Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Perun 02-26-07, 08:51 AM	Or, rather, how does a LN cleric of a LE deity remain neutral? (Or a CN cleric of a CE deity, for that matter?) Evi deities, in general, have evil dogmas. And F&P describes dogma as "the basic tenets of the deity's creed or teachings" (F&P, p. 10). Since they are the basic tenets, I read that as the essential tenets, those that remain constant even if there are differing cults or movements through the faith (barring heresies and similar unusual circumstances). Set's dogma, for example, says (among other things): "Sacrifice both wealth and sentients to Set" (F&P, p. 147). How can anyone who sacrifices sentient creatures to an evil deity for any prolonged period of time (since we're generally talking life-long commitment here) remain non-evil? I'm not talking about all evil deities here. Certain deities, like those who embody the destructive powers of nature and who do not require sentient sacrifices are probably "safe" (like Umberlee, if I'm remembering it right). But I don't see how clerics serving the deities that embody and actively pursue evil (like Set above) could be anything but evil themselves. Any thoughts?
Jax_Nightstalker 02-26-07, 04:54 PM	That is a good question. I tried to come up with a good answer but seem kind of stuck on what to say. When it comes to following a evil god and their dogma it seems more layed out for those followers who are the high priest, clerics, black guards...ect. The evil god also have lay worshippers who don't hold positions in the church, just ordinary people who live and work. Some people may worship a evil god for a different reason depending on that gods portfolio. Some may worship Beshaba to starve of bad luck in their lives or some politician my worship Cyric because he is the god of lies, deception, and Intrigue but doesn't pay attention to the other stuff Cyric represents. If I come up with a better answer for you I get back to this thread.
The_Shaman 02-26-07, 07:30 PM	I guess that can be a part of it. Just as some characters represent a part of their deity's portfolio more than others (domains), you could argue that each cleric is a part of the dogma they're keenest on, and others that they don't quite adhere to. It depends on the deity, of course, to decide what it can tolerate and what not. In some cases, particularly with LE and CE deities, you could argue that the clerics can be more LN or CN, respectively, than LE and CE. Some deities' dogmas seem to allow for more deviance (a CN cleric of Talos would have little problem venerating him as a natural force), but with others (say, Urdlen or Gargauth) it may be harder. Still, it's possible to consider almost any deity (incl. imo the NE ones) as tolerating a neutral cleric. Say, Kurtulmak is an evil deity, but a overseer cleric who focuses on the importance of work and toil and limits the harsher tenets into a harsh, xenophobic isolationism might be close enough to LN and useful enough not to get smitten. On the other hand, a LN person may join the Banite clergy simply believing that it's the only bastion of law in the borderlands, and the socities need law - even a harsh one - to develop. However, s/he may be less ruthless than her brethren, at least in terms of how the populace is being treated, and might be able to retain her LN alignment despite the majority of the Banite cult being evil. In the case of Set, it's how directly you interpret the teaching. Technically, by spreading Set's word, and by gaining new converts, you "sacrifice" them to him: the fact that they haven't died yet is a technicality (and when they die as his followers, their souls will go to him surer than any ceremony could take them). As they toil for his glory, they sacrifice themselves to set - it can sound far-fetched, but it might just be a valid interpretation. Sure, some clerics would beg to differ - but if you gain 1000 converts and the corresponding amount of treasure and they are run out of town in disgrace, it needn't be you who gets smitten.
BadCatMan 02-26-07, 08:01 PM	If every time you kill a sentient monster or an orc or a goblin - just like most paladins would - and you say "In the name of Set!" or something, then technically you are sacrificing in his name. Or at least you could claim that to other Settites. You could also get volunteers for it. Like a few old and devout Settites ready to go meet their god, or anyone tired of life.
TomCosta 02-27-07, 05:29 PM	Concepts of good and evil depend on a lot on motivation and not just actions. Murder is evil, but where does that place the guard who didn't actually commit the murder, but stood by and let it happen? There are lots of possible examples. Here are some. In the War of the Spider Queen, the big fighter, whose name is escaping me, pretty much goes along to get along in his world. He's not a nice guy, but he doesn't go out of his way to do evil deeds or enjoy it when he does do something he feels he must but doesn't want to. His action are sometimes evil, but his motivation is usually one of doing so because he feels he has not choice, which is not evil. Of course, none of this takes into consideration the culpability of their actions and whether or not there should be some form of punishment for them, just whether he was good or evil. The same would be true of any evil follower of an evil god. In Unther, many people frustrated by the tyranny of Gilgeam turned to Tiamat. Many of these people felt the power that Tiamat offered was the only way to throw off the yoke of Gilgeam, and at least one of Tiamat's high priestesses in Unther was not evil. In the recent novel about the priestess of Loviatar, she's not evil, I thought she was messed in the head, but not evil. On the contrary, she did what she was taught was the way things were done and took her responsibilities seriously. In other cases, maybe you have a less than devout follower, someone who worships Bane in Zhentil Keep because its a way to avoid being harassed, get ahead, and therefore do right by your family. Etc....
BreegJac17 02-27-07, 05:47 PM	Look to Erevis Cale. N to a NE diety.
Todesherr 02-27-07, 10:09 PM	Remember that many Deities themselves are a mishmash of alignments. Take Garlglittergold who is NG (LG) or Wee Jas who is LN (LE) or Garagos who is definitely CN (CE) so why not Clerics who are both as well...?
