Lawful/Chaotic Alignment Axis Balance [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Valkrionn

Nov 09, 2009, 07:54 PM

Right... Moving this to a new thread, as I'm pretty sure this one will be around for awhile. :lol: Might also generate more interest... Which is always a good thing. :goodjob:

Original Post:We've added an entirely new alignment axis (Not really all that difficult, just a MASSIVE amount of copy/paste/rename work.)

Though they are displayed together, they are in fact entirely separate... This is very important, as it allows BA to work. This is what I meant by the Alignment Shifts being simply the ground work for something else. :lol:

Main reason for this is flavor, and differentiation... Order will be Lawful, while Empy will be good, for example. Doesn't mean Order won't give a small boost to Good... Not decided yet there. What it DOES mean is it's main effect will be to make you Lawful. No more Good Calabim from following a corrupted Order. Good Calabim doesn't make sense.... Lawful Evil Calabim? Bingo. ;)

Another example is Basium and Sabathiel. Both are good, and yet in the lore still dislike each other.... Why? Because the first is Chaotic, while the other is Lawful.

Now, the main reason I post this here is I WANT discussion. Which axis should each religion move you on, and how far? What alignment should the various leaders have?

One thing I would like, is a 'Pure' leader for each alignment. As in, one Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and True Neutral. True Neutral is obviously Cassiel. I'm thinking the Emperor for Lawful... Perp as Chaotic? Not sure how evil he really is. Not sure who to use for good, either.

Both alignment meters will have in game effects... Decided to go with the discount mechanic, and there will be a few new buildings/units for each alignment. Keep in mind, bonus production can go the OTHER way as well... Chaotic shouldn't be able to construct Courthouses as easily, for example.

We could also use a better name for it, I think... For lack of a better name, the new axis is the Ethical Alignment axis. In DnD, alignments are Moral (good/evil) and Ethical (lawful/chaotic). Couldn't think of a better term, so I went with that. ;)

One final note: When looking at this, don't think DnD 4e. We have ALL (but one) alignments.... Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil (Hyborem?). The only one missing is Neutral Neutral... Decided we can skip that. True Neutral is an active thing... Doing what you can to preserve balance. Big time Cassiel. :lol: Neutral Neutral is more uncaring... Less important, less interesting, and not worth the distinction. ;)
Description of the Alignments:
Source of the descriptions
When looking at the original, keep in mind we are using the 'subset' definition for True Neutral... Active balance, rather than uncaring.

Lawful Good

Lawful Good is known as the "Saintly" or "Crusader" alignment. A Lawful Good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honor and a sense of duty. A Lawful Good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens. Lawful Good characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves. Lawful Good creatures include the noble golden dragon

Lawful

Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, a disciplined monk.

Lawful Evil

Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.

Good

Neutral Good is known as the "Benefactor" alignment. A Neutral Good character is guided by his conscience and typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against Lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. A Neutral Good character has no problems with co-operating with lawful officials, but does not feel beholden to them. In the event that doing the right thing requires the bending or breaking of rules, they do not suffer the same inner conflict that a Lawful Good character would. A doctor who treats soldiers from both sides in a war could be considered Neutral Good.

True Neutral

Some Neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes.

Evil

Neutral Evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.

Chaotic Good

Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific," "Rebel," or "Cynic" alignment. A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. They always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganised and often out of alignment with the rest of society. They have no use for those who would try to push them around and tell them what to do.

Chaotic

Chaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Good and Evil come a distant second to their need for personal freedom, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. They typically act out of self-interest, but do not specifically enjoy seeing others suffer. Many free-spirited adventurers are of this alignment. Alternatively there are madmen whose actions are chaotic, but are not themselves inclined towards evil.
An unusual subset of Chaotic Neutral is "strongly Chaotic Neutral", describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane. Characters of this type may regularly change their appearance and attitudes for the sake of change, and intentionally disrupt organizations for the sole reason of disrupting a lawful construct.

Chaotic Evil

Chaotic Evil is referred to as the "Destroyer" or "Demonic" alignment. Characters of this alignment tend to have no respect for rules, other peoples' lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in a group, as they resent being given orders, and usually only behave themselves out of fear of punishment.
It is not compulsory for a Chaotic Evil character to be constantly performing sadistic acts just for the sake of being evil, or constantly disobeying orders just for the sake of causing chaos. They do however enjoy the suffering of others, and view honor and self-discipline as weaknesses. Serial killers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killers) and monsters of limited intelligence are typically Chaotic Evil.

Potential Religion Alignments:
Made up some documents for the religions... A Spread Sheet and a rather more detailed chart, located in the Screenshots section. The Spreadsheet should show the basic alignments, while the screenshot shows my thoughts on BA values for the religions. Note on the screenshot: The more positive the value, the more lawful/good the alignment is, and vice versa for negative values. Morality is Good/Evil... Ethics is Lawful/Chaotic.

Order:
Lawful, maybe a small boost to Good (Junil is the leader of the good angels, after all)
Empyrean:Good. No lawful/chaotic here... Lugus doesn't seem to care much about law.
Runes of Kilmorph:
Not sure here... I think a mix. Given that it currently moves Evil to Neutral and Neutral to Good, I think it could fit.
Fellowship:
This one I'm very unsure about. It's traditionally the neutral religion, but I think a small Chaotic shift (Lawful->Neutral, Neutral->Chaotic) could work here. Could use discussion.
Esus:
Again, not sure, but I think Esus shouldn't move your alignment at all. It is meant to be a hidden religion, why should it have visible effects?
OO:
Chaotic. OO is not necessarily Evil, and I don't think it needs to push you in that direction.
AV:
Evil, but I could see Chaotic Evil. AV is all about destroying creation... I think Chaotic would fit it, albeit not as well as it does OO.
Ordo Machinarum:
If anything, a small value for Lawful Evil. Not enough to change your alignment unless you're on the edge already.
Really, my opinion is flavoured by a leader who isn't in yet (Check the Ideas thread), but it's more of a 'lean' than an actual alignment here. The religion would be neutral on both axes... What it WOULD do though is give you a small push towards those values. Currently (in 1.12) it gives -100, towards Evil.

Basically, the religion is neutral. But it's more Evil than it is Good, and it's more Lawful than it is Chaotic. It is all about the ability of Mankind to progress, to usurp the power of the Gods. Like AV, it is a religion based around Power... Unlike AV, you do not sell your soul to achieve. Instead, you forsake all gods and rely on your own abilities.... Too often, this power is used for evil purposes, hence the lean in that direction. Lawful is a bit easier to explain... It's a religion based on Science. Science is about as un-Chaotic as you can get, really... It's still a weak lean, however, as it's more of a rigid thought process, not a rigid social structure.
White Hand:
Lawful Evil again here. This one I'm not sure on, but I think it fits perfectly... It's planned to be an Evil religion that doesn't increase the AC, and Auric strikes me as a Lawful leader.
Magister's post on Religions:
Pretty much reaffirms my own thoughts here... Anyone have dissenting opinions?

Could you make it so that The Order turns Neutral civs Good, but leaves Evil civs Evil? Those who are neutral are already basically good but don't have the fanaticism that The Order would give. Those who are evil would likely use this fanaticism to enforce their twisted laws. It would also be interesting if good-evil alignment changes were more pronounced for the extremists of The Order. They essentially cannot see neutrality, and so are more likely yo fall into real evil when they fall short of The Good.

The Empyrean should move one towards good without effecting how lawful one is. I think of Lugus as at least slightly more lawful than chaotic, but that isn't as big of a deal. His followers are expected to have strong personal codes of ethics but they are to rationally convince others to follow them rather than use the force of law. Sinners are harshly punished, but the purpose is always to rehabilitate the sinner or re compensate those he harmed, never to get revenge or intimidate others. Punishment is always decided based on the merits of the case, not according to any legal code.

Kilmorph is definitely Lawful, although not to the extent of Junil. I see RoK as moving towards Lawful, plus moving towards both good and neutral (so it makes evil neutral, and would generally move one towards good but would moderate the most extreme, fanatical good.) It is a very tradition oriented religion, which could perhaps dampen alignment changes.

I see FoL as moving everyone towards Neutral, perhaps with a slight push towards chaos too.

OO is almost pure chaos. I could see building certain OO units and its wonder as moving towards evil rather than the religion itself. The Overlords have plenty of good followers, but the the cult leaders are pretty much all quite evil.

AV should probably be pure evil. Agares actually does not want to destroy creation, he wants to corrupt it enough so that The One will destroy creation. The Emrys (Ceridwen's followers) and the ones that want to destroy creation themselves.

(In the scenarios, OO was the main enemy of The Order, while the Empyrean mostly fought AV, indicating that these pairs of religions should be opposites alignmentwise.)

The White Hand is certainly Lawful Evil, and is likely much more Lawful than Evil. Auric does seem more evil that Mulcarn was though now, even though he was a very nice boy in his youth and seems to be decent again after his death when the precept of Ice is no longer directing him.

I'm not really sure about Esus. It would be interesting if it let you set your own apparent alignment, while corrupting your true alignment.
Potential 'Pure' Leaders:
We need at LEAST five of these... Possibly 9 if we want one for each hybrid alignment as well.

Lawful Good - Sabathiel
Lawful - Risen Emperor? Seems fitting, when you look at the mechanics of his cult.
Lawful Evil - Flauros
Good - Ethne? Einion?
True Neutral - Cassiel
Evil - Os-Gabella? Alexis?
Chaotic Good - Basium
Chaotic - Perpentach
Chaotic Evil - Hyborem

Potential Leader Alignments:

Sabathiel: Lawful Good
Capria: Neutral Good
Varn: Neutral Good
Ethne: Neutral Good
Einion: Neutral Good
Basium: Chaotic Good
Garrim: ? Good
Beeri: Lawful Good
Cardith: Lawful Good
Amelanchier: Lawful Neutral
Arendel: Neutral Good
Thessa: Chaotic Neutral
Arturus: Lawful Neutral?
Kandros: Neutral?
Sandalphon: Chaotic Neutral?
Falamar: Chaotic Good
Hannah: Chaotic Neutral
Cassiel: Neutral
Tasunke: Chaotic Neutral
Rhoanna: Lawful Neutral, True Neutral?
Valledia: Chaotic Neutral
Dain: Neutral Good
Charadon: Chaotic Evil
Mahala: Neutral
Perp: Chaotic Evil
Keelyn: Chaotic Neutral
Jonas: Chaotic Neutral
Sheelba: Neutral Evil
Faeryl: Lawful Evil (in the meaning of a schemer)
Alexis: Neutral Evil
Flauros: Lawful Evil
Tebryn: Chaotic Evil
Os-Gabella: Neutral Evil
Hyborem: Chaotic Evil
Auric: Lawful Evil

Display:
What colors should the alignments be displayed as?

