Greetings!
Overall, I like the traditional alignment system in old school D&D.
However, when the campaign world is firmly rooted in an ancient/dark ages medieval milieu--there are some huge problems that arise.
The Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
Read up on how the Viking Prince, Harald Hardrada, came to power. He was originally usurped, and had to flee Scandinavia. Twenty years later, Hardrada returned to Norway to claim his birthright.
All of his scheming enemies, their families, their retainers, men, women, children--were hunted down and put to the sword.
Charlemagne's ancestor, Chloderic--had his three brothers all slaughtered.
In Russia, Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev, had assassins hunt down his younger brothers, Gleb, and another, and slaughtered them without mercy. Gleb was a Christian, and refused to raise arms against his brother, even sending his bodyguards away. Gleb was still knifed over and over, and killed in the snow. Whatever his Christian morality and principles--he was still dead, and Yaroslav sat in the throne of power.
You find the same kinds of things going on in Ireland, Britain, India, Persia, the Great Steppes, and China.
Lawful Good gets trampled in the mud, and slaughtered. Your family gets slaughtered. Your women, your children. You either rise to the top, and kill your rivals, or you're fucked.
A brutal, harsh kind of morality extends throughout society, at all levels. Children are sold into slavery. Women especially, are booty and sweet meats to be plundered at every opportunity.
How does an alignment system survive in such an environment? ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The problem is that the ancient world had no word for "morality" in our sense: the Latin "morales" simply meant "customs," as did the Greek "ethos." What they had instead were the notions of strength and honor. Those were were both strong and honorable were useful to themselves and others, and were honored for it; those who were weak were no good to anyone, while those who applied their strength wrongly were not honorable and were shunned.
The ancient world also drew a much stronger line between Us and Them than we do today. To take an extreme example: what brought shame on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was not so much the homosexuality angle, or even the fact that they wanted to abuse the foreigner/angel, but that they insisted on exercising their right to do what they pleased with the foreigner after Lot had already granted him hospitality; had they caught him before hand, they would have been within their rights.
So it's a very different value system. My recommendation is either fall back on Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic or interpret Good and Evil in light of some value system other than our own.
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Candidly, it just doesn't fit the setting you have in mind. Generally in modern culture the heroes are good. And while you can play the bad guys in D&D, the game is built around that premise of the players as the good guys. If you want the players to be the heroes of the setting in the way you described, they can't be good as defined in D&D alignment. If you want something resembling alignment for such a game it need to have other bases. I would suggest civilized vs barbarian as one axis. Assuming a 2-axis system like D&D's is wanted, several possibilities suggest themselves, scientific vs mystical, personal freedom vs social order, and ... okay, I guess I only have 2.
If that's the tone you're looking for, it doesn't seem like there's anything to be gained from an alignment system. I've played lots of games not using alignment, and it works fine in my opinion.
While life may have been brutal by modern standards, people still have moral codes as Cat the Bounty Smuggler says - but especially as one goes farther back in history, they tend to be less like our own. So there's potential for good and evil labels - but I'm doubtful how useful alignment labels would be in a game as you describe.
As an aside,
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
In Russia, Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev, had assassins hunt down his younger brothers, Gleb, and another, and slaughtered them without mercy. Gleb was a Christian, and refused to raise arms against his brother, even sending his bodyguards away. Gleb was still knifed over and over, and killed in the snow. Whatever his Christian morality and principles--he was still dead, and Yaroslav sat in the throne of power.
You find the same kinds of things going on in Ireland, Britain, India, Persia, the Great Steppes, and China.
It's curious to have this as your example since Yaroslav and his brothers Sviatopolk, Boris, and Gleb were all Christians - as was their father Vladimir. This isn't pagans killing Christians, it's Christians killing each other.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 03, 2022, 03:38:33 AM
... I would suggest civilized vs barbarian as one axis. Assuming a 2-axis system like D&D's is wanted, several possibilities suggest themselves, scientific vs mystical, personal freedom vs social order, and ... okay, I guess I only have 2.
I'm assuming you are equating personal freedom vs social order to barbarian vs civilized?
Seems to me, following traditions is social order. So maybe Order vs Chaos?
Good and evil do exist. There are behaviors that are universally reviled, such as theft, murder, assault, rape, and lying. Even those who practice those behaviors don't want it being done to them. So if those things can be considered evil, then I would argue that stopping those behaviors (theft, murder, assault, rape, and lying) would make one a good person.
The problem is, if there is no way to enforce punishment for the evil behaviors, then evil people will just get away with murder (and theft, rape, lying, etc.) and only the strongets bed guys will rule.
In a fantasy setting like a D&D game, you have gods who actually answer prayers and reward followers who do what each particular god endorses. Also you have cosmic forces of "good", "evil", "law", "chaos", and "balance" vying for dominence in the universe, each side rewarding the ones who promote it, with power. So in a way, a fantasy setting is like tye real world dark ages, with gods and powers promoting an agenda, instead of kings, tyrants, or warlords, and the strongest among them will rule.
I say dump the alignments for this campaign altogether. In such a setting, gods are local and tied to specific lands/peoples and their successes. They don't give a damn about good/evil... they care about the success of their people/preservation of their land. Anything that makes their people stronger is "good" anything that threatens that is "evil."
They are also what D&D calls "distant" gods. They don't manifest or speak directly with mortals... at most they appear in dreams/visions or through divinations by their priests/shamans... maybe an omen/portent if its really dire. Clerics/priests get their spells normally and only lose them (if you're using a system where that's a thing) if their people/the land suffers calamity.
Finally, the clerics are servants of all their people's gods... if the system you're using has domain or spheres for clerics, then those are in line with the culture of the gods' people as a whole or with the land the god is tied to and supporting those aspects are far more important than things like "law/chaos" or "good/evil."
Quote from: Greentongue on February 03, 2022, 06:51:50 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on February 03, 2022, 03:38:33 AM
... I would suggest civilized vs barbarian as one axis. Assuming a 2-axis system like D&D's is wanted, several possibilities suggest themselves, scientific vs mystical, personal freedom vs social order, and ... okay, I guess I only have 2.
I'm assuming you are equating personal freedom vs social order to barbarian vs civilized?
Seems to me, following traditions is social order. So maybe Order vs Chaos?
All cultures follow traditions that enforce some type of social order, often with brutal consequences for those who stray from them in the ancient world. And this includes Nordic or "barbaric/pagan" traditions. Alignment is strictly a D&D convention with no direct 1/1 correlation to how things operate in the real world (or even in practice in actual RP).
Even to the degree that you might argue that Order vs Chaos exist as themes in pagan religions, like the ancient Greek (Olympians vs Titans), these are cosmic forces representing the rise of civilization out of the comic goop of creation and the untamed natural forces that are next to impossible to represent in terms of character behavior, but are rather metaphysical concepts that exist in partnership as part of an eternal song and dance weaving the world around us. And all cultures see themselves as the "civilized/Orderly" ones and the "others" as the agents of chaos disrupting their world. Which is why alignment always falls apart and this topic has persisted throughout the history of the RPG hobby.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2022, 03:53:06 AM
If that's the tone you're looking for, it doesn't seem like there's anything to be gained from an alignment system. I've played lots of games not using alignment, and it works fine in my opinion.