Meldread 02-28-07, 12:42 AM	I think, fundamentally, it comes down to how you view alignment. It is one of the most tricky parts of the D&D system because it is so open ended. I can only give you my prospective on how I view it and play it. Good and Evil are 80% motivation and 20% action. If you kill others because you enjoy it, or because you want to cause someone who loves them pain, or because you want revenge - then it is evil. The killing wasn't the evil act; it was the motivation behind the act. Most people in the D&D world will fall along the neutral alignment axis. The rest will fall along the outer margins of good and evil. For most people living in the world (NPC's) they aren't powerful enough and their actions don't hold enough sway too really move their alignment in one direction or another. This is not so for Player Characters, because as they grow in power, their actions have more influence. They have consequences and a larger impact on the world. The alignment is on a bell curve like system, with neutral being in the center. If you are evil it is harder to become even more evil but far easier to do more good. If you are good, it is harder for you to become even more good but it is far easier for you to do more evil. If you are neutral, it is equally easy to move in either direction. Law and Chaos function similarly, but also more heavily take into account characters actions rather than his motivations. Knowingly breaking the law is not an inherently chaotic act, chronic disregard of the law is a chaotic act. Law and Chaos also largely depend on the reason for a character's extreme deviation to the end of the axis. A monk, for example, must be lawful because he lives a strictly disciplined life. However, if he is Lawful Evil and believes that robbery and murder are perfectly okay, I will not cause him to lose his Lawful status because of it. That is not why he is Lawful. He becomes more chaotic when not living up to the discipline he was taught. The same might not be true for other members of the party. As a DM it is important that a player justify their characters alignment during creation so that you can adjust it properly. If Bo the Barbarian is Chaotic Neutral because he cannot seem to control his emotions, and Bo is wandering around with nary an emotional outburst then he should slowly begin moving toward Lawful. Before doing that as the DM you should try and place Bo in situations in which you believe he should act out as he described his character to act. Alignment shifts are not a punishment. They are a reflection of how a character relates to the world around him/her. A monk who stays up late to party, who never trains, who is always the first in line to get a huge slice of cake is not much of a monk and thus should be awarded chaotic points. What is important to remember is that once a PC has reached one of the alignment extremes, good or evil, lawful or chaotic, it is much more difficult to shift toward their extreme end of the axis. You can only become so chaotic or be so lawful. Eventually, you will perform a lawful act as a chaotic individual and begin shifting in the other direction, which would require you to perform an equally chaotic act to maintain your alignment. To use Bo the Barbarian he may summon up the will power to keep his emotions in check when dealing with a certain individual. He wants to be paid for his task and knows that he will not be paid very well if he loses his temper, even though he really hates the guy he is working with. He then receives a slight Lawful shift for being able to keep his emotions under control. However, later that evening at a local tavern, drinking away his coin, he overhears someone make an insulting comment about him. All liquored up, it does not take Bo long to react which results in an argument, and him breaking the other guys arm. He had to pay a fine or go to prison, which resulted in losing part of the hard-earned coin he had just recently won. He receives an equal amount of shift back toward where he was before. Had Bo chosen to ignore the comment by the patron at the tavern he would have received another lawful shift. This would have continued until Bo has become Neutral – at which point game wise, Bo has learned to be reasonably in control of his emotions just like everyone else. He still loses his temper from time to time (thus he is not Lawful), but it is within the normal range for the world in which he lives. To use the example of Set calling for sentient sacrifices, that does not necessarily make a character evil. Certainly, it looks evil to others but the characters motivations behind the sacrifices do not inherently make him evil. A Lawful Neutral Cleric of Set, who sacrifices a sentient individual, always striving for one that he knows will please Set the most, each and every full moon is the epitome of a Lawful Neutral character. He only becomes evil if he begins to do it for personal reasons, not reasons out of faith or devotion to his deity. If he begins sacrificing because he enjoys it, because he wants to cause pain or suffering, or for any other reason that could be deemed self-serving then he begins shifting toward evil. In the case of Set and a Lawful Neutral Cleric, it is not the Cleric that is evil but Set for making the demand. The Cleric is only following the orders given to him by his deity. Lawful Neutral Clerics are the type of characters that are utterly devoted to their deity. Lawful Evil characters seek power from evil deities and worship them for that reason. They perform the rituals because they want something in return. Lawful Neutral Clerics perform the rituals because they want to serve. They are more likely to be zealots of the faith and by far the most devout. They will not question the dogma, but they will question other members devotion to the deity. Here is a real life example of child sacrifice that may help put things into prospective from a character point of view. Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who once wrote the following, "...there was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire." He also wrote that relatives were forbidden to weep and that when Agathocles defeated Carthage, the Carthaginian nobles believed that they had displeased the gods by substituting low-born children for their own. They then attempted to make amends by sacrificing 200 children at once, children of the best families, and in their enthusiasm actually sacrificed 300 of their own children. Now, regardless if Diodorus account is accurate or not, does sacrificing 300 of their own children to gods who they believe are punishing them make the Carthaginians evil? Or were they simply acting as they believed their faith dictated? Certainly, we can look at them by today’s standards and say that it is evil, but to them - their motivations – was it evil? I apply this same context to characters and the game world. As a DM it is your responsibility to give them chances to redeem themselves if they perform actions that are out of character. Everyone occasionally acts out of character. Even the most stalwart Paladin will occasionally slip. That is what makes them believable characters. The quest is not often can a Paladin remain true to his code, but can he redeem himself after he has broken it. That is what makes good stories, and that is what I am in the business of providing. Others play things differently, that is understandable. I do things as stated above.
Lord_Lucien_Karsus_Necron 02-28-07, 01:10 AM	Take Bane. You could be a Lawful Natural worshiper of Bane, because you believe in strong centralized leadership. You believe that enlightened Tyrants are the way to go. As for the hatred, strife, and fear aspects of Bane. You just think of those as tools to use against the enemies of your Tyrant. People have a way of rationalizing their belief structure. What might seem evil to you could be someone promoting the greater good in their own mind. It’s all in how we see the world. Just one mans opinion.
Stigger 02-28-07, 01:11 AM	Excellent point there LLKN.
