, but they did lose battles constantly; a lot of the reason they weren't completely crushed is that there wasn't anything Rome needed in the north. The Picti are perhaps unique; the only group who, when pushed to the wall, consistently beat the pants off the Romans, to the point that they got freaked out and built a big wall trying to keep them out (Hadrian's wall, still somewhat standing today). Of course, I can understand why having naked woad-painted seeming savages charging into your immaculate ranks, and then winning, could be demoralizing. I was thinking more of peoples like the Persians, one of the only peoples the Romans were more than willing to admit as political and cultural equals. So what I’m saying is that it’s more complex than a quick facile gloss makes it seem. Which, I believe, was your point to begin with. ;) Right. I'll remind you again that it's impossible to give a thorough treatment without writing a thesis. We can keep nitpicking at little points, but if we keep that up, we'll just end up writing said thesis between the two of us.
SammasterT 04-30-05, 01:23 PM	True, in part. The Germanic tribes were never completely crushed, but they did lose battles constantly; a lot of the reason they weren't completely crushed is that there wasn't anything Rome needed in the north. Well, in favour of the Teutonic tribes, they, a buncha backwater naked hillbillies, not unlike the Picts, though barely into the Iron Age, were the one's that dispelled the myth of the invinciblity of Roman's Imperial Legions. They are also the one's who came to increasingly populate and lead the armies of Rome, such that what we really have after a time are Teutonic warriors fighting Teutonic warriors. And what we finally get is not a crushed group of Teutonic tribes barely clinging ont their freedom and cultural identity, but, quite the contrary, we get the East Germanics, the Goths, taking over the rulership of the Western Empire, and all but dictating the face of European religious life as the papacy transformed Christianity into a Teutonic Heresy that we in the West have yet to shed. Nope. The Teutonic tribes weren't completely crushed. :D
Thorak 04-30-05, 03:01 PM	Nope. The Teutonic tribes weren't completely crushed. :D Thought I said that ;) Yes, the Germanic tribes weren't crushed; the Visigoths and Ostrogoths especially were chief reasons for the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire. That's the problem with sweeping historical commentary; you miss the bits you are forced to gloss over. Suffice it to say I was thinking of the heyday of the Roman empire, rather than as it was already well into its slow collapse.
wordserpent 04-30-05, 09:54 PM	Of course, I can understand why having naked woad-painted seeming savages charging into your immaculate ranks, and then winning, could be demoralizing. Were the picts actually able to beat the Romans on an open field? Or the Teutons for that matter? My understanding was that the Legions lost in Tutobourg and in Caledonia were in the woods when they disappeared. They were apparently the victims of Guerilla tactics. Could Naked screaming woad-painted warriors stand up to a 1st or 2nd century legion that was formed up and decked out in Lorica Segmentata and Large rectangular scutum, with cavalry and archers to augment them? Oh and I think that you are right concerning the Crow's Neutrality. Based on your clarification of what the crow did (and didn't do) his actions cartainly are Neutral rather than good.
The Philosopher King 05-01-05, 10:07 AM	Were the picts actually able to beat the Romans on an open field? Or the Teutons for that matter? My understanding was that the Legions lost in Tutobourg and in Caledonia were in the woods when they disappeared. They were apparently the victims of Guerilla tactics Could Naked screaming woad-painted warriors stand up to a 1st or 2nd century legion that was formed up and decked out in Lorica Segmentata and Large rectangular scutum, with cavalry and archers to augment them? The Romans rarely lost, in their heyday, on an open field in an infantry battle. Sometimes cavalry could outdo them, or non-standard guerilla tactics, like you said. The problem was that the Romans had evolved a style of war unsuited to these conditions. Which is ironic since the legiones themselves were originally adaptations of hoplite warfare to the hill-country of the Samnites. The woadenated barbari could indeed withstand a full legion or 3 if they were able to control the ground and use it. Teutoburg is a perfect example. In the open field things may have been different. <stuff> Concerning the racism thing, I've apparently been taken in by Tacitus' noble savage picture. :weep: Anyway, the nitpicking and thread hijack come from the fact that I'm actually in the early research stages of a thesis which deals, in part, with Roman imperialism. SO my spidey-senses were tingling. I'll stop though, for the sake of all concerned. :)
Thorak 05-01-05, 04:39 PM	In addition to TPK's comments; the Picts were a warrior culture. They trained from a young age with weapons, and had near-constant skirmishes among themselves. This meant that each Pictish warrior tended to be highly skilled. The Romans had really great training, and I'm not saying they were inexperienced, but they relied on each other in combat. That's usually a good thing. Against the individual-combat style of the Picts, however, it fell apart. If they smashed into your lines in several places and started hacking at you, you lose the advantage the formation gave, and their greater skill at that style of combat won out. They took heavy casualties, sure. But there's also the demoralizing factor of having buck-naked blue-painted guys charging you, when you're the guys in shiny armor. Especially when they hit, and you're forced to fall back a bit. Demoralization is a huge factor in battle; if you break the enemy's confidence, you win. And when the enemy is apparently insane, your confidence tends to go into the toilet, especially if they seem to be winning. And again, before TPK jumps all over me; these are general comments, not based on any specific battle, since those could go either way. Nor am I saying the Picts were better fighters, they were just better able to keep the battles on the terms they wanted them to be.