Good - Yellow
Neutral - Grey
Evil - Red
Lawful - Blue?
Neutral - ? Grey again?
Chaotic - Orange?

Where should we display it? Currently it's in the Scoreboard, which is where the actual ALIGNMENT needs to stay... Otherwise you can't see the alignments of other players. That said, we don't need to keep the BA values in the scoreboard... If we were to move them, where do you think would be best?
Ideas/Mechanics:

Also is it possible to make "True Neutral" not an alignment. It seems to be more of a leader trait. It is essentially a trait which blocks alignment change and holds it to regular Neutral. The difference being its a leader trait which suggests that the leader is committed to being Neutral as apposed to just being undecided. This trait could could be done by including a new variable into your alignment shift calculations that is a boolean (For example bNotTrueNeutral). you could multiply the value of bNotTrueNeutral by the alignment shift calculations. If bNotTrueNeutral is 1 the alignment shifts will not change. But if its 0 (implying you are true neutral) you will never see alignment changes.

In fact the leader trait could be more along the lines of "Closed-Minded". And could be used with the variable "bOpenMinded." This would allow you to set a leaders alignment and then force them to keep it. I believe this should not be used a lot. But I could see a couple of leaders I would use it on. For example Cassiel and perhaps Basium and Hyborem.

Edit: On second thought. Given your disdain for full out blocking things. You could use the same logic to write code which simply makes the decay rate much higher for closed minded leaders. In effect making it much much harder for the player to shift alignments. But still possible. I'd still prefer the blocking thing. It just makes sense and is more lore appropriate. Cassiel was never meant to shift alignment and I'm fairly sure neither was Hyborem.
Could you make it so that The Order turns Neutral civs Good, but leaves Evil civs Evil? Those who are neutral are already basically good but don't have the fanaticism that The Order would give. Those who are evil would likely use this fanaticism to enforce their twisted laws. It would also be interesting if good-evil alignment changes were more pronounced for the extremists of The Order. They essentially cannot see neutrality, and so are more likely yo fall into real evil when they fall short of The Good.
thomas.berubeg is working on a Religious Schisms mod for LENA, which I'm thinking of merging. Essentially, the 'standard' 7 religions can trigger events which cause a Religious Schism, founding an offshoot of the religion. As an example, FoL can become the Wild Hunt, a highly chaotic form of the religion... Think Doviello here. OO will have both a good and evil offshoot, as does Order.
There will be more buildings/units that require certain alignments... There will also be production discounts/penalties for certain units/buildings. I'm also rewriting all of the civics... Some of the new civics will require a certain alignment.
New UUs for the various Religion/Alignment combinations? As in, Order has a different UU for Good, Neutral, and Evil... Paladin, Judge, Executioner. (ArcticNightWolf)

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civilization/Civ4ScreenShot0014.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civilization/Civ4ScreenShot0015.jpg
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/ReligionAlignments-2.jpg

Valkrionn

Nov 09, 2009, 07:55 PM

Saving this post for potential overflow.

Valkrionn

Nov 09, 2009, 07:55 PM

Saving this post for potential expansion.

razzach

Nov 10, 2009, 12:02 AM

Swinkscalibur

Nov 10, 2009, 12:06 AM

This just looks awesome. I did notice that no religion gives a chaotic good alignment. I could see a small good benefit to FoL. (Though I understand why there is non as of now) Just the word fellowship seems to imply a small sense of altruism.

civ_king

Nov 10, 2009, 12:15 AM

I think RoK should have a lawful bent, not extreme but still lawful

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 12:18 AM

For the display, I am against showing the whole name, its too long..
Why not use first letters...

Lawful Good - LG (Light Blue)
Neutral Good - NG (Light Green)
Chaotic Good - CG (Light Red)
Lawful Neutral - LN (Blue)
True Neutral - TN (Green)
Chaotic Neutral - CN (Red)
Lawful Evil - LE (Dark Blue)
Neutral Evil - NE (Dark Green)
Chaotic Evil - CE (Dark Red)

Basically, the darker it is, the more evil you are and the three colors differentiate their ethical alignment.

Or you can reverse it. The lighter the color, the more lawful you are, and the three colors differentiate the Moral Axis...

I really don't want to use just the first letters, honestly. To be perfectly blunt, I see no issue with a larger score display... But I also have a widescreen monitor. :lol: I would shorten it if I thought it looked good... As it is, I don't. At the least I'm dropping Neutral where it's unnecessary (Lawful, rather than Lawful Neutral).

As for your color scheme... I take it you mean something like my edit of your quote? Used orange for the first two reds, as there is no light red on the forum. :lol:

It's not a bad idea... My plan was to pick new colors for the new alignments, and combine them. So with Lawful and Good, you'd be Lawful Good. I'll wait for some more opinions (and maybe ideas) before deciding between the two.

This just looks awesome. I did notice that no religion gives a chaotic good alignment. I could see a small good benefit to FoL. (Though I understand why there is non as of now) Just the word fellowship seems to imply a small sense of altruism.

Yeah, there's no Chaotic Good yet... I could see FoL as that, but my plan for it actually has it actively pull you towards Neutral. Just rather hard to display when Neutral is 0. :lol: Maybe I should give that to CoE?

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 12:20 AM

I think RoK should have a lawful bent, not extreme but still lawful

In the current plan, it does. If you check the last screenshot (Inside the spoiler), you see that it moves you towards Lawful Good, but not as much in either direction as Order or Empy. The White Hand is the same with Lawful Evil. ;)

razzach

Nov 10, 2009, 12:24 AM

I think RoK should have a lawful bent, not extreme but still lawful

There is. If you look at the chart above. You will see that RoK have a Moral alignment of 250 and Ethical Alignment of 250 that means "somewhat Lawful" and "somewhat Good", where 500 is the max.

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 12:28 AM

There is. If you look at the chart above. You will see that RoK have a Moral alignment of 250 and Ethical Alignment of 250 that means "somewhat Lawful" and "somewhat Good", where 500 is the max.

500 is the current max. It may go up... If it does, expect it to go up to either 750, 900, or 1500. Something which (when doubled) is cleanly divisible by 3... So each alignment would have, in order, 500, 600, or 1000 points to play with. At the moment it's around 333.33. :lol:

razzach

Nov 10, 2009, 01:01 AM

I'm so glad there is now a L/C and G/E alignment, I'm a big fan of D&D3ed and not so much on D&D4ed... Just do not go into the 4ed way...Alignment is all in the mind and roleplaying :)

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 01:03 AM

Agreed. I'm sure the new DnD setup makes for less arguments in a party... But this isn't in a party. :lol: I like the additional flavor of the other alignments. ;)

civ_king

Nov 10, 2009, 01:09 AM

Agreed. I'm sure the new DnD setup makes for less arguments in a party... But this isn't in a party. :lol: I like the additional flavor of the other alignments. ;)

no more drow party members picking your pockets

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 01:22 AM

no more drow party members picking your pockets

I think Svarts are close enough to that... And seeing as they'll continue to pick your pockets (and steal your specialists), the alignment is needed. :lol:

Also, updated the chart... Moved the titles to the left, added value displays to each bar, should be VERY easy to read now.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/ReligionAlignments-2.jpg

Wodan

Nov 10, 2009, 07:15 AM

Potential Religion Alignments:
Made up some documents for the religions... A Spread Sheet
Can't view it.

General comment: we're not just talking about a shift, right? The alignment of a religion will determine some of the things you can do in the game. So there are broader consequences.

Fellowship:
[INDENT]This one I'm very unsure about. It's traditionally the neutral religion, but I think a small Chaotic shift (Lawful->Neutral, Neutral->Chaotic) could work here. Could use discussion.

Concur with this and your other comments.

Magister's post on Religions:
[INDENT]Pretty much reaffirms my own thoughts here... Anyone have dissenting opinions?

Could you make it so that The Order turns Neutral civs Good, but leaves Evil civs Evil? Those who are neutral are already basically good but don't have the fanaticism that The Order would give.
Not sure I agree with that. Lawful neutral with The Order would be free to use good or evil means to achieve the end goal of an Ordered society. In fact, they might be more true to the "cause" than Lawful good (despite the Junil argument).

OO is almost pure chaos. I could see building certain OO units and its wonder as moving towards evil rather than the religion itself. The Overlords have plenty of good followers, but the the cult leaders are pretty much all quite evil.
Although much of the backstory is predetermined, it's good to keep in mind that each game is its own "world" and makes its own story. While a couple of the OO heroes/leaders may be evil, there's no reason in a specific game that ALL leaders (especially the implicit ones represented by the player) are evil.

So I'd probably rather OO be presented as chaos but without any overt evil tendencies.

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 10:16 AM

Can't view it.

General comment: we're not just talking about a shift, right? The alignment of a religion will determine some of the things you can do in the game. So there are broader consequences.

Concur with this and your other comments.

Not sure I agree with that. Lawful neutral with The Order would be free to use good or evil means to achieve the end goal of an Ordered society. In fact, they might be more true to the "cause" than Lawful good (despite the Junil argument).

Although much of the backstory is predetermined, it's good to keep in mind that each game is its own "world" and makes its own story. While a couple of the OO heroes/leaders may be evil, there's no reason in a specific game that ALL leaders (especially the implicit ones represented by the player) are evil.

So I'd probably rather OO be presented as chaos but without any overt evil tendencies.

Exactly. Religion will be the major source of alignment change still... Alignment WILL control some of what you do, whether it be alliances or which units/buildings you make or civics you adopt.

Why can't you view it? Seems to be shared with everyone....

Yeah, I don't think I'll have the Order make you Good/Evil at all, honestly. Even though I put it on the chart. When thomas.berubeg's Religious Schisms are complete, there will be a good and evil version (I believe, would have to check to be sure).

And the same is planned for OO. I don't think the religion in and of itself has to be all that evil.

arcticnightwolf

Nov 10, 2009, 11:26 AM

New UUs for the various Religion/Alignment combinations? As in, Order has a different UU for Good, Neutral, and Evil... Paladin, Judge, Executioner. (ArcticNightWolf)

Cool ... someone will implement my idea ... i'm flattered ... :D:D:D

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 11:30 AM

Well, for now it's in just the 'Ideas' section... But it's one that I really like so most likely. :lol:

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 12:11 PM

As Swinkscalibur mentioned in the other thread, True Neutrality is a balancing act... The leader actively maintains balance in all of their actions. As a result, I've added a new leader tag...

Essentially, True Neutrality as an ALIGNMENT has been dropped, unless you wish to roleplay a character that way. There will still be Neutral Neutral leaders, but they aren't necessarily True Neutrals...