While life may have been brutal by modern standards, people still have moral codes as Cat the Bounty Smuggler says - but especially as one goes farther back in history, they tend to be less like our own. So there's potential for good and evil labels - but I'm doubtful how useful alignment labels would be in a game as you describe.
As an aside,
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
In Russia, Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev, had assassins hunt down his younger brothers, Gleb, and another, and slaughtered them without mercy. Gleb was a Christian, and refused to raise arms against his brother, even sending his bodyguards away. Gleb was still knifed over and over, and killed in the snow. Whatever his Christian morality and principles--he was still dead, and Yaroslav sat in the throne of power.
You find the same kinds of things going on in Ireland, Britain, India, Persia, the Great Steppes, and China.
It's curious to have this as your example since Yaroslav and his brothers Sviatopolk, Boris, and Gleb were all Christians - as was their father Vladimir. This isn't pagans killing Christians, it's Christians killing each other.
Greetings!
Yeah, Jhkim! Thank you for the extra details. It was late and I had forgotten. Yes, Iused them merely as an example common of the day. While Christian--the Pagan influences were still strong.
I remember being horrified by how Yaroslav had his brothers Boris and Gleb murdered. Boris and Gleb were loyal brothers! And yet, both of them were ruthlessly and brutally hunted down and murdered. A very sad and tragic episode.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I agree with others who have said the trad alignment is out of place in this type of setting. But like others have said, maybe go with just the lawful, neutral, chaotic.
And it's threads like these I love to read. So many great ideas and folks with lots of knowledge about history.
Greetings!
Another wonderful historical episode--in Dark Ages Russia, in the Principality of Kiev, the Princess Olga survived after her husband, the Great Prince, was treacherously murdered by the Drevelians, in the land of Drevelia. Princess Olga entertained a group o Develian diplomats that came to her afterwards, presenting an offer that she should marry their own warlord leader.
Princess Olga pretended to engage with the Drevelian diplomats--but according to the sources, her heart burned with an overwhelming desire or vengeance.
Princess Olga ordered her warriors to board up the great lodge where the Drevelian diplomats were staying. Then, Princess Olga had the building soaked in oil, and burned to the ground. the Drevelian diplomats all burned to death, as Princess Olga stood by, and watched.
Then, Princess Olga marched to the Drevelian lands--before they received word of the diplomats being burned alive--and again, pretended to entertain the proposal that she marry the Drevelian warlord. She said she wanted a token of the Drevelians good intentions, and asked that pidgeons and ravens from each house in the capital city be sent to her, as a gift. The Drevelians agreed, and sent thousands of these birds to her.
As an aside, Princess Olga also seemed to be quite familiar with wearing armour, wielding a sword, and leading warriors in battle. History records also that later on, when the barbarian Pachenegs attacked Kiev from the Steppes, Princess Olga led the defense of the city and fought from the city gates. She was also a Christian, and had numerous churches and monasteries built to spread the Christian faith throughout the land.
Princess Olga ordered her warriors to tie burning cloth to the bird's feet. The birds naturally returned to their homes in the night, seeking refuge. The birds brought flames to the city, setting the whole city on fire during the middle of the night. Having pre-planned all of this, Princess Olga had her army arrive also during the night, and surround the large city.
50,000 people were burned alive.
The survivors staggered out of the burning ruins, and got on their knees before the grim-faced Russian Princess.
Olga remembered her beloved husband being hacked down. Olga was not merciful or kind to the Drevelians.
The Drevelians were crushed, and Olga's rule was strong and secure. Her son would live to grow strong and rule the realm. Olga was triumphant, and the mistress with absolute power and authority.
Princess Olga is celebrated to this day as a great heroine, and a shining example of leadership, strength, love, and loyalty. And a fierce refusal to bow down to foreigners, no matter how strong they appear to be, or how intimidating.
Such heroism and courage, and devotion! And she was *REAL*.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Note to Self: Don't mess with women named Olga, and definitely don't kill their husbands if you want your capital city to persist.
Aside from something Chris mentioned earlier...
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 03, 2022, 07:24:23 AMIn such a setting, gods are local and tied to specific lands/peoples and their successes. They don't give a damn about good/evil... they care about the success of their people/preservation of their land. Anything that makes their people stronger is "good" anything that threatens that is "evil."
...it strikes me that a lot of these historical examples tie loyalty either to nation (particularly as it pertains to external conflicts), a specific family (as it pertains to internal conflicts within the nation), and often both.
So maybe the closest analog to alignment in such a setting would be Allegiance to a Nation within that world, as well as a Family within that nation, and perhaps a leader within that family. Each character would be loyal to a specific Family first, but will also try to advance the interests of their nation when abroad or dealing with foreigners. Some characters may adopt a nation different from their homeland if exiled or taken in by a noble patron prominent within that land. And most of the intrigue will revolve around advancing national interests or the station of their chosen family within their nation.
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
Greetings!
Overall, I like the traditional alignment system in old school D&D.
However, when the campaign world is firmly rooted in an ancient/dark ages medieval milieu--there are some huge problems that arise.
The Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
Read up on how the Viking Prince, Harald Hardrada, came to power. He was originally usurped, and had to flee Scandinavia. Twenty years later, Hardrada returned to Norway to claim his birthright.
All of his scheming enemies, their families, their retainers, men, women, children--were hunted down and put to the sword.
Charlemagne's ancestor, Chloderic--had his three brothers all slaughtered.
In Russia, Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev, had assassins hunt down his younger brothers, Gleb, and another, and slaughtered them without mercy. Gleb was a Christian, and refused to raise arms against his brother, even sending his bodyguards away. Gleb was still knifed over and over, and killed in the snow. Whatever his Christian morality and principles--he was still dead, and Yaroslav sat in the throne of power.
You find the same kinds of things going on in Ireland, Britain, India, Persia, the Great Steppes, and China.
Lawful Good gets trampled in the mud, and slaughtered. Your family gets slaughtered. Your women, your children. You either rise to the top, and kill your rivals, or you're fucked.
A brutal, harsh kind of morality extends throughout society, at all levels. Children are sold into slavery. Women especially, are booty and sweet meats to be plundered at every opportunity.
How does an alignment system survive in such an environment? ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It can survive, IMO, just as written. HOWEVER, certain jobs are going to be non starters if for example you are Lawful Good. You will not be in charge of any large groups with any tension, or at least you wont be in charge for very long. Lawful Good, IMO has always sort of represented an "extreme" end of a scale, and something you would only expect from rare individuals (adventurers) or completely fantasy kingdoms. So I think the alignment can survive, I just do not think you are going to have any LG societies.
Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2022, 03:53:06 AM
If that's the tone you're looking for, it doesn't seem like there's anything to be gained from an alignment system. I've played lots of games not using alignment, and it works fine in my opinion.
While life may have been brutal by modern standards, people still have moral codes as Cat the Bounty Smuggler says - but especially as one goes farther back in history, they tend to be less like our own. So there's potential for good and evil labels - but I'm doubtful how useful alignment labels would be in a game as you describe.
This right here.
