D&D Alignment System and your ToEE PCs

Wow this thread digresses from Physiological to Pop music (pop music as in something with too much fluff and no point) pretty easy.

Anyway referring to the original alignment topic I Believe alignment is more on point of view as previously stated. Dose a evil person not act out in what they think to be the right thing to do for the good of their people, Prime example is Al'Quada act out in acts of terrorism but they do so for what we consider evil acts but they consider them acts of the utmost holy's.

As for the good, what is really good? What the Church tells us? Is the Church not evil in it's own rights? Examples as stated look at the human rights violations they have done in history, lead 3 crusades against the people native to their own lands in a county considered to be the far side of the planet at that age? They have clergy that rape women and children and have done so for ages, which is my understanding as to why Nuns were added into the fold so their wayward monks would stop with the altar boys.

I personal don't believe in the Church myself but I have strong faith in God but the business that represents the Church has lead it to be corrupt in many forms and any organization that enforces it absolute will is not a good nor moral group IMO.

Moral points of views are also to be examined, for where do we get these if not from religion? In all the ages we have been told what was right and wrong from people of governmental power or religion, never have we decided for ourselves what we shouldn't do or what is the best for all of us and even if we did would not someone else think differently?

I feel a good person is one who Seeks to better the life of all others around them at the sacrifice of his own needs or desires, for is self sacrificing not good? I doubt anything else out there is. Evil would be someone who seeks to destroy or hurt others for own personal gain, but again these are also based on Point of View: hence isn't the act of hurting others beneficial to others also so you are commenting wrongs and rights all in the same action.

Basically there is no good or evils. no one act can be described a good or evil by everyone.

Macer

 

Being rather new to this group, I am coming in a bit late with comments on this subject.

As a long time leader in non-conventional religion (I am a national director of a Federally recognized Wiccan organization) I must disagree with the comment about Alister Crowley being a Satanist. He NEVER once in his career advocated following Satan. True, he was adamant about his opposition to all revealed religions, which prompted THEM to label him as a Satanist - If you are not with us you are against us. He even labeled himself as the evilist man alive. Much of this in his later years was due to an increasing dependency on various narcotics.

The revealed religions - as opposed to the natural religions - have always sought to impose rules on others (that they often ignore themselves.) The Natural Religions as depicted by the Druids in D&D follow the laws of Nature - often without even naming any specific God or Goddess. The Revealed Religions always have a Book of Dogma that was SUPPOSEDLY dictated by God (Bible by whatever name) that lays down rules for all to follow - even if they do not follow that particular God. Revealed religions as in the Koran, Talmud, Old & New Testaments always have a MALE God - women are inferior beings. Even Hinduism has relegated the female Dieties to a lesser status with the advent of Brahmanism.

This digresses, however, from the subject of the D&D alignment system.

How the D&D system affects the player is, of course, up to the player. For my own preference, I always play myself in whatever role my character may assume. I am also active in Renaisance Faires, where I play a character based on my own family history (back to the mid 1500's.)

I cannot play Evil (by D&D standards) because it goes against my own standards. I am aware that for the game to be truly balanced, as in some PnP games we have had in the past where we have had two opposing groups playing against each other (a VERY tough job for the DM to be impartial BTW) there is a need for some to be able to be the Evil ones.

It reminds me of when I was growing up during Prohibition, and we played cops and bootleggers - I always had to be the BAD guy - I had to be a COP. You had to have lived in the times.

That also brings up the subject of how historically accurate are we trying to be with our fantasy roles. Do we play as though we are in inquisition times or do we assume that all religions get along reasonably well together? During Inquisition times many religions were violently opposed to each other.

Lots of questions. Any comments?

 

It's all a matter of perspective. Discussions like this never lead anywhere. Trust me, if it keeps up, it'll wind up being worse than the dwarf-paladin-drinking-thread. Far worse. It shouldn't matter, but...

Why not let this thing return to its state of repose?

 

Re: D&D Alignment and Religious System and the harsh reality

I did not follow this thread, and this is its first post I red.
Basically I agree with Lord Spike that this kind of discussions won't lead anywhere, but I disagree that they're not interesting.

About Alistair Crowley, I do not doubt Vendegaar knows his works far better than me, but, as an (unbelieving) casual studious of occult/esoterics I have the (not humble at all) opinion that he was basically a charlatan (= a liar that knows he's making out everything, and not someone that deludes himself), someone that knew very little (if at all) what he was speaking about. His gross banalization of matters so complex and intriguing was really boring, so I stopped reading his works *very* quickly.

Let's put that guy to rest and let's speak about serious matters (like role playing ).