For those leaders who ARE True Neutral (Cassiel), I've made a new tag, set in LeaderInfos (not traits). This tag prevents ANYTHING (Religion, Civic, buildings, units, etc) from affecting your alignment. If the leader has this tag, he will maintain his original alignment values throughout the game.

The tag is, for now, only applied to Cassiel... He was never really meant to be able to change alignment anyway.

Here's how it's displayed on the leader:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civilization/Civ4ScreenShot0021.jpg

Wodan

Nov 10, 2009, 12:51 PM

Why can't you view it? Seems to be shared with everyone....
Changing to "View / List" fixed it.

Yeah, I don't think I'll have the Order make you Good/Evil at all, honestly. Even though I put it on the chart. When thomas.berubeg's Religious Schisms are complete, there will be a good and evil version (I believe, would have to check to be sure).

And the same is planned for OO. I don't think the religion in and of itself has to be all that evil.
Great!

thomas.berubeg

Nov 10, 2009, 12:53 PM

Yeah, I don't think I'll have the Order make you Good/Evil at all, honestly. Even though I put it on the chart. When thomas.berubeg's Religious Schisms are complete, there will be a good and evil version (I believe, would have to check to be sure).

And the same is planned for OO. I don't think the religion in and of itself has to be all that evil.

Order has the possibility of splitting into the Imperium in evil civs, and the OO will have a good version, as well as a more neutral version of the one that is in game now (which I see as pretty damn evil)

Of course, these events are not set to trigger as soon as the religion spreads to evil civs, but rather will happen like any other event.

shoggi

Nov 10, 2009, 06:31 PM

Shouldn't True Neutral work the other way around?
If you do it the way you have planned now, Cassiel can pretty much do anything he wants. He can be saving cute kittens from trees for the whole day or building the evil doomsday weapon (of doom) and pretty much don't care what happens.
That sounds more like neutral neutral to me.
If it would be true neutral (as in actively seeking balance in all things) i would imagine it more like a trait which gives more boni the nearer you are to neutral/neutral and less boni if you venture too far into the extremes, where it wouldn't matter if the extremes are lawful good, or chaotic evil (or any other combination).
Another possibilty would be a positive trait that you lose as soons as you gain an alignment, other than neutral neutral, which you can'T get back.
That would make you actively try to balance your actions.
Building an asylum makes me more chaotic? Than I have to build a courthouse to balance things out.

Valkrionn

Nov 10, 2009, 07:06 PM

Chinchirorin

Nov 11, 2009, 01:40 AM

Good idea - Though I was never a fan of D&D; I can see the obvious pro's in using the typical alignment system instead of designing a Morality system proper (Where more beastial and monstrous civilizations would start at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Morality and so on and so forth).

But this aint a horror game, so that'd just be annoying.

Imuratep

Nov 11, 2009, 11:52 AM

Like I said in the other thread Faeryl and Jonas alignment don't really fit. A lawful evil character would not betray his enemies as he believes in loyalty and thinks that betrayal will make it harder to achieve his goals as everyone can betray him as well. I think Faeryl is the definition of Neutral Evil as she is only loyal to her allies if they stay useful for her. She doesn't believe in loyalty and laws as she mistrusts everyone (see her pedia entry). In her opinion her allies will instantly betray her if they don't fear her and if she does not watch them perpetuously.
Jonas on the other hand does not see any value in life and thus should be evil. In Orbis that has differentiated the religion weights of the leaders better than base FFH Jonas even has +50 weight on AV whilst Sheelba has -20 weight on AV (and strangely +20 on Empyrion. Does anyone know what was the reasoning behind that).

Wodan

Nov 11, 2009, 12:34 PM

Valkrionn

Nov 11, 2009, 12:58 PM

That would be Evil Lawful, yes. ;)

Imuratep

Nov 11, 2009, 02:11 PM

Yeah you're probably right, but the question is: How does Faeryl treat the alliances she makes with other Svartalfar. As I imagine Faeryl and the Darkelven culture in general everyone mistrusts everyone and only looks about how he can gain the best position. IMHO that's neutral evil, not lawful evil.

Valkrionn

Nov 11, 2009, 10:47 PM

I've decided to go with a meter ranging from -750 to 750. It allows us to balance a bit better, and gives a clear, common-sense value for each alignment. In a total range of 1500, each alignment gets a value range of 500. ;)

To go with it, I've redone the chart displaying the religions... For now, the White Hand has been dropped from the chart, as it's not currently implemented and could just confuse people.

Keep in mind, FoL's shift towards Neutrality on the Good-Evil axis is not shown... Rather difficult to do so. It receives a 3-per turn Neutral shift.

Firstly, the Max Shift. This is the maximum alignment each Religion is able to bring you to, and includes the effects from both of the following charts.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civilization/MaxShift.jpg

Then we have the Instant Shifts. These are the instant effects each religion has on your alignment. These effects can be cross-axis from the standard effects, and dissipate when you switch away from the religion.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civilization/InstantShift.jpg

Finally, the PerTurn shifts. These are the amounts each religion will cause you to move each turn.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc310/Valkrionn/Civilization/PerTurnShift.jpg

Randomness

Nov 12, 2009, 09:39 AM

Isn't machirium lawful evil? On that chart it says that it gives -50 to ethics (thus chaotic).

Valkrionn

Nov 12, 2009, 10:17 AM

Woops, yeah I goofed on that. :lol: It's done correctly in game.

Monkeyfinger

Dec 02, 2009, 08:12 PM

FoL's chaotic shift seems too strong to me. I'd halve all the values.

Everything else looks good.

Valkrionn

Dec 02, 2009, 08:28 PM

I don't know about that, I've always seen FoL as chaotic. At least, under Cernunnos.

Monkeyfinger

Dec 02, 2009, 08:31 PM

Just a kneejerk reaction, I won't argue strongly about it.

Valkrionn

Dec 14, 2009, 08:58 PM

Alright, going to list the leader alignments I've settled on. Feel free to pick it apart and try to change my mind, putting this out now for just that purpose; Only a few days until I'd like to release, though. :p The civs/leaders are listed in XML order, as I'm just writing it as I come to it in the file.. Multi-civ leaders are left with the first civ they come under.

The numbers in parenthesis are their Broader Alignment values, Lawful/Chaotic and then Good/Evil. Both scales range from -750 -> 750, leaving 500 for each alignment (-750->-250, -249->249, 250->750). Should be easy to recognize where exactly a leader falls. Most Good/Evil alignment values are simply the current value multiplied by 1.5 (Scale used to cap at 500), several have been changed, however. Most drastic would be Perpentach or Falamar, but I think both fit better in the new alignments. ;)

Bannor

Sabathiel - Lawful Good (750 / 555)
Capria - Lawful Good (500 / 495)
Tethira - Good (240 / 495)
Angaad - Lawful (600 / 180)
Ophelia - Neutral (200 / -115)
Decius - Lawful (350) While his Good/Evil status is choosable, he does NOT get to choose his Lawful/Chaotic status.

Malakim

Varn - Good (50 / 465)
Kane - Lawful (425 / 172)

Elohim

Ethne - Good (-50 / 440)
Einion - Good (200 / 750)
Thessalonica - Lawful Good (300 / 450)

Mercurians

Basium - Chaotic Good (-750 / 400)

Luchuirp

Garrim - Good (220 / 325)
Beeri - Lawful Good (295 / 288)
Gimil - Neutral (142 / 173)
Letigo - Neutral (-175 / 55)

Kuriotates

Cardith - Good (-25 / 480)
Herne - Lawful Good (275 / 340)
Cheron - Chaotic (-420 / -150)
Yakut - Good (145 / 610)

Ljosalfar

Amelanchier - Chaotic (-350 / 30)
Arendel - Good (100 / 270)
Thessa - Neutral (-150 / -30)
Eldarwen - Lawful Good (280 / 375)

Khazad

Arturus - Neutral (40 / 40)
Kandros - Lawful (280 / 25)
Athel - Lawful Evil (625 / -315)
Reorx - Neutral (125 / -50)

Sidar

Sandalphon - Chaotic (-420 / 15)
Mirrough - Neutral (80 / -45)
Shekinah - Neutral (-115 / 0)

Lanun

Falamar - Chaotic Good (-570 / 275)
Hannah - Chaotic (-610 / -240)
Casin - Neutral (-210 / -160)
Mordmorgan - Good (90 / 315)
Blackheart - Lawful Evil (315 / -340)

Grigori

Cassiel - True Neutral (0 / 0) BA does not effect his alignment; Will always be neutral.
Goodreau - Good (180 / 345)
Koun - Lawful (300 / 50)
Esirce - Lawful (340 / -75)

Hippus

Tasunke - Chaotic (-490 / -80)
Rhoanna - Lawful (370 / 100)
Ostanes - Neutral (0 / 0)
Uldanor - Neutral (0 / 100)

Amurite

Valledia - Neutral (-220 / -110)
Dain - Good (80 / 390)
Tya - Chaotic (-600 / 0)
Lorelei - Neutral (-100 / 0)
Naxus - Chaotic Evil (-315 / -475)
Xivan - Lawful (625) As with Decius, may not choose Lawful/Chaotic alignment.

Doviello

Charadon - Chaotic Evil (-555 / -330)
Mahala - Neutral (-100 / -235)
Duin - Chaotic Evil (-475 / -475)

Balseraph

Keelyn - Chaotic Evil (-570 / -285)
Perpentach - Chaotic (-750 / 0) Fits the definition of Chaotic Neutral as 'Insane'.
Weevil - Chaotic Evil (-600 / -490)
Nojah - Neutral (-190 / -100)
Furia - Chaotic Evil (-320 / -450)
Melisandre - Evil (20 / -400)

Clan

Jonas - Chaotic (-620 / -230)
Sheelba - Evil (-120 / -350)
Hafgan - Chaotic Evil (-600 / -550)

Svartalfar

Faeryl - Evil (50 / -400)
Rivanna - Chaotic Evil (-300 / -360)
Utirisu - Lawful Evil (485 / -325)
Volanna - Chaotic Evil (-625 / -600)
Jivorn - Evil (0 / -420)

Calabim

Alexis - Evil (240 / -475)
Flauros - Lawful Evil (750 / -465)
Mahon - Chaotic Evil (-525 / -450)
Elijah - Lawful Evil (625 / -615)

Sheaim

Tebryn - Chaotic Evil (-680 / -550)
Os-Gabella - Evil (-80 / -540)
Malchavic - Chaotic Evil (-680 / -600)

Infernal

Hyborem - Chaotic Evil (-750 / -750)

Illian

Auric - Lawful Evil (750 / -320)
Raitlor - Lawful (620 / -180)

Cualli

Kolshevahn - Lawful Evil (500 / -375)
Mihuatl - Evil (200 / -525)
Cuai-Ixl - Chaotic Evil (-335 / -530)

Archos

Daracaat - Chaotic Evil (-560 / -405)
Corane - Evil (-75 / -220)

Kahdi

Kahd - Neutral (25 / -20)

Chislev

Natane - Chaotic (-380 / 70)
Absaroke - Neutral (185 / 75)

Mazatl

Hianthrogh - Good (100 / 420)

Dural

Danmos - Good (-120 / 310)

Austrin

Deirdra - Chaotic (-650 / 50)

Scions

Emperor - Lawful (750 / -150)
Korinna - Neutral (200 / 150)

Jotnar

Mother Enningas - Good (35 / 300)
Father Kasghenal - Lawful (680 / 0)
Uxol - Chaotic Evil (-260 / -350)
Hephaestus - Lawful (325 / -50)

Legion of D'tesh

D'tesh - Evil (-710 / 0)
Thanatos - Lawful Evil (425 / -330)

Mechanos

Verrochio - Neutral (115 / 55)
Maer - Lawful (485 / 225)

Frozen

Taranis - Lawful Evil (750 / -275) As with Cassiel, he is incapable of changing alignment. As he is only able to adopt a Lawful Evil religion, nothing will change his alignment away from this.

