Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darth Doom 06-22-05, 10:38 AM	Hey all, Welp, seems as Am I Evil? alignment threads are the flavour of the month at the moment, I figured I might as well bring forth our own little party fued we currently have. Well, remember that thread I started ages ago about a certain wizard I played wanting taking over the world? Well she managed it. Kind of... Well not really, but she got a start. Our game is currently set in the Greyhawk setting, the average party level being 16 while the wizard is lvl 17 as are the party cleric and fighter. The DM has changed some things so that magic is highly rare, and thus looked upon with suspicion and fear. He has also put a smallish island some distance West from the Land of Black Ice that was used as the backdrop for quite a few high level quests we did. It was this Island that the Wizard managed to "take over" as it were. Becoming Queen of the island was perfectly legal after the previous owner had the unfortunate accident of falling down a rather long flight of stairs (From the top of a tower to the bottom to be precise). What sparked the debate amongst the group however, was her way of Ruling. Being undisputed Monarch of the island, it is perfectly legal for her to do whatever she wants, and thus she immediately started about setting into place her new form of government, policies and services. Unlike the previous ruler, who was rather self-obssessed and surrounded himself with the nobility of the island while the peasants laboured nigh-ceaselessly, Queen Archeron (Her first name is Britney, so you can see why she uses her last name instead, so people take her seriously) wanted to implement her life long dream of a fairer society. She built schools, universities, art galleries, theatre's, gymnasium's and hospitals for the people. Education was free and of a high standard, Noble titles and positions were abolished (except for her's of course), free health benefits were for all, taxation was determined on the amount someone earned and positions/career's in society were gained via merit only and was not out of reach of any race or either gender. To top it all off, a representative council was formed to assist in the law making policies of the island, elected by the people and who managed the island's affair's in times of the Queens absence (When she's off adventuring). Also, once every couple of months, free food is given to the people. A long convey of large wagons rolls through the street's of the city throwing out loaves of bread and sealed baskets of fruit to the people, at no cost. Sound like she should be Good aligned? Perhaps, however, with the give there is always the take. The Justice system, whiled changed to recognize all were equal before the law, also had its punishments up'ed considerably via the Queen. Theft (of any sort, even petty) was punishable by death or hard labour in the islands priceless diamond and mithril mines (The mines that provide the Island with immense wealth). Murder and the sort was punishable via public whippings (Public humiliation is one of the worst tortures of all), and then hard labour in the mines ect ect. Such harsh penalties has seen the crime rate drop dramatically, but at what cost? In the Islands capital and only city (Which is huge, encompassing 3/4 of the island) the people are free to do as they will...however on just about each and every street are a handful of the Queens Praetorians. Public disturbances are put down with chilling efficiency via the quality-over-quantity praetorians, and those caught in the act of breaking the law can expect the Praetorians to act as on the spot Judge, Jury and Executioner. The islands previous Nobility quickly faded from the public view. While the public do not miss the previous corrupt rulers that exploited them freely, their fates lays deep in the dungeons under the cities - all of them. Opposition to the Queen's position is not looked upon kindly. Peasants themselves are free to express their opinions, but those who do have learned to choose their words carefully. Such heraldry titles were considered inappropriate for an equal society, yet Queen Archeron didnt see any qualms in using her powers to keep her own title, and her's alone. The representative council of the populace does its job well of representing the peoples wishes: however it has very little real power in face of the Queens. She is free to dismiss the entire council when she wishes, forcing re-elections (Though she has yet to do this), and can just as easily over turn laws made by the council (Though once again, she has yet to do this without sufficient reason). Public expression of religion is banned. Private worshiping is allowed, however the bias towards certain cultures/groups public worship of deity's can spread has lead to it being prohibited and such acts only ensure visits from the Praetorians. This has been particularly frowned upon by the Cleric. The Praetorians themselves are drawn from the public: as military service is mandatory for all able bodied man and woman at one point or another in their life, while every child going through school has courses involving military procedure. This 'Citizens Levy' ensures that should the Island be invaded, the humanoid resources available to repel it would be vast, well trained and well equiped. It is also mandatory, with those refusing to participate tried for treason (Look above for punishments). Free education, health benefits and access to gyminasiums and univerities are on the condition that you work for the state in one way or another. The work does not have to be direct (Such as working as a Stable boy and paying your taxes) it could be volunteering at an orphanage or as a substitute teacher while looking for work, but you must contribute to the nation somehow. Those who do not contribute to the nation, or are unable to (via disabilities, mental dysfunctions ect) can expect nothing in return: not even the right to vote. Schools also actively encourage children to rat on bludging parents. The sense of 'Loyalty to Queen and Nation' is almost hammered into the public's mind. The national flag - bearing the Queen's personal coat of arms - hangs on nearly all street corners: there are giant portraits of the Queen on the side of buildings in the most busy places, and a list of punishments for Treason can be found on many street-post's and on the insides of taverns. There it is. Compared to how the previous ruler ran things it is a Utopia, but there are harsh penalties and prices to pay. Compared to other kingdoms in the world (Which are mostly Feudal with serfdom ect), its paradise (They actually get paid a decent wage for back-breaking labour!), but the drawbacks have raised serious considerations of changing the Wizard's alignment, from Neutral Good to plain Neutral (At one time even considered Lawful Evil). I personally (and as her player) believe that her alignment should stay the same, as she believes she is doing what is right. But then again, many of the most evil people in history believed they were doing what was right also. All feedback is much appreciated, thanks in advance.
Nitan 06-22-05, 10:57 AM	My inner chaotic is screaming "LE! LE! LE!". I'd say she's behaving more LN though. The potential for LE is there though. LG doesn't quite fit.
Hachiman 06-22-05, 11:05 AM	LN seems to fit it best, and I'm saying that only because of the oppression of religions. Alignment and politics tend to clash quite rapidly in D&D and be careful where you trod. Remember that before you go ranting to you're DM, that other players and/or the DM might feel other politics are evil.
Sapper2219 06-22-05, 11:08 AM	This govt. system is extremely Lawful. -Harsh punshment -Lack of personal freedom -Lack of true representation -Lack of religious freedom -Judge, Jury, EXECUTIONER system of justice. -The intent to "Take over the world" by the Queen These seem evil in intent. -All the benevolent acts... this seems to be "good", however I may point out that communist societies utilized these "good" for their protection of their power. If that is the intent, and as written leads me to believe, the Queen is after the protection of her power I would argue that this society has a LE power center in the Queen. I may be off base with my assesment as I do not fully appreciate all of the details of the character, but with what I had to work with this is MHO. At best this is LN with evil tendancies at worst, this belongs in the Nine Hells. Just a side note, since when has theft become a higher crime then murder? Theft has a death penalty and murder only has hard labor?
Encard 06-22-05, 11:26 AM	This sounds more Lawful Neutral to me than anything else. Although there seem to be both Good and Evil elements of it, overall the overwhelming force here seems to simply be Law.
angelshelper81 06-22-05, 11:38 AM	Here's another vote for LN, unless the Queen is planning to use all the wealth and power to try to take over the world or something, in which case it'd be LE. So long as she's just being really strict, and not actually abusing people for her own pleasure or to get something else she wants, it's just Lawful. Singling out one or more groups of people for abuse based on somehting other than behavior would tip this over to LE, too, but it doesn't sound like any of that's going on either.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 12:51 PM	Reminds me of germany 1930. So far LN but it will only be a short while till it slips into LE. Depending on what plans the queen has it might already be LE. When your intention is to use the island to conquer the rest of the world then it is LE. And the island is a very good representation how germany was under Hitler (Pre-War). The only thing which is different is the education, but the rest fits exactly. Your wizard doesn't has plans to exterminate a specific race, does she? A note to alignment, personal believe doesn't influence the alignment in D&D as alignment in D&D isn't subjective. I say she should have her alignment changed to LN whch can slide further down to LE if the situation gets worse.
CzarGarrett 06-22-05, 01:17 PM	I agree to LN. There seems to be a definitive, although very strict, codex of laws. That is the overriding factor of this society. The establishment of social welfare projects seem to be enough to mostly counter the somewhat brutal justice and oppresive acts.
Roreck 06-22-05, 01:57 PM	sounds LN to me but seems to link closer to good than evil. Like the poster said the peasants are treated like citzens where the rest of the world is in Feudalism. Feudalism is in case you missed this lesson in class is basically nobles treating peasents are slaves. In this kingdom peasents are treated as citzens and have a voice in government (granted this voice is small but it is leading in the right direction). IMO taking over the world is not that evil as some people think it is. What if the world is run by a bunch of evil despots who constantly wage war against each other. So a good person gets ride of the despots and takes control of the world to begin reconstruction of the world, now he becomes evil cause he took over the world? TAKING OVER THE WORLD IS NOT EVIL IF YOU DO IT TO HELP PEOPLE which could be this character's motivation. As for getting rid of the nobles. How do we know that these nobles were/are not evil? As for the harsh punishments they are probably not as harsh as the punishments in the rest of this character's world. Most of that world probably punish with death/life improsonment for those crimes. The preotorians acting as judge jury and excutioner is a bit much however but extreme times call for extreme messures. PS I hope her plot to take over the world and spread this type of government goes well
Derren S. 06-22-05, 02:03 PM	Feudalism isn't as bad as many people think it is. Most feudal lords didn't misthreat their pesants as they exactly knew that the pesants are the source of their power. The pesants got everythink they needed for a living. Sure they had no luxuries or much of a chance for advancment but they had land to farm and feed themself and their family and could normally trade their excesses for anything they need for survival. The lord took some of their farmed products and additional labour and gave them protection. A rather fair deal.
Roreck 06-22-05, 02:16 PM	if not abused Feudalism was a somewhat fair deal. But those with power seek to use it. So it was probably more common for that power to be abused. The right for lords to spend the night with a newly wed bride comes to mind as an abuse (a very evil one to me at least). And if you look at Feudalism in Russia you can see how horribly it was abused. Those serfs were slaves. Nobles traded serfs bought and sold serfs. Serfs were forced to work 6 days a week and were tied to the noble that basically owned them. Serfs in Russia were treated as resources not people. not to say the rest of the feudal world did not abuse thier control of the serfs just as much but russia had the worst example of feudalism. Plus my point was that what those peasants have ruled by that queen is much better than feudalism. My other point was that taking over the world is not neccessarly evil
Maerdash 06-22-05, 02:44 PM	I would also have to say LN, however the if the queen is looking to take over the world its evil thing is just bs, LG rulers can invade enemies, LG rulers can attempt to take over the world, as long as your characters actions aren't evil and you don't allow your military to commit evil acts then you can take over the world without being evil.
Roreck 06-22-05, 02:46 PM	I would also have to say LN, however the if the queen is looking to take over the world its evil thing is just bs, LG rulers can invade enemies, LG rulers can attempt to take over the world, as long as your characters actions aren't evil and you don't allow your military to commit evil acts then you can take over the world without being evil. Good to know I am not the only one who thinks this way.
Derren S. 06-22-05, 02:48 PM	LG rulers can invade enemies, LG rulers can attempt to take over the world And with which justification? Good countries cannot simply invade other countries because they think that they are better then them. Invading a evil country is ok. Invading any other country is not except for defense.
Maerdash 06-22-05, 02:53 PM	And with which justification? Good countries cannot simply invade other countries because they think that they are better then them. Invading a evil country is ok. Invading any other country is not except for defense. Hmm let me think. A LG ruler who sees serfdom as just a small step away from slavery and wishes to bring the poor common man up out of the mud and give him the chance to live a better life. This is an example of how a LG ruler could try to conquer the world and retain his LG status.
LCD2YOU 06-22-05, 02:55 PM	And with which justification? Good countries cannot simply invade other countries because they think that they are better then them. Invading a evil country is ok. Invading any other country is not except for defense.Gee. That's never been abused. I see a single letter. It's a, a, a, W! But I say it's LN. LE societies are places where the law is subverted for the betterment of certain groups. As for it having good tendencies, maybe only very slightly.
Gedrin 06-22-05, 02:57 PM	You have a dictatorship there. A reasonably nice one. Of course we don't hear anything about... Does anyone disagree with the dictator's policies? What happens to political dissidents? Why do people have to watch their words when being critical of the government anyway? What if I want my own X (enter government monopoly here)? How is it that even though all other governmental/bureaucratic welfare systems are examples of gross waste and inefficency, this one works? How is it that everyone is a good loyal worker? Sounds like government propaganda to me. Public health, education, manditory military service, and the dictators picture on the street, the nobility is in hiding. I'm just wondering why this place works, when ever other example in RL history of this sort of thing tends to become corrupt and produce discontent over time. Seriously, you've got absolute, cradle to grave, control by a single ruler. Sure, there's a sham representative government, but it holds no power that can't be overuled by the ruler. Everyone's equal, except for the ruler, because she can overturn the will of the representative government, commands the army, determines expendatures of taxes, and likely has some sort of covert enforcement agency at her disposal for making people disappear. I mean, if you want to just say it works and leave it at that, sure. However, RL history tends to argue against this sort of thing panning out over time.