ShadezofDis 02-28-07, 02:15 PM	Take Bane. You could be a Lawful Natural worshiper of Bane, because you believe in strong centralized leadership. You believe that enlightened Tyrants are the way to go. As for the hatred, strife, and fear aspects of Bane. You just think of those as tools to use against the enemies of your Tyrant. People have a way of rationalizing their belief structure. What might seem evil to you could be someone promoting the greater good in their own mind. It’s all in how we see the world. Just one mans opinion. Indeed, further, they could view democracy, in any form, as the path towards corruption. It could very well be a "They shouldn't get a vote because they aren't informed enough to make a decision" type stance. As a side note, I have a theory on NE that I really like (and run with a particular NPC), it goes like this; The easiest path to power is upon the backs of others. Thus, the higher the others stand the higher you shall ultimately stand. This NPC is working to improve a town's financial and defense situations, he's invested time and money and effort into making the population . . . better, for a lack of a more accurate word. Not because he wants to help the people per say, more because the better off the town is the better off he will be. Also, it's a lot easier to get away with things when people know you donate to charity and help everyone out :)
Pitviper64 02-28-07, 07:17 PM	Here is another interpritation. It might be something along the lines of intent. To the cleric the act of sacrifice may not be an evil deed but merely a show of his devotion to a power greater than himself. Its kind of like how killing kobolds or orcs isnt an evil act. This is just the common view becasue there are more beings that think that they are evil. But they have loved ones back at their camps to. Its all in how you view the act. To most people orcs are evil because many have attacked villages. But to the orcs we may be evil for invading their tribal lands. Hope I my two cents helped!
Perun 03-01-07, 04:10 AM	I'm replying to Pitviper64 here, but his view on things is similar to several already posted on this thread, so consider this a general reply :) Here is another interpritation. It might be something along the lines of intent. To the cleric the act of sacrifice may not be an evil deed but merely a show of his devotion to a power greater than himself. Its kind of like how killing kobolds or orcs isnt an evil act. This is just the common view becasue there are more beings that think that they are evil. But they have loved ones back at their camps to. Its all in how you view the act. To most people orcs are evil because many have attacked villages. But to the orcs we may be evil for invading their tribal lands. Hope I my two cents helped! The way I see it, part of the problem is that D&D (in its current incarnation) unofficially recognises two different takes on alignment. The first is the "descriptively flavourful" alignment, used for most classes and creatures in the game (like barbarians, bards, fighters, monks, rogues, sorcerers and wizards). For them, the alignment is merely a tool to describe their current moral and ethical outlook. Then there are the creatures and classes who use alignment as a mechanic (clerics and paladins; and druids and rangers too, but to a (somewhat) lesser degree). For them the alignment is very real, quantifyable thing. Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in D&D. They are the forces that define the cosmos. (PH, p. 103, under "Alignment", end of first paragraph) Detect evil does not detect presence or absence of evil intents (as it did in 2nd Edition), it detects the presence of Evil, regardless of its source. Clerics serving evil deities have aura as strong as that of evil outsiders (who are the very embodiment of evil in D&D). An cleric of an evil deity knows he's tainted (or blessed, depending on your view), he knows he's pledged his life to a creature of supernatural evil -- he merely has to cast detect evil when he's all alone in his quarters to shake off any doubts about it. Evil churches might call their "brand" of evil a different name, depending on their dogmas, but it's still Evil. As for sacrificing sentient creatures, it's always an evil act -- killing a helpless (not innocent, helpless) creature to appease a supernatural creature of evil (as most evil deities are)? In D&D terms, if the cleric doesn't see it as wrong, then he's definitely evil, no questions asked. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatres simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty for some evil deity or master. (Emphasis mine) (PH, p. 104, Good vs. Evil, third paragraph) Like I said before, with certain evil deities, I can see non-evil clerics worshipping them (I already mentioned Umberlee). Such deities might be evil themselves, but their portfolios don't neccessarily have to be described as evil. But, to reiterate, I could see a LN youngster joining the church of Bane (for example) and becoming a priest. However, I can't see him remaining LN for long. The church requires clerics to perform sacrifices. It's more than likely that our priest will be given that honour. If he shows he's got reservations about it, it's very probable he'll be given more and more sacrifices to perform (LE religion, most members are LE, they'll probaby have a blast watching him squirm). Not to mention that, if he has any desire to advance through the ranks, he'll have to deal with backstabbing, assassination attempts, and various other activities often encountered in such organisations. Oddly enough, there are some evil deities whose portfolio might easily accomodate for non-evil clerics, but who are, by their own alignment and the one-step rule, limited to evil creatures only (Mask and Shar, for example).
DrBoron 03-01-07, 09:23 AM	Good point, Perun. This thread reminds me of the rough time my paladin of Helm had accepting that in 3.x, suddenly Helm decided to let LE clerics in :(
Meldread 03-01-07, 01:29 PM	Perun- I would encourage you to read my post, especially the point I made about the Carthaginians. I could certainly see certain cases where sacrifice wouldn't earn someone an evil shift. As I said, it ultimately comes down to character motivation. If someone is worshiping an evil deity for the power they'd receive in return, or some other selfish reason, then their actions are evil. If someone is worshiping an evil deity because they were brought up to believe in the deity (their culture), and they earnestly wish to please him/her/it then it is different. The person is not looking for something in return, the act itself is not evil - others would view it as such (because the request from the deity -is- evil) - but that does not make the character performing the action evil. Most people in a society aren't going to be good or evil. Most are going to be neutral, and for evil deities this means that many of their followers are neutral in alignment. Bane has a great deal many Lawful Neutral followers, even though the Priesthood itself may be mostly evil. The difficult part is remaining Neutral when worshiping an evil deity, because as you stated - as you rise in the ranks - you are more likely to receive evil shifts through the actions you perform. However, that's why Paladin's take a stand against evil and call it a corrupting force - because that is exactly how it works.