Put the game ahead of Alignment. YOU know who is "good" and "evil". Let the chips fall where they fall. The setting will speak for itself. The issue about alignment is the reality of certainty within a D&D Setting about the afterlife is a real thing. If you're going fully Medieval - the *presumption* of certainty is what drives conflict. Alignment is not relative, but rather humans are willing to justify the WORST behaviors on the presumption of their righteousness (much like players do with Alignment in D&D anyhow) while committing the atrocities we all know and have read about in history, all in God's name.
That murkiness is a FEATURE not a bug. Drop Alignment, and play! you'll love it.
As others have stated the Law-Chaos axis works. Either was a humanist matter of order vs. freedom, or a metaphysical one where law represents the ordered universe upheld by the gods and chaos the roiling black sea of creation into which the world always threatens to slip if not upheld by right custom and right ritual.
I think good and evil can work too if you are prepared to modify your definitions. For non-moralistic religions concepts of good are closely tied to-and often indistinct from-honor and face. Bloody and excessive revenge is 'good' because it upholds your honor, the honor of your tribe*, and restores the honor of whomever you are avenging. The fact the you killed innocent people is irrelevant because 1) no one is innocent in a blood feud and 2) the preservation of the lives, rights, and property of persons outside your tribe is not considered a worthwhile end.
Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society. Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system. Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults.
This requires embracing a very different moral structure, and would probably work better for NPCs than PCs (though I find that true of alignment in general). If you have multiple cultures operating in the campaign you run into the issue of purely subjective morality, which is different from how D&D views the universe and renders alignment somewhat meaningless. However, with a closed setting, Dark Age Germanic and Slavic cultures only I think you would have enough consistence of what represented proper and improper conduct to arrive at something like a definition of good and evil.
*Tribe in the broadest sense. Whatever the in-group is, culture, family, religion.
**With the understanding that while all cultures considered these grave transgressions, the definitions of the crimes are more narrow than modern understanding and often only apply to the in-group.
Quote from: tenbones on February 03, 2022, 12:28:52 PM
If you're going fully Medieval - the *presumption* of certainty is what drives conflict. Alignment is not relative, but rather humans are willing to justify the WORST behaviors on the presumption of their righteousness (much like players do with Alignment in D&D anyhow) while committing the atrocities we all know and have read about in history, all in God's name.
That sounds very much like Gygaxian Lawful Good. I think Alignment as team allegiance works fine in a quasi-Christian setup, with LG Paladins massacring baby orcs. I wouldn't use Good v Evil Alignment in a pagan morality setting. Law/Order vs Chaos/Change, maybe. I like Greg Stafford's take in Glorantha with Lawful Orlanthi & Heortling barbarians vs Chaotic* Lunar Empire civilised Roman types.
*More that they see Chaos as a tool. And Civilisation = Change, inherently more Chaotic than the orderly stasis of traditionalist tribal societies.
Quote from: Dark Train on February 03, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society. Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system. Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults.
It is amazing the power of Shame. It is the first way a child is conditioned as it is non-verbal. The means by which culture is propagated. Being "shameless" was not well thought of but happened in cities were cultures mixed.
So, doing things that were not "shameful" to the majority of your culture verses doing things that are.
Quote from: Greentongue on February 03, 2022, 06:51:50 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on February 03, 2022, 03:38:33 AM
... I would suggest civilized vs barbarian as one axis. Assuming a 2-axis system like D&D's is wanted, several possibilities suggest themselves, scientific vs mystical, personal freedom vs social order, and ... okay, I guess I only have 2.
I'm assuming you are equating personal freedom vs social order to barbarian vs civilized?
Seems to me, following traditions is social order. So maybe Order vs Chaos?
No, actually, they're two different things. I was just saying that if he wants two different axes, that would be a possibility. Order vs Chaos evokes the work of Moorcock and Modessit, which is more of a philosophical difference between sophisticated, civilized groups. I like the civilized vs barbarian idea best for Shark's setting, with civilized being the lingering effects of the old Roman Empire or the coming Renaissance and barbarian being the cultures that were outside of the Roman Empire and forces working for disillusion of social cohesion within it.
Quote from: Dark Train on February 03, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
As others have stated the Law-Chaos axis works. Either was a humanist matter of order vs. freedom, or a metaphysical one where law represents the ordered universe upheld by the gods and chaos the roiling black sea of creation into which the world always threatens to slip if not upheld by right custom and right ritual.
I think good and evil can work too if you are prepared to modify your definitions. For non-moralistic religions concepts of good are closely tied to-and often indistinct from-honor and face. Bloody and excessive revenge is 'good' because it upholds your honor, the honor of your tribe*, and restores the honor of whomever you are avenging. The fact the you killed innocent people is irrelevant because 1) no one is innocent in a blood feud and 2) the preservation of the lives, rights, and property of persons outside your tribe is not considered a worthwhile end.
Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society. Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system. Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults.
This requires embracing a very different moral structure, and would probably work better for NPCs than PCs (though I find that true of alignment in general). If you have multiple cultures operating in the campaign you run into the issue of purely subjective morality, which is different from how D&D views the universe and renders alignment somewhat meaningless. However, with a closed setting, Dark Age Germanic and Slavic cultures only I think you would have enough consistence of what represented proper and improper conduct to arrive at something like a definition of good and evil.
*Tribe in the broadest sense. Whatever the in-group is, culture, family, religion.
**With the understanding that while all cultures considered these grave transgressions, the definitions of the crimes are more narrow than modern understanding and often only apply to the in-group.
Good ideas, but I think new words are needed. Calling the behavior you describe "good" is going to make things difficult for our modern sensibilities.
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
Greetings!
Overall, I like the traditional alignment system in old school D&D.
However, when the campaign world is firmly rooted in an ancient/dark ages medieval milieu--there are some huge problems that arise.
I've always felt the overall tenor and feel of D&D was more ancient than medieval. With rare exceptions, that's how all my campaign worlds have been rooted. I've never encountered any problems with alignment, let alone "huge problems."
QuoteThe Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
Eh. History gets exaggerated. Tell me, was some of this blood spilled by weapon? How did those weapons get made? You would think the craftsmen were too busy getting murdered to finish the weapons. Obviously there had to be a great deal of cooperation and benevolence. The greater the atrocities, the greater the tools, the greater the cooperation. At the very least, it's an economic reality. Even absent the sanctity of life, people had to mostly let each other live. Even among chimps, it's not necessarily the strongest, most brutal chimp that rises to the top, because he could be taken out by lesser chimps ganging up.
QuoteHow does an alignment system survive in such an environment?
I use specifically the alignment definitions from the 1E DMG as I find them most clear. And I can talk about 3 ways it has of dealing with this sort of environment.
First is, no one says there has to be Lawful Good. Nothing has ever said alignments can, should, or would likely be evenly distributed.
Second, take a close look at the 1E loyalty rules. Lawfuls and Goods have a substantial advantage over chaotics and evils when it comes to loyalty. Remember the chimps. Grouping up, or even just the threat of the potential to group up, is enough to reign in brutality.
Third, it has dials.
Good is defined as respect for three enumerated "human" rights. Human in scary quotes because obviously there's the question of whether these rights extend to elves and dwarves and so forth. It's left to the DM exactly where the line is drawn. Personally, I draw the line according to the freedom to choose good from evil. In real world creation myths, humans are given that freedom. For fictional races in a fantasy world, the ability to essentially choose your alignment is not a given. BtB, all playable PC races may be of any alignment. And so that's where I draw the line. If it's a playable PC race, it's considered human for the purposes of alignment ethic.