Drachasor 06-22-05, 02:57 PM	It was hard to say at first wether she is Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. However, after due consideration, I have to say she is definitely Lawful EVIL. She is nowhere close to Lawful Good, because she lacks true altruism, respect for life, a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, and doesn't personal sacrifices to help others. (That's basically a direct quote of what it means to be good). She lacks a concern for the dignity of sentients because she tortures and enslaves. She doesn't make any personal sacrifices of her power to help others (so she doesn't truly give more power to the people, as she makes sure she can take it away at a moment's notice--"hello Emperor Palpatine!"). Likewise her respect for life is lacking, given the aformentioned slavery and few qualms about killing or enslaving those that *disagree* with you. As for the lacking of altruism--I can already here some of you saying, "but the schools, the free food, the abolishment of nobles!", these are all red herrings. Why did she abolish the nobility rather than reform it? Because they're a threat to her power, and getting rid of them gets rid of that threat for good. Does anyone honestly think she'd stand down from her position if the people decided they wanted to rule themselves? No, she's set it up so she can start taking away power from the people any time they start thinking for themselves and wanted to rule without her. Those schools aren't going to last too long in all likelihood, unless they are already brainwashing camps too. All the other "altruistic" activities really just benefit her. Making the people a bit happier and killing and getting rid of those they didn't like will make them more productive and cause them to want to follow her. The ones that don't follow her are gotten rid of. She has police roaming the streets looking for such people. Sure, it looks pretty on the outside, but the inner works are definitely evil and a pretty face can't hide that. Consider: “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures 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 to some evil deity or master. Does she hurt? Yes, and often! They just have to disagree with her policies! Does she oppress? Yes, again, anyone or anything that gets in the way of her plans! And they aren't allowed to express individual beliefs in public. Does she kill? Yes, see above! Does she have compassion for others? Not as far as I can tell, people get "taken care of" as soon as they stop agreeing with her. She most defnitely kills, tortures, and enslaves without qualms if that's the most convenient thing for her plans. Making the populace downtrodden and weak isn't part of those plans at the moment; she needs to take over the world first. Once that's done all those pesky ideas people have that don't align with hers are going to get too troublesome to let stand. Especially when the people want to rule themselves. Lawful Evil, all the way. She just happens to be the seemingly nicer sort of Lawful Evil. If anyone has read Dragons of Summer Flame (by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, a Dragonlance book), then you'll see she's like a Knight of Takhisis (sp?). -Drachasor
HappyDragon 06-22-05, 05:41 PM	but the drawbacks have raised serious considerations of changing the Wizard's alignment, from Neutral Good to plain Neutral (At one time even considered Lawful Evil). I personally (and as her player) believe that her alignment should stay the same, as she believes she is doing what is right. But then again, many of the most evil people in history believed they were doing what was right also. All feedback is much appreciated, thanks in advance. It may sound a bit cliche, but this is a perfect example....."Absolute power corrupts absolutely". The character has dictated herself high ruler, and has seperated herself from anyone else's opinoins except her own. She may of started off with the best of intentions, and she may indeed see herself as doing right....but she has become blinded to any idea of a greater overall good, she is only considering her own well being and masking it by saying it's for everyone's own good. Majority of people do not like having their chooices of what's GOOD for them, being dictated to them. For the alignment issue, I would say the character is no more NG, but would be much closer to LE. A part of me even would go so far as to say CE because she isn't paying attention to what anyone may say and may be becominng more and more selfish....and paranoid to keep her hard earned win her own. Plus why does she find it a necessity to invade other countries now. With her having a say in power, (well all the power), what ever happened to negotiations, trade disputes etc. At that point she is enforcing her will on others that may not want to have anyting to do with her. In general I would say she is LE though. Other posters have brought up some very good points. Gedrin in particular brought up the same questions that come to my mind Does anyone disagree with the dictator's policies? What happens to political dissidents? Why do people have to watch their words when being critical of the government anyway? What if I want my own X (enter government monopoly here)? How is it that even though all other governmental/bureaucratic welfare systems are examples of gross waste and inefficency, this one works? How is it that everyone is a good loyal worker Now true, we don't know all the inner workings, but nothing exists in a vacuum. I would also ask where all the money came from to fund all these great free programs for the citizens....and how do they stay funded. Taxes should be going up any moment now....or is that part of the reasoning behind invading other countries?
Derren S. 06-22-05, 05:47 PM	Like I said that is nearly a exact copy of germany 1930 where it was gearing up for the war, except that the queen wants her citizens to be educated, But you can argue that the education is only for a elite class of people who support her without question. Then it would be exactly as nazi germany (military training for everyone = Hitlerjugend, discoraging of religion, harsh penalties for dissenter, gearing up for world conquest). Maybe mixed a bit with modern dictators like Saddam.
HappyDragon 06-22-05, 05:53 PM	I agree 100% with that comparison. I knew I forgot something in my first post.
Always-Late 06-22-05, 07:02 PM	I don't know too much about ancient history, but how does this compare with Sparta or the draconian laws of Athens?
TexasFriedCriminal 06-22-05, 07:13 PM	Good, definitly, Lawful can be debated. Of course she is an autocratic ruler, she's a powerful wizard who disposed the former ruler, thus she rules by force of domination, legitimizing her rule by granting order abd generally offering benefits to her citizens. Given that she is a despot, her rule is unlawful in that she did not aquire it according to the laws of the land (being not a heir to the throne). On the other hand the concept of law and order seems to be a paramount to her. Why not good? She obviously cares about ther people, offering them many benefits. In light of that, if any ruler in greyhawk can be called good, she certainly can be. Having a strong hold on power is something no sovereign can go without and thus it should not be used against her in this argument. That all being said, if any ruler can be called good, then she most certainly can be too, but while enforcing law and order, she obvious does not submit herself to it. In conclusion I opt for Neutral Good with chaotic tendencies.
Zalak 06-22-05, 08:40 PM	Ln. Not an abuse of power that shows LE, but restriction on freeedom that shows LG. She could easily become evil if she starts to use power for her own purposes. She'd be good if she loosened restrictions on freedom and religion. The algnment of the wizard may be different from her government. She is likely lawful now, but if she is personally keeping her morality she might be Lg bordering on LN.
Andrew_980 06-22-05, 10:13 PM	the rules for her society can easily be LN but i think she herself is more LE it is the harshness for religion and free thought that push her toword E
Cadfan 06-22-05, 10:54 PM	The fact that the principle "its ok to conquer other countries to help people" is an abusable principle doesn't make it an incorrect principle. That's like saying that the principle "its ok to kill in self defense" is incorrect because someone could commit murder and lie afterwards and claim self defense. I can't think of single moral rule that isn't vulnerable to being used by a lying charlatan. And its really not much like germany circa 1930. The only substantial similarities I see are the cult like adoration of a charismatic leader, the punishment of dissent, the highly powerful executive, and the general nationalism. And those are common to a lot of countries in a lot of different time periods. Frankly, I can't think of any countries its actually like, except maybe, maybe ancient Rome under one of the whackier, but still profitable, caesars. Its pretty tough to make a fully fleshed out country as anything other than lawful neutral. At the end of the day, you're making processes by which people are judged and condemned, and by which people are forced to do things they don't personally want. Governance tends to be the art of crafting institutions to make as few bad decisions as possible, which means you're accepting that some decisions will be bad. For D&D players who tend to look at good and evil in black and white terms, that means that at least some of the time, most governments are condoning acts which in isolation might be evil, but which in context are for larger goods. See, eg, letting a guilty criminal defendant go because the police beat a confession out of him. A criminal goes back on the streets, which is probably evil, but no better way has been found to stop a different (probably worse) evil, that being police beating confessions out of people.
Maerdash 06-22-05, 11:09 PM	The fact that the principle "its ok to conquer other countries to help people" is an abusable principle doesn't make it an incorrect principle. That's like saying that the principle "its ok to kill in self defense" is incorrect because someone could commit murder and lie afterwards and claim self defense. I can't think of single moral rule that isn't vulnerable to being used by a lying charlatan. And its really not much like germany circa 1930. The only substantial similarities I see are the cult like adoration of a charismatic leader, the punishment of dissent, the highly powerful executive, and the general nationalism. And those are common to a lot of countries in a lot of different time periods. Frankly, I can't think of any countries its actually like, except maybe, maybe ancient Rome under one of the whackier, but still profitable, caesars. Its pretty tough to make a fully fleshed out country as anything other than lawful neutral. At the end of the day, you're making processes by which people are judged and condemned, and by which people are forced to do things they don't personally want. Governance tends to be the art of crafting institutions to make as few bad decisions as possible, which means you're accepting that some decisions will be bad. For D&D players who tend to look at good and evil in black and white terms, that means that at least some of the time, most governments are condoning acts which in isolation might be evil, but which in context are for larger goods. See, eg, letting a guilty criminal defendant go because the police beat a confession out of him. A criminal goes back on the streets, which is probably evil, but no better way has been found to stop a different (probably worse) evil, that being police beating confessions out of people. Cadfan has stated the argument far better than I ever could so I'm just going to put my stamp of approval on it. :D
King Bulba 06-23-05, 02:04 AM	the rules for her society can easily be LN but i think she herself is more LE it is the harshness for religion and free thought that push her toword E That is ECACTLY why I think she is more good than evil. IMO religion causes more problems than they help and by clamping down on religion she is causing social stability, preventing future violance is good and lawful. She isn’t saying you can’t believe, she is saying that it is a personal choice and has no place in public. There is a reason why there is a separation of church and state in America, which is sadly getting eroded away. With multiple religions in the same area that are being vocal then there are going to be conflicts. Don’t make me get historical references. I just watched Hotel Rwanda... Hmm let me think. A LG ruler who sees serfdom as just a small step away from slavery and wishes to bring the poor common man up out of the mud and give him the chance to live a better life. This is an example of how a LG ruler could try to conquer the world and retain his LG status. Yeah I agree LG rules can conquer the world in the name of making it better, but it just can go to evil VERY fast. Of course she is an autocratic ruler, she's a powerful wizard who disposed the former ruler, thus she rules by force of domination, legitimizing her rule by granting order abd generally offering benefits to her citizens. Despots can be just as good as other rulers. People of today naturally think of despots and dictators as evil, which they shouldn't. She has given the population rights, which is much better than the feudal system next door. Here the populace actually gets money and money brings power so it isn’t ceremonial power. True she has judge/jury/executioners but that is lawful and has nothing to do with good or evil. The representative council of the populace does its job well of representing the peoples wishes: however it has very little real power in face of the Queens. She is free to dismiss the entire council when she wishes, forcing re-elections (Though she has yet to do this), and can just as easily over turn laws made by the council (Though once again, she has yet to do this without sufficient reason). All this shows is that the Queen reserves the right to change the rulings of her people. The fact that she doesn’t do it shows imo good intentions and that she will only do it when the people make a decision that is detrimental to society. -Harsh punshment -Lack of personal freedom -Lack of true representation -Lack of religious freedom -Judge, Jury, EXECUTIONER system of justice. Almost sounds like Bush’s ideal world but that is off topic... Who says that they lack true representation? They have more representation now than they did with feudalism. Not only that but the Queen only reserves the right to take over but she generally doesn’t, that seems good to me. America has some pretty harsh laws and people think we are a good society (LOL). Have you ever been arrested for selling medical marijuana... I haven’t but if I had then you wouldn’t be hearing from me for a LONG time. "but the schools, the free food, the abolishment of nobles!", these are all red herrings. If they are red herrings then that is a WHOLE lot of red herrings. She has raised the quality of living for the whole island, that is undeniable. They now earn money and money brings power. They are also educated which increases that power. They are citizens who have limited control over the way the government is run and it doesn’t get much interference from the Queen who has the final decisions in things. All rulers who are the law are also above it since they can change it. I am not considering it be a selfish but natural for that position which makes it a non-issue. If you think that being above the law when you write it is evil then ALL rulers are evil. My final verdict is that she is LG bordering on LN, I can see both. She cares for her people, it doesn't matter if she has no zeal, her actions show that she is good, not using your power and giving more to your subjects seems pretty good to me. Obviously she is lawful and there is little argument against that hehe. Well that’s my opinion at least. It might be fun to have your char slowly turn to the dark since hehe but thats up to you hehe.
Darth Doom 06-23-05, 02:31 AM	Thanks all for the responses. Just answering some questions for OOC purposes and clearing anything up: Does anyone disagree with the dictator's policies? She doesnt hear them complaining. What happens to political dissidents? An IC Response 'What political dissidents citizen?' OOC: There has not been any real outcry against the currently governing methods due to it outshining the previous Monarchy that ran the place. If there were, well, IC, if they stirred to much trouble then they would be disturbing the peace. Why do people have to watch their words when being critical of the government anyway? Well, as previously said, citizens are free to express their opinion as they wish, though the reasons they need to choose their words careful should be obvious. There's a thin line between constructive critisism and treason (From the laws point of view anyway). What if I want my own X (enter government monopoly here)? Well seems as there is no system for you to 'get voted into office' so to say, the best you could hope for would be a position on the council. How is it that even though all other governmental/bureaucratic welfare systems are examples of gross waste and inefficency, this one works? There is no real welfare system in the Nation. People support the system that protects them, if they dont, then they are going to find it very difficult to survive. That way there arent any bludgers wasting other tax payers had earned money, and the potential industrial output of the nation is vastly improved. How is it that everyone is a good loyal worker? The same could be asked about Serf's under feudalism. The exception being that under Queen Archeron's rule, they get paid decently and can expect many free and useful services from the Throne in exchange. Plus why does she find it a necessity to invade other countries now. Eh? Sorry my good sir, but I cant seem to recall stating she is actively invading other countries. She maybe plotting it from high in her tower and atop her Throne, but her plans for expansion dont involve taking other countries by force. Such acts could give other countries the excuse they need to invade her island to steal her priceless mines. I would also ask where all the money came from to fund all these great free programs for the citizens....and how do they stay funded. Taxes should be going up any moment now....or is that part of the reasoning behind invading other countries? As was stated earlier, the island is a very wealthy one indeed: the old system's wealth being extremely high taxes on anyone not a noble and of the major exports the Island was excellent at (Silks, Mithril and Diamonds). Under the new Regime taxes depend upon how much one earns. Someone who earns more money pays more taxes than one who wouldnt because they can afford it and still live a good lifestyle. The Island is also a major exporter of quality goods, namely: Diamons, Mithril and Silks, with all three industries being owned and run by the State, thus the profits (Of which there is a vast amount) go to the state: profits are even higher when they dont have to pay the workers, as they are criminals after all repaying their debt to society. There is also the trade tax. Though not as bad as it sounds, it is a small tradinging tax implied on merchants and the sort, and few traders let it discourage them from aquiring the excellent silks, metals and diamonds the island produces. Just a side note, since when has theft become a higher crime then murder? Theft has a death penalty and murder only has hard labor? The way the Nation see's it, you break the law, you become a criminal. Criminal's have no rights: punishment is punishment. If your working for the nation you are earning money and access to range of services that will provide you with a life better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. There is no excuse, a crime is a crime. Hope that clears some things up and add's some more detail to the government and its Ruler. Thanks once agian for all your responses.