MarkusTay63 03-01-07, 01:46 PM	Indeed, further, they could view democracy, in any form, as the path towards corruption. It could very well be a "They shouldn't get a vote because they aren't informed enough to make a decision" type stance. Let's leave the Bush administration out of this... ;) On a more serious note, the Central American civilizations are a good example of people sacrificing thousands because they thought it was the right thing to do. Many of the 'victims' went willingly to their gods, yet today we view any form of suicide as sacriligous. In the War of the Spider Queen, the big fighter, whose name is escaping me,Ryld Argith
Perun 03-01-07, 02:56 PM	Perun- I would encourage you to read my post, especially the point I made about the Carthaginians. I could certainly see certain cases where sacrifice wouldn't earn someone an evil shift. Yes, I've read your post and the part you mention: Here is a real life example of child sacrifice that may help put things into prospective from a character point of view. Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who once wrote the following, "...there was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire." He also wrote that relatives were forbidden to weep and that when Agathocles defeated Carthage, the Carthaginian nobles believed that they had displeased the gods by substituting low-born children for their own. They then attempted to make amends by sacrificing 200 children at once, children of the best families, and in their enthusiasm actually sacrificed 300 of their own children. Now, regardless if Diodorus account is accurate or not, does sacrificing 300 of their own children to gods who they believe are punishing them make the Carthaginians evil? Or were they simply acting as they believed their faith dictated? Certainly, we can look at them by today’s standards and say that it is evil, but to them - their motivations – was it evil? In game, and using the D&D moral values presented in the PH (p. 104, IIRC), I can safely say it was an evil act. The god that requested such a sacrifice was clearly evil (regardless of his real-world counterpart), and the people that took part in that vile act were clearly performing an evil act. However, that does not mean that the people (well, most of them, see below) As I said, it ultimately comes down to character motivation. If someone is worshiping an evil deity for the power they'd receive in return, or some other selfish reason, then their actions are evil. If someone is worshiping an evil deity because they were brought up to believe in the deity (their culture), and they earnestly wish to please him/her/it then it is different. The person is not looking for something in return, the act itself is not evil - others would view it as such (because the request from the deity -is- evil) - but that does not make the character performing the action evil. Most people in a society aren't going to be good or evil. Most are going to be neutral, and for evil deities this means that many of their followers are neutral in alignment. Bane has a great deal many Lawful Neutral followers, even though the Priesthood itself may be mostly evil. Yes, that we agree upon. But I wasn't talking about followers, I was talking about clerics. I've got no problem with follower or worshipper alignment. However, the cleric is (or should be) a step beyond the "ordinary" worshipper (and worshippers in this case, since we're talking FR, are those people who have Bane listed as their patron deity). The difficult part is remaining Neutral when worshiping an evil deity, because as you stated - as you rise in the ranks - you are more likely to receive evil shifts through the actions you perform. Exactly. Except I'd say the alignment shift is inevitable, given enough time.
The Ubbergeek 03-01-07, 04:24 PM	Good point, Perun. This thread reminds me of the rough time my paladin of Helm had accepting that in 3.x, suddenly Helm decided to let LE clerics in :( ACtually, it have a good logic. There is evil, and there is Evil..... Like there is good, and Good. Some guys are champions of good (or evil), and some are just ARE, and it's a part of the thing, not the main key point. It's not too hard to guess that Helm accept some guys who tend to use.... drastic measure to fight evil.... And so, you can have evil guys fighting (greater) evils. Kind of like Dalamar (a renegade elf, a man who chose the dark magic) who helped the heroes of Dragonlance....
Renvale999 03-01-07, 05:07 PM	If you want a good example of a non-evil human worshipping a evil diety, read The Alabaster Staff. In that book is a priestess of Tiamat that is by no means evil, yet worships Tiamat who is the worst kind of evil. Seriously read the book, it can definitely shed some light on the subject.
DrBoron 03-01-07, 05:31 PM	ACtually, it have a good logic. Oh, I'm not saying that it doesn't have a kind of logic. I'm just saying that my character didn't like it--it's hard to win any argument with a paladin of Torm when he can always play the "evil clerics" card :) Also, Meldread, I think that your example works out against you. Diodorus was writing history well after the Roman conquest of Carthage and his account (and all the other accounts of Carthaginian human sacrifice we have extant) is extremely suspect (See for a summary). To put it simply, Diodorus Siculus says that the Carthaginians sacrificed 300 children precisely to show that the Carthaginians were a savage, immoral people who deserved what happened to them. In the end, I do not think we can escape the fact that the D&D alignment system is based on moral black-and-white and is heavily influenced by Western, Judeo-Christian ideas about morality. If you want to play a game with moral ambiguity, a game that lets characters detect evil at will is not it.
Stigger 03-01-07, 05:40 PM	Old accusation really... Everyone blames their favorite enemy of child sacrifice, cannibalism, rape, murder, incest, bestiality, and general secret ambitions to take over the world. It's an old trick that's hardly gone out of style. But that's another topic altogether... I'd agree that D&D's morality system is too steeped in black-and-white Judeo-Christian influence to allow for much wiggle room where moral subjectivity is concerned. That subjectivity undercuts the mechanics of too many classes to really be a practical method of handling alignment.
Meldread 03-01-07, 06:59 PM	I agree with you both, Stigger and DrBoron. What I think is important to realize, however, is that in the real world child sacrifice really did happen. Human sacrifice was a common practice in ancient times, among some cultures. Did that make those people evil, or were they doing what they believed necessary to please the gods? You can take other forms of things that we would view as evil as well and apply it. Slavery, for example, is something we can all universally agree is evil. Yet, if you grew up in Thay would you view the buying and selling of other sentient beings as evil? Or would you simply view them as a step above animals? The question is... does that inherently make you evil? It is a complex question with many possibilities. If you are a slave owner and treat your slaves poorly, then I would say yes - it would be (in your characters eyes) as if you were mistreating an animal or a pet. If you treat a slave as an animal or pet, ensure that it is fed, clothed, and cared for - even if you are strict - then that does not inherently make you evil. You only become evil if you realize that slavery is wrong and continue to practice slavery anyway. However, yes - I generally don't like the D&D alignment system. It requires too many choices to be either black or white, which is why I look at motivations and actions separately. Things that I generally universally declare evil: greed (when it comes at the expense of others), intentional cruelty, and self-serving actions that benefit you at the expense of others. It's really, really hard to be "truly evil" or "truly good" without trying to become those things on purpose. I explain this as the reason all Paladins must be Lawful Good, because in order to -be- good they must have a strict code in which to live by... it is too easy to falter otherwise and it is something that should concern and worry the paladin constantly.