WarKirby

Dec 14, 2009, 11:50 PM

Grey Fox

Dec 14, 2009, 11:57 PM

Basium is so overwhelmingly utterly lawful good that It's illogical to think of why you'd choose anything else. Make Basium lawful please. Check his pedia entry where he crushes people without hesitation because they show the slightest demonic influence, even though they were offering to help. A case could be made for basium not actually being good given the disregard for life, and I wouldn't mind him being on the low end of good so he can easioly become neutral. But his lawful/chaotic stance is unquestioningly far towards lawful. He's devoted his eternal life to hunting down and destroying demons wherever they appear.

Basium is so Chaotic he reeks of it. Compare him to Superman, who is Lawful, and you get the idea.

Valkrionn

Dec 15, 2009, 12:10 AM

I think ethne and einion should be lawful. The elohim are a protective, dutiful people.

I wasn't sure here. I DID give them one Lawful leader, but opted not to for the others. I want Einion to be the max Good leader, and Ethne I don't think can be described Lawful after the scenarios (Brought in the Mercurians against the laws of her people in order to save them. Not chaotic, but not lawful.)

Basium is so overwhelmingly utterly lawful good that It's illogical to think of why you'd choose anything else. Make Basium lawful please. Check his pedia entry where he crushes people without hesitation because they show the slightest demonic influence, even though they were offering to help. A case could be made for basium not actually being good given the disregard for life, and I wouldn't mind him being on the low end of good so he can easioly become neutral. But his lawful/chaotic stance is unquestioningly far towards lawful. He's devoted his eternal life to hunting down and destroying demons wherever they appear.

Working from the same exact base material, I view him as chaotic. An absolute disregard for who he kills in order to get his way? How does that fit lawful? He broke the highest law he was required to abide by in order to continue his crusade against Evil; He is Good, but he is nowhere NEAR Lawful. Unless you can come up with an explanation for him being both Lawful AND breaking the highest law in Erebus, he will remain as the Lawful Chaotic leader (If you check, there are 9 leaders with max alignments in one axis or another)

Edit: To clarify, I'll post the definitions I'm using for the two axes... Warkirby, you should recognize these. Although the post IS from October. ;)

Lawful: Actions determined by rules of others
Chaotic: Actions determined by own beliefs

Good: Actions to help or protect others
Evil: Actions to serve own interests only, even at the expense of others

All other alignments can be put together using these bases. Neutral falls in between.

I think all ljosalfar leaders need a little more of a chaotic shift

For the most part, I agree. I opted for different alignments (Within reason) for gameplay purposes, however. Most have high weightings towards Chaotic.

Make Arturus lawful. A non-lawful dwarf is heresy!

Again, gameplay.

Is there a reason why Mordmorgan isn't chaotic?

Ditto.

I'd make all the hippus leaders chaotic, personally

Ditto again, though I may do so with all but Rhoanna.

Make Dain chaotic, IMO. Possibly valledia too. Chaotic neutral is synonymous with magic

Now here, I honestly wasn't sure. There are enough leaders I can afford some variation here.

I'd say chaotic for Sheelba too

Again, gameplay. They have 1 Chaotic, 1 Evil, 1 Chaotic Evil. I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Faeryl definitely needs to be chaotic, moreso than being evil. Dark elves are known for loving partying, and being all about backstabbing.

I don't see her as too chaotic. Yes, they are backstabbing... But I'm also fairly sure that amongst themselves, they'd be fairly law-abiding. The two balance out.

Any reason why Os Gabella isn't chaotic?

This one I wasn't sure about. Might change it if more people question it.

You know how I feel about cualli, but we already discussed that.

You felt they should be Chaotic Evil (Clarifying for others who read. ;)). Personally, I'm not sure about that. From what Vehem has said before, they seem to have an ordered society, even if they advance by killing their superior. One thing I'd like to bring up: One of your own posts in the FF Team forum describes the Cualli as Lawful Evil. ;)

I notice you changed the chislev alignments from what was previously posted. I disapprove. They need a chaotic leader, and absaroke didn't seem too lawful to me. I'd say go back to natane as chaotic

Really wondering when I changed that... Wasn't intentional, and had I been paying more attention I'd have caught it. Natane is back to Chaotic (-380) and Absaroke is Neutral, though weighted towards Lawful (185).

I mentioned korinna earlier also.

Yes, but again, gameplay. She's very close to Lawful, but I want to keep her neutral.

The mechanos strike me as chaotic personally, given their intentions of overthrowing the gods, disrupting the old order, etc, and bringing in a new era of mankind. they're revolutionaries in a sense.

That is all

I'm not sure... I tend to view them as being skewed towards lawful evil, though remaining Neutral. Many of their techpriests (who are in control of a large amount of power) are VERY logical thinkers... Just read the pedia entries. To me, computer logic like that is equivalent to Lawful.

Riot_Starter

Dec 15, 2009, 01:29 AM

I think ethne and einion should be lawful. The elohim are a protective, dutiful people.

Basium is so overwhelmingly utterly lawful good that It's illogical to think of why you'd choose anything else. Make Basium lawful please. Check his pedia entry where he crushes people without hesitation because they show the slightest demonic influence, even though they were offering to help. A case could be made for basium not actually being good given the disregard for life, and I wouldn't mind him being on the low end of good so he can easioly become neutral. But his lawful/chaotic stance is unquestioningly far towards lawful. He's devoted his eternal life to hunting down and destroying demons wherever they appear.

I think all ljosalfar leaders need a little more of a chaotic shift

Make Arturus lawful. A non-lawful dwarf is heresy!

Is there a reason why Mordmorgan isn't chaotic?

I'd make all the hippus leaders chaotic, personally

Make Dain chaotic, IMO. Possibly valledia too. Chaotic neutral is synonymous with magic

I'd say chaotic for Sheelba too

Faeryl definitely needs to be chaotic, moreso than being evil. Dark elves are known for loving partying, and being all about backstabbing. I'd say make her slightly less evil, but a lot more chaotic.

Any reason why Os Gabella isn't chaotic?

You know how I feel about cualli, but we already discussed that.

I notice you changed the chislev alignments from what was previously posted. I disapprove. They need a chaotic leader, and absaroke didn't seem too lawful to me. I'd say go back to natane as chaotic

I mentioned korinna earlier also.

The mechanos strike me as chaotic personally, given their intentions of overthrowing the gods, disrupting the old order, etc, and bringing in a new era of mankind. they're revolutionaries in a sense.

In general, I feel you have a bit too many neutrals for my liking. I'm especially not too happy about the wide discrepancies between individual leaders of the civ. I'd like to think "I see hippus, must be chaotic". And granted there's the odd leader who goes against the grain, like that evil dwarven guy, but I think some of your leaders don't follow their civ's expected alignment well enough

That is all

I disagree with a bunch of this.

The Elohim don't strike me as particularly lawful, just good. They just do what is right without any bias towards order or chaos.

Basium = CG. He pretty much epitomizes the idea of doing the right thing and breaking every law that stands in your way. He breaks the spirit of the compact. He isn't big on allies and making agreements with others. He just wants to kill demons. That's it.

Mordmorgan could be either good or CG. Since all we have is the 1 pedia entry, it's hard to determine which. I would lean towards good, since he doesn't strike me as reckless or free-spirited. Just a guy doing good on the high-seas.

Hippus: I think they should be only slightly chaotic. Hippus are torn between their free-range roots and their new-found life as mercs. They have had to give up some of their freedom to settle down to sell muscle to the highest bidder.

Amurites: I agree somewhat, but Dain shouldn't be full chaotic, just neutral with a chaotic lean (-80?). Valledia seems fine where she is.

Os-Gabella seems to be another prime example of an alignment, namely NE. She is being incredibly selfish by destroying creation to kill herself (one of the main examples given in any D&D book). She cares only about herself and everyone else is either a tool or an obstacle.

The others I either don't know enough about, agree with Valk, or don't really care.

odalrick

Dec 15, 2009, 02:46 AM

Working from the same exact base material, I view him as chaotic. An absolute disregard for who he kills in order to get his way? How does that fit lawful? He broke the highest law he was required to abide by in order to continue his crusade against Evil; He is Good, but he is nowhere NEAR Lawful. Unless you can come up with an explanation for him being both Lawful AND breaking the highest law in Erebus, he will remain as the Lawful Chaotic leader (If you check, there are 9 leaders with max alignments in one axis or another)

Edit: To clarify, I'll post the definitions I'm using for the two axes... Warkirby, you should recognize these. Although the post IS from October. ;)

Lawful: Actions determined by rules of others
Chaotic: Actions determined by own beliefs

Good: Actions to help or protect others
Evil: Actions to serve own interests only, even at the expense of others

Maybe you should take the opportunity and rename them Red Hats and Blue Hats.

By that standard Basium should be Chaotic Evil. He doesn't care about rules or helping anyone. He just wants to kill Demons. (And anyone possessed by Demons or who associates with demons, has met Demons, knows about Demons, might meet Demons some time in the future or isn't sufficiently interested in killing Demons.)

In Fall from Heaven:
Good: Dislikes Demons
Evil: Likes Demons

Maybe you should take the opportunity to rename them Red Hats and Blue Hats. Then no one could confuse them with the ethical concepts of good and evil.

I'd make all the hippus leaders chaotic, personally

I'd make them all Lawful.

They're mercenaries, they need to follow their agreements.

And they're a semi-nomadic tribal society. If they don't follow tradition and take care of their herds, they starve. Freedom requires knowing where your next meal comes from.

dyx

Dec 15, 2009, 04:27 AM

Mh, I don't really see Sheelba as evil personally... why do you see her as more evil than Jonas?