Going in the opposite direction, narrowing the population for whom this applies, you could conceivably exclude a class of persons. For one, perhaps only the highest, most enlightened of humans have tasted the fruit of knowledge of good and evil in the world mythos. Or perhaps pursuant to the second of the Good alignment tenets, "relative freedom"--in harsher times, population was much smaller. Maybe only about 3 person in 1000 living today would have made it. If a 4th person in 1000 is only able to survive in the capacity of bonded servitude, you could have that class while still retaining "relative" freedom.
Another dial tied to relative freedom can be found in things similar to Blackstone's ratio--that it's better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be punished. Ben Franklin had the ratio at 100 to 1. Abraham haggled God down from 50 virtuous men down to 10 to spare Sodom and Gomorrah. So the exact ratio varies and is subject to negotiation. It's never absolute because there is always the potential for human error in judgement. If justice demanded an absolute here, it would be the same as no justice at all. I would have to think the proper ratio would have to be relative to the world. The greater the means, be it magical or technological, the greater the capacity to discover evidence as well as manufacture evidence. And so higher standards are both necessary and sufficient.
Quote from: Greentongue on February 03, 2022, 01:53:25 PM
Quote from: Dark Train on February 03, 2022, 12:31:26 PM
Therefore, a viking, hoplite, samurai, etc is good so long as he is acting within the honor system of his society. Acts of murder, rape, theft, and treachery** would not be evil because there are times all would be acceptable, even encouraged, within his honor system. Instead an evil character would be one who debases himself through cowardice, fails in his oaths, and doesn't avenge insults.
It is amazing the power of Shame. It is the first way a child is conditioned as it is non-verbal. The means by which culture is propagated. Being "shameless" was not well thought of but happened in cities were cultures mixed.
So, doing things that were not "shameful" to the majority of your culture verses doing things that are.
You know, most people try to use positive emotions to condition their children first, and those can be largely non-verbal too. But, you do you.
In 5e I'd say murdering viking raiders are lawful good because they "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society".
JK, but really, it depends on how you define good and evil. Pagan morality is not like ours.
It varies form edition to edition. In 1e I think good is respecting human rights.
3e version is not bad:
---
Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"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.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, and a lack of adaptability.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
People who are neutral with respect to law and chaos have a normal respect for authority and feel neither a compulsion to obey nor to rebel. They are honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.
---
So, no one is "good" if no one is willing to make sacrifices to help others. However, despite self-sacrifice being closer to Christianity than paganism, I think every society must have a few benevolent people for evolution reasons, etc.
But no one can be lawful good if tradition/authority says you must hurt others.
In a world where you can talk to the gods and get straight answers from them, Good and Evil are just names for the teams of the gods. If you worship/follow/act for a god on Team Good then you're Good (lawful good if you take a hardline orthodox approach, chaotic good if you're a maverick, neutral good for most). Just because you're on Team Good doesn't mean your actions are morally good any more than someone playing for the Washington Wizards is a spellslinging wizard or a student at Hogwarts.
I use the alignment system, but it is mainly for the NPC's
For PC's it's more of a guideline unless the class itself revolves around the alignment concept like the Paladin did in the old editions.
Most of my players tend to play in the NG,CG to CN range of play styles and the only time their Alignment comes up is if they get cursed and become evil, like the time my son had his CG Fighter put on a helm of alignment change and became LE :)
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 03, 2022, 03:56:54 PM
You know, most people try to use positive emotions to condition their children first, and those can be largely non-verbal too. But, you do you.
Yes, you walk in on someone going to the bathroom and your mother will hug you.
Backing down to someone insulting you and your family will make your father proud.
I guess I see your point ...
I kind of dodge the question these days, concerned mostly with alignment in terms of does this sword deal extra damage to you or banish you, and make it be a function of your planar origin and affiliation. I simply hardly sweat any other contextual applications of such outside of Star Wars or Ravenloft and then only for the darkside mechanic.
So basically it goes natives of upper planes are good, material plane neutral, and lower planes evil. Yes a demon can do a good deed it's still evil, yes a human can go a good deed, it's still neutral unless and until it (in old 3e terms) takes on the fiendish or celestial template as it were or solidly urinate upon an affiliation such as in the case of the classic paladin.
Outside of this I disregard cast out and will not touch alignment.
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
The Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
As was the Christian world. The English King Aethlered had all the Danes in his kingdom massacred - in other words, genocide.
William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard because he was born out of wedlock to his father, and a tanner's daughter he'd taken a fancy to. When William was laying siege to a castle they hung furs and leather on the walls to taunt him. When he took the castle, he found the people who'd laid out the furs and had their hands cut off.
Robert of Bellême, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, at one point retook a town which had rebelled against him for his cruelty, and the people having taken refuge in the church, had it barred up and burned down with the people in it.
Christian or not, they were all murderous treacherous swine by modern standards. Whether you wish to reproduce this in your campaign world is down to your personal taste. For me as a player, I'll go with what the group wants; for me as a GM, I am indifferent, but your actions will have consequences. People who act honourably and decently
may be treated honourably and decently themselves, when at their enemies' mercy, and will find it easier to get recruits to their cause, whatever it might be. Murderous treacherous scum will get no mercy and will need lots of coin to get even temporary friends.
As for alignment, I like this relabelling of it. Read it in full, but I've reproduced the final labelling.
http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
- Righteous (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
- Humane (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
- Transcendent (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
- Autonomous (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
- Sybaritic (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
- Ambitious (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
- Ascendent (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
- Orthodox (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
- Pragmatic (True Neutral) - (any values)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 04, 2022, 12:33:22 AM
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
The Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
As was the Christian world. The English King Aethlered had all the Danes in his kingdom massacred - in other words, genocide.
William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard because he was born out of wedlock to his father, and a tanner's daughter he'd taken a fancy to. When William was laying siege to a castle they hung furs and leather on the walls to taunt him. When he took the castle, he found the people who'd laid out the furs and had their hands cut off.
Robert of Bellême, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, at one point retook a town which had rebelled against him for his cruelty, and the people having taken refuge in the church, had it barred up and burned down with the people in it.
Christian or not, they were all murderous treacherous swine by modern standards. Whether you wish to reproduce this in your campaign world is down to your personal taste. For me as a player, I'll go with what the group wants; for me as a GM, I am indifferent, but your actions will have consequences. People who act honourably and decently may be treated honourably and decently themselves, when at their enemies' mercy, and will find it easier to get recruits to their cause, whatever it might be. Murderous treacherous scum will get no mercy and will need lots of coin to get even temporary friends.
As for alignment, I like this relabelling of it. Read it in full, but I've reproduced the final labelling.
http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
- Righteous (Lawful Good) - Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence
- Humane (Neutral Good) - Benevolence and Universalism
- Transcendent (Chaotic Good) - Universalism and Self-Direction
- Autonomous (Chaotic Neutral) - Self-Direction and Stimulation
- Sybaritic (Chaotic Evil) - Hedonism
- Ambitious (Neutral Evil) - Achievement and Power
- Ascendent (Lawful Evil) - Power and Security
- Orthodox (Lawful Neutral) - Security and Conformity/Tradition
- Pragmatic (True Neutral) - (any values)
Greetings!