HappyDragon 06-23-05, 03:14 AM	Re-reading the original post, I would have some questions for it's author. -How long did it take all this to happen? These are exspansive and radical changes.....especially coming out of a fuedal society. It would take generations to make the type of changes that have occurred here. -If the island is 3/4's a large city, another sizeable portion of it dedicated to mining......how does the island support itself. No room for proper agriculture, people can't live on fish alone......where do all the materials come from to make all these auditoriums, theatres and schools? Islands are notoriously exspensive to live on because of their isolation and limited resources. Now it seems to me that this is a rather unrealistically formed Utopian society. ( I use the term Utopian loosely). I say this because everything that has happened for the queen so far has been 'positive'. Everyone loves her, no one tallks back to her, there has been no problems from the dozens of groups that would have problems with her....eg, the ex-nobility, worshippers that now have to go underground, other nations that see her as a threat....no assination attempts, or at leats spies and sabatouers. The crime rate may have dropped, but that certainly doesn't necessarily mean that there are less crimes, the criminals have simply needed to of gotten more cunning.....which brings up the idea of Thieves Guilds. Lastly she still goes off adventuring? and none of her left over governing bodies have tried to take advantage of this? Just because she may have idealistic views doesn''t mean that everyone else shares her opinions and ideals. All that being said though, depending on how the DM progresses the story, there could be the opprotunity for some excellent roleplaying opprotunities. The plot hooks are endless at this point with the type of things that have been set up. In truth, I really don't think it matters that much what her alignment is. If you are enjoying the character and the stoytelling by the DM is still working, that's all that matters. As other posters have noted already, the possible decline to the 'dark side' by the character could be one of these good opprotunities for gaming Would be very interested to know how the rest of the campaign goes. Should be alot of fun. :) EDIT-----Just saw your latest post, and yes it does clear up some of the questions, thanks.
Andrew_980 06-23-05, 02:11 PM	That is ECACTLY why I think she is more good than evil. IMO religion causes more problems than they help and by clamping down on religion she is causing social stability, preventing future violance is good and lawful. She isn’t saying you can’t believe, she is saying that it is a personal choice and has no place in public. There is a reason why there is a separation of church and state in America, which is sadly getting eroded away. With multiple religions in the same area that are being vocal then there are going to be conflicts. Don’t make me get historical references. I just watched Hotel Rwanda You just saw Hotel, good for you. Now go get some news footage/articals on the Soveit crackdown on religion. Show me the happy russians who are tortured because they have a belief, and tell me how you think THAT is good!! She is saying that if you seem too religious, you will suffer. this is not US seperation (wich i agree with) this is Soviet style "torture the religious because we know they think we are wrong". for the record it is neither lawfull nor good to destroy churches/clerics of a LG god! she is setting the stage for a religious uprising that will cause suffering. The good thing to do would be remove religion from government and tell the preists to stay out of politics, letting people worship and have the benifit of divine magic, but keep an eye on the preists that they don't overstep the rules
Gedrin 06-23-05, 02:31 PM	So...if I understand this... No one disagrees because: You get thrown in jail for disturbing the peace if you do. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure if we look around the real world at places that jail political dissidents for speaking out (much less taking action) we'll find a great deal of discontent. However, in Miracle Land, everyone is still happy. You've got representation: But no one can really be elected. The council is appointed, by the ruler, who can overule them if she wants. People aren't normally dumb enough to buy this. They know that their old nobility has been replaces with an even less acountable and more centralized government. However, everyone is still happy. You can own property: Of course, you can't really open a business if the government already does that. Interfering with their monopolies is bad news, particularly since the council controls these institutions. But everyone's okay with this. There's no state welfare: But everyone, as long as they participate in the forced work of the state, gets the same treatment. Rich, poor, industrious and lazy (but not lazy enough to be noticed), all get the same education and health care. This makes everyone happy. Taxes are fair: While everyone recieves the same benefit from the government regardless of contribution (taxes). While it is impossible to fund your own healthcare or education due to government monopoly. Those who work hard and make more money are taxed more, but if the government provides something they must use that source rather than one that fits their own needs. Naturally, this doesn't discourage people from working hard, nor does it depress the tax base, nor does it produce discontent. Everyone is happy: Because the government is an unaccountable appointed body and a leader that is so far removed from the people that she frequently leaves the country entirely to go adventuring, it is able to meet the needs of individuals better. This is because everyone in the land has the same needs and desires. We know this because the government tells us so. The free exchange of ideas is supported: You can say whatever you want, so long as you don't offend the government official listening. Further the exchange of ideas is supported by the educational institutions through a process of rigorous indoctrination into state ideology. This is good, because we love the state. Sounds perfect.
Always-Late 06-23-05, 06:49 PM	Welcome to the Paris Commune, on a much grander scale. It was a pretty similar state, if small and shortlived (because it got invaded.) Look it up.
King Bulba 06-23-05, 06:52 PM	You just saw Hotel, good for you. Now go get some news footage/articals on the Soveit crackdown on religion. My interpitation is that she is forcing religion to be private and not public. She isnt saying that you cant worship, just that you cant do it in public where it will cause problems. Maybe now you see the difference in the examples. The Soviets were eliminating religion because religion devides and communisim wanted to unite everyone. BTW that is ONE example where cracking down on religion went bad, now how many times have we not cracked down and had wars and bloodshead, I would say lot more. Palestine and Israel is another area where two relgions are causing attacks against the other only for religious reasons. How many countries are of a single religion that doesnt let in other religions, how do you think they got that way by converting everyone or more likely killing off the opposition. for the record it is neither lawfull nor good to destroy churches/clerics of a LG god! That sounds like an opinion and not a statment of fact. From her standpoint the greater good needs these churces to be demolished or boarded up. If she didnt then there would be religious tension between faiths, now or in the future. If she handles it right then there would be no or little religious resentment amoung the populous. The priests would hate her but who cares about them. The good thing to do would be remove religion from government and tell the preists to stay out of politics, letting people worship and have the benifit of divine magic, but keep an eye on the preists that they don't overstep the rules You think the priests will stay out of government? Even in American government the religious right control things even though they are supposed to stay out. True the priests themselves dont run for office but they only support cantidates who will be their patsies and thus they control it outside the system. The only safe way to prevent religious control is to remove religion from the public sphere completely, dont worry there are still there for the private sphere. I understand two reasonable people can disagree, im not saying your opinion is wrong but good is subjective and that is why the alignment system is awkward. What is good in your eyes can be seen as bad in mine. We both are trying to do whats right. In your eyes it's one thing and in mine it's this way. I really feel that she is trying to do good from reading the text.
Always-Late 06-23-05, 07:25 PM	There are no wars. There is no strife. The LG churches seem to be agreeing with each other for the most part. But they might start fighting, so lets kill them all.That sounds like an opinion and not a statment of fact. From her standpoint the greater good needs these churces to be demolished or boarded up. If she didnt then there would be religious tension between faiths, now or in the future. If she handles it right then there would be no or little religious resentment amoung the populous. The priests would hate her but who cares about them.Yeah. Because you give religious lectures, I'm going to burn down your house and kill you. For the greater good. You might disagree with some other religon, so I'm just going to disagree with all of the religons and kill you. Plus, since you're a priest, nobody cares about you, even though you've saved hundreds of lives. You no longer have human rights and thus can be treated as a dog.You think the priests will stay out of government? Even in American government the religious right control things even though they are supposed to stay out. True the priests themselves dont run for office but they only support cantidates who will be their patsies and thus they control it outside the system. The only safe way to prevent religious control is to remove religion from the public sphere completely, dont worry there are still there for the private sphere.Yes, they can enter the government secularly, and cannot exercise divine power. What do you want to do, allow only athiests to enter the political system? Plus, D&D is different. The gods actually exist. It can't be made something in the background, because they actually can go down and do stuff. The gods exist. That's one major difference.
HappyDragon 06-23-05, 07:25 PM	My interpitation is that she is forcing religion to be private and not public. She isnt saying that you cant worship, just that you cant do it in public where it will cause problems. How exactly does worshipping in public cause problems? Closing away seperate religions to the underground is only asking for trouble. At least with open worship opposing religions could maybe learn to live in sometype of co-existance with eachother.....hiding themselves away from one another will only create more ignorance and animosity. If she handles it right then there would be no or little religious resentment amoung the populous. The priests would hate her but who cares about them Agaiin, hiding religions away from one another does not solve the problem. As for who cares about the priests....well I would think their whole congregation would, especially coming out of a feudal society where the majority of the populace worhips a religion to one extent or another. Plus if this was a Fuedal society to begin with I can't see there being that many opposing religions to begin with. You think the priests will stay out of government? Even in American government the religious right control things even though they are supposed to stay out. True the priests themselves dont run for office but they only support cantidates who will be their patsies and thus they control it outside the system. The only safe way to prevent religious control is to remove religion from the public sphere completely, dont worry there are still there for the private sphere. I understand two reasonable people can disagree, im not saying your opinion is wrong but good is subjective and that is why the alignment system is awkward. What is good in your eyes can be seen as bad in mine. We both are trying to do whats right. In your eyes it's one thing and in mine it's this way. I really feel that she is trying to do good from reading the text. I agree that the alignment system can be quite awkward for these type of discussions. But good people do bad things, just as much as badl people can do good things. As for the religion side of things.....it's best to not look at it as a religion so much as it is a form of personal expression that the Queen is taking away from her people, or at least severly hindering. Yes priests may use their power to help influence politics, but they certainly aren't the only ones. What happens when some businesses start to be able to do competition with the government? crack down on all successful businesses as well? By singling certain areas out she is becoming a hypocrite....Church can't meddle in the affairs of the government, but the goverment can meddle in the affairs of the church?
Gedrin 06-24-05, 02:34 PM	So...she's not just keeping individuals from expressing their oppinions. Shutting down religions is normally done to eliminate their moral authority in a nation. The reason this is done is because they often form an opposing moral authority to that of the totalitarian state. In the case presented here, the totalitarian state with harsh laws and no respect for individual rights or expression has closed down the churches that advocate not only an orderly society but also a merciful and just one. Naturally the state doesn't want their competing moral views, because the state wishes to become the ultimate authority and views itself as accountable to no one; not the people, not the gods. I am unaware of any example in RL history where the actions presented in this game nation have resulted in anything other than a totalitarian state that magnifies the suffering of it's people.
Always-Late 06-24-05, 07:22 PM	Paris, 1871. Of course, it didn't last long, but it was fine while it lasted.
Cadfan 06-24-05, 10:48 PM	Of course, in D&D, with its really existing, really present gods, a decent argument could be made for repressing many of them. :-) That'd be an interesting philosphical conversation. If multiple gods of multiple religions simultaneously proved their existance unequivocally, would there be any point to separation of church and state? Most of the justification for that is that since no one can prove they're right, and everyone is very emotional about the subject of religion, the state should stay out of the issue and let the people sort it out in a vibrant public discourse, unaffected by governmental interference. If there really were gods, that wouldn't make much sense. Instead of no one being able to prove that they're right, everyone would be able to prove they were right. Why not select a religion or two, and just suck up to those? Sure, you're stepping on people's faiths- but hey, you've got a new, equally true one to offer them, right? A religion seems like it becomes a lot less... sacred... when there are multiple perfectly legitimate and real alternate gods.
Gedrin 06-25-05, 02:08 AM	The Paris Comune lasted about 2 months. You can't draw any conclusion at all about the success, failure or just nature of any government that is only in existance for 2 months, except perhaps it failed to defend itself. You could however judge that they had decent crisis management skills, since public services were working for some of that time. Then again, you could probably get orcs and elves to cooperate for 2 months if their lives depended on it and you promised them free rent, cancelation of debts and government pensions. The situation presented here is much different. It's not a time of crisis, aside from the external threat booggieman, and the government is complete and present indefinately. Much more like the situation just after the fall of the Tzar in Russia. Like the people who overthrew the Tzar in Russia, and unlike the people at the Paris Commune, the government presented here will have to follow up on all it's promises and sustain the morale of it's people under it's policies. Cadfan In a polytheistic culture, which gods are your "house gods" matters a lot less than it does when you have monotheism and the claim is that there is only one God. If you have a unified pantheon of gods, then the various house gods may be friends or relatives and thus on the same team. The implications of the gods of D&D are also quite different than the implcations of a God Almighty. The gods of most D&D pantheons represent competing personalities and multiple possible views, rather than an ultimate absolute moral authority. Further, the existance of multiple divinities does nothing for proving who is right. It simply offers that there are different entities behind each of the competing views of what is the right answer, and this could get get nasty if all the gods are on different teams. However this is a complex question that could easily derail the entire thread.