Of course they agree, being all spinoffs of Jahvism...
Actually the sex of God is a very complex matter, that can't be solved with a simple formula. Basically, if you have a male power system, you'll most likely end up having a male chief-god/only-god (even in many Pagan religions, you cited Brahamism, but also think to Greco-Roman paganism), but, as always, things tend to be quite flurred at the edges (think to Gnosticism and Qabbalism).
I would, however, restrain myself from talking about "revealed" sup... -ahem- religions opposed to "natural" ones, since I would end offending far too many people.

Boooring... Oh, well, if you like it that way, I have no right to judge...

I could play Evil, even if it's opposed to my standards, it's just that I can't see the fun in doing it
Since Aligment is just a poor replacement for roleplaying, every consideration must be left to specific agreements between Masters and Players.
I remember lots of episodes like this:
(AD&D 2nd edition) I play a weak wizard of noble family that turned to study because he was fat, short and weak (str 6), and was always bullyied and joked about by his brothers. I play him Neutral Good because of his basically harmless nature. We are in a dungeon.
Me: "The situation is getting too difficult: we are completely out of spells, our warriors are badly wounded, our scouting revealed that the next rooms are all full of forces of the Powerful Necromancer and I'm getting hungry, so let's rest in that room, that looks like an easily defendeable position."
Master: "Your scout [NPC] checks, and says 'In the room there's a *very* large warrior in full spiked black armor with a *huge* morning star. He irradiates raw power and I'm very, very afraid of him.'"
Me: "This is bad, let's seek refuge in that other room, before..."
Master: "You all see that now the warrior is in the corridor and is closing on you, waving his huge morningstar [it ended up it inflicted 1d20 damage]."
Me: "I yell: 'Let's get the hell out of here!' and run for my life."
Master: "Then you now are Neutral Evil, since you abandoned your party when in need."
Me: "Are you NUTS?!?"

My main problem with Evil is that it's something totally artificial. Aside from some very disturbed people, nobody thinks himself Evil. At most he thinks himself as someone that knows how the world works, and the "good guys" are just idealistic morons. This kind of people, however, rarely are truly dangerous: at the very worst they end up murdering some people. The worst acts (mass murdering, for istance) are usually committed by those that are perfectly legitimated by their creed in doing it (as long as they do it to the Enemy). For the Cause (be it God, Motherland, the People, Freedom or whatever) all ends are justified: if you serve a Cause that's larger than Man, then men can suffer and die, if you serve Good, then those that oppose you can suffer and die, because they oppose Good itself. They're Evil.

Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil has been for decades the main Good vs Evil theme, specially in the U.S. But cops, even "bad" cops, never think themselves as Evil: they "serve the Law", they "keep the country from falling apart", and sometime they have to use "some heavy hand" in order to avoid worst things. Real people, usually, do not adhere to the (pretty artificial, if you ask me) Good or Evil scheme. Real people and interesting characters.

BTW, I'm mistaken or this means you're around seventy? Compliments, I never encountered such a venerable roleplayer!

Historically what?!? In D&D? HAR HAR HAR!!! :evil_laug

D&D religions are, again, something totally artificial. A pantheon of gods (whose existence isn't in doubt) each of wich has his exclusive flocks, and without cultural/regional varability is something I never heard about in history. It's not paganism, for paganism worships *every* god in their panthon (and in the pantheons of its neighbours, unless they're a fanatically exclusivist lot that get offended if you put their God in your dirty pagan pantheon ) and it's not monotheism, since monotheist do not only worship, but also acknowledge only one deity that has jurisdition on everyone, believer or not.
So pagan cults get along reasonably well together: the're not, actually, different religions (or they're not percieved as such, that's the same), while many Revealed religions (like monotheisms, but religions like Mazdaism and Manicheism had their problems too) usually end stepping on each other's toes, because their creed is the only one (they're echumenic or universal).
So revealed religions often fulfilled the role of dividing "Us" (the Good Ones) from "They" (the Bad ones). I'm not saying they've been created (or invented) in order to fulfill this role, just that they easily fitted this niche when/where they came out. They also had the added result of compacting the "We", creating a supernatural bond between the believers, bond that made that kind of religions particularly fit for Empires (being much, much stronger than the principle of the Divine Nature of the Emperor, a principle that, still, is quite hard to kill, if we could find it again in mid XX century in the heart of Europe!)

<cut away long and quite pointless digression about revealed religions opposing violently each other during the centuries and how it came that "western" ones stopped>

So, it can be difficult to roleplay clerics and paladins in settings like Forgottem Realms, Greyhawk, etc. Historical accuracy is out of question, so players and masters must find an agreement, or we'll end up spending more time talking about "drinking contests" alignment issues than complaining about dice rolls. Basically they seem to work more or less like nationalsims, in some ways (if I'm a XIX century German I do not doubt French and British do exist, I just want to beat the crap out of them and take away their resources because I'm better than them) but with more fixed alliances (realGood vs. realEvil).