Excellent, Kyle! I love the historical insights. Yes, so many were treacherous, murderous bastards! ;D
That alignment relabeling is pretty neat, too.
I know the traditional in-game alignment system is an idealized simplification, of course.
I can't help but chew on the historical implications and hypothetical applications in-game, though. Most of the time, I keep alignment somewhat vertically abstract, and very loose horizontally speaking. My campaigns generally are more Ancient/Dark Ages in theme, so I tend to strive for a more historical feel, however imperfect. Verisimilitude and all that good stuff.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If you want a historical feel, then you don't need alignments at all - you need social status and relationships, whether formalised in rules or not.
The alignments would only be useful in that they shape how the person tries to increase their social status, and who they do it with. The "good" person defaults to looking for the "win-win" solution, the "evil" person seeks to win by causing a loss to others, and so on. The example I always think of is Better Call Saul - in the beginning, he seeks to improve his social status by legitimate means, and only turns to illegitimate means when those fail. Over time, he ignores any possibility of doing things in the legit way, and goes straight for the crim way.
I know of an MMA gym owner who wanted $10k to renovate his kitchen. That was about 5 memberships for his place, all he had to do was push sales for a couple of weeks and he'd have it easily. Instead, he went and bought a pound of ice and was done by the cops and gets to spend some years in prison. He didn't even try the honest way, he just went straight for the dodgy way.
This is one way to look at a basic split between D&D's "good" (will never do harm), "neutral" (will do harm if doing good fails) and "evil" (will always do harm). So alignment could be used as a guide for roleplaying, without making it rigid - it's not like Saul rapes his girlfriend when she rejects him, he's evil but has limits.
But you could get similar results with the NPC personality charts in the AD&D1e DMG.
You are assuming organizational power, survival, and personal development in a specific ethos are conflated and fixed. Instead it is as flexible as the confused mixed up lives of any living being.
LG can slaughter their betrayers, even if their GM interpretation is super strict and causes them to suffer alignment penalties. Remember, you don't suffer level drain, you suffer level delay.
Alignment shifts are just level delays and nothing prevents you (beyond more delays) from trying to go back. It's about deeds not words, and typically each ethos does allow a modicum of self defense (dependent upon GM interpretation for their table & campaign, naturally). Paragons of an ethos are notable exceptions, but they are deliberate roleplay challenges and are compensated for that stringency as they progress.
e.g. Emperor Ashoka of India slaughtered his other thousand brothers in a succession war. But power alone did not satisfy. In his Buddhist conversion he dedicated massive development to temples, hospitals, and animal clinics -- atop of his expected societal obligation to provide national security inside and out. A great violence was done in securing his position at the top, and then great subsequent deeds were necessary for him to return back to a goodly and lawful path (if, for example, one presumes Ashoka is LG).
The only contradiction is people's distaste for voluntary repeated breaches of alignment's delayed gratification, even though it is technically less harmful than level drain's regressed gratification. 8) It's hardcore roleplay, baby! Hardcore! Self nut-punching before White Wolf/Onyx Path made it cool!
With no repercussions, what does alignment matter?
In games, players kill townsfolk and the shopkeepers still do business with them.
Don't even raise their prices and the "local authorities" turn a blind eye without the player characters even being family.
Before alignment, you need a "realistic" world.
Was just listening to a podcast about the different spin given to the exact same transgressions depending if the transgressor was part of "their group" or "the Other group".
"Their group" always gives them "the benefit of the doubt".
Alignment systems exist to make up for your average RPG player not knowing formal storytelling terminology. The point is to make heroic characters out of the PCs and to understand how they differ from non-heroic NPCs. Most people find this process more intelligible with an alignment chart, however. "Chaotic neutral" is almost identical to "antihero," but antihero is notably more difficult to understand and basically requires that you've been through Storycrafting 101, taken some creative writing class, or spent way too long on TV Tropes.
And here we come with the rub; the distinction between heroic and non-heroic characters which makes modern storytelling what it is...comes from high medieval and newer storytelling. Previous generations of storytelling have much less complex morality conflicts, and are often more akin to memoirs than a properly modern story. Beowulf is basically not a hero in a modern sense. Achilles in The Illiad and Aeneas in the Aeneid are definitely not. You can even see this in the Bible itself; sure there are formally defined mores, but the majority of the book is either poetry (some of it prophetic in the sense that the author was speaking a deeply unpopular message) or tone-neutral recounting of events.
Contrast this with Space Battleship Yamato. The entire point of the story is the entire Gamilan Empire broke when confronted with Captain Okita's moral compass. Not the power of his gigantic space laser.
I'd say that taking an alignment chart too far back in history is likely impossible. The concept of alignment becomes redundant when practically everyone is a chaotic neutral antihero.
Oddly enough, I've always kind of liked some kind of alignment system as a 'general' guide. Not something that needs to be adhered to religiously, unless you playing a very devout cleric or some such. I'd also prefer that it didn't have too much of a mechanical effect on the game itself. I really want alignment in the hands of the players (with a common-sense approach of course).
I liked the way WFRP 1e handled it.
Good: general nice bloke, who's got your back and tries to do the right thing. Though will probably dispatch a bad guy in the blink of an eye.
Neutral: As you'd expect, not a bad guy, but generally puts himself before others but would probably help you out.
Evil: Just a nasty prick waiting to stab you in the back (think of your general Woke Scold). ;D
Where it gets more interesting is when 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' gets involved within the game.
Lawful: Burn the witch, Kill the Orc baby devient. Better be sure, 'cleanse' the entire village and everyone in it. Again, not a million miles away from your general militant Woke Scold. :P
Chaotic: Might help you, might also eat your face and family with some garlic spuds. Never can tell... Might also worship a blasphemous old one.
I always feel that the medieval approach worked well in those darker games where the lines between the 'ultra' good and evil become blurry.
I no longer use good/evil axis for alignment.
Players' actions will determine good and evil throughout the game. While definition and the scale is somewhat unique to the individual, the concept of good and evil is easy enough to understand. Having it in the context of character creation is not a beneficial game aid.
Lamentations is my first choice for alignment. It is on a cosmic scale. For reference, every human to ever live in the real world would be considered neutral. Law and Chaos are cosmic opposites people align themselves with in the game, knowingly or not. In truth, I use a kissing cousins version of my own creation, but LotFP was the inspiration. I have used it for years.
OD&D would be my second favorite model. It basically labels law/neutrality/chaos, shows monsters and races who fall in the one category or multiple, and then counts on the player to know what the fuck it is referring to. This works really well if your players have read older fiction like Fred Saberhagen; at the risk of hurting yourself if you are not sitting down...this is not very likely in 2022.
EDIT: Got so wrapped up in myself that I did not address Shark's original example. I would have Christians and Pagans as Neutral, with certain members from that story aligned, in a cosmic sense, to law or chaos.
Quote from: FingerRod on February 04, 2022, 02:46:58 PM
I no longer use good/evil axis for alignment.
Players' actions will determine good and evil throughout the game. While definition and the scale is somewhat unique to the individual, the concept of good and evil is easy enough to understand. Having it in the context of character creation is not a beneficial game aid.