Cadfan 06-25-05, 12:35 PM	A complex question that could derail the thread??? Excellent! The problem with morality and polytheistic gods who are all in the same pantheon, is that there's really no reason for the mortals to not tell a particular god to go soak his head in a bucket, other than the fact that this god will then burn their city down. Sure, they're powerful beings, but they haven't got much moral authority when you really think about it. The Euthrypro (sp?) dialogue by Plato handles this question pretty well- and basically shows that its difficult, if not impossible, to believe that multiple deities with differing moral codes are all automatically just and right. So, you've got to worship them, or they come down and make you miserable. But in D&D, for some inexplicable reason, the gods almost never get involved in anything, no matter how disastrous. Evil beings from another dimension about to eradicate all life? Better ask the heroes for help! The gods aren't doing a darned thing, except loaning the cleric some spells. So you'd probably be pretty safe from the gods, if you told a couple of them (all of them?) to take a hike, and that you weren't going to let their worshippers in your city anymore. You could keep around clerics devoted to general alignment principles, to handle your healing needs. The biggest risk you'd be taking would be that some of the more nasty gods would send their own antiheroes after you. The good gods wouldn't want to kill innocents just to spread their faith. And as for the nasty ones, frankly, they were probably going to send their antiheroes after you anyways, its what nasty gods do with their time when Buffy isn't on.
Timlagor 06-25-05, 02:26 PM	Definitely Lawful. Definitely NOT Good. Clearly foolish/shortsighted Lack of Due Process for offenders is just bl***y stupid. You shoud lhave all major crimes verified by magic -for which you really want some Lawful Clerics. There are a number of reasons it might work though -vast wealth - Hugely personally powerful ruler - Magic Worshipping in Public doesn't cause problems. trying to force people to worship causes problems. There's simply no way this is NG.
Always-Late 06-25-05, 02:33 PM	I'm going for absurdly lawful neutral with chaotic tendencies. Kind of hard to put into words. Okay, if Law is to Good as Chaos is to Evil, on the Law-Chaos scale this place is exalted, but on a Good-Evil it's chaotic neutral. Actually, that analogy's even more confusing but... I'm saying LN with various tendencies.
Darth Doom 06-26-05, 03:33 AM	Thanks all for the replying, sorry Ive been slow about it, net got cut from my house. So far the biggest problem seems to be about the lack of religious freedoms, as some people have gotten the idea its religion has been banned altogether. Just saying it to clear some things up: Religion isnt banned, merely public preachings. Because there are so many deities in the world, each with their own conflicting opinions against each other, having mutltiple religions preaching their doctrines publically can lead to conflictions amongst the public, and so, Queen Archeron had it banned. Worship in private is fine, a deities temple is also classified as private. Lack of Due Process for offenders is just bl***y stupid. You shoud lhave all major crimes verified by magic -for which you really want some Lawful Clerics. People still have trials, it is if they are caught in the act that they dont receive one. -How long did it take all this to happen? These are exspansive and radical changes.....especially coming out of a fuedal society. It would take generations to make the type of changes that have occurred here. In game time its took her about a year to become Queen, then a few months to become the only monarch (After the king had the unfortunate accident of falling down a very long flight of stairs), the process of how and why she arrived in that position is a long, but valid, one. Needless to say, that by the time she ascended the Lone Throne she had things already in place, all it was waiting for was the hammer to drop. The following IG months (Think it was about 9 or so, because of her absolute powers. No need to pass it through a senate or house of review ect ect, means she can make changes quickly). -If the island is 3/4's a large city, another sizeable portion of it dedicated to mining......how does the island support itself. No room for proper agriculture, people can't live on fish alone......where do all the materials come from to make all these auditoriums, theatres and schools? Islands are notoriously exspensive to live on because of their isolation and limited resources. I should have mentioned the island has others scattered around it (I didnt think I needed to), most of them dedicated to large scale agriculture to support the population, while the others boast lumber camps/cotton farms ect. The main food of the island is fish, but there is still mutton, pork ect ect. Now it seems to me that this is a rather unrealistically formed Utopian society. ( I use the term Utopian loosely). I say this because everything that has happened for the queen so far has been 'positive'. Everyone loves her, no one tallks back to her, there has been no problems from the dozens of groups that would have problems with her....eg, the ex-nobility, worshippers that now have to go underground, other nations that see her as a threat....no assination attempts, or at leats spies and sabatouers. The crime rate may have dropped, but that certainly doesn't necessarily mean that there are less crimes, the criminals have simply needed to of gotten more cunning.....which brings up the idea of Thieves Guilds. Not everyone one loves her, but there's a difference between someone who doesnt like the ruler and a full on revolutionary. As mentioned earlier, its a much better society than the one that was in before it, and the vast bulk of the peasantry are at least satisfied due to the huge gains they have received. The ex-nobility were rounded up in secret by her SS, because she felt they could pose to big a threat should they be fre. So far, the nation actually has an ally within the mainland, The Duchy of Urnst, due to another player in the party - the cleric - being a Baron of the land. So far there havent been any assassination attempts, not to say that there wont be in the future, as well as there could be spies amongst the community just like any other nation. Lastly she still goes off adventuring? and none of her left over governing bodies have tried to take advantage of this? Just because she may have idealistic views doesn''t mean that everyone else shares her opinions and ideals. Some may be plotting against her, others may not. So far she's got them to scared to do anything against her (The whole wizard thing. The DM has made magic even rarer than it normally is, so wizards are viewed with just as much fear as they are respect: especially one of her level). They may be fearful that she's watching them even when she isnt around via scrying, or they may be scared of being caught out and sent to a plane of Hell as punishment. There are many different variables that need to be fully taken into account when considering how many traitors she possibly could have amongst her ministers and council (Such as their background, an educated peasant from the previous system would be alot less likely to betray her than one who sympathises with the Nobility after all). The Queen doesnt make it publically known when she leaves the island either. No one disagrees because: You get thrown in jail for disturbing the peace if you do. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure if we look around the real world at places that jail political dissidents for speaking out (much less taking action) we'll find a great deal of discontent. However, in Miracle Land, everyone is still happy. If that miracle land just came out from under a Feudal government were political dissidents were publically executed instead, then yeah, they would be a alot happier instead. But no one can really be elected. The council is appointed, by the ruler, who can overule them if she wants. People aren't normally dumb enough to buy this. They know that their old nobility has been replaces with an even less acountable and more centralized government. However, everyone is still happy. The council is elected by the people each and every time. The ruler can over rule their decisions whenever she wants, but rarely does. The populace can see that instead of the old nobility - who took their money, forced them to work alot for a little and gave them little to no rights - they can put the people they want into the law making a saddle behind the Queen. Of course, you can't really open a business if the government already does that. Interfering with their monopolies is bad news, particularly since the council controls these institutions. But everyone's okay with this. They are when 99% of them use to be so poor they couldnt afford a decent roof over their head let alone opening a business, while the vastly rich nobility and king lived lives of luxury. But everyone, as long as they participate in the forced work of the state, gets the same treatment. Rich, poor, industrious and lazy (but not lazy enough to be noticed), all get the same education and health care. This makes everyone happy. If you work and contribute to the state, the state in return provides you with valuable services. If you are rich and still contribute to the state, not only do you get tehse same services, but you can also afford many of the other luxuries in life the normal wage couldnt buy. While everyone recieves the same benefit from the government regardless of contribution (taxes). While it is impossible to fund your own healthcare or education due to government monopoly. Those who work hard and make more money are taxed more, but if the government provides something they must use that source rather than one that fits their own needs. Naturally, this doesn't discourage people from working hard, nor does it depress the tax base, nor does it produce discontent. If you work harder and earn more money, yes you prolly end up paying more taxes, but you still have more than those who make less money. The same could be asked about todays people: why go into business to make more money than the average joe when your just going to get taxed more? Because youll stil end up with more money than average joe after taxes. There could be discontent, but seems as its 95% or so of the population who are those average joes and they now actually have some money to spend on things they'd like instead of being left with only pennies, Id think they'd favour the "fair" tax system alot more than the previous. Everyone is happy: Because the government is an unaccountable appointed body and a leader that is so far removed from the people that she frequently leaves the country entirely to go adventuring, it is able to meet the needs of individuals better. This is because everyone in the land has the same needs and desires. We know this because the government tells us so. Because they are one of the very few countries in the world that actually have a representative body instead of the 2% of the population - the Nobility - making the decisions for them. As to the Queen's adventuring outside the island, the public would barely be none-the-wiser, and even if they were plenty of Kings, Queens and Princes spent many years away from their countries fighting foreign wars, on diplomatic missions ect ect. They'd have their representative council to look after them while they were away, so unless disaster struck, I dont think they'd really care. The free exchange of ideas is supported: You can say whatever you want, so long as you don't offend the government official listening. Further the exchange of ideas is supported by the educational institutions through a process of rigorous indoctrination into state ideology. This is good, because we love the state. You can say what you want, as long as you dont start talking political views opposed to the government. Sounds perfect. While not being perfect - no nation every is - its alot better living there than the vast majority of other countries. Here you are a citizen, there your a serf. Thanks again (or is it again, again?) all for your responses, Im also very glad to see that there hasnt been any flaming: instead actual discussion's of opinions on the matter.
Derren S. 06-26-05, 03:53 AM	While not being perfect - no nation every is - its alot better living there than the vast majority of other countries. Here you are a citizen, there your a serf. Actually in your utopia they are still serfs. You just let them think they are better. Instead of producing goods on land the government has leased to them and trading the excesses they have for things they need, they have to work in government controlled businesses and have to buy everything they need with money they get. Its the same. Free speech is the same as with the last ruler. You can say everything you want except it goes against the ruler, then you are dead or a slave. It all comes down to "Do what the queen says, or..." The council is only there to appease the people as it has no power. Wait till the first voices come up to remove the queen as the council does all the work or someone highly religious gets voted in the council or a plague spreads the island and because of the lack of clerics can't be stopped. As long all goes well it might look like utopia, but as soon something unplanned comes up, the kingdom will change into a dictatorship really fast.
Darth Doom 06-26-05, 04:08 AM	They are citizen's, not serfs. Serfs work lots for little, dont get to choose who rules them, pays extremely high taxes to the nobles who do own them, and have very little beyond a hut and the clothes on their backs. Besides, the council does have power: it has law making power like the Queen does, yet if the two ever conflict its the Queen who has over ruling authority thus the '...its power pales in comparison to the Queens'. There's just as many clerics in the nation as any other in proporion to its size: they didnt all get run off or killed or anything.
Derren S. 06-26-05, 04:10 AM	Just wait till the council decides that they don't need a wizard queen anymore. And you are wrong, the council has no real power. It can do things, but only when the queen wants them to do it. The only real power they have is when she is gone adventuring and you can bet they will use it then.
Timlagor 06-26-05, 04:21 AM	Locking up the Nobles because they *might* be a threat Locking people up for expressing dissatisfaction Not knowing that etc is the correct abbreviation for Et Cetera (~"and the rest") Not allowing public worship -which presumably means not allowing people to worship in temples ...perhaps we misunderstood this one: can the Priests of Pelor set up a Temple and hold services so long as they buy the land and don't preach outside their walls? LG in Greyhawk is absolute and not comparative. It is also based on the standards of the modern world with equal rights and free speech etc. etc. I certainly wouldn't describe your Queen as Evil (at present) but claiming to be Good is pushing it (espcially if you had the King killed as you hint) and claiming not to be Lawful is just plain wrong.
Timlagor 06-26-05, 04:49 AM	Just wait till the council decides that they don't need a wizard queen anymore. And you are wrong, the council has no real power. It can do things, but only when the queen wants them to do it. The only real power they have is when she is gone adventuring and you can bet they will use it then. I think you're being unfair. From what I can gather, the Queen doesn't overrule them much and doesn't tell them what to do -they have real power but only within bounds. I think that if there was a plague the Queen would hire Zilchan Clerics if necessary (or cast Wish a few times). It would be very interesting to see what happened if they did decide they didn't need the Queen though.