BTW, funny that D&D3 considers the Good-Evil (ethical) axis predominant over the Law-Chaos (political) one. Frankly I think that it could more easily be the reverse, and that a Lawful Evil would more gladly cooperate with a Lawful Good than with a Chaotic Evil, but, maybe, that would be a bit too confusing for young kids... And, of course, Your Mileage May Vary.

Oh, well, I see I bored out almost everyone, I just hope I did not offend too many people.

 

Oh my Goodness, I had no idea my post looked so damn long!
Well, I'll try to not let myself getting so carried away next time...

I do not know if they actaully are the "two most" ("only a Sith speaks in absolutes" anyone? ) but the Inquisition is definitely a well mirsepresented thing And about druidism we know even less (almost nothing at all).

Only one thing I know: D&D Druids have nothing in common with historical Druids (just like Bards, and Clerics, and... Well, I digress)

 

I am not going to quote a bunch of stuff, or really even argue a point. Just make a simple statement of my opinion. The D&D alignment system is only there as a rule in a game, your not supposed to try and analyze it. Its a framework for you to base your roleplaying on. Its a yardstick for the DM to use to judge how your playing your role. Not a whole lot more than that, and anyone that makes it more than overcomplicates it and takes away its usefulness to function in its intended role.

The alignment system is in place to take the grey out of grey areas, so everyone can play in a similar manner. It makes things like chaos and law, good and evil, more black and white. So that a diverse group of people can sit down at a table, and pretty much be talking about the same thing when they play a character.

As far as roleplaying I feel like it actually allows you to play characters outside of yourself. Which is what I consider roleplaying to be, not the inverse which is superimposing yourself into a situation. What role are you playing in that case, yourself? Ah well to each his own.

If you play characters outside of yourself like I do, it gives me a simple system of checks and balances to help me play a character that may have a very different outlook on things than my own worldview.

So to summarize analyzing the system, puts the grey back into something that is suppose to be black and white. Its not supposed to be real, its supposed to be fantasy. If you make something that is supposed to be simple complicated, you just take the fun right out of it. At least for me.

 

Runfredde: I still feel the aligment system is a poor excuse for roleplaying. I feel it as a set of bonds that costantly gets in the way of my (and my players) character development. Other games do not have it, and they work just fine (even better, if you ask me). I would gladly do without it, but it's so heavily keyed into the game system and the very D&D universe, that it's not an easy task.
Usually I say my players to develop their character, and then apply the aligment as a "rough description" without making a fuss of it.
Of course you may think differently, and do as you please... I'm Neutral, not Lawful

 

I'm not exactly sure how it could get in the way of anything? However I have never played any other RPG's so I can't make a comparison. That is my point the not making a fuss over it, it just helps me know how to play something that is entirely outside of my own experience.

Kind of like what myth, fable and portions of religion are supposed to do, give you an idea of what is acceptable behavior in a cetain situation through analogy. example the fable of the boy who cried wolf. Tries to convey a message about behavior and how people will react to those behaviors, and the pitfalls of such behaviors. To people before they get into a certain situation. I don't think the alignment system was ever meant as more than a framework, to use in such a manner.

Oh and by the I'm closer to chaotic than lawful I suppose in the real world and more neutral than good or evil I suppose. As if my perception of myself means anything

 

Yes, I am 78 years of age. Old is a relative term. I still get out on the battlefield and clash iron wearing chainmail, and shoot arrows in the renfaires. We are live steel reenactors, not PVC pipe.

Alister Crowley wrote a lot of wild stuff. The more drugs he was into the harder it is to read. He was also into a lot of non-standard ideas. One of the best known groups that he was responsible for is the Order of Thelema - Love is the Law - Love under Will. Pretty much a sexually based group. Our group has little to do with any of his teachings.

The Satanic Bible was written by Anton LeVay, the founder of the First Church of Satan. He is now deceased and his daughter is now the head of the church. We have nothing to do with them either.

Historically, the Druids got a bad rap from those who opposed them. The major references to Druids is four small paragraphs (out of 500,000 words) in Ceasar's Gaelic Wars. These were all at least third party accounts and would be considered in the courts today as hearsay evidence.

It is quite interesting that the same book also describes how these "Bloodthirsty" Druids would not pick up a weapon to defend themselves while they were being slaughtered by the Romans. Certainly not MY attitude - I won't go alone.

Most modern Druid groups that I am familiar with allow use of weapons if they are not made of Iron. Bronze is fine - some of them even use aluminum for ritual work.

 

Anyone purporting such "detailed knowledge" of these subjects ought to at least know how to spell their names... :shrug: :blowme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey

 

Shiningted: Yes I have some pics. What size and format do you want and where do I download them?