Lamentations is my first choice for alignment. It is on a cosmic scale. For reference, every human to ever live in the real world would be considered neutral. Law and Chaos are cosmic opposites people align themselves with in the game, knowingly or not. In truth, I use a kissing cousins version of my own creation, but LotFP was the inspiration. I have used it for years.
OD&D would be my second favorite model. It basically labels law/neutrality/chaos, shows monsters and races who fall in the one category or multiple, and then counts on the player to know what the fuck it is referring to. This works really well if your players have read older fiction like Fred Saberhagen; at the risk of hurting yourself if you are not sitting down...this is not very likely in 2022.
EDIT: Got so wrapped up in myself that I did not address Shark's original example. I would have Christians and Pagans as Neutral, with certain members from that story aligned, in a cosmic sense, to law or chaos.
Same, i read a lot of Moorcock so i tend to consider Law and Chaos as a rudimentary faction system based on cosmic forces.
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
Loki is another suspect one, but in a different way, I am sure that horse would want to know he was actually banging Loki and not a female horse.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
From what I remember of the pictures when i was young and read a bunch of mythology, its a big fucking eagle. As for a bull? Really easy. Its a bull.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
From what I remember of the pictures when i was young and read a bunch of mythology, its a big fucking eagle. As for a bull? Really easy. Its a bull.
Are we talking about the bull raping the woman or goring her to death?
Because one of those is much easier for a bull to do to an unwilling victim then the other.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
From what I remember of the pictures when i was young and read a bunch of mythology, its a big fucking eagle. As for a bull? Really easy. Its a bull.
Are we talking about the bull raping the woman or goring her to death?
Because one of those is much easier for a bull to do to an unwilling victim then the other.
I would say he could do both easily, but They both might end up looking alot alike, just different trauma areas. And we are talking about a bull with the intelligence, degeneracy, and powers of a greek god....so...
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:24:53 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
From what I remember of the pictures when i was young and read a bunch of mythology, its a big fucking eagle. As for a bull? Really easy. Its a bull.
Are we talking about the bull raping the woman or goring her to death?
Because one of those is much easier for a bull to do to an unwilling victim then the other.
I would say he could do both easily, but They both might end up looking alot alike, just different trauma areas. And we are talking about a bull with the intelligence, degeneracy, and powers of a greek god....so...
Oh, I see. Magical Bull God powers.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:45:53 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:24:53 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
From what I remember of the pictures when i was young and read a bunch of mythology, its a big fucking eagle. As for a bull? Really easy. Its a bull.
Are we talking about the bull raping the woman or goring her to death?
Because one of those is much easier for a bull to do to an unwilling victim then the other.
I would say he could do both easily, but They both might end up looking alot alike, just different trauma areas. And we are talking about a bull with the intelligence, degeneracy, and powers of a greek god....so...
Oh, I see. Magical Bull God powers.
Well, since our not a rapist god is Magical, and a Bull... Which does lead to a different issue, if not rape, what kind of slore is this woman?
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:49:02 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:45:53 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:24:53 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 04, 2022, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
Well....when you bang a lady as an eagle or a bull...it does make Zeus look a little suspect.
How easy it would be for an eagle or bull to rape a woman?
At some stage you just have to accept that the women wanted to have sex with a eagle.
From what I remember of the pictures when i was young and read a bunch of mythology, its a big fucking eagle. As for a bull? Really easy. Its a bull.
Are we talking about the bull raping the woman or goring her to death?
Because one of those is much easier for a bull to do to an unwilling victim then the other.
I would say he could do both easily, but They both might end up looking alot alike, just different trauma areas. And we are talking about a bull with the intelligence, degeneracy, and powers of a greek god....so...
Oh, I see. Magical Bull God powers.
Well, since our not a rapist god is Magical, and a Bull... Which does lead to a different issue, if not rape, what kind of slore is this woman?
Women can not be slores because how are they expected to resist magical bull gods?
That would be unpossible.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
I think it's the exact opposite. It's modern revisionism to claim that Zeus was *not* a rapist.
Just as SHARK described in his initial post, and as other posters have said -- things we now consider to be evil crimes were accepted practice back then. Slavery, rape, and infanticide (among others) were normal in ancient Greece. Their morals were not the same as ours. Ancient pagan times were rough.
Zeus saw someone he wanted, and he took them - just like other gods. He sees a beautiful boy -- and he doesn't go ask the boy out on a date. He grabs him up as an eagle and carries the boy off. When Apollo wants Daphne, he pursues her regardless of her wishes, and she only escapes by being transformed into a tree. This is normal behavior for the gods.
Modern revisionism frequently would hide elements of ancient Greek culture like rape, but in the original stories, it is quite clear.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2022, 05:18:42 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
I think it's the exact opposite. It's modern revisionism to claim that Zeus was *not* a rapist.
Just as SHARK described in his initial post, and as other posters have said -- things we now consider to be evil crimes were accepted practice back then. Slavery, rape, and infanticide (among others) were normal in ancient Greece. Their morals were not the same as ours. Ancient pagan times were rough.
Zeus saw someone he wanted, and he took them - just like other gods. He sees a beautiful boy -- and he doesn't go ask the boy out on a date. He grabs him up as an eagle and carries the boy off. When Apollo wants Daphne, he pursues her regardless of her wishes, and she only escapes by being transformed into a tree. This is normal behavior for the gods.
Modern revisionism frequently would hide elements of ancient Greek culture like rape, but in the original stories, it is quite clear.
Was there an ancient Greek hero that did not claim to be a son of one god or another?
Well except for Hades of course cause he was the "evil" one.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2022, 05:18:42 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 03, 2022, 03:21:54 AM
Looking at 1e AD&D especially Deities & Demigods, they mostly seem to put a Good label on the gods who represent the dominant/ruling class, and Evil on what they fear - so Zeus (rapist) & Odin (murderer) are Good, while blameless Hades and Hel are Evil.
Its modern revisionist to classify Zeus as a rapist almost as if women are mindless creatures who have no sense of agency of their own.
A very feminist framing indeed.
I think it's the exact opposite. It's modern revisionism to claim that Zeus was *not* a rapist.
Just as SHARK described in his initial post, and as other posters have said -- things we now consider to be evil crimes were accepted practice back then. Slavery, rape, and infanticide (among others) were normal in ancient Greece. Their morals were not the same as ours. Ancient pagan times were rough.
Zeus saw someone he wanted, and he took them - just like other gods. He sees a beautiful boy -- and he doesn't go ask the boy out on a date. He grabs him up as an eagle and carries the boy off. When Apollo wants Daphne, he pursues her regardless of her wishes, and she only escapes by being transformed into a tree. This is normal behavior for the gods.
Modern revisionism frequently would hide elements of ancient Greek culture like rape, but in the original stories, it is quite clear.
Greetings!
I remember, I think it was Prince Vladimir, of Russia. He was the son of a Prince--his great warlord father--and a favoured slave girl. There was a Viking warlord ruling some kingdom in nearby Poland, who had a good looking daughter. Vladimir wanted to marry her, and she refused, scoffing that she would never marry a slave like him.
