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.