Derren S. 06-26-05, 04:59 AM	Why unfair? The council always sits in the shadow of the queen. They know that they can only do what the queen lets them do. The fact that they are rarely opposed by the queen make this problem worse as they will soon think that they don't need the queen. And when someone who doesn't agree with the politics of the queen gets into the council he will likely spark a rebellion within it. When the queen is gone it is easy for them to take the power as the population is already used to answer to the council and not to the queen. When the queen assasinates the troublemaker question will be asked by the population who voted him in (which means he was popular) Back to the alignment: LN slowly sliding into LE. In no way it is good or neutral (L/C)
RogerWilco 06-26-05, 09:25 AM	LN going on LE IMHO. It reminds me a lot of the National-Socialist governments of the 1930s like other people. It is very much like Hitler's Germany, Hiro Hito's Japan, Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy. I would consider Italy LN, and Germany LE, with both LE rulers. (no offence to the germans, but they stuck with Hitler until the bitter end, while the italians ousted Mussolini, don't know enough about the japanese and spanish) The USSR under stalin was somewhat different, I'd consider that a LN state under a CE ruler. You have what people call a 'police state'. I'd say LN with a LE ruler, until you get the people to support: - start conquering other countries - start killing/locking up certain groups. - start killing people who want to do thinks different * Killing can also mean sending them to the mines/gulag Some predictions: - the underground nobles and religions will try to assasinate the queen - dissidents will start fleeing to other countries in increasing numbers - the preatorians will start to abuse their power - the queen will increasingly come into conflict with the council - the queen will build a death star to keep the local systems in line after she has disbanded the council
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-26-05, 10:06 AM	Type of government: autocratic socialism. Alignment: Lawful Neutral. There are evil tendencies but there are also good tendencies. Balances out, if you ask me.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-26-05, 10:08 AM	*snip* - the queen will build a death star to keep the local systems in line after she has disbanded the council And fear will be a prime motivator. However, the more she tightens her grip, more systems will slip through her fingers.
HappyDragon 06-26-05, 11:09 AM	So far the biggest problem seems to be about the lack of religious freedoms, as some people have gotten the idea its religion has been banned altogether. Just saying it to clear some things up: Religion isnt banned, merely public preachings. Because there are so many deities in the world, each with their own conflicting opinions against each other, having mutltiple religions preaching their doctrines publically can lead to conflictions amongst the public, and so, Queen Archeron had it banned. Worship in private is fine, a deities temple is also classified as private. I'm still curious to know how many different religions can be on an island society coming out of a feudal system. I just can't see there being that many different, let alone, opposing religions. Also just because there are so many deities in the world certainly doesn't mean they are all represented in one small area. Realisically there wouldn't be more than a half dozen, of those only 2, max 3 would be taken seriously. Religion is always a touchy subject. confining religion to their temples does not stop the general populace from speaking about it elsewhwre. There will always be conflicts. The whole thing with the worshiping really just comes across as supressing the people's expression, and to a larger extent it really comes across as the Queen being afraid of the possible threat the churches pose to her own power base. With mageic being as rare as you have stated, the churches are potentially the only thing that could be in any type of position to threaten her. Realizing this she is merely in the first stages of limiting one of her possible future threats. I'm not saying that is the case....it's just merely how it seems to be. (Think it was about 9 or so, because of her absolute powers. No need to pass it through a senate or house of review ect ect, means she can make changes quickly). I'm sure she has no troubles with the changes. ;) My point was more to do with the actual people accepting and understanding the changes. You're suddenly offering all these previously unheard of things to a generally poorly educated mass of people that doesn't know anything more than their work, their religion, their feudal lord and perhaps if their are lucky, their family. Who the heck has time to be properly educated or go to the theatre, you're giving things to a populace that may see absolutely no reason or need for any of these new fangled thangs. All they want is food and shelter, and the feudal lords would of given them that just as much as you are. Many of them in fact may see you taking away their taxes just so the richer people can ride off the poor man's back. Seems like ripe country for revolt. Just because you give 'freedom' to a people doesn't mean you should expect them to know what to do with it. its a much better society than the one that was in before it The problem with this is firstly- in who's eyes?, and secondly- that doesn't always equate it to being something good. Any single colour can come in an enormous varying degrees of tonality....yours may be a few shades lighter than what was before, but you're still on the dark side of the grey scale. Some may be plotting against her, others may not. So far she's got them to scared to do anything against her This is infact one of the main concerns. Everyone seems to be living in fear of this woman, and from the sounds of it many of them may have very good reason. Now I personally don't consider Fear in of itself an Evil thing, but I would have to say the purposeful and constant use of such tactics is really starting to push the bounds. If that miracle land just came out from under a Feudal government were political dissidents were publically executed instead, then yeah, they would be a alot happier instead. That's debatable when you are killing people for simple theft. A much more common occurance than political dissent. The council is elected by the people each and every time. The ruler can over rule their decisions whenever she wants, but rarely does. The populace can see that instead of the old nobility - who took their money, forced them to work alot for a little and gave them little to no rights - they can put the people they want into the law making a saddle behind the Queen. Again see fear tactics for most of this statement. That and you're pulling council members from uneducated people that don't know a single thing about running anything larger than their horse and buggy. Sure there can be exceptions to the rule, but in general the ''council'' is simply going to be waiting to see what the Queen says before they say anything. The populace may simply see a new overlord. You can say what you want, as long as you dont start talking political views opposed to the government. Between this and supressing religious expression you are creating a time bomb. Two things people will always get riled up about are religion and politics.....the Queen is saying no to both of these. Not now, not even soon, but eventually this will explode. I'm not really good at naming different types of governments, but it seems like you got an ideal Fascist state going here. Perhaps slightly sugarcoated in some areas, but still fascist. The character may of started out being NG but they are very much in uncharted country now. Ironically, all that being said, in future generations the Queen may indeed be looked on as a hero and savior of the poor island community. The Fascist state could raise out of the ashes to become a bastion of good democracy, equality and free ideas that she originally meant it to be.....but that wont happen for a loooooong time. The Queen may also be the necessary evil to pull the people up to a better state of living. Or she could be the tyrant to end all tyrants. Only the history books will tell the future generations which. Edit----Eliza Stormwhisper may be right about that Socialist state thing. Bah, I never was much good at naming that government game:)
Gedrin 06-26-05, 11:20 AM	Sounds like you've taken ideas that have never sustainably worked in a just and good way in the history of all the real world and decided that it works in your world. That's fine.
Darckchild 06-26-05, 12:10 PM	Our King is dead.... The Royal family gone.... And the Nobles missing.... And we must abandon our ways of LIFE because the "Queen" says so... This is heresy....! The Council you say will be our voice? Rubbish... she uses them as a mouth, and bends them with her demonic powers! SHE is EVIL!! She is afraid of our religion and of the old ways... SHE wants to change the old ways... SHE will ruin us... We must fight back! We must stop HER before she sacrifices us to her DEMON OVERLORDS! How else did this foul beast rise to power! Unatural forces caused the King to fall to his death...! HER evil powers banished those who wold oppose her! And where her powers fall short she tricks others to finish her dirty work!! THIS MUST END!!!! :fight!:
King Bulba 06-26-05, 03:18 PM	And you are wrong, the council has no real power. It can do things, but only when the queen wants them to do it. That is like saying the state of California has no power in light of the federal government.
Timlagor 06-26-05, 06:14 PM	How do you keep the Praetorians Honest? If they have the power to kill malefactors on sight, how can you expect them to stay honest? (especially in a low-magic world where you can't jsut Zone of truth them every day)
Drachasor 06-26-05, 07:39 PM	That is like saying the state of California has no power in light of the federal government. The State of California is guaranteed rights in the constitution that the Federal Government can't take away without amendments being passed. It's very different overall, especially since California makes up a good part of the Federal Government. Imagine more as thought George Bush could do anything he wanted, and overrule the Supreme Court and Congress if he wanted. Those two branches of government would then never have any real power. -Drachasor
King Bulba 06-27-05, 04:07 AM	The State of California is guaranteed rights in the constitution that the Federal Government can't take away without amendments being passed. -Drachasor You are right, states have some rights so this isnt an exact match of a situation... it was a poor example but the point is that in most cases the Federal Government can bully it's way into getting anything it wants if it wanted to because federal laws trump state laws when they conflict. If they really wanted to, the feds can control just about everything since interstate commerce connects to just about everything... The reason why the federal government can enforce drug laws is through interstate commerce i believe. What is even worse for states is that if the federal govt. doesnt make a ruling the states still have probems when their laws CAN effect interstate commerce and can only do so in pretty specific situations. So yes states have pretected rights but they are ALOT smaller than most people see and also by holding funds hostage the Feds can extort States into doing their bidding, which is perfectlly legal if worded right and applied equally against all states. On paper the real power is in Congress BTW. The president is important but it can be overrulled very easily by congress. The courts only interpet the law that Congress makes, in the end Congress will win since they could change the constitution which the court must follow. Congress can refuse to fund the presidents plans and thus derail his/her (eventully) plans. Congress also can go over the presidents veto to do what they want. Congress can also just make laws, like amending the constitution, to do what it wants. The only saving grace is that there is so much disagreement between the political parties that congress spends only a little of its potential power. So according to the others, states would have no real power because the federal government can pull out the interstate commerce card and overrule the states or plain out change the constitution. Even things you would think that don't effect interstate trade do, like making your own food because you are now buying less imported food. especially since California makes up a good part of the Federal Government. Ummm where have you been, California has been ignored for all things good by the federal government for the past 5 years. I wonder why /cough...
Gilean 06-27-05, 05:43 AM	The council doesn't have theoretical power, only practical. The sate is LN, with potential towards E.
Timlagor 06-27-05, 03:29 PM	That is like saying the state of California has no power in light of the federal government. People don't seem to like this analogy. How about a Captain and a Colonel?
King Bulba 06-27-05, 05:27 PM	People don't seem to like this analogy. How about a Captain and a Colonel? Bah a MUCH better example than mine hehe.
Drachasor 06-27-05, 09:14 PM	People don't seem to like this analogy. How about a Captain and a Colonel? You do realize that the military is essentially a dictatorship, right? So yes, if you are below a person in the chain of command, then you have to do what they say if they are your superior officer. This is something you sign up for, and something you can quit however. It is also kept in check by the people of the nation who own the particular military (or the military takes over, which is never a good thing when it lasts). So, this analogy just illustrates why she's being oppressive and probably evil. I suppose you could make allusions to Mechanis or other like planes, and that is an issue. However, a plane of clockwork order involving many essentially mindless cogs is different from forcing people with minds and hearts to obey your will. She gives an illusion of freedom, but she limits what can be said about the government and religion on pain of death/torture/slavery. Certainly she is not anywhere close to being good. At best she's on the cold side of LN, the one that doesn't take into account the circumstances surrounding a breach of the law and just doles out punishment according to the letter. A legal system that cares not a whit about context (e.g. it is one thing to propose a democracy, and a very, very different thing to burn down a government building). That's treading the LN/LE scale pretty close when the legal system is as brutal as this one. -Drachasor
Timlagor 06-27-05, 11:01 PM	The only purpose of the analogy was to show that you can have power while still being under the authority of someone else. (not that I disagree)
King Bulba 06-28-05, 12:50 AM	You do realize that the military is essentially a dictatorship, right? .... So, this analogy just illustrates why she's being oppressive and probably evil. Who says dictatorships are evil? I really think you have a bias from living in a democracy and taking in its propaganda. If you are saying that anything that has a single leader is oppressive and evil then you are saying that all armies are evil since 99% of them follow a chain of command with one person up top. The president is the commander and chief BTW, so does that make him evil for being solely in charge of the military? Historically most governments have a single leader so do you think they ALL are oppressive and EVIL? A chain of command really has its advantages and in the hands of someone who means well can be a great thing. If you don’t have someone on top then indecision can prevent good actions. This is commonplace in democracies, people agree something needs to be done but disagree on how to remedy the situation so nothing happens. She gives an illusion of freedom Look at it this way... She is THE judge of the country. In the American justice system if someone is charged with a crime there is a trial and a jury decides guilt or innocence but what you might not realize is that the judge can throw away the juries finding in the name of justice. This is the same thing the Queen is doing. If I follow your logic then juries have only an illusion of freedom in their choice because judges can throw away rulings... but she limits what can be said about the government and religion on pain of death/torture/slavery. Limiting people’s freedom is a function of government plain and simple and there is nothing bad about that. I can’t shoot you because the government took that right away from me. If I remember right America puts people to death... America also has cases of using torture though unofficial... When people are arrested they are sent to prison where they are forced to work exactly like what the queen does... Governments prevent sedition. Speech against the government that is... America is still trying to ban flag burning which is speech against the government. During WWII people were arrested and jailed in America for passing out pamphlets about Germany. Though I do think that freedom of speech is important but some types of speech needs to be curbed and limited. Even America makes slander illegal. America also limits religion too, just not as much as the Queen. Last I heard you couldn’t sacrifice children or even some animals in the name of religion... Limiting religion can be very beneficial to society, or would you like a religion around thats goal is to wipe the planet clear of nonbelievers or to kill themselves and their children so they can join up with a spaceship that’s hiding behind a meteor, now how much is too much is another discussion. Certainly she is not anywhere close to being good. Well that is your opinion but don’t take offense when I see things differently.
Ekranoplan 06-28-05, 01:12 AM	I will go with Evil Good.