Lone Wolf

Dec 15, 2009, 07:48 AM

In Fall from Heaven:
Good: Dislikes Demons
Evil: Likes Demons

Maybe you should take the opportunity to rename them Red Hats and Blue Hats. Then no one could confuse them with the ethical concepts of good and evil.

It's more like

Good: supports gods on the side of the One
Evil: supports gods who are against the One

A large number of Evil characters didn't really have much contact with Demons specifically (Charadon, Faeryl etc). And most of those who did don't really like them, just see pacts with them an acceptable way to advance their goals.

Having said that, there are few decent characters among Evil leaders, while there are some among Good and Neutral ones.

odalrick

Dec 15, 2009, 07:58 AM

Good: supports gods on the side of the One
Evil: supports gods who are against the One

Possibly not even that, I don't think you have to support gods to be Good or Evil.

The point is that Good and Evil are labels for the sides in a civil war, they don't have anything to do with ethics.

Lone Wolf

Dec 15, 2009, 08:04 AM

Possibly not even that, I don't think you have to support gods to be Good or Evil.

Not necessarily support gods knowingly. Since in FfH there's a god for pretty much every aspect of life, every action honors some god in a way.

The point is that Good and Evil are labels for the sides in a civil war, they don't have anything to do with ethics.

There's a weak correlation, but it's true that there's no direct link.

Basically, Good and Neutral in FfH can refer to good, shady, and evil characters alike, but FfH Evil is usually indeed evil. Extreme, world-destroying evil is also reserved only for Evil.

Valkrionn

Dec 15, 2009, 01:30 PM

Mh, I don't really see Sheelba as evil personally... why do you see her as more evil than Jonas?

I don't particularly see Jonas as evil (Probably influenced by Thomas.Berubeg's portrayal of him for the Redeemed), while Sheelba I think despises the Bannor and seeks to destroy them.

As for the rest... Keep in mind, Basium is fighting the Fallen Angels because he (and the other Good gods) believe that is what the One wants, and what will eventually be best for Creation.

Cyrusfan

Dec 15, 2009, 01:45 PM

So is good/evil more a question of whether you get to fight for Basium or toil away under Hyborem when you die (with neutrals getting to pass metaphysical Go and collect their $200 eternal reward)? I mean I know this is for leaders rather than units, but is it something along those lines?

odalrick

Dec 15, 2009, 02:18 PM

As for the rest... Keep in mind, Basium is fighting the Fallen Angels because he (and the other Good gods) believe that is what the One wants, and what will eventually be best for Creation.

So it's Good to murder as long as you believe it will eventually be for the best? I can think of someone from last century who fits that description to a T.

No. What you have is gods on one side who believe in personal freedom and responsibility, and gods on the other side who want to control everyone. The first side arbitrarily got labelled "Evil", the other side "Good". Neither side is good. In fact I think the "Evil" gods are the lesser evil, at least they think human life is worth something.

Valkrionn

Dec 15, 2009, 02:33 PM

So it's Good to murder as long as you believe it will eventually be for the best? I can think of someone from last century who fits that description to a T.

No. What you have is gods on one side who believe in personal freedom and responsibility, and gods on the other side who want to control everyone. The first side arbitrarily got labelled "Evil", the other side "Good". Neither side is good. In fact I think the "Evil" gods are the lesser evil, at least they think human life is worth something.

Actually, I don't think all evil gods could be lumped under 'belief in personal freedom'. Some, yes... Not too sure about others. Mulcarn, for example, who never really even fell; He just wanted people to worship him, and wanted things to stop changing. Camulos I think falls under freedom, but I'm not sure about Aeron.

Back on topic, though, 'Good' in FfH is not our definition of good. Nevertheless, they ARE doing what they think best for creation, as I said. Even if their methods are basically evil.

And I agree with you that some evil gods are the lesser evil; Agares doesn't actually seem that bad, he just doesn't control his minions. :lol:

Lone Wolf

Dec 15, 2009, 09:38 PM

I think the "Evil" gods are the lesser evil, at least they think human life is worth something.

Hyborem, Evil gods' representative on Erebus, doesn't care about human life any more then Basium or the Order hierarchy. He also tends to be more prone to sadism for the sake of it.

And I'd hardly call the desire to destroy creation - the goal of Evil gods' formal leader, Agares, caring about human life anyway.

I don't have really anything against Good gods with the exception of Junil. However, I agree with Cassiel that no god, whether good, neutral or evil, is worth worshipping.

On-topic, the problem with making Basium evil is that he'll start using Eidolons in his armies, give positive modifiers to Hyborem, Tebryn and guys like that.

thomas.berubeg

Dec 15, 2009, 10:01 PM

On the Topic of Jonas and Sheelba, I see them as going in different directions in terms of alignment: Sheelba starts "goodish" because of her Bannor Upbringing, but becomes slowly consumed with bitterness and eventually completly falls to Evil. Jonas, on the other hand, (influenced both by rantine and his own observations on the state of his empire and his people in relation to others) would slowly become good...

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 01:45 AM

Actually, I don't think all evil gods could be lumped under 'belief in personal freedom'. Some, yes... Not too sure about others. Mulcarn, for example, who never really even fell; He just wanted people to worship him, and wanted things to stop changing. Camulos I think falls under freedom, but I'm not sure about Aeron.

Since the Evil gods are just the ones who aren't Good, it's hard to lump them together under a single battle-cry. Still, the Evil gods basically want to do their own thing and the Good gods want to stop them. It's Liberals versus Conservatives, with Mulcarn being too conservative and thus lumped in with the not-Good gods. (Original meaning of conservative and liberal.)

Back on topic, though, 'Good' in FfH is not our definition of good. Nevertheless, they ARE doing what they think best for creation, as I said. Even if their methods are basically evil.

Then why call it "Good"? I know that it doesn't have anything to do with "good", but it's confusing to new players. Since you're changing the system anyway, why not go with a less misleading term?

Hyborem, Evil gods' representative on Erebus, doesn't care about human life any more then Basium or the Order hierarchy. He also tends to be more prone to sadism for the sake of it.

Sure he does. Basium doesn't care about humans at all, they are just tools like swords, tomatoes, rocks or spinning jennys.

Hyborem, being a sadist, enjoys torturing people, thus he thinks that people have some value. You can't be a sadist by inflicting unspeakable agony on a dishcloth.

And I'd hardly call the desire to destroy creation - the goal of Evil gods' formal leader, Agares, caring about human life anyway.

He wants to destroy human life, so he cares about it, albeit in a negative sense.

Basium and his Order buddies are utterly indifferent to people.

Which one is preferable is debatable, but Hyborem treats us more like equals and seems more open to reform.

On-topic, the problem with making Basium evil is that he'll start using Eidolons in his armies, give positive modifiers to Hyborem, Tebryn and guys like that.

As far as problems go, that's a non issue. Just give him a unique unit for Eidolons* and negative modifiers to everyone.

* Maybe an Orphan Patrol. He rounds up the orphans of the parents he got killed earlier in his war, puts them in armour and arms them. Then it's off to the frontlines where they are thrown into the fray. When they are killed, there is a chance that a new Orphan Patrol is spawned back home, as their deaths naturally creates more orphans. The entire purpose is of course to spawn more angels.

Riot_Starter

Dec 16, 2009, 02:11 AM

New labels for good and evil could be useful. It would clarify their meaning and stop all these discussions on whether killing X is good/evil.

Perhaps, Fallen -> Evil (the game is called FALL from heaven after all) and that's all that really hold the "evil" gods together. They all fell and went against the One for differing reasons.

Maybe, Loyal -> Good? These are the gods who didn't fall and stayed loyal to the One.

These labels can also be carried over to the leaders (and by association, the civs). They just don't use these labels on or amongst themselves. For example, Flauros isn't going to describe himself as Fallen (hell, he wouldn't even have called himself Evil for that matter). It is just his actions are done in the spirit of these Fallen gods (although for some leaders like Tebryn or Os-Gabella, their actions are done literally for these gods). I think this makes things clearer and gets rid of all the good/evil discussions that are separate from the game alignment. So people could call Basium an evil bastard, but he's an evil bastard who is loyal to the One.

The actions of most of the characters in this game are in the grey area morally anyway, so why use such loaded words like good and evil? Go with loyal and fallen since these only describe the literal actions the gods took. I doubt anyone is going to argue that Agares is still loyal to the one :p. This also leaves neutral for those gods who didn't exactly fall or just don't care (like Danalin).

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 02:21 AM

To be perfectly blunt, no.

Good and Evil are blurred in FfH, yes. That only becomes obvious, however, when you start digging into the lore... A new player can start a game, see that he is Good, and instantly know Evil leaders won't be people he gets along with. The same goes for Lawful and Chaotic; They are iconic names, and will be recognized by virtually EVERYONE who downloads the mod. I have had long discussions with several people about the naming of the Lawful/Chaotic axis, and the same holds true here; Recognizability trumps Lore.

Beyond that, I don't mind one bit that the two are blurred. In fact, I think it's a GOOD thing. I'm tired of games with clear cut divisions between things that ARE NOT CLEAR. To cite an example from the news, in the UK recently a man and his family were held at knife point by three robbers. The man's son escaped, got his Uncle, and returned to help the others, successfully scaring off the robbers. The man and his brother (the uncle) subsequently caught and beat one of the robbers, badly enough to severely injure the man. Was this Good? Evil? Somewhere between? Is it GOOD to do what's right, even if it leads to the deaths of hundreds?

There is no black and white in the real world, only shades of grey. I love that FfH acknowledges that.

Riot_Starter

Dec 16, 2009, 02:36 AM

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 02:44 AM

I do enjoy the morally gray actions of pretty much everyone (since they do make things interesting). The situation you described is exactly why things need to be clearer in game. Those guys would have an alignment in-game. Either good, neutral, or evil. People could argue for days on which they are (and they usually do).

Maybe this might be clearer. Thought experiment time: Suppose I thought Basium should be a chaotic evil leader. I think this because he kills indiscriminately and brutally. How would you counter my argument? Most likely by saying "But Riot, Basium is good because he kills for the One to save creation". My response could be, "But that isn't good. Good is petting kittens and helping old ladies cross streets." Then what? "Good in FFH isn't the same as good in real life". Then why call it good???

I think I answered that question; It is RECOGNIZABLE. It is ICONIC. Upon looking at it, you get an instant idea of what the mechanic means. And unless you start digging into the Lore and learn of the ambiguity, you're perfectly happy with your own definition for it.

Using different names makes the game less approachable (Already difficult enough; Major work planned to change that, as you are aware. :p). If you see a leader is marked as 'Fallen', what does it MEAN? Fallen from WHAT? Using the name Evil is valid enough for most places... The whole thing is only questionable for a few outlying leaders, like Basium, or Auric.