The Philosopher King 05-02-05, 12:14 AM	And again, before TPK jumps all over me; these are general comments, not based on any specific battle, since those could go either way. Nor am I saying the Picts were better fighters, they were just better able to keep the battles on the terms they wanted them to be. Come now, would I do that? :P ...wait... don't answer that.
SammasterT 05-02-05, 11:13 AM	I've apparently been taken in by Tacitus' noble savage picture. :weep: I woudn't totally dismiss Tacitus', or anyone elses, ideas of the noble savage. Not to trounce on the nobility of Rome, but one of the reason the Teutonic tribes triumphed, despite being the hillbillies of their day and age, whilst Rome crumbled beneath its own weight and socio-cultural ineptitude, is that the various Teutonic tribes enjoyed a high level of solidarity. They might have prefered to fight man-on-man like einherijar or "single combatants", but in terms of society these people had it **together**. Common culture, common history, common vision. Even today, anthropologist after anthropologist will tell that rural tribal folk, of any variety, and whatever they might suffer technologically, are far superior to us civilized folk in terms of psychological and societal health. That is, they know how to treat their fellow tribes men. Even the poor, basically inept ones. In contrast, the Roman Empire produced the Wests first **Urban** Salvation Cults, because salvation is something that a alienated citified person can relate to. And, as mentioned in a previous post, Christianity had to be radically transformed in order to make it palatable to the heathen ... or at least a select group of heathen whom wanted special alliances in return, who wanted power over the next tribal king, who wanted open access to Rome's international trade network, and whom didn't want the south to shut them down in terms of trade. Anyway, the point is that the noble savage, like many another sterotype, exists for a reason and is not entirely unfounded. And not to say that ignobility doesn't exist amongst tribal folk, which, the conversion would seem to make obvious. You know, amongst any group of people you will find your Edwins and Coifis and Charlemagnes and Trygvassons ... the greedy little terd who is willing to sell his soul, and yours too, for the sake of personal power. I can't remember the name of the author -- actually it was James Russell -- but there is a good book called ....... "The Germanization of Early Mediavel Christianity" (or something to that effect, cant recall **off the top of my head**) written as part of a masters thesis that, in part, examines Teutonic culture on the eve of the conversion
SammasterT 05-02-05, 11:33 AM	To steer this back towards alignment, but in light of the above, I wonder how societies are defined in tersm of alignment, because if we look at Rome or our own society, we can see alot of structure and togetherness on the surface, in terms of the nuts and bolts of it all, but on the level which we "all" live on we see alot of chaos in our society. Likewise, while the elder Teutonic tribes might seem quite chaotic, on the folk level they seem to have been a more law abiding folk than one will normally find amongst culturally alienated civilized folk. In fact, its easy enough to see that laws are drafted and special measures taken to enforce them precisely when people are not being good to one another and when they are not taking responsbility for their actions. Where law is light, it tends to be because the people know how to get along, via thew or "social custom", and are more inclined to take responsibility for their actions. So, one might presume that where a system is "law" heavy it is becasue the folk are a chaotic mess, whilst where "law" is light it is because the folk are more inclined to obey the rules. Hmmmmm ..... :eek:
Thorak 05-02-05, 12:17 PM	SammasterT, I think it's more than alignment arguments with regard to actual cultures is difficult because every culture thinks they're "right". This is true of individuals, too, but I make the point because it inevitably comes up in any alignment discussion. Alignment has absolutely nothing to do with what is absolutely "right". It is a relative concept. To take a current issue from the world today, some people think it's "right" to download music off the internet. Some people think it's akin to stealing and is wrong. Is it right or wrong? No. It's entirely cultural. Just in North America, it's illegal to download in the US, and legal to download in Canada. Is that because our moral views are vastly different? No, we just have slightly different definitions of what's "right". Alignment's the same way. If we start talking about another culture being Chaotic or Neutral, we're not saying they're worse. We're describing their viewpoint. It's only worse if you yourself are Lawful and/or Good in outlook. And, today, in Western culture, especially among the lower and middle classes, lawfulness and Goodness (as D&D defines it) are what is culturally encouraged. Which is why we innately tend to see Good and Law as the 'right' choice. But it ain't. Change culture, and even most of us today would acknowledge that the mythical Robin Hood is a "good guy". Even though he's chaotic. And perfectly willing to kill for his beliefs. Also because we put Good higher than Law, culturally. If it were the other way around, though, he'd be a badguy, in the exact same way political terrorists are; ambushing government agencies to get their point across. And, in the end, nobody does something they think is "wrong". You might do something you think is naughty, but that's different. Even serial killers think their actions are "right". It doesn't mean society has to agree that they're right, it just means you should acknowledge that they believe they are. And that "rightness" lies only in that belief, not in any absolute quantity. I've wandered a bit, and I'm not trying to say you're wrong, SammasterT; legal history is really interesting precisely because you can assume that if something is illegal, it's a problem. And if something isn't illegal, it's probably not. Studies of the law codes and actual cases, for instance, regarding rape in Medieval England, show that while the law codes only state it's a property crime against her husband or father, in actual fact almost every case was dismissed when the two decided to marry; it was a charge laid by fathers against guys who they'd caught being "friendly" with their daughter, completely consensually. The few cases of what we today would consider rape are almost all treated primarily as assaults, and heavily punished. So the law codes suggest that rape wasn't a big deal, which suggests patriarchal views, until you actually look at cases, and find that it's a difference between what the laws say, and how the people used them. It's an interesting sub-discipline.