Darth Doom 06-28-05, 03:02 AM	Right, so far its come down to: A ruler who gives out free food, ensured people get good wages, makes sure their subjects are healthy, educates them, utilizes a strong work ethic and national service, gives the people a representative say in the law making of the island and treats people as Citizens instead of Serfs is actually an evil person because: Public preachings of religion is banned and socially disruptive people are taken care of. This is taking into account even in domains ruled by "Good" rulers, peasants are treated like mere assets, taxes are ridiculous, the nobility are legally more important than the people and those who make all the decisions involving the running of the country and law making arent even in touch with the people at all. Punishment in these countries arent any better, with petty thieves getting their hands chopped off. My point was more to do with the actual people accepting and understanding the changes. You're suddenly offering all these previously unheard of things to a generally poorly educated mass of people that doesn't know anything more than their work, their religion, their feudal lord and perhaps if their are lucky, their family. Who the heck has time to be properly educated or go to the theatre, you're giving things to a populace that may see absolutely no reason or need for any of these new fangled thangs. Well they were gradually phased in over the 9 month period, rather than hitting the populace with them all at once. Its most children that benefit from the education, where as its optional for adults. The peasants still have their work, their food also and can still worship their deity at home or at the temple but now they also have the added benefits that they can receive due to the states new policies. All they want is food and shelter, and the feudal lords would of given them that just as much as you are. Many of them in fact may see you taking away their taxes just so the richer people can ride off the poor man's back. Seems like ripe country for revolt. The rich people get taxed more than the 'poor' people. Even the 'poor' people cant really be called that anymore due to better wage conditions. This is infact one of the main concerns. Everyone seems to be living in fear of this woman, and from the sounds of it many of them may have very good reason. Now I personally don't consider Fear in of itself an Evil thing, but I would have to say the purposeful and constant use of such tactics is really starting to push the bounds. I think I may have put the original statement wrong. The council in itself, is scared of her due to her magical prowess: she doesnt actively go out of her way to make people scared of her. She is a lvl 15 Wizard lvl 2 Archmage. They dont hate her persay, they like her, but from what she can tell (Or I can from a players point of view) is that they are highly uncomfortable talking ill of her behind her back because of her magical potentcy. Even when not around, some of them believe she can watch them from far away due to magic, while others know that she can. That and you're pulling council members from uneducated people that don't know a single thing about running anything larger than their horse and buggy. There are educated peasants amongst the populace before she came to power. Doctors, lawyers, merchants ect ect. These are the ones who are more likely to run for a seat on the council. Not always the only ones, but the more likely. (espcially if you had the King killed as you hint) Seriously, he fell down a long flight of stairs. If you are enjoying the character and the stoytelling by the DM is still working, that's all that matters. As other posters have noted already, the possible decline to the 'dark side' by the character could be one of these good opprotunities for gaming Would be very interested to know how the rest of the campaign goes. Should be alot of fun. Thanks, its been good fun so far, specially interactions between the group on the whole issue. The thing about this kind of alignment question is that it is based vastly upon opinion. Some people are crying out Evil, while others are thinking that she's not so bad. Even so, thank you all for taking the time to post opinions.
Timlagor 06-28-05, 07:19 AM	I think you are getting hung up on the "other countries with Good rulers are worse" thing. Your character designed and impolemented the entire system of government here. Not only did other rulers not design their systems but they also don't have the power to change them or the perspective to make those changes. Alignment is about what you do not about what you don't htink of doing.
Captain Casualty 06-28-05, 07:41 AM	if not abused Feudalism was a somewhat fair deal. But those with power seek to use it. So it was probably more common for that power to be abused. The right for lords to spend the night with a newly wed bride comes to mind as an abuse (a very evil one to me at least). As a minor historical aside this is not as bad as it seems and was of caused by christian morals and high moral requirements... Explanation? Easy. in such a moral and upright world the church would not wed anyone who was not a virgin or in some previously consecrated relationship (ie a widow). Whilst the bloke's did not seem to fall foul of this rule (even if some diseases would tend to suggest that they should)some women had erm problems with regard to this. The brides family could request prima noctu and in return for that it was impossible for the grooms family to prove that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night. That's the theory anyway as these things always come about for a reason. Abused? probably. Always look for the first causes though.
Drachasor 06-28-05, 01:29 PM	The fundamental problem a lot of these comparisons have (especially ones that make modern-day comparisons) is that this country has no checks and balances. Who says dictatorships are evil? I really think you have a bias from living in a democracy and taking in its propaganda. If you are saying that anything that has a single leader is oppressive and evil then you are saying that all armies are evil since 99% of them follow a chain of command with one person up top. The president is the commander and chief BTW, so does that make him evil for being solely in charge of the military? Historically most governments have a single leader so do you think they ALL are oppressive and EVIL? A chain of command really has its advantages and in the hands of someone who means well can be a great thing. If you don’t have someone on top then indecision can prevent good actions. This is commonplace in democracies, people agree something needs to be done but disagree on how to remedy the situation so nothing happens. Dictatorships over citizens are not good things, and should be phased out as quickly as possible. If there is a subset of a country that people can volunteer to be in and can get out if they desire that has some properties of a dictatorship, then that's not dictatorship on a societal level. Certainly given the connection to the presidency and congress, the overall rulers of the U.S. military has a system of checks and balances in place which handle too flagrant abuses. The problem with real dictatorships is that there are no checks and balances, and hence nothing to fix things when they veer of course. A very rare individual might be able to run a country as a dictatorship for much/all of his life (given limited life-spans), but that's not something you can predict. With not system of checks and balances, and no movement towards them, abuse is a near inevitability. Hence your entire arguement about her being the "judge" of her country and comparing it to America simply doesn't work. There are no checks in balances. There is no one in America that is Judge, Jury, and Executioner, like this queen is. Given that she seems to be ok telling people how to live their lives, this is far from a good thing. Look at it this way... She is THE judge of the country. In the American justice system if someone is charged with a crime there is a trial and a jury decides guilt or innocence but what you might not realize is that the judge can throw away the juries finding in the name of justice. This is the same thing the Queen is doing. If I follow your logic then juries have only an illusion of freedom in their choice because judges can throw away rulings... Limiting people’s freedom is a function of government plain and simple and there is nothing bad about that. I can’t shoot you because the government took that right away from me. If I remember right America puts people to death... America also has cases of using torture though unofficial... When people are arrested they are sent to prison where they are forced to work exactly like what the queen does... Governments prevent sedition. Speech against the government that is... America is still trying to ban flag burning which is speech against the government. During WWII people were arrested and jailed in America for passing out pamphlets about Germany. Though I do think that freedom of speech is important but some types of speech needs to be curbed and limited. Even America makes slander illegal. And a law against flag-burning and one that jailed citizens for saying the government did a lousy job (or even proposed that we should reform a government) are quite unduly restrictive. You are saying that just because *some* things should be against the law to do (e.g. yell "fire" in a theatre when there is no fire or spread lies as truths that directly harm someone), that it is ok to then expand those things to other areas. That's exactly why this government isn't good. The Queen is too controlling, and has no respect for the citizens. Feeding and clothing people is fine and good, but to then tell them that they can't say things that harm no one or do acts that harm no one (such as protest the government) is to have no respect for them as sentient beings. To then back up those stances with death, slavery, and other unsavory things just furthers this. This government sends a message that says: Do what we tell you and be rewarded, but if you don't do things the way we want you to do them, then you'll suffer for the rest of your life. That's NOT good, and it at the very least borders on evil when those banned things are harmless. The Queen is letting her biases and paranoia about different religions and thoughts to dictate policy. America also limits religion too, just not as much as the Queen. Last I heard you couldn’t sacrifice children or even some animals in the name of religion... Limiting religion can be very beneficial to society, or would you like a religion around thats goal is to wipe the planet clear of nonbelievers or to kill themselves and their children so they can join up with a spaceship that’s hiding behind a meteor, now how much is too much is another discussion. Laws that are essential to protect the lives and wellfare of citizens (such as ones against murder--for any reason), are quite different from ones that limit freedoms that harm no one (such as talking about religion publicly). I'd be interested in having the OP say what would happen if the council decides they don't need a Queen anymore and asked her to leave....I'd wager they'd probably all get put to death or enslaved. The government could become good if the leadership was removed, but she's definitely LE. She'll kill people if they don't do things her way, and doesn't really care or give them a second thought. Such callousness is a hallmark of evil (e.g. killing when convenient). Just because the council and citizenry are largely doing what she wants doesn't make her less evil. What she does when people don't do what she wants shows that clearly.
Gedrin 06-28-05, 04:10 PM	To me, this is just kinda spooky, but that's just me. I agree, that given the alternative of a non-ideal feudal society, an ideally functioning communist dictatorship might be appealing. It just doesn't seem reasonable that an unaccountable, centralized, strict, authoritarian, government that denies it's people the ability to voice their concerns about problems they face is going to work very well over time. At the very least the fact that people will be thrown in jail for mentioning legitimate failures of the government would result in issues. The people live in fear of addressing issues with their leaders. They're afraid that the mere mention of a failure of the government will lead to their punishment. You've got a choiceless society. You can live as you want, so long as you live where the government tells you, eat what the govenrment provides, take care of your health in the way that the government provides, learn what the govenrment teaches. If you want to wave your GM wand and say that it actually works, and the unaccountable officials aren't corrupt and no one minds the secret police arresting those who talk about the problems people are having, and everyone likes the rations...I guess you can do that.
20goingon1232 06-28-05, 04:34 PM	Evil, as far as I can see, but I think I have a personal bias against such a form of government due to IRL examples. Anything that FORCES people to think a certain way is by definition Evil. The only exception to this is if the actions of that person would infringe on another's rights (ie., murder, theft, rape, etc.). Saying that someone is a right royal :censored: is not reason enough to warrant an extended stay in the dungeons. Alright, so she did a lot of good. Well, so did Adolf Hitler, if you happen to be a blonde, blue-eyed member of the Aryan "super-race". And so did Joseph Stalin, if you happen to be a peasant drone. In fact, from the way she is desceibed as ruling, I'd say she is closer to Stalin than Hitler. As to the Lawful/Chaos alignment, that would depend. Does she apply these rules the same way across the board, regardless of rank or race? If so, she is Lawful. If she shows favouritism on a regular basis, then she is likely to be Neutral. If the laws only applies to everyone else and/or she changes them on a whim, then she is Chaotic.
King Bulba 06-29-05, 01:13 AM	Evil, as far as I can see, but I think I have a personal bias against such a form of government due to IRL examples. That's very honest of you, ill take what you say with much more credibility over others who can’t look outside themselves. Anything that FORCES people to think a certain way is by definition Evil. The only exception to this is if the actions of that person would infringe on another's rights (ie., murder, theft, rape, etc.). So you are saying that it is ok for the government to force people to think a certain way as long as it protects people. Rights are a modern idea that doesn’t exist in this time I’m assuming, so I'll use the term protect people. It can be interpreted that the Queen limits sedition because attempted revolutions kill alot of innocents. Limiting religions to be only private also is for the best interests in her view since multiple religions sparks up controversy that often end in violence. How far censorship can go is an individual decision and cant really be argued here to say if the government is good or bad all you can do is find the average but looking from their time frame its looking pretty good since they are used to authoritative governments and this is less so... You've got a choiceless society. It isn’t choiceless. You are just saying that it is because you want it look like the government is abusive. The council runs the government and whenever it makes a bad decision then the Queen gets involved. See my previous argument about judges and juries about subordinates having power in a chain of command. If a single chain of command is bad then there are no good governments since there is always a chain of command, even America has a chain in command in its military and there aren’t intensive checks and balances in the military like some are implying. There are many famous kings who are good who give their people less power, and less freedom but are considered good historically. People bring up checks and balances but they themselves have downsides. In American government how long did it take to get civil rights passed by Congress? BTW congress never passed any civil rights legislation because no one could agree on what to do about it. Now does this look alot like Germany pre WWII? Well there are some similarities that I admit, the inflation isn’t there which was a big reason there was so much scapegoating but no need to get into great detail there. Just because it does look a little like German before WWII doesn’t mean that it is evil. All that it means is that it has a weakness that can be twisted into being evil like Nazi Germany. All governments have weaknesses btw... You see what I am saying at least? Just because it can go evil doesn’t mean that you should assume that it would, your opinions are tainted by history. Look at this from the peons perspective. They couldn't speak against the government before and they still cant. They used to work for lords who gave them only a small portion of the food they harvested, but now they are making money in which they can buy stuff. Before the peons had no representation now they have limited representation through the council. Preaching religion is limited now but generally that is illegal anyways except for the main religion, the only difference there is now that the main church of the island is also limited. If you were given more money, representation and power would you hate your new boss or love her? The people would love her, who cares if she uses magic or not. Over time would this go bad? I agree, though all governments do... I think the Queen is good or least neutral but if she has her successor hold her role then someone will eventually abuse the position, but we are talking about now. She isn’t ruling through fear like some are saying because she has earned the peasants respect. She has raised their quality of life ALOT and people will trust her decisions imo, but that's my opinion at least. They would never ask the Queen to give up power imo but if they did ask her to stay out, then she would probably say sorry but I’m in charge and move on. She is in charge and they only have power because of her will. Would they be executed? I seriously doubt it because killing political leaders always has dire consequences. She could charge him with sedition since he is trying to overthrow her and that isn’t an abuse of power. I think she wouldn’t do anything though knowing the fact that he can't really touch her. Final notes: Being an authoritarian governments isn’t naturally good or evil. What makes a government good is its value and quality of life. Restricting freedoms lowers the value but safety also raises it. Some value freedom more some will value safety more. Evil governments have lower quality of life for its citizens not because of situation but because it gives the ruler power. This is a tricky situation because she has given the people a higher quality of life but has some greedy but also some good tendencies. My opinion is that she is good but I understand others views.
timothyx 06-29-05, 03:47 AM	I think the Queen is going about things mostly right, with a few exceptions, she could theoretically stave off a rebelion or attempt to topple her rule. 1) All laws are based on the more reasonable "eye for an eye" concept, or a more or less, "equal punishment for the crime". 2) Allow free speech, allow people to vote freely for thier "representative", and have a say in how things are run. People who are allowed to think they have freedom are most likely to object the least when such is taken away from them. perception is everything. 3) Indentured Slavery for criminals, minumum 2 years of military service for all those 15 (pc classes usually start at the 15 to 20 yo mark), to 40 in order to be a "Citizen". ok, so I'm all for a pretty fascist type of government, there is some, if i were the sole ruler and powerful wizard... good, evil, I've got the Sudden Widened, Maximized Fireball spell. :) as for the government she's currently got going, I'd go more or less Lawful neutral, she on the other hand is definetely Lawful Evil
Derren S. 06-29-05, 04:20 AM	3) Indentured Slavery for criminals, minumum 2 years of military service for all those 15 (pc classes usually start at the 15 to 20 yo mark), to 40 in order to be a "Citizen". I see, the Starship Trooper approach.