Again, to be blunt; Regardless of debate, the titles 'Good' and 'Evil' will not change. I'm perfectly willing to have debate on the status of each leader, or to take criticism for my choices, but those names will not change. Those who know enough to debate on the assignments are already well aware of the ambiguity, and can work around it.

Riot_Starter

Dec 16, 2009, 02:59 AM

Well if it won't change, then let's work on a way to reduce confusion for those who do go snooping around the pedia and lore. I seem to remember you mentioning expanding the concepts section, especially the alignment entry (since it's going to be horribly outdated after the next patch). So when they are updated, why not add a note on what the different alignments stand for. So some of the people who would have come to the forums complaining that Basium is an evil bastard and should be labeled as such might see it and understand the justification for calling him good.

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 02:59 AM

Good and Evil are blurred in FfH, yes.

No they're not. In essence that's the problem. Basium can rape, murder, pillage and commit genocide, he's still Good. Hyborem can save kittens, care for orphans and institute universal healthcare, he's still Evil. Alexis can have he people live in absolute squalor, their only hope of being put out of their misery that some vampire comes along and eats their soul; as long as she pays lip service to the Order, she's Good.

There is no blurring of the lines in Fall from Heaven.

That only becomes obvious, however, when you start digging into the lore... A new player can start a game, see that he is Good, and instantly know Evil leaders won't be people he gets along with. The same goes for Lawful and Chaotic; They are iconic names, and will be recognized by virtually EVERYONE who downloads the mod. I have had long discussions with several people about the naming of the Lawful/Chaotic axis, and the same holds true here; Recognizability trumps Lore.

Loyalist and secessionists would have the same effect, and would make it clear that they are just labels that apply to two otherwise indistinguishable sides. Or "North" and "South". Or "Plodunks" and "Farqwas".

"Lawful" and "chaotic" isn't loaded with as much value as "good" and "evil", so they're all-right. Plus it actually has something to do with what they do, rather than being arbitrary labels.

Beyond that, I don't mind one bit that the two are blurred. In fact, I think it's a GOOD thing. I'm tired of games with clear cut divisions between things that ARE NOT CLEAR.

Again they are not blurred. No more than making a new kind of battery acid and calling it "Milk" would change the diet of infants.

To cite an example from the news, in the UK recently a man and his family were held at knife point by three robbers. The man's son escaped, got his Uncle, and returned to help the others, successfully scaring off the robbers. The man and his brother (the uncle) subsequently caught and beat one of the robbers, badly enough to severely injure the man. Was this Good? Evil? Somewhere between? Is it GOOD to do what's right, even if it leads to the deaths of hundreds?

It's just stuff that happened. In the real world there is no Good and Evil.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 03:02 AM

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 03:10 AM

No they're not. In essence that's the problem. Basium can rape, murder, pillage and commit genocide, he's still Good. Hyborem can save kittens, care for orphans and institute universal healthcare, he's still Evil. Alexis can have he people live in absolute squalor, their only hope of being put out of their misery that some vampire comes along and eats their soul; as long as she pays lip service to the Order, she's Good.

There is no blurring of the lines in Fall from Heaven.

Play with BA. Basium is razing cities and performing other evil acts? He WILL become Evil. Hyborem does Good? He will move up the scale. As my previous post said, the system will be renovated and massively expanded. It is for those exact reasons that Grey Fox designed it in the first place.

And you twisted my meaning anyway; Good and Evil ARE blurred in FfH. Good does not always mean what you think it does, and Evil can quite easily do what traditionally would be called 'Good'.

Loyalist and secessionists would have the same effect, and would make it clear that they are just labels that apply to two otherwise indistinguishable sides. Or "North" and "South". Or "Plodunks" and "Farqwas".

"Lawful" and "chaotic" isn't loaded with as much value as "good" and "evil", so they're all-right. Plus it actually has something to do with what they do, rather than being arbitrary labels.

I disagree. They both serve as labels, yes, but you don't know loyal to WHAT. Like I said, Good and Evil DO fit in most situations. It's only the outliers that screw the system.

It's just stuff that happened. In the real world there is no Good and Evil.

Which was my point exactly. The terms are just names, attached to concepts which are entirely artificial. But they are also terms which anyone familiar with fantasy will recognize, at least well enough to understand the system.

Better terms would likely be Selfish and Altruistic, as they fit in most locations are recognizable... Still, I am not changing the description. If you'd like to yourself, it's two (2) textkeys. :goodjob:

Lone Wolf

Dec 16, 2009, 03:49 AM

Basium can rape, murder, pillage and commit genocide, he's still Good. Hyborem can save kittens, care for orphans and institute universal healthcare, he's still Evil. Alexis can have he people live in absolute squalor, their only hope of being put out of their misery that some vampire comes along and eats their soul; as long as she pays lip service to the Order, she's Good.

It's slightly different then that - Hyborem consistently saving kittens and stuff, while neither doing nor intending any evil acts would mean that he abandoned his purpose - to aid the destruction of the world (since it's a both evil and Evil act). Therefore, he becomes Neutral, like other decent non-religious characters (Cassiel, Falamar).

Veil and OO practices are evil and Evil both. There's some wiggle room for Esus, but people who associate with him are still shady.

But if Alexis institutes a nightmarish totalitarian Order state, that indeed makes her Good, but not good.

Evil = evil, but Good =/= good. That's how I view FfH universe. The best people are Neutrals with a honorable moral code and Goodies to whom decency comes first, religion second. (Though I have a hard time coming up with the idea of an evil Empyrean. I guess it'll be Order-like Empyrean evolved in militaristic Zen Buddhism direction).

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 04:48 AM

Play with BA. Basium is razing cities and performing other evil acts? He WILL become Evil. Hyborem does Good? He will move up the scale. As my previous post said, the system will be renovated and massively expanded. It is for those exact reasons that Grey Fox designed it in the first place.

I guess you see Basium's basic personality quite a bit different from me. I think I'll just consider Basium being Chaotic Good as removing the Fall from Heaven Basium and replacing him with a new leader, coincidentally using the exact same name, artwork and backstory (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuityReboot) as the old one. :)

And you twisted my meaning anyway; Good and Evil ARE blurred in FfH. Good does not always mean what you think it does, and Evil can quite easily do what traditionally would be called 'Good'.

I don't see how I twisted your words at all... As far as I can tell, Good and Evil always means what I think it means, because I know they are just the labels applied to the two sides in a civil war.

Nice and Naughty are blurred, but they don't have any game-play effects.

I disagree. They both serve as labels, yes, but you don't know loyal to WHAT.

How could it possibly matter what they are loyal to?

It just an us versus them system; my side right or wrong; everybody wave flags and slay the infidels; we know they are evil, because they are not us.

Like I said, Good and Evil DO fit in most situations. It's only the outliers that screw the system.

The exception tests the rule. If the rule fails, it should be rejected.

And I don't think Order, Ashen Veil or Bannor-crusade are outliers.

Which was my point exactly. The terms are just names, attached to concepts which are entirely artificial. But they are also terms which anyone familiar with fantasy will recognize, at least well enough to understand the system.

Better terms would likely be Selfish and Altruistic, as they fit in most locations are recognizable... Still, I am not changing the description. If you'd like to yourself, it's two (2) textkeys. :goodjob:

They are familiar enough to misunderstand, which is the main reason I'm arguing to change them.

I think that FFH-Good and RiFE-Good will be two completely different concepts.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 10:48 AM

Before I say anything else, let me reiterate; NO amount of arguing will change my mind here. If you dislike it, make a module. I'll even toss a link to it in the Downloads thread. I will never, however, change the name of the alignments in the standard download.

That said, I love a good argument. :lol:

I guess you see Basium's basic personality quite a bit different from me. I think I'll just consider Basium being Chaotic Good as removing the Fall from Heaven Basium and replacing him with a new leader, coincidentally using the exact same name, artwork and backstory (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuityReboot) as the old one. :)

I completely fail to see how this is changing the leader. HE IS ALREADY GOOD. We are adding the Chaotic alignment to him, not suddenly making him Good out of the blue.

I also fail to understand how that has anything to do with my reply about BA?

I don't see how I twisted your words at all... As far as I can tell, Good and Evil always means what I think it means, because I know they are just the labels applied to the two sides in a civil war.

Nice and Naughty are blurred, but they don't have any game-play effects.

What those words mean to YOU is not necessarily what they mean to new players, which is the important thing. No other terms are used so widely that you can understand the mechanic without needing background. Good and Evil are used in nearly ALL fantasy settings to describe the two sides of a conflict. They are instantly recognizable for new players.

How could it possibly matter what they are loyal to?

It just an us versus them system; my side right or wrong; everybody wave flags and slay the infidels; we know they are evil, because they are not us.

It matters because the mechanic should be easily understood by the player. Requiring them to dig through backstory to find just what it means is not easily understood.

It also matters for the sake of continuity. ALL FfH mods use the terms. This helps people seeking to try something else; The base stays the same between the mods.

The exception tests the rule. If the rule fails, it should be rejected.

And I don't think Order, Ashen Veil or Bannor-crusade are outliers.

Are you forgetting that the religions are being changed?

Order - LAWFUL. NOT Good.

AV - Destroying creation IS inherently Evil, by any standard measure.

They are familiar enough to misunderstand, which is the main reason I'm arguing to change them.

I think that FFH-Good and RiFE-Good will be two completely different concepts.

I again fail to understand how you come to this conclusion. They are the same mechanic, the same names, the same functions, the same lore as background. How they are completely different escapes me. :lol:

Wodan

Dec 16, 2009, 11:35 AM

They are the same mechanic, the same names, the same functions, the same lore as background. How they are completely different escapes me. :lol:
The main difference is that player (and AI) actions change alignment. i.e., I can start off as something, but as the game is played that will change.

(But that's not what odalrick is talking about here, I don't think.)

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 11:37 AM

The main difference is that player (and AI) actions change alignment. i.e., I can start off as something, but as the game is played that will change.

(But that's not what odalrick is talking about here, I don't think.)

No, I don't think that's it at all. ;) Besides, that's just an expansion of the system, not a new one; Alignment is already changed, if just by religion.

Wodan

Dec 16, 2009, 11:49 AM

I went back through and honestly I think you guys are on completely different pages. My last post might be closer to the mark... after the review, after all, I think odalrick might be objecting to the fact that alignment can change during the game, rather than what alignment Basium and others happen to start out as.

But the below:

No. What you have is gods on one side who believe in personal freedom and responsibility, and gods on the other side who want to control everyone. The first side arbitrarily got labelled "Evil", the other side "Good". Neither side is good. In fact I think the "Evil" gods are the lesser evil, at least they think human life is worth something.
I couldn't pass up. "personal freedom and responsibilty" to me is talking about Order/Chaos, not Good/Evil. Order is where society tells me how to behave, and if I don't they lock me up. Chaos is where I have personal freedom.