Vladimir marched an army there, and conquered it. Soon, the scoffing noble woman was at Vladimir's feet. Vladimir carried her to his lodge and raped her. She was kept forever as a strumpet for him to plunder. She bore him several children.
Later, Vladimir also raped a Greek Nun, and also married her, and had children with her, too.
I think Vladimir had like, seven wives, and hundreds of concubines. Lots and lots of children. He was widely respected as a great barbarian king, and Pagan Warlord. It was *Good* that he killed here and there; that he ruled with strength; that he was a brave warrior; that he was generous to his warriors; and that he raped and took women as he pleased. Some women of course, were eager to marry him, and breed with him. Others were not so eager or willing. It didn't matter what the women wanted though--they're women.
The strong warrior king does what he wants.
Of course, there wasn't always rainbows and harmony with all these kids, either. Resentments, rivalries, loyalties to one mother or another, hatred towards the evil slut bitch, the tyrant mommy that was favoured, whatever. The litany of problems between different siblings, wives, concubines, is long. I think various women hated each other too, and nursed their own sets of rivalries and hatreds amongst themselves as they competed for attention, power, and prestige.
What a mess! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Infanticide is still practiced. Its just that medical tech has allowed to abort a fetus rather than waiting till birth and then "exposing" the new born, so not much changes there. Just the mental gymnastics required to pretend they are not essentially the same morally. Now I make no judgement here, I think your body your choice, do as you will. But...you can not put icing on a lump of shit and call it cake.
But I do agree people sort of pretend not to see the Gods (and it seems the Greeks especially) were a pretty terrible bunch. However I think that is because we are also applying a human point of view on the thing. Gods did not see humans as their equal, barely even as pet/livestock status. They routinely kidnapped/raped/committed genocide. So though they were doing it to humans they were as said, mirroring the positions of even elevated Greek culture. But I do think it is often missed, the Gods felt zero compunction to treat humans as deserving of dignity and respect, because for the most part they viewed humans as humans would view a goat on the farm.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 05, 2022, 12:44:52 PM
However I think that is because we are also applying a human point of view on the thing. Gods did not see humans as their equal, barely even as pet/livestock status.
That's part of it. Another is that the myths were often (note: I don't claim always) meant to be more symbolic than literal: so a god carrying a youth off to do with as he will could be a symbol of being "carried away" with divine inspiration, made an instrument of the god's will, rather than a literal abduction. In addition, there was no concept of universal rights, law, or morality that applied to everyone equally in most pagan cultures: the higher ranking you were, the more privilege (literally: "private law") you had. And the gods were above human rulers.
Even so, the gods were not completely amoral. They had their limits and responsibilities, and would be punished by other gods if they transgressed those too greatly. Also, at least in Indo-European and Egyptian mythologies, they protected the cosmos from the forces of chaos -- titans, thurses, fomorians, etc.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2022, 05:53:35 PM
Well except for Hades of course cause he was the "evil" one.
Nah, that's a modern thing. Gods and goddesses of death were rarely evil in the original myths: death was a part of life, to be feared only by those who hadn't lived well. The way I read the Eddas, even when Hel leads the armies of the dead against the gods at Ragnarok, she's just doing her duty bringing about the death of the age.
Honestly, the notion of "evil god" strikes me as a bit confused: at least from within the host culture, a being considered truly evil would not be considered a god and vice versa. Terrible, fearful, even wrathful gods? Absolutely. But that's not enough to be evil, unless we're calling the god of Abraham evil, too, which is a
very modern point of view.
I've maintained that alignment is much, MUCH simpler than people make it out to be. Like THAC0, it need only be explained for it to make a lot more sense. Shout-Out to ConnorDM for his video on THAC0, by the way.
I personally like to go by a mixture of Enlightenment ideology and some 1e AD&D ideas. For the latter, it's mainly that there's a lot of leeway between the Law/Chaos axis of the alignments. What Gary Gygax said on what alignment was supposed to represent can be used here, though I disagree on a few key points. As for the Medieval aspect you're going for...well, I'm a big believer that alignment is both timeless and disregarding of circumstances. Lawful Good in Greyhawk still has the same parameters as it does on Athas.
What does it mean to be Lawful Good? This is a point of contention for a lot of people, but it's super simple. "Lawful Good" means you value Good and see Law as a tool to promote it. A great example of Lawful Good is the idea that America's Found Fathers had about how an unjust law is not a law at all, and it's the duty of all citizens to disobey an unjust law. A Paladin is perfectly justified in disobeying an unjust law, as to him, an unjust law is not a law at all. He's also allowed to work with people who are Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, because at the end of the day, they all want the same thing.
As for how you handle criminals and evil people as a Paladin is up to you and your DM. Maybe you kill thieves for stealing bread. Maybe you work out a deal with the thief and the victim to make right by it. Working within the system is an option if you believe it's better conducive to your end goals. Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery but also wanted it to end peacefully instead of by force, for example.
Lawful Neutral (or simply "Lawful") means you care for the Law, whether good or bad. The modern US legal system is a good example of this; there's 300,000 different federal crimes and many, MANY of them make absolutely no sense ("No making unreasonable gestures at a horse" comes to mind). Another great example is those weird laws you hear about that don't really make any sense, like how in Boston it is/was illegal to take a bath without a prescription, or how in Minneapolis it's illegal for a Cat to chase a Dog up a telephone pole. Yes you read that right.
An Lawful Neutral individual will try to work within the system to change a law. Or simply care for a law "because it's the law". Whether that law be "No stealing cattle" or "It's perfectly legal to keep sentient beings as slaves".
Every other alignment, at least in my mind, keeps a similar function. Some are trickier than others (True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral come to mind. What does it mean to want pure Chaos?). For the sake of completeness I'll list what the other alignments mean, at least to me.
Lawful Evil: You want to promote yourself (or evil) at the cost of others and see the law as a means to an end.
Neutral Evil: Similar to Lawful Evil, but you're not too picky on your means.
Chaotic Evil: You wish to destroy existing structures and hierarchies so you can place yourself on top.
-Neutral Good: You want absolute good in the world, and you're not picky about creating disorder or removing it.
-Chaotic Good: You believe that freedom is the path to ultimate goodness, and existing structures of order are harmful to it. This can be really close to Lawful Good in a way; a libertarian who believes that small government and free market economics produces the most harmonious result could be either Lawful Good or Chaotic Good in my eyes. Robin Hood is the quintessential Chaotic Good; he was acting in defiance of a tyrannical Government and helping out those who were in need. Really important that he was opposing the King, and not say, stealing from legitimate businessmen.
-True Neutral: You either don't care for anyone but yourself (but won't go out of your way to crush others) or if you wanna go real old school, you're one of those guys who wants to keep the "Balance" of the world, so you're willing to work with good, evil, law or chaos in order to keep things...in order.
-Chaotic Neutral: The tricky one. I'd call it the alignment of really, really hating organization, whether it's good or bad. Or perhaps its the alignment of simply not wanting any involvement with law and deciding to stay outside such matters, living on your own away from society and not wanting to damage others. V from V for Vendetta was a good example of Chaotic Neutral; he wanted to get rid of the existing power structure, and didn't really care about the result because it's really hard to get worse than an authoritarian state.