Stigger 03-01-07, 08:03 PM	I think I'd disagree with greed and self-serving actions... a lot of it depends on the degree to which those are taken as to whether it's truly evil or not. Anything taken to an extreme will probably become evil at some point, while more moderate actions don't necessarily have to become so. But consider the cultural aspects involved as well. I recall reading the unabridged version of the Three Musketeers (might have been Man in the Iron Mask too, I forget offhand which it was exactly), and there's a scene in a tavern where a few men are trying to bash down a door. When asked by one of the heroes, I forget which offhand, they say there's a woman travelling alone and that they're trying to get to her for essentially the purpose of a gang rape. Rather than becoming appalled and coming to the womans defense, our hero pretty much accepts it as normal, since any woman travelling alone must obviously be a woman of little to no virtue, and does not react to that particular aspect of the scene since it's perfectly acceptable behaviour. And yet the Musketeers are lionized as men of valor and virtue... and were by the standards of the day. But that's the real world, and not the world of D&D. Personally, I like the alignment system, limited as it may be, but I feel it best to treat in a somewhat abstract way, more as a tendency of behaviour rather than some absolute. It serves just as well as any for my purposes, and to me only becomes broken when interpreted too strictly. It can suit motivation and action just fine if you're willing to interpret in a broad sense rather than a narrow one. I would argue that 'truly evil' and 'truly good' thing, but... it would be a very difficult subject for me, personally. Having met a few people in the world who would qualify, on both ends of the spectrum, I'll just say I disagree, will happily agree to disagree on the subject, and leave it at that.
Meldread 03-01-07, 08:44 PM	When it comes to greed and self-serving actions, it depends on the degree of the action as well as where the character sits on the alignment scale. For example, let us say we have Alex the Paladin who is Lawful good. Alex from his adventures has become rather wealthy in his own right, and has heard that a local orphanage has recently been destroyed in a fire. The children who lived there now live on the street with little to no supervision, most of which are hungry and are turning to crime to eat. During his journey through the town he meets some of these orphans and an individual attempting to rebuild the orphanage and feed the children. Alex has the opportunity to offer assistance through the lending of coin which he has in abundance. Being Lawful Good, and having a code that requires him to show a great amount of charity toward others, he -must- offer at least some amount of gold to assist that individual and the children. If he does not, he receives both a slight evil shift as well as a chaotic shift. Why? Because his code calls for him to be charitable (Lawful), he was not, and because he knows that the "right" thing to do was to give coin, but chose not to (for either greed or self-serving reasons). Of course, we're assuming that the individual rebuilding the orphanage is an upstanding type of guy with a good reputation. However, if Alex were just a Lawful Neutral fighter he would not receive an alignment shift for not assisting. He would receive an alignment shift -if- he assisted by giving the coin if he were evil, but not if he refused. He would not receive an alignment shift if he gave the coin as a Lawful Good Paladin. So as you can see, as a good aligned individual it is much easier to perform an evil action than a good action. As an evil aligned individual it is much easier to perform a good action than an evil action. As a neutral aligned individual it is slightly more difficult to move in either direction. This is what I meant by it is much more difficult to be "truly good" or "truly evil" without actually making a conceded effort.
Stigger 03-02-07, 04:12 AM	I'd disagree with that... it would depend on why he didn't give money to the orphanage. Maybe he prefers to give to his church and let them deal with the actual distribution of the wealth, trusting them to know more about the needs of others in town since he isn't around as much... see, small actions like that don't make one evil per se, unless it becomes a regular habit. Constant adherence to that sort of behaviour is the path to the exalted, not just simply maintaining a good alignment... unless that's what you're getting at with the 'truly good' bit. I kinda suspect it is what you're getting at come to think of it. You read Book of Exalted Deeds yet?
Meldread 03-02-07, 07:15 AM	I haven't read the Book of Exalted Deeds yet, but I doubt it will change how I view the alignment system. I know many people play it differently (and some people just ignore it entirely). I'm not a huge fan of the alignment system, because it tries to paint things in a 100% black or white picture and encourages out of character thinking. It also plays on modernized Western ideals of morality, when really - in a fantasy setting - you couldn't be further off base. Most people would simply write off as anyone from Thay as evil, but if you wanted to be more accurate Thay at most would perhaps have a population that was 20% evil with the vast majority being neutral. Even among the Red Wizard's themselves, not all of them could be evil. I view alignment as something that is fluent and is based off actions and motivations. To be "truly good" you have too constantly seek to perform good actions, you have to work hard at it – it is not so much a single deed that made them good, but the combination of many large and small deeds. Actions performed through certain motivations are the cumulative form of the character's alignment. In your counter to the Paladin example, that response is also fine. The Paladin would have only earned a slight shift if he failed his duty to act charitably toward people he had the ability to help. Everyone will receive slight shifts to their alignment over time, no matter their alignment, but if a character is played true to their concept (which should in D&D factor in the character's alignment), then their alignment should never change. Alignment only changes through consistent actions performed over a period of time as you stated, or a combination of many different actions that are counter to your current alignment. For example a Lawful Good individual who steals, cheats, is greedy and vengeful even if on occasion - will not be Lawful Good for long. Even if each act of greed or theft is minor it is cumulative over time.
Stigger 03-02-07, 10:18 AM	Ah, I think I see what you're saying now... and I'd pretty much agree with it. I'd disagree with the assessment of the 100% black and white picture painting, but I guess that would largely depend on your view of how the rules for it are presented, and how you choose to interpret them. I generally prefer a very broad view of those alignments, with a lot of variation within them, so it works and is comfortable for me.
DrBoron 03-02-07, 10:47 AM	Here's a question for thought: How relevant is the alignment system anyway, in a setting where patron deities play such an important role? For example, some people criticize D&D in general for having a black & white, absolutist view of morality. Slavery is evil and those who practice it are evil. Drugs too, except those drugs which happen to be legal in the U.S. currently. But let's say that your character in the Realms grows up in a culture where slavery is acceptable, and worships a LN god in that culture who has no real problem with slavery. You go out into the world to pursue your career as a fighter with a retinue of trusted slaves. A paladin takes offense to your slave holding ways, challenges you to duel to the death and wins. Regardless of what the alignment system says about the Good or Evil nature of slavery, it is your LN deity who claims your soul and takes you to your afterlife in a LN plane. Even if the fact that you own slaves should make you LE according to the system, there's no mechanism in place to make you go to the Hells as long as your patron is willing to vouch for you.