Now, "responsibility" is a loaded word which could be a synonym for "order/law" and could mean "personal responsibility" as in "it's up to you to not infringe on the rights of others". So that could go either way.

One way to describe "good" is altruistic, i.e., the welfare of others means more to you than your own welfare. One way to describe evil is self-centered, your own welfare means more to you than the welfare of others.

Neither should be confused with obeying laws of a particular society. If it wasn't against the law (so as to not bring order/chaos into it), and in FFH/RifE murdering evil races is not against the law of good races, then "murdering" those who would otherwise be out pillaging and killing good people is itself a good act.

Sephi

Dec 16, 2009, 11:49 AM

your actions also change alignment in base ffh. Well, one action and that is the choice of a state religion. alignment isn't really an isolated mechanic, but more an extension of religion. Paladins are units of all good religions, slavery is forbiddon for all good religions etc. You can reflavor Good or evil as you like. You can see Order as an organization of fanatics and just one side of a civil war or you can see them as the last bastion of hope because empyrean is too weak to prevent armageddon.

If actions shape alignment, good and evil will be more narrowly defined (by these actions).

Ironically DnD went from a system more close to what Valkrionn is planning to one more similar to FFH

anyway, good luck balancing. I guess that's the hardest part for now.

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 11:51 AM

Before I say anything else, let me reiterate; NO amount of arguing will change my mind here. If you dislike it, make a module. I'll even toss a link to it in the Downloads thread. I will never, however, change the name of the alignments in the standard download.

That said, I love a good argument. :lol:

Me too, and it's helpful in clarifying things. Also considering the change to what Good and Evil means in-game, I'm no longer bothered by the names.

I completely fail to see how this is changing the leader. HE IS ALREADY GOOD. We are adding the Chaotic alignment to him, not suddenly making him Good out of the blue.

You're changing the meaning of Good. It follows that some leaders who previously were Good will no longer be so, or be forced to undergo a personality change. In FFH I see Basium as basically a war veteran who didn't like the peace treaty and goes back at his own expense to shoot people. FFH-Good because he supports the loyalists.

It matters because the mechanic should be easily understood by the player. Requiring them to dig through backstory to find just what it means is not easily understood.

You look at your status line. You see that it says Loyalist. You instantly recognize that anyone else who is a Loyalist is a potential ally, anyone who is a Secessionist is more enemy than others. Anyone without a side is obviously neutral.

No back-story needed, neatly divides the world into two sideds with a middle. And no risk of confusing the sides with ethical issues.

It also matters for the sake of continuity. ALL FfH mods use the terms. This helps people seeking to try something else; The base stays the same between the mods.

Except you change the meaning of the words.

Are you forgetting that the religions are being changed?

Order - LAWFUL. NOT Good.

I'm comparing to Fall from Heaven.

But Order changing to Lawful is another example of of RiFE changing the meaning of Good and Evil in the game.

AV - Destroying creation IS inherently Evil, by any standard measure.

Yeah, but they have more societal freedom than Order, which is good.

I again fail to understand how you come to this conclusion. They are the same mechanic, the same names, the same functions, the same lore as background. How they are completely different escapes me. :lol:

In FFH "Good" and "Evil" are just the names of two sides of a civil war. Neither side is nice, they are both awful with Order being the worst faction of the bunch.

From this discussion, I gather that you are removing the sides of the gods war from the game mechanics. You will no longer automatically be Good because you support the loyalists, you said yourself that Basium could become Evil while still supporting the loyalists. RiFE Good and Evil has something to do with good and evil.

I went back through and honestly I think you guys are on completely different pages. My last post might be closer to the mark... after the review, after all, I think odalrick might be objecting to the fact that alignment can change during the game, rather than what alignment Basium and others happen to start out as.

I'm not objecting to alignment changing. I'm worried that alignment will change in nonsensical ways, but I'm waiting for the system to be released to open that can of worms.

I couldn't pass up. "personal freedom and responsibilty" to me is talking about Order/Chaos, not Good/Evil.

Yet another example of how FFH-Good/Evil isn't about good and evil.

Lone Wolf

Dec 16, 2009, 12:06 PM

Yeah, but they have more societal freedom than Order, which is good.

That depends on the civ to me. I view AV Calabim as being the same as Order Calabim in that regard. Now AV Balseraphs, that's a different matter.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 12:13 PM

You look at your status line. You see that it says Loyalist. You instantly recognize that anyone else who is a Loyalist is a potential ally, anyone who is a Secessionist is more enemy than others. Anyone without a side is obviously neutral.

No back-story needed, neatly divides the world into two sideds with a middle. And no risk of confusing the sides with ethical issues.

Apparently we have different ideas here. If I were to come across a status line that says 'Loyalist', I'd instantly want to know loyal to WHAT. It would bug me until I checked up on it. Seeing 'Good' does not have that reaction for me, though I still check up on it anyway in the end. :p

Except you change the meaning of the words.

Not sure how, and you've yet to explain that.

I'm comparing to Fall from Heaven.

But Order changing to Lawful is another example of of RiFE changing the meaning of Good and Evil in the game.

Again, the meaning itself has not been changed, though the religion has.

Yeah, but they have more societal freedom than Order, which is good.

No, an excess of societal freedom is CHAOTIC, not good. Which is why the AV has a lean towards Chaotic.

Freedom in and of itself can be good. That same freedom, taken in the context of an evil society [Deals with demons, human sacrifice (One of the GP comments talks about sacrificing those Savants that don't measure up), attempts to destroy creation.... Evil], is NOT a good thing. It leads to an even more evil society; I'd much rather live in a Lawful Evil or Evil society than a Chaotic Evil one.

In FFH "Good" and "Evil" are just the names of two sides of a civil war. Neither side is nice, they are both awful with Order being the worst faction of the bunch.

From this discussion, I gather that you are removing the sides of the gods war from the game mechanics. You will no longer automatically be Good because you support the loyalists, you said yourself that Basium could become Evil while still supporting the loyalists. RiFE Good and Evil has something to do with good and evil.

Ah, so this is what you meant. No, we are allowing characters to Fall or Redeem themselves, JUST AS IN THE LORE. Were Basium to fall (And I can EASILY see him doing so; The moment the line between Demon and Angel blurs, he has fallen) I think he would end up challenging Camulos for the precept of Chaos.

We aren't removing the sides, we're allowing them to blur. Every one of the Evil gods started out Good (Or more accurately, every god started out Neutral). They have since fallen. Granted, there hasn't been anyone who redeemed themselves as yet, but the capability is there.

Lone Wolf

Dec 16, 2009, 12:50 PM

Also, I'd like to add that wanting to destroy all humans is giving human life a negative value, pretty much. So it's valuing it more then Basium only if taken by absolute value.

And I agree that Lawful Evil is the morally best of all evils.

Jheral

Dec 16, 2009, 12:52 PM

Not sure how, and you've yet to explain that.

I think what he's trying to say is that using Good and Evil as alignments implies that Good [the alignment] == good [the concept of goodness] (and Evil == evil), and that you've made the BA use that logic, while assigning a Good alignment to a character that is far from good.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 12:58 PM

I think what he's trying to say is that using Good and Evil as tags to differentiate between two different factions implies that Good [the alignment] == good [the concept of goodness] (and Evil == evil), and that you've made the BA use that logic while assigning a Good alignment to a clearly evil character.

I realize that. From the perspective of a new player, the two things ARE equal, as I've said.

I'd also argue that given the definition of Good in FfH, Basium is not a 'clearly evil character', but my thoughts on that are already established. :lol:

In 1.20, the Lawful-Chaotic axis will not be integrated fully into BA. Capabilities are there, but I didn't want to do the drudge work twice; The entire system is going to be revamped. Once it's done, which actions affect your alignment will reflect the FfH definitions of Good and Evil.

Lone Wolf

Dec 16, 2009, 01:09 PM

I view Basium as evil by our world standards, at least. The Order hierarchy doesn't start out evil in my book, but is doomed to decline into it 90% of the time (maybe less if it is adopted by a civ that is less fanatic by nature, like Elohim, Amurites, etc). Don't really have anything against Lugus, Nantosuelta, Sirona and all other merry Goodie company except Junil other then the fact that they like being worshipped, the bastards.

From the Evil gods, I like Esus the most. Deception is a morally neutral thing in my book, though Esus himself embraces the darker aspects of it. Besides, the Svartalfar know how do be evil with elegant glamour, instead of dealing with aesthetically offending demoning thingies, nasty smelly barbarian habits, mandatory blood-sucking or something like that. I can forgive them much for it.

But yeah, as soon as you start doing Broader Alignments, ethical debates are unavoidable.

Jheral

Dec 16, 2009, 01:12 PM

I realize that. From the perspective of a new player, the two things ARE equal, as I've said.

I'd also argue that given the definition of Good in FfH, Basium is not a 'clearly evil character', but my thoughts on that are already established. :lol:

In 1.20, the Lawful-Chaotic axis will not be integrated fully into BA. Capabilities are there, but I didn't want to do the drudge work twice; The entire system is going to be revamped. Once it's done, which actions affect your alignment will reflect the FfH definitions of Good and Evil.

Clearly not Evil, no. But I would still classify him as evil.

This is the problem; by using those terms to describe which factions a character is aligned to you're essentially saying 'these guys are good, no matter how evil they might be'.

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 01:12 PM

Apparently we have different ideas here. If I were to come across a status line that says 'Loyalist', I'd instantly want to know loyal to WHAT. It would bug me until I checked up on it. Seeing 'Good' does not have that reaction for me, though I still check up on it anyway in the end. :p

Do you also feel the need to read through the the history and lore of every civilization, unit and building you come across?

I don't, I read the effects and occasionally some lore, as the mood strikes. They're enemies and need to die is enough for me.

And "Good" not having that effect in FFH is bad, because it means something completely different from the common use of "good".

No, an excess of societal freedom is CHAOTIC, not good. Which is why the AV has a lean towards Chaotic.

All things being equal, a free society is more good than a tyrannical.

And in FFH Chaotic/Lawful is baked into Good/Evil, so splitting them is undeniably a change of the meaning of Good/Evil.

Freedom in and of itself can be good. That same freedom, taken in the context of an evil society [Deals with demons, human sacrifice (One of the GP comments talks about sacrificing those Savants that don't measure up), attempts to destroy creation.... Evil], is NOT a good thing. It leads to an even more evil society; I'd much rather live in a Lawful Evil or Evil society than a Chaotic Evil one.

A Chaotic Evil society allows Good to exist within it. A Lawful Evil one will not.