Gedrin 06-29-05, 02:01 PM	I'm saying it's choiceless because, historically, when the government controls a universal service, the people must use that service, or alternatives are prohibitively rare and expensive. The government decides the nature of that service. Generally strict, centralized, authoritarian governments that throw dissenting citizens in jail aren't responsive to the desires of the people. If you have a non-responsive government monopoly controlling education, health care, food and also determining who gets rights and contributes enough to get services...again, you can simply pronounce things are great, but IRL it doesn't really work that way.
King Bulba 06-29-05, 06:26 PM	but IRL it doesn't really work that way. Well I think you need to go read some history books and stop thinking about Nazi Germany. Democracy hasn't been around that long and there were good authoritative governments before and after democracy has been established. The vast majority of governments that our tiny little world have are authoritative, are they all bad? If you have a non-responsive government How can you say that when there is a city council running government? True the Queen can veto but so can a governor veto any state legislation in his or her state. when the government controls a universal service The government is the city council btw so if the government is abusing the people, then it is the people abusing the people. That is why the Queen is there to veto them if they get out of line. If the Queen were abusing her position then she would be vetoing alot imo but as the author said she isn’t interfering much. authoritarian governments that throw dissenting citizens in jail aren't responsive to the desires of the people Most governments don’t have freedom of speech like America does (actually it is limited). Are all governments whom don’t have freedom of speech evil? France doesn’t (bad example hehe [its a joke :P ])... Even America has thrown dissenting citizens in jail, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. There will always be dissent even in utopia. Sad to say but they are a cancer that needs to be dealt with. The Queen is just taking a more active stance against sedition like the vast majority of other governments, in DnD they all will be like this, even LG because they know of thing else. If you don’t deal with it then the dissent will grow because people are easily manipulated. Now she is a little harsh from an American view but if she didn’t then she would be overthrowed, which sucks for her but more importantly by people who will give the people less power. In her eyes it is tough love like a parent to a teenager.
Darth Doom 06-30-05, 04:25 AM	Thanks to all who took the time to share their opinion. In the end, the GM decided to put her to LN, smack bang in the middile. She has done a few evil things, but they were balanced out also by the amount of good things she's done. The best part about it so far has been the role playing experiance: for the group as the whole. The Queens ultimate goal is that of immortality: She uses her spare time to study a spell to give her just that. She wants it so much she's even considering Lichdom. The two neutral fighters have taken to her authority well as she's given them high rank within the Citizen's Levy (They are lvl 16 and 17 characters after all), and so far its only the Cleric whose in game questioning the pro's and con's of her reign. Welp, thanks again to all who posted, your input was much appreciated :), plus it was good to see an actual discussion on the evil's and good's a government can do before its given one moral label or the other, instead of just a flame war. Thanks all.
Timlagor 06-30-05, 08:40 AM	She should look at becoming a Goddess -surely the only sensible step for any sensible self-respecting wizard :D
Gedrin 06-30-05, 02:17 PM	Like I said... You can trade a monarchy for a communist dictatorship and it might seem like a step up. Doesn't make it either of them a good thing. State governors aren't a valid comparrison. First, they're elected. Second, they're accountable to the people via reelection or even removal from office. Third, they can't make permanent law without the assistance of the legislative body of the state. Fourth, they don't have the power to convict people of a crime. The Queen, in the end, holds all power, regardless of the desires of the people. She can not only make emergency decisions, but also make them permanent. She can pass or overturn laws at will. She's in office for life. She throws people in jail if they speak out against her. She does what she thinks is right, and she may even make decent decisions most of the time, but that doesn't change the fact that she's forcing people to her will and design. You can say that unaccountable governments don't become corrupt, and if you want to decide that by some quirk of fate this one doesn't, that's fine. However, unaccountable governments with near absolute power do wind up corrupt and abusive, and are unrestrained in their corruption and abuses. You can pretend that the people elect the city council, but they can't elect anyone that has a diverging oppinion from the current government. It would be much the same as telling citizens of the US that they could vote for anyone they wanted, as long as they voted for the Green Party. You say that most governments don't allow free expression of ideas, that may be, but it doesn't seem right to me. Dissent isn't a cancer, it's a force of change. You can try to freeze your government in time, but good luck. There's a difference between dissent and revolt or treason. In the end, it comes down to just what you say. She treats the people like a parrent treats the teenager. However, people aren't the state's children. I doubt there's anyone here who would want to live under the conditions their parrents set for them as a child for their entire life. What's more, she wants to create a situation where she is the immortal ruler of people she views as unable to make their own choices. So, she'll make the choices for them, for all their lives, forever. I'm willing to be okay with any GM saying whatever he wants about his world, but this violates my suspension of disbelief. I'm not saying that you have to have democracy, or that monarchy is better than communism or anything like that. I am saying that the view presented here is that everything works as intended, and centralized beauracracies that are unaccountable to the people they serve and who never hear what things they do wrong just don't produce services that work well. Basically, we've got a country where your doctor, farmer, school and job have all the responsiveness and service quality as the DMV, or worse. Again, you can say that, unlike all others, this government produces agencies that work as designed, but I don't really see how. Now, as I look to the future of this land, I think Timlagor is about right. She's not aiming for mere immortality. She's aiming for godhood. Litchdom is merely a stepping stone to give her more time. Currently, she's even got a church. The attending population that is being taught to trust her word as law and offers daily vows of loyalty to her is...well, all children going to the state schools. They're being educated in the dogma of absolute faith in their ruler and the state. Maybe it's hyperbole, but if they're already pledging their bodies, and expressions of thoughts other than those condoned by her are prohibited, how long is it, seeing how she's got mind and body, before she asks for souls?
HappyDragon 06-30-05, 04:00 PM	The DM's call of putting her into LN is a pretty fair one actually for now. Shows the progression of the character, but hasn't completely damned her yet in terms of roleplaying how things may yet go in the future. I've looked over this thread and people's arguments quite a bit and there are just too many things that don't sit well. The main one I keep coming back to is how the Queen is essentially attempting to brainwash her people. The country's flag is now a picture of the queen, religion is controlled by the state, education is probably more of a propagande machine than an actual institution for knowledge, and representation is only an illusion that gets quickly burst the moment views are expressed past what the Queen has stated her minions to voice. My own personal irritant is the queen just seems to exist in a vacuum where all plausable actions and reactions don't affect her or anything in her enviroment. It just becomes very hard to swallow. Or how Gedrin put it violates my suspension of disbelief. If the counry is any indicator the Queen will have no problems attaining her immortality, be supreme ruler of the world and as someone else already pointed out probably become a God. The bottom line however is that the players and DM are enjoying themselves. If that's happening then nothing else really matters.
Drachasor 06-30-05, 04:18 PM	education is probably more of a propagande machine than an actual institution for knowledge, Hey, it can be both. Afterall, people that say the Queen is wrong are killed, so after this weeding process you are left with well-educated, loyal citizens (and smart ones that plot in secret). and representation is only an illusion that gets quickly burst the moment views are expressed past what the Queen has stated her minions to voice. My own personal irritant is the queen just seems to exist in a vacuum where all plausable actions and reactions don't affect her or anything in her enviroment. It just becomes very hard to swallow. Or how Gedrin put it . Yes, hopefully some difficulties will crop up among the citizens, and she'll have to decide wether to get more tyrranical or to let them be more free. The status quo NEVER lasts (and it is more interesting for things to change). -Drachasor
King Bulba 06-30-05, 07:31 PM	You can trade a monarchy for a communist dictatorship and it might seem like a step up. Doesn't make it either of them a good thing. I don’t know where to start with that statement. Communism is more left than democracy btw and many people, especially scholars feel that it has more equality than democracy. Don’t assume all Communisms are like Stalin’s USSR because they aren’t. Marx's idea of communism is very much different and I'm assuming you are tainted by history. When people say it doesn't work in reality then they are showing that they know nothing of communism. BTW all early democracies have fallen apart too. Monarchy has been the major form of government on the Earth. Are you saying that ALL monarchies are evil or at least there hasn’t been a single good one? It sure sounds like you are saying they cant be good because they are authoritarian by nature. There is no best government. They all have strengths and weaknesses. The best you can do is fit one to your surroundings. She's in office for life. Kings and Queens are in office for life, does that make them evil? So are Supreme Court Justices... You seem to always assume the negative. Even in the negative all democracies are bad... She does what she thinks is right, and she may even make decent decisions most of the time, but that doesn't change the fact that she's forcing people to her will and design. Last I remember that’s the job of the government is to force its will, if it does it to much that’s abusive but to little then its chaotic. Force of will is what makes it lawful to produce a safer, and a happier society. If they didn’t force their will, then people would kill others for their money because no one is stopping them. You can say that unaccountable governments don't become corrupt Read what I said please, that’s not what I said... All governments corrupt in time. Look at Rome as an example. It started off as a Republic, btw the peasants had VERY little vote in reality. Over time the senate went corrupt. Along came Gaius Julius Caesar the general who was popular with the people. The Senate saw his popularity and tried to strip him of his command because of it. Well Caesar said screw this and crossed the Rubicon into Rome. He did this to defend his dignitas, meaning honor/dignity, and to remove the corruption in the senate. People feared that when Gaius walked into Rome that they would see the usually rape murder and confiscation of property but they didn't. Gaius only took hold of the treasure that the senators left when they evacuated. Gaius gained even more sympathy when he would pardon whole cities and armies who stood against him. The senators who didn’t run elected Gaius Julius Caesar as a full Consul (dictator). Caesar then made many laws that were beneficial to society and eventfully stepped down as Full Consul but accepted being a Consul. He then went out and conquered Spain, Asia Minor, and Egypt. When he returned to Rome the people loved him as a God. Next thing Caesar did was to change the senate. Suddenly, instead of aging patricians, Rome buzzed that centurions, men without name or reputation; even barbarians were sitting in the hallowed halls of the Senate. (Is Caesar sounding evil btw, he was a conquering dictator) Rome wished a return to its former insularity: an Empire controlled by one city-state. This is historical fact btw so don’t say that everyone thinks that republics are great... He then went after social problems like the landless poor by forcing landowners to use 1/3rd of their farm workers be free men rather than slaves, he grated citizenship to some Greeks, and gave amnesty for all who had taken arms against him in the Civil War. The list goes on and on the good things he did. Of course we all know what happened to Gaius Julius Caesar. On March 15 the senate killed him because they feared him. Even though he is the one that kept the senate alive when he took over. Gaius Julius Caesar successor then started the long rule of dictators. Note that most of the dictators early on were perceived as good and they only slowly went corrupt. Now here is an example of how governments corrupt over time. Early on the senate worked but over time went corrupt and Julius Caesar brought new blood into the system. The dictators had power yes but they didn’t abuse it and all was well. Down the line the rulers started to abuse their power and you see the fall and corruption of the Roman Empire. However, unaccountable governments with near absolute power do wind up corrupt and abusive, All governments corrupt over time, Rome did and so will America eventually, hopefully it will be in thousands and thousands of years... What you keep looking is down the line and in the negative... What we are looking at is here and now. You can pretend that the people elect the city council, but they can't elect anyone that has a diverging opinion from the current government. Diverging opinion and dissent are two different things; true according to the definition they do, but look at context. Dissent implies that you are resisting the government, while a diverging opinion just disagrees with it. The Queen is only stopping dissent because it is disruptive to society. Dissent is a cancer, but a diverging opinion just means that you see things differently. I have a diverging opinion to President Bush but I’m not trying to overthrow him. The fact that she hasn’t vetoed any councilperson shows that her opinion on dissent. If she viewed it as any diverging opinion then she would be vetoing everyone but she isn’t... You say that most governments don't allow free expression of ideas, that may be, but it doesn't seem right to me. Your values are based on where you grew up. If you grew up elsewhere you would see things differently. What you need to do is look from a place outside your society. Don’t think that America doesn’t also brainwash you because it does like everyone else... However, people aren't the state's children. I disagree. Any one in charge should view the people as their children. If you don’t then you have no emotional attachment to them, which you should. What's more, she wants to create a situation where she is the immortal ruler of people she views as unable to make their own choices. BTW being an immortal ruler is isn’t good or bad, it just is... What I think your trying to say is that since she can overrule the council’s decisions, that thefore the council is unable to make their own choices. If that was the case then why give the people a vote in the first place. If she really wants to control the government herself then she could play monarch and decide things herself. The people are used to monarchies so they wouldn’t have a problem with it, even though I bet you would argue against it because you don’t like monarchies. She is just letting them rule absoultly because these people are common folks and they make bad decisions from time to time so she is there to prevent harm to society. Over time when they get educated will she still be needed is another question. I am saying that the view presented here is that everything works as intended, and centralized beauracracies that are unaccountable to the people they serve and who never hear what things they do wrong just don't produce services that work well. Well you have a biased against centralized bureaucracies imo. They are efficient and gets the job done fast. Everyone hates decentralized bureaucracies in America because they are so slow that nothing gets done since everything is separated. As I said before the people run the government so the bureaucracies are accountable to the people until they screw up and get the Queen to step in. The fact that the queen doesn't step in much shows that the people really run the government. Basically, we've got a country where your doctor, farmer, school and job have all the responsiveness and service quality as the DMV, or worse. Now you’re assuming that they are decentralized bureaucracies, but I thought you were complaining that they were centralized bureaucracies a moment ago. Assuming that all bureaucracies are poor quality is plain not true. True most of American bureaucracies are but that doesn’t mean that they all are. BTW America spends the most money on Healthcare and that is independent of government bureaucracies. When you compare it to other governments who have government run healthcare they pay HALF of what we do and have better quality of care. America has the highest infant mortality rates than any other 1st world country and many 2nd and 3rd world countries beat us too. Maybe it's hyperbole, but if they're already pledging their bodies, and expressions of thoughts other than those condoned by her are prohibited, how long is it, seeing how she's got mind and body, before she asks for souls? IF that is true then she is evil, but you are assuming the worst.