RedGlacier 03-02-07, 12:34 PM	I always thought a lot of the clergy alignments in FR didn't make sense, given the various deities' worldviews and moral stances. And then I got some old 2nd edition FR books (Demihuman Deities, Faiths and Avatars, and Powers and Pantheons) because I wanted more info on some gods that were given the short end of the stick lorewise in faiths & pantheons. The worshipper and clergy alignment guidelines in those books just made so much more sense than what we're given with 3E! If anyone wants it, I could post the short worshipper/clergy list I typed for my own use. It might help clear things up.
Stigger 03-02-07, 04:50 PM	Somehow I can't imagine a paladin challenging anyone to a duel to the death unless their evil-o-meter was going off... I could see a duel to free your slaves, or just simply knocking you unconscious and freeing your slaves while you were out, but it's not really a goodly thing to just slaughter people out of hand... and if he is doing that, he's not going to remain a paladin for long.
Meldread 03-02-07, 06:44 PM	I have to agree with Stigger on that. His first course of action, after detecting that the individual was not evil, would be to try showing them the error of their ways. If that did not work, he'd likely try to purchase the slaves freedom. Then, of course, there is the third option that is freeing them against the owners wishes. If slavery is illegal where they currently are, knocking him out, freeing the slaves and handing him over to the local authorities is the best option. If slavery is legal using more stealthy means of helping them get free may be required - such as waiting until he is asleep and using his rogue friend to sneak over, set them free, and then helping them find safety.
The Ubbergeek 03-02-07, 07:40 PM	I always thought a lot of the clergy alignments in FR didn't make sense, given the various deities' worldviews and moral stances. And then I got some old 2nd edition FR books (Demihuman Deities, Faiths and Avatars, and Powers and Pantheons) because I wanted more info on some gods that were given the short end of the stick lorewise in faiths & pantheons. The worshipper and clergy alignment guidelines in those books just made so much more sense than what we're given with 3E! If anyone wants it, I could post the short worshipper/clergy list I typed for my own use. It might help clear things up. I don't know - 3rd edition is better on the aspect that it allow more of the logical moral wiggling and ambiguity, like my example of a LE priest of Helm.
Stigger 03-02-07, 08:33 PM	It was there in 2e, though never really stated explicitly, it was heavily implied that alignment wasn't absolute. There are too many deities of the same alignment for there to be absolutes in regards to those same alignments... it's pretty much presented as a template, but the specifics are up in the air depending on how you choose to fill that template out.
GothicDan 03-02-07, 11:00 PM	3E makes alignment MORE absolute. The ridiculoussness of the Books of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness and the fact that now Positive Energy and Negative Energy, and UNINTELLIGENT UNDEAD, have alignments, proves this sillyness.
Stigger 03-03-07, 12:05 AM	Never got that impression about 3e... as to undead, it made sense to me that they were aligned to evil given the process that created them. Positive and negative energy... well... given the uses they most often have, I'd say that perceptually at least, they are aligned in the 'common' view of things, though probably not in the technical sense.
GothicDan 03-03-07, 12:07 AM	Dude. Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness. It gives hard-edged definitions of what's good and evil. Namely, according to the BoED, killing an evil-aligned being is always a good action, among other things. And then we have Champions of Ruin and Champions of Valor, which are in the exact same vein: telling us what good and evil is, how awesome/terrible they are, really hamming it up. And in both cases, oddly enough, there's conspiciously missing sourcebooks aimed at the Neutral region of things. Polarized much? And Positive Energy, Negative Energy, and Skeletons/Zombies have no intents or consciousnesses. They cannot be any more evil or good than an inanimate doorknob. The process that creates a Skeleton is casting the Animate Dead spell. That draws Negative Energy from the Negative Energy Plane and uses it to animate the remains of a corpse. Just like the Animate Object spell pulls Positive Energy from the Positive Energy Plane to animate something that was not once alive. Either way, they both serve as completely mindless foci of animation, and when bound in their respective receptacles, the energies cannot harm OR heal anyone else directly. Though an Animated chamber pot to the head would hurt more than a Skeleton's bony finger.
Stigger 03-03-07, 12:19 AM	Interestingly though, I take them as guidelines, not hard and fast definitions. I could see where it could/would be interpreted that way, but it's not the way I see them. Besides, if it weren't presented that way, they'd be setting themselves up for a massive protest from the conservative elements accusing them of promoting evil and the like. It explicitly states that moral relativism just doesn't work with things the way they are set up, rendering paladins, clerics, and a few other classes very difficult if not impossible to effectively play. Right or wrong, it's something they have to do to avoid a firestorm of flak from 'concerned parents' out there, who eye us with suspicion at the best of times anyway. As to the undead... sure, but most people who use, summon, create, traffic with undead are 95% of the time going to be using them for evil afoot (tm), so it follows that giving them the alignment of their creator would be logical, not to mention covering of ones posterior when said concerned individuals start applying scrutiny. Given the firestorm that D&D has generated in the past for those types, it completely makes sense to me for WotC to adopt a preemptively hard line against evil to cover themselves against them. Look past it, adapt it to how you think it should be, and move on.