Regardless, I'd rather live in a LE, E or CE society than in an Order one. (Subject to degree, but Order doesn't encourage moderation.)

Ah, so this is what you meant. No, we are allowing characters to Fall or Redeem themselves, JUST AS IN THE LORE. Were Basium to fall (And I can EASILY see him doing so; The moment the line between Demon and Angel blurs, he has fallen) I think he would end up challenging Camulos for the precept of Chaos.

So if Basium becomes Evil he will start spawning manes and quit auto-declaring on civs? How does this "Challenging Camulos" work in the game? Will other leaders be able to challenge gods for their power?

I'd like that. After not being able to kill Ammon Jerro, not being able to challenge the god of death was my biggest disappointment with NWN2:MotB.

We aren't removing the sides, we're allowing them to blur. Every one of the Evil gods started out Good (Or more accurately, every god started out Neutral). They have since fallen. Granted, there hasn't been anyone who redeemed themselves as yet, but the capability is there.

Removing (some of) their effects from the game. If you didn't, anyone following Order would automatically be Good, regardless of their actions. (And I know Order will be Lawful in RiFE. If you didn't change the meaning of Good, they would still force Good.)

The Order hierarchy doesn't start out evil in my book, but is doomed to decline into it 90% of the time

Anyone who says "Always do what I tell you to do, without worrying about the morality of the action." is Evil or worse than Evil in my book. Even if he tells you to pet kittens.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 01:34 PM

Do you also feel the need to read through the the history and lore of every civilization, unit and building you come across?

I don't, I read the effects and occasionally some lore, as the mood strikes. They're enemies and need to die is enough for me.

And "Good" not having that effect in FFH is bad, because it means something completely different from the common use of "good".

Actually, yes I do. I enjoy reading the background, and it's necessary if I want to at least attempt to avoid changing the lore.

All things being equal, a free society is more good than a tyrannical.

And in FFH Chaotic/Lawful is baked into Good/Evil, so splitting them is undeniably a change of the meaning of Good/Evil.

I'll admit, splitting the one axis into two IS a change. Good and Evil become more specific as a result, which isn't a bad thing.

And no, Free does not automatically mean More Good. If you are free to kill anyone you want, to rob anything you want, it's not necessarily better than a ordered society. (I personally am of the belief that it is, as if everyone can kill you for :):):):)ing up, you aren't going to :):):):) up. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors, btw.)

The main thing here, is that all things are NOT equal. The level of freedom is not independent from the other axis. Chaotic Evil, particularly in FfH and RifE, means destruction of Creation.

A Chaotic Evil society allows Good to exist within it. A Lawful Evil one will not.

Regardless, I'd rather live in a LE, E or CE society than in an Order one. (Subject to degree, but Order doesn't encourage moderation.)

I don't believe that it would. Those who are Good would be the first to be sacrificed.

So if Basium becomes Evil he will start spawning manes and quit auto-declaring on civs? How does this "Challenging Camulos" work in the game? Will other leaders be able to challenge gods for their power?

I'd like that. After not being able to kill Ammon Jerro, not being able to challenge the god of death was my biggest disappointment with NWN2:MotB.

No, he won't start spawning Manes. He would still not have access to Hell, and would still know the pathways to get souls out of Arawn's vault... I could see swapping the Angel promo for the Fallen Angel promo (New, for the D'tesh. Used for Thanatos and their new Commander UU, the Dullahan. Fallen Angel of Death.), but angels it will be.

Challenging camulos would be entirely in the Lore, unless I think of a good way to do it in game. Would be good Scenario fodder, actually.

Removing (some of) their effects from the game. If you didn't, anyone following Order would automatically be Good, regardless of their actions.

Again, new alignments for religions, but Order does still have a good lean. Better example would be Empy. Anyone following Empy will eventually become good, unless they take actions to push themselves in a different direction. Religion alone is not enough to overcome everything.

Not sure how that's removing some effects, personally. I view it as expanding them.

Lone Wolf

Dec 16, 2009, 01:40 PM

Anyone who says "Always do what I tell you to do, without worrying about the morality of the action." is Evil or worse than Evil in my book.

See, to me it's not evil per se, it only leads to evil in majority of the cases.

I understand where you're coming from, though.

I view the Veil as being only slightly Chaotic. "Destroying the world/achieving world dominance due to Veil magic is hard, and we need to organize ourselves in a strict hierarchy if we want to succeed".

Wodan

Dec 16, 2009, 02:13 PM

All things being equal, a free society is more good than a tyrannical.
Depends on the society in question, doesn't it? A society that practices demon worship and child sacrifice is hardly good. And, depends on the tyrant in question. Tyrants are individuals and can be good or evil just like anybody.

Regardless, I'd rather live in a LE, E or CE society than in an Order one. (Subject to degree, but Order doesn't encourage moderation.)
Without agreeing or disagreeing, why can't Order be evil?

Wodan

Dec 16, 2009, 02:17 PM

I personally am of the belief that it is, as if everyone can kill you for :):):):)ing up, you aren't going to :):):):) up. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors, btw.
L. Neil Smith FTW

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 02:43 PM

(I personally am of the belief that it is, as if everyone can kill you for :):):):)ing up, you aren't going to :):):):) up. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors, btw.)

Isn't he the poster child for Anarchy being Good? Even Starship Troopers is about a weird sort of anarchistic society.

The main thing here, is that all things are NOT equal. The level of freedom is not independent from the other axis. Chaotic Evil, particularly in FfH and RifE, means destruction of Creation.

Except Chaotic Evil doesn't exist in FFH, and you can be Chaotic Evil in RiFE without desiring the destruction of Creation.

(Also the mathematician in me rejects the idea that the axes are not independent. If they aren't, why have two? And if they're not orthogonal, why not make them?)

I don't believe that it would. Those who are Good would be the first to be sacrificed.

In a Lawful Evil society. A Chaotic Evil society will sacrifice the weakest first. Good can survive by being to much of a bother to hunt down in a Chaotic Society. (To be fair, a Chaotic Good society suffers from the opposite problem.)

Challenging camulos would be entirely in the Lore, unless I think of a good way to do it in game. Would be good Scenario fodder, actually.

If it's not in the game, it's not in the game. Writing fan-fiction is not a substitute for game-play.

Not sure how that's removing some effects, personally. I view it as expanding them.

You are removing Good and Evil as names for the two sides in the war.

No longer will I be able to murder my own people and still be Good. How is that not removing something?

Depends on the society in question, doesn't it? A society that practices demon worship and child sacrifice is hardly good. And, depends on the tyrant in question. Tyrants are individuals and can be good or evil just like anybody.

Freedom is desirable. A society where you are allowed to drink from red cups is better than a society where drinking from red cups is forbidden, provided nothing else is different.

Without agreeing or disagreeing, why can't Order be evil?

I didn't say Order can't be evil, or even Evil. In fact, I said the opposite: 'Strangely, "Evil Order" is an oxymoron, "evil Order" is a tautology.'

(The oxymoron part is about FFH, not RiFE.)

And the reason is that Order rejects evaluations.

Cyrusfan

Dec 16, 2009, 02:58 PM

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 03:15 PM

Isn't he the poster child for Anarchy being Good? Even Starship Troopers is about a weird sort of anarchistic society.

Yes he is; The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a much better example of an anarchistic society done right. I like his ideas in Troopers as well, though it's not really anarchistic: Why give the vote to those who are unwilling to perform an even basic survey of the issues? Making people earn their franchise would be a good thing, so long as it remains easily possible to earn it; In his book, it was two years of service, either military or bureocratic.

Except Chaotic Evil doesn't exist in FFH, and you can be Chaotic Evil in RiFE without desiring the destruction of Creation.

(Also the mathematician in me rejects the idea that the axes are not independent. If they aren't, why have two? And if they're not orthogonal, why not make them?)

Okay, it does not necessarily mean that. The Doviello, for one, don't particularly care about destroying Creation. In general terms though, their actions tend to aid it's destruction, whether they wish it or not.

And all I meant by the axes not being independent, is you shouldn't consider one without the other. A leader will always have an alignment on both... Using one without the other would be like taking just X and ignoring Y when reading a chart. Your conclusions will generally be wrong. They are completely independent in the code, however. Have to be, or BA would fail.

In a Lawful Evil society. A Chaotic Evil society will sacrifice the weakest first. Good can survive by being to much of a bother to hunt down in a Chaotic Society. (To be fair, a Chaotic Good society suffers from the opposite problem.)

In a Chaotic Evil society, the Good ARE the weak. They are unwilling to make pacts with demons; They are unable to use dark magics. They feel pity and remorse. In the eyes of the typical CE citizen, that would signify weakness.

If it's not in the game, it's not in the game. Writing fan-fiction is not a substitute for game-play.

Not being in the game does not mean it CAN"T be in the game, if there is a decent mechanic for it. Coming up with Lore is a good way (for me, at least) to come up with mechanics.

Could possibly be an evil specific Basium upgrade...

You are removing Good and Evil as names for the two sides in the war.

No longer will I be able to murder my own people and still be Good. How is that not removing something?

I don't believe we are, Good and Evil are still used to describe the different Angelic factions.

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 03:16 PM

Red Cups are nice and all. Is a society where you are free to kill your neighbor for his wallet better than one that attempts to incentivize you into not making that decision (by promising swift and unmistakable retribution)?

No, but in increasing the freedom to kill people, you are curtailing peoples freedom not to be killed.

Come to think of it, if Good/Evil and Chaos/Lawful are orthogonal, the axis I naturally think of when I say freedom is a non-degenerate linear combination of the two.

In a Chaotic Evil society, the Good ARE the weak. They are unwilling to make pacts with demons; They are unable to use dark magics. They feel pity and remorse. In the eyes of the typical CE citizen, that would signify weakness.

If a group of Paladins and Devouts set up shop in a CE society, they will be attacked by a few who mistake Good for weak. After a few lessons in the difference, they will generally be left alone. A Lawful Evil society cannot tolerate the challenge to their authority, and will eventually bring the entire force of the society against them, fall or become less Lawful.

Coming up with Lore is a good way (for me, at least) to come up with mechanics.

I usually think about what I want to accomplish, come up with mechanics for it, then think up lore to support it. :)

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 03:24 PM

Red Cups are nice and all. Is a society where you are free to kill your neighbor for his wallet better than one that attempts to incentivize you into not making that decision (by promising swift and unmistakable retribution)?

One thing to keep in mind.... If the hypothetical society values life (Good, Neutral to a lesser extent), while you'd be free to kill your neighbor, others would hunt you down for doing so. If lynch mobs are legal, and you can be killed for any crime, you aren't going to commit many crimes.

That's the basic premise of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress... Lunar penal colony that developed along those lines. FAR fewer