A side not on what I call "Alignment Sliding", or the idea that your Law/Chaos axis is variable. Evil best exemplifies this. Think Fidel Castro, who wanted to overthrow an existing structure (lying about his goals in the process) and replace it with one where he was on top, or exemplifying Chaotic Evil. As soon as he was on top, he did everything he could to hold onto power. Did Castro switch from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Evil? That's for you to decide, but either way the man was capital E Evil, which is what I'm getting at.
Anyway this is all just my opinion, and I think there's a lot of debate to have outside of the sphere of Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral, which in my mind are the easiest to define.
Peace out.
I was going to cite the Hávamál, but then I realized it was probably written during a period of Christianization, although technically it was written at the tail end of what we'd consider the "dark ages."
Although I don't think there can be any doubt that ancient pagans had codes of honor and strong feelings about things like hospitality to friends and neighbors. Lying, stealing, murder, rape... these were all clear evils among them. Honesty was probably the most sacred thing not to violate. However, it's also obvious that their ways were violent and brutal, since they were driven by the survival of clan and kin. Their moral leanings might not have been entirely alien to us: they only applied to their own people and allies, and not to their enemies, slaves, or captives.
Quote from: Accaris on February 07, 2022, 12:30:44 PM
I was going to cite the Hávamál, but then I realized it was probably written during a period of Christianization, although technically it was written at the tail end of what we'd consider the "dark ages."
Although I don't think there can be any doubt that ancient pagans had codes of honor and strong feelings about things like hospitality to friends and neighbors. Lying, stealing, murder, rape... these were all clear evils among them. Honesty was probably the most sacred thing not to violate. However, it's also obvious that their ways were violent and brutal, since they were driven by the survival of clan and kin. Their moral leanings might not have been entirely alien to us: they only applied to their own people and allies, and not to their enemies, slaves, or captives.
This is deep in human nature. The first thing we do is de-humanize our enemies. Then we can do whatever we want without shame.
As they are "Others" they are not required to be treated as tradition dictates we threat family and friends.
Quote from: Accaris on February 07, 2022, 12:30:44 PM
I was going to cite the Hávamál, but then I realized it was probably written during a period of Christianization, although technically it was written at the tail end of what we'd consider the "dark ages."
Although I don't think there can be any doubt that ancient pagans had codes of honor and strong feelings about things like hospitality to friends and neighbors. Lying, stealing, murder, rape... these were all clear evils among them. Honesty was probably the most sacred thing not to violate. However, it's also obvious that their ways were violent and brutal, since they were driven by the survival of clan and kin. Their moral leanings might not have been entirely alien to us: they only applied to their own people and allies, and not to their enemies, slaves, or captives.
I'm not actually sure the Havamal is that Christianized. Compare its teachings to Aristotle, Epicurus, and the Stoics, who definitely pre-dated Christianity. While differing in detail, they're all similar in character: be wise and honorable, be generous to those in need, and don't drink so much you get yourself in trouble.
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PMThe Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
...Hardrada returned to Norway to claim his birthright. All of his scheming enemies, their families, their retainers, men, women, children--were hunted down and put to the sword. Charlemagne's ancestor, Chloderic--had his three brothers all slaughtered. In Russia, Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev, had assassins hunt down his younger brothers, Gleb, and another, and slaughtered them without mercy. Gleb was a Christian, and refused to raise arms against his brother, even sending his bodyguards away. Gleb was still knifed over and over, and killed in the snow. Whatever his Christian morality and principles--he was still dead, and Yaroslav sat in the throne of power.
A brutal, harsh kind of morality extends throughout society, at all levels --
It's probably worth making the distinction between the actions of warlords struggling to hold onto power, and the far more common and typical everyday actions of ordinary folk just trying to make a living. The conflict between the necessities of power and the morality of being human runs all the way through the Christian era as well, or Machiavelli wouldn't have written his most famous book about it.
As others have said above, no society or culture can exist in any kind of relative peace if there isn't a general social taboo enforced against that which is felt to be malicious and destructive, and the universality of what's thought to be Just Plain Wrong can be found in what C.S. Lewis called the
Tao (q.v. the appendix to
The Abolition of Man). I would suggest alignment still applies perfectly well to human beings and many lesser entities. You may have to call the pagan gods mostly True Neutral, in that they'll generally be more concerned with the cosmos first, their own desires second and the objective welfare of humans in general (other than their own worshippers) as a distant third if at all -- but even the Norse mythos had Baldur, the gentle god beloved by all, and the Greek mythos had Apollo and Athena, defenders of light, justice, wisdom and poetry. "Pagan" doesn't mean "beyond good and evil".
Alignment: The Wrestling
Quote from: tenbones on February 08, 2022, 11:19:27 AM
Alignment: The Wrestling
Lawful I Am Lest Chaotic I Become!(Er... well, yeah -- that's what it means.)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 07, 2022, 09:00:12 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 02, 2022, 11:05:14 PMThe Pre-Christian, Pagan world was a brutal and harsh place, soaked in blood and fire.
...Hardrada returned to Norway to claim his birthright. All of his scheming enemies, their families, their retainers, men, women, children--were hunted down and put to the sword. Charlemagne's ancestor, Chloderic--had his three brothers all slaughtered. In Russia, Yaroslav, Prince of Kiev, had assassins hunt down his younger brothers, Gleb, and another, and slaughtered them without mercy. Gleb was a Christian, and refused to raise arms against his brother, even sending his bodyguards away. Gleb was still knifed over and over, and killed in the snow. Whatever his Christian morality and principles--he was still dead, and Yaroslav sat in the throne of power.
A brutal, harsh kind of morality extends throughout society, at all levels --
It's probably worth making the distinction between the actions of warlords struggling to hold onto power, and the far more common and typical everyday actions of ordinary folk just trying to make a living. The conflict between the necessities of power and the morality of being human runs all the way through the Christian era as well, or Machiavelli wouldn't have written his most famous book about it.
As others have said above, no society or culture can exist in any kind of relative peace if there isn't a general social taboo enforced against that which is felt to be malicious and destructive, and the universality of what's thought to be Just Plain Wrong can be found in what C.S. Lewis called the Tao (q.v. the appendix to The Abolition of Man). I would suggest alignment still applies perfectly well to human beings and many lesser entities. You may have to call the pagan gods mostly True Neutral, in that they'll generally be more concerned with the cosmos first, their own desires second and the objective welfare of humans in general (other than their own worshippers) as a distant third if at all -- but even the Norse mythos had Baldur, the gentle god beloved by all, and the Greek mythos had Apollo and Athena, defenders of light, justice, wisdom and poetry. "Pagan" doesn't mean "beyond good and evil".
This is so true. Alignment system is quite a simplistic way of viewing real history but if I had to explain history in these terms I'd suspect that most politicans, kings, warlords etc would be Lawful Evil and most regular folks are Lawful Neutral. Both of these groups recognise the need or at least usefulness of a segment of the population being Lawful Good.
In gaming terms the setting may have powerful NPCs lean towards Chaos or Evil or whatever but the PCs are free to negotiate the world however they deem fit.
Further Good as an alignment does not necessarily mean nice or pacifist. Nor does Alignment need to be programming, it can be aspirational. A Lawful Good character could do evil things due to a falling in character or passion and regret these choices afterwards.