GothicDan 03-03-07, 12:25 AM	All rules, by default, are merely guidelines. The point I'm making is that, in 3E, they spend a lot of time making it those guidelines more "clear" and apply them in more generic, overriding fashions that don't really take into account the specifics of a given situation (for example, the one step rule). The question is, how did 2E present alignment as more of a hard 'rule' than 3E? All I'm thinking here is, well, Planescape, in which rival Paladin Lords of Arcadia literally went to war against each other. And I don't think there's anything inherently Evil at all about Undead, least of all unintelligent undead. We have numerous cases of contrary points: Greater Mummies being LE despite being powered by POSITIVE ENERGY, Arch-Liches and Baelnorn abounding in the Realms, as well as at least one CN (G) Elven vampire. Then there's the fact that both Jergal and Osiris make use of Greater Mummies when necessary, and in 2E, Good Clerics could cast the Animate Dead spell with no specific moral qualms (on the actual alignment axis; it was a 'grey' necromancy spell, or neutral). Ultimately, when concerning Undead, people all too often think with their social attitude than with their logic. Logically, there's no reason that an unintelligent creature that's effectively a mindless automaton powered by Negative Energy (there's not even any elemental spirits bound in them, like many golems) can have ANY alignment. Alignment is attached specifically to the soul - animated skeletons and zombies have no soul. You could try to argue from the 'they're unnatural' point of view, I suppose. While I don't consider them unnatural (on a large scale), let's pretend that I do. Okay, they're not. Where in the description of 'Good' does it talk about coinciding with the environmental and biological norms of a locale? That would be a Druid's philosophy, not an aspect of a Good alignment. And the late 80's had far more firestorms about, and the Planescape setting - Neutral Undead, Asmodeus and all - still managed to avoid getting a lot of conservative backlash.
Stigger 03-03-07, 12:47 AM	Was thinking along the lines of classes being remarkably restricted by alignment, rangers, druids, bards, etcetera. My perception of that is that they've broadened those restrictions quite a bit overall, despite a certain amount of contraction. With undead, I see it more as being defined as defilement of a vessel that used to contain a human soul... people have an odd tendency to react poorly to ideas like that, so it follows that the social attitude would prevail because they want to avoid the backlash from it. It doesn't necessarily make sense, sorry, I know I forgot to mention that before, but it is sensical within that playing it safe context, which ultimately is going to be the font from which all matters dealing with defining good and evil are going to spring. And while yes, the late 80's did have more fire being tossed about, they weren't as well organized, and there was not internet with which to start massive nationwide campaigns. You could affect things on a local level, but unless you knew someone important, it wasn't going to matter much. The communications potential that the internet has given them has made them considerably more able to generate firestorms the conservatives of the 80's would have been drooling with envy over. Certainly they haven't as of yet, but I would credit WotC's handling of D&D mainstreaming and the lack of ammunition they provide with that more than I would any apathy on those conservatives part. TSR may have had more guts, but WotC is smarter about it, at least in my view of it.
GothicDan 03-03-07, 12:54 AM	Was thinking along the lines of classes being remarkably restricted by alignment, rangers, druids, bards, etcetera. My perception of that is that they've broadened those restrictions quite a bit overall, despite a certain amount of contraction. And in a lot of those cases, they actually changed the previous archetypes of those classes to better fit the wider range of alignments. So it isn't so much 3E's alignment is presented as broader, but rather (as was brought up on another thread about rangers), the classes are broader. I personally dislike some of the changes, immensely; the druid class first and foremost. NOT because they just changed the alignment requisites, but with doing so, they also redefined the class into something that it wasn't before. So now there's no druid class any more like the one that I originally liked. With undead, I see it more as being defined as defilement of a vessel that used to contain a human soul... people have an odd tendency to react poorly to ideas like that, so it follows that the social attitude would prevail because they want to avoid the backlash from it. That is a purely cultural thing. It's not something that lends towards an interpretation of the D&D alignment system, one way or the other. It doesn't necessarily make sense, sorry, I know I forgot to mention that before, but it is sensical within that playing it safe context, which ultimately is going to be the font from which all matters dealing with defining good and evil are going to spring. Hm. So it's okay that the BoED says that 'good people can always kill evil people' (not without necessary evidence, trial, or jury), but unintelligent animated sacks of bones - just like that medical skeleton in the corner, only moving - can't be considered Neutral? And while yes, the late 80's did have more fire being tossed about, they weren't as well organized, and there was not internet with which to start massive nationwide campaigns. You could affect things on a local level, but unless you knew someone important, it wasn't going to matter much. The communications potential that the internet has given them has made them considerably more able to generate firestorms the conservatives of the 80's would have been drooling with envy over. Certainly they haven't as of yet, but I would credit WotC's handling of D&D mainstreaming and the lack of ammunition they provide with that more than I would any apathy on those conservatives part. TSR may have had more guts, but WotC is smarter about it, at least in my view of it. See my above reference. Also, they talk about things like pedophilia, cannibalism, and necrophilia in the Book of Vile Darkness. If WotC was really trying to be at its utmost 'careful' concerning possible conservative outlashes, I would think they'd have not printed that book before they labeled Skeletons as Evil. Heck, it wasn't even until Libris Mortis that they made the change in the first place.
Stigger 03-03-07, 01:13 AM	I like the new druids personally... feels like a better fit to me now, than the old 2e ones that always kinda bugged me. But to each their own I suppose... more personal preference than anything else. I can see your point with the classes becoming broader, moreso than the alignments, it's a good point with a lot of validity, but I don't happen to see it that way, so... impasse I suppose there. And of course it's written from a cultural perspective... kinda hard to move away from Judeo-Christian culture in a lot of respects, at least in the Western world. Everything in D&D is ultimately compared against that culture, at least as far as I can tell, since it's providing the framework for the entire concept of alignment. As to the BoED saying that... I think it's a very disingenuous arguement that completely ignores the sections on Redemption and Mercy as being such an important part of being good, if not the most important part of it, and does a disservice to the overriding theme of the book. As to how that relates to the animated sack of bones, sure it could be neutral... but consider that it is generally more well thought of to give the bones a proper burial rather than animating them to wash your socks. I'm sure you of all people are well aware of the hang ups most people have about the dead and dying... makes sense again from that cultural concept all this is springing from. With the BoVD... certainly they discuss those things. I was shocked by it to be honest. Impressed, but shocked that they even touched it. But they also roundly and soundly condemn it and dismiss it as completely vile and utterly unacceptable. The point is they took the 'right' point of view with it, presented it well, and in a way that didn't encourage the subject matter per se. Accomplishing their goals while still maintaining a relatively balanced view of the subject, which to then, only White Wolf had really pulled off well with it's Black Dog line. To be honest, I think WotC managed to come up with a superior product with the BoVD to anything WW managed to come up with.
