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.  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). 

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.
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?