Sapper2219 06-30-05, 09:14 PM	I have only one thing to say in response, you seem to be taking everything out of context. Please re-read the original post, and pay attention to where they are talking about the way people couch what they say about the govt. (Queen in this matter). I'll give you some of the historical context with which you have made your point but your use of semantics to attempt to justify the quelching of dissent does not stand. If President Bush behaved as this Queen appears to then you would be imprisioned or worse dead. That is not "good" in any book. You have the ability to express your dissent without retribution. In the original post, and if I'm wrong please correct me, it appears that any dissention or divergance of opinion is oppressed. On a side note, if we have one of the lowest rated medical fields in the world, then why are people coming to America for life saving procedures that they have to wait for in their own countries? Also, why are the highest rated Medical Schools in this country? We're not perfect, to that I'll concur, but we are far better than the picture you paint.
20goingon1232 06-30-05, 10:52 PM	That's very honest of you, ill take what you say with much more credibility over others who can’t look outside themselves. So you are saying that it is ok for the government to force people to think a certain way as long as it protects people. Rights are a modern idea that doesn’t exist in this time I’m assuming, so I'll use the term protect people. It can be interpreted that the Queen limits sedition because attempted revolutions kill alot of innocents. Limiting religions to be only private also is for the best interests in her view since multiple religions sparks up controversy that often end in violence. How far censorship can go is an individual decision and cant really be argued here to say if the government is good or bad all you can do is find the average but looking from their time frame its looking pretty good since they are used to authoritative governments and this is less so... That is a specious argument. By that very same logic, I could support her killing off everyone because, hey, they could be thinking of a revolution and innocents end up dying. The place to draw the line in the sand is when people actively go out to hurt people as in the case of rapists and premeditated murderers. When you infringe on the "rights" (for the lack of a better term) of others to live their lives in peace, you SHOULD be stopped. I agree that the concept of "rights" did not exist in a medieval world, but this is DnD. In fact, she has brought about many changes that was not in a medieval world. Universal education? Heck, even TODAY, there are places where this is not a fact. Equality? Ditto! Extend that to the concept of "rights". Final notes: Being an authoritarian governments isn’t naturally good or evil. What makes a government good is its value and quality of life. Restricting freedoms lowers the value but safety also raises it. Some value freedom more some will value safety more. Evil governments have lower quality of life for its citizens not because of situation but because it gives the ruler power. This is a tricky situation because she has given the people a higher quality of life but has some greedy but also some good tendencies. My opinion is that she is good but I understand others views. You are correct in this. It is not the FORM of government that makes it Good or Evil. It is how the ruler is acting within the framework of that government that makes it Good or Evil. As I said, would you consider Stalin an example of a Good ruler? If not, why should we consider this lady to be one, when the parallels between their two rules are so considerable?
Cadfan 06-30-05, 11:23 PM	There are really two questions here. First, what is the alignment of this country, really? Second, what decision should the DM make? A political science degree should only be relevant for the first question. This game clearly contemplates that at least some players will have lawful good monarchs or powerful churches and so forth. So these must not be impossible in terms of intended game morality. In terms of actual morality, a decent argument could be made that the comic book Good morality is impossible in a real life position which requires continual balancing of multiple ethical concerns.* But the game probably doesn't need this degree of analysis. *what I mean by this is, its not so hard to imagine a comic book lawful good landscape architect. Such a person would probably have to work hard, not rip off customers, and not berate his employees needlessly. But its much harder to be a comic book lawful good criminal law attorney. You'd have uncountable numbers of ethical questions, most of which balanced two different "good" or "lawful" values against each other, and demanded that you select which to pick and which to dishonor. And given the way comic book morality works, you'd be judged based on the ones you reject, not the ones you respect. The difference between the jobs is that one is ethically unchallenging, which is the only circumstance in which simplistic moral rules function well.
Maerdash 06-30-05, 11:50 PM	Bravo Cadfan hear hear.
King Bulba 07-01-05, 03:18 AM	If President Bush behaved as this Queen appears to then you would be imprisioned or worse dead. I’m not dissenting as in resisting, I just have a different opinion. But I do see your point. You are right btw I am stretching the lines a little to make a point, the Queen isn’t as innocent as I put her. I think that people are seeing her as being evil because they are looking at her with 21st century democratic values but if you look at her from a 3rd century values then she will be good in their eyes. Good is subjective, what is good to you might not be good to me, sure we will agree on alot of things but not everything. You can’t fairly judge from your own standpoint but you need to look at it from a universal standpoint, this is all I have been trying to say. would you consider Stalin an example of a Good ruler? You know he wasn't, and so do I hehe. He wasn’t as bad as Hitler but he was well loved by his people, the ones he didn’t kill anyways. I don’t agree though about the comparison to the Queen though. Stalin is active and manages the government while the Queen is reactive and only gets involved when the council screws up. Stalin didn’t give any power to the people really nor raised their quality of life, which was pretty low. The Queen on the other had let them run their own affairs while she holds the veto over them. She also brought the peasants out of serfdom to a position of power in society. I see ALOT of differences. The place to draw the line in the sand is when people actively go out to hurt people as in the case of rapists and premeditated murderers. BTW I said, "So you are saying". I also think you misunderstood what I meant. I did write it awkwardly and poorly so it’s my fault. Laws are on the books to prevent injustices. Outlawing murder is to prevent injustices. Outlawing resistance to the government also is there to prevent injustices, not only to the people but also to the government itself. Some people will try to overthrow the government just because they can. If you try to overthrow the US then you are going to be arrested btw. All laws are restrictive to people but it's the job of government to be restrictive. If there are to many laws then the government is abusive but if there is to little then it is chaotic. The balance of what is right is an individual one. Personally I think it's better to have a chaotic society then an abusive one but I stretched the line to make a point. After 9/11 ALOT of people would draw the line next to if not past abusive for safety. On a side note, if we have one of the lowest rated medical fields in the world, then why are people coming to America for life saving procedures that they have to wait for in their own countries? Also, why are the highest rated Medical Schools in this country? We have one of the unhealthiest populations in the world because people cant afford healthcare. True we have some REALLY good medical schools but large portions of the country cant afford it and thus get little to no care. The problem with universal healthcare is that people ask for procedures that they don’t need because they can and it slows down the system, but even if it is slower more people get helped this way and it is more economical in general. Talk to your doctor about the health of our healthcare system and he or she will say that what we have atm isn't really working, at least the ones I know do.
Darth Doom 07-01-05, 05:44 AM	She's not aiming for mere immortality. She's aiming for godhood. Litchdom is merely a stepping stone to give her more time. Currently, she's even got a church. The attending population that is being taught to trust her word as law and offers daily vows of loyalty to her is...well, all children going to the state schools. They're being educated in the dogma of absolute faith in their ruler and the state. Indeed, becoming a God is on her list of things to do. But for the meantime, she has to deal with a pesky thing called Mortality. She would prefer Vampirism over Lichdom, as she is a bit of a looker (Cha 16) and wants to stay that way, but the only way she'd want to achieve that is via a spell she creates for it: She is not so vein as to potentially hinder herself if her group mates fail to kill the vampire responsible for turning her so she can be free. Archeron, Goddess of Vampires, Magic and Darkness. Hehe, has a ring to it she'd like. Again, you can say that, unlike all others, this government produces agencies that work as designed, but I don't really see how. In the long run it probably will collapse. All Empires crumble, there is no exception. When that happens - if she hasnt already been ousted somehow - then she might just create her own dimension via Genesis and live there, or dissapear into the world and plot to take over another kingdom *shrugs with a grin*, who knows, thats the fun of RP'ing and considering the long term consequences of our characters actions in the world. She may eventually expand and take over half of Greyhawk until a truce is agreed upon, where she also changes her title to Empress. All Hail Empress Archeron! The possibilities are endless :) If President Bush behaved as this Queen appears to then you would be imprisioned or worse dead. Possibly, but if President Bush was instead King Bush (Like he isnt already), and was ruling an Absolute Monarch governed country and was viewed as the rightful ruler by his citizens, then things may turn out differently. Likening her to Stalin or Hitler however is no comparison. Hitler was a man hell bent on religious and genetic genocide as was Stalin, and both would rather burn the world around them to ashes if it meant no one else could rule it but them. Both of them had serious ego problems, of which Stalin's was worse (After he gave a speech at a ball, the first person to sit down was arrested, tortured then shot), as they were also both worshiped with cult-like admiration by their populaces. I agree that the concept of "rights" did not exist in a medieval world, but this is DnD. In fact, she has brought about many changes that was not in a medieval world. Universal education? Heck, even TODAY, there are places where this is not a fact. Equality? Ditto! Extend that to the concept of "rights". Those crazy wizards that rule their nations with an iron, yet caring, fists - whatrya gunna do? (By the way, yes that is sarcasm :P ) The alignment of the country as a whole however is Lawful 'Varies'. The varies is in accordance with any other nation, the majority being good, larger part of the minority being neutral, and a small amount being evil. On the issue of authorative and centralized governments being evil, it really does depend an awful lot on the leader him/herself. Regimes like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China are all excellent examples of abused authoritarian governments, and are some of the main regimes that have given Dictatorships an awful name. Where as there is the possibility of a Dictatorship working. Get a good ruler on the throne of power who is relevatively resistant to the 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' unwritten rule, and things can turn out quite good. No scheming politicians placing their own power before the good of the nation, no corrupt beauricrats using their power to assist their friends and better their own lot ect ect, with the wants of the people being addressed first and foremost, as well as quickly thanks to the authoritive powers of the ruler. But clearly, an easily corruptable system. Thats just my take on it.
Derren S. 07-01-05, 07:15 AM	You can't simply compare your kingdom to others and say "I am good because the others are more evil". Do you call the Stalin Regime good because it was better than Nazi Germany (Hypotetically, don't know the facts)?.
Gedrin 07-01-05, 04:08 PM	Just to be curious: There's a wizard... Who's taken over a land... Instituted harsh laws... Banished LG religions from the public square... Arrests those who verbally protest policies, and makes them vanish... Is preparing for wars of conquest... Who wants to be immortal... and is debating between Litchdom and Vaprism as her methods of choice, And we need to argue about if this is a bad person who's doing bad things. Basically, the question is,"Do we think the future Vampire Queen's dictatorship is evil?"
King Bulba 07-01-05, 05:14 PM	I'll make this my last post hehe unless someone else wants my opinion hehe then I would love to respond. I think I have made my point and people seem to acknowledge it at least. Do you call the Stalin Regime good because it was better than Nazi Germany (Hypotetically, don't know the facts)?. That’s pretty hard Derren I admit. My personally opinion is that Stalin is Evil because the fact that he killed more people than Nazi Germany but I like most others am tainted by history. I think that both leaders are equally evil or damn near close, kind of wimpy answer, sorry. Both leaders had followers who viewed what they were doing was good, which is kind of sick from our standpoints. Their values were so different, messed up from our standpoints, that what they saw as good is evil in ours. Sad to say but good is subjective from your point of view. What I am trying to say is that Good and Bad are shades of gray on a scale. Even if you have two people who agree on the same scale, which many will not, the ones with the same ideals of what is right and wrong still may not agree how far up the scale is good and how far down the scale is bad. Hitler and Stalin are so far down the scale that it is about universally agreed that they are evil from today’s values. Using that scale, some people will see Cuba as evil, some neutral and a few as good. People with different values will have a different scale and they could see things completely different. They could even see Hitler or Stalin as good but I can’t take myself there because I'm bound to my own values and it's hard to stray even in the theoretical sense. If you are looking at other governments then you also have to take into effect their different values. Growing up in a democracy then all other governments will look bad if not evil to your eyes, same with communism or a monarchy. It is natural to be ethnocentric but it doesn’t make it right. You have to take a universal standpoint so your personal values don’t cloud your judgment when comparing. It’s not easy but its required to make a fair judgment... And with that I'll stay out of your way hehe, unless you want my opinion that is hehe.
Gedrin 07-01-05, 05:35 PM	You argue that the dictatorship of a woman who wants to become a conquering vampire queen is potentially good from her own internal cultural point of view. That's fine. I hope we can agree to disagree. :)
Calibron 07-01-05, 09:15 PM	At present she is LN bordering on LE. If she has no plans on creating safeguards against against future abuse by an heir or an heir's heir(ect., ect.), she is much too shortsighted to be a truly effective benevolent dictator and is only setting her people up for a BIG fall.