GothicDan 03-04-07, 09:50 PM	Stigger, I can't help but be a little shocked by your sentiments. FR was always supposed to be separated as much as possible from RL cultures - burial rites, rituals, thoughts on good and evil, etc. All of these in the real world are linked intrinsically to Christian culture. Ed's made it very clear NOT to view the Realms through this lens.
Stigger 03-05-07, 09:01 AM	My point was not that it is linked to judeo-christian tradition in a literal sense of in-game point of view, which I thought was obvious. My point was that the lore itself was written by people who can't help but be influenced by a pervasive world-view that can't help but be shaped to at least some extent by those same judeo-christian attitudes. It has fundamentally shaped what western civilization views as right and wrong, and as such, there will be creep when you're writing anything to do with morality and to a lesser extent ethics. Certainly one isn't going to be saying that the moral philosophies of the good aligned deities of any fantasy setting stemmed directly from a judeo-christian paradigm, especially not from an in-setting perspective, but I think it would be hard to argue that it wasn't at least somewhat influential over the concepts. It is somewhat inescapable if the writer grew up in a society and culture that was shaped by it.
Bolithio 03-05-07, 11:11 AM	Never got that impression about 3e... as to undead, it made sense to me that they were aligned to evil given the process that created them. I may be a little late to this discussion... That is an interesting notion. I guess as has been discussed almost to death here, it comes down to perspective - Here is another case. I just ran an adventure, where a Wizard had vanished from his grounds within a large city. As result some of his "minions" and other defenses where beginning to malfunction and cause problems in the city. PCs to the rescue! Anyways, the Mage - who was not "evil" had extended his life well beyond normal means. When some of his servants passed on - he animated their corpses to continue about their duties (rather than bothering with new help). At any rate some of these creatures would act as undead guardians - for areas of his tower. So: If one believes that when your dead - your corpse is no longer relevant - is it an "evil" act to utilize a corpse for such a purpose? Gray area. My two cents is: this is what I love that about FR. The sturcture allows for variance within most of the Gods. Remember that dungeon adventure "Bards Keep" (the movieng library)? Part of the adventure had preists of Ogma attempting to assasinate PCs if they did not obey some of their requests. That shows some variance in a 'N' God.
Stigger 03-05-07, 11:52 AM	Well, if not evil, then certainly a bit on the amoral side of things more than likely. ;) But yeah, it is a gray area, as well it should be. Gray is good in a lot of respects, and certainly can add dramatic tension to a story, if used correctly to shock the players sensibilities, but at the same time a certain amount of black and white is needed for the mechanics and theme of the game system to continue working. It is ultimately a story of heroes and their battles against evil... hard to introduce a lot of gray in there without undermining the whole premise of the story and just wrecking suspension of disbelief beyond repair. Though I really don't think mindless undead should be aligned, as it is indeed a stupid idea... I can understand the mindset and perspective that says they are, even while disagreeing with it.
GothicDan 03-05-07, 03:41 PM	If your campaign revolves entirely around the battle against evil... Then that seems a little boring to me, anyway. It sounds way too much like Dragonlance. Which is good, too, but not FR.
Stigger 03-05-07, 03:48 PM	Doesn't have to revolve entirely around the battle against evil, but I don't think it's unfair to say it's a very major theme running throughout the Realms.
GothicDan 03-05-07, 03:55 PM	I don't think it's unfair, but I do think it's wrong. The Realms is not, and never was, about "good versus evil." It's about antagonism, sure, but not good versus evil.
Stigger 03-05-07, 04:00 PM	Fair enough... good and a large portion of neutrality versus evil perhaps would be a better way of putting it then? ;)
GothicDan 03-05-07, 04:56 PM	Or Evil vs. Evil.. or Good vs. Good... It's NOT about alignments.
Zardnaar 03-05-07, 05:59 PM	I lookat it as even evil gods are somewhat tolerent when it comes to their worshipers. At the end of the day the worshippers soul is going to go to the god which makes them more powerful so I don't think the god will care to much. If LN people want to worship a LE god (or CN with CE) its all good for them. A LN/CN follower (not Cleric) also doesn't detect as evil which makes infiltration that much easier when Paladins are around. My PCs manaed to convert a LN Cleric of Bane to a LG Cleric of Lathendar. Essentially she was a Knight/Cleric of Bane from Zhentil Keep who had a very conservative view of the world and was honorable. She didn't spend that much time around her church and was raised in a noble family of Zhentil Keep. Her and the Paladin had to ally as they had some mutual enemies (Banite heretics) and they spent alot of time around each other discussing honor and the finer points of the law. She respected him due to his high charisma. Feelings developed between the 2 of them and the Paladin refused her offer of joining Banes church. When the PCs saved her life and discovered she had a child to her dead fiance they managed to lure her away from Banes church. At first the Cleric and Paladin hated here and the Scout and Wizard seemed to like her before the others came around. They had plenty of chances to run her through and when they 1st met here she detected as evil on the Paladins ding ding evil'ometer. I ruyn a very gray campaign though. The Paladin actually liked her better when she was a Banite than a LG high priest of his own church. The LG priest is a bit fanatical and the Paladin actually disobeyed his orders which was interesting (basically got conflicting orders and chose which ones he liked better).
Stigger 03-05-07, 07:26 PM	Well, you could argue the alignment thing since good and evil tend to end up on opposite sides of a lot of matters... and in some cases it very much is about alignment, ultimately, particularly where a lot of churches are concerned. Of course it's not the overriding sole source of conflict, but it does tend to influence things. Certainly not many people, if any, wake up and decide they're going to go out and purge the city of CE people (I'd wholly agree they probably wouldn't even know one if they saw one by anything other than the evil one performing some evil action, which isn't likely somewhere they'd run across them at random), but more often than not, it's the evil types the goodly types are coming into conflict with because of the clash of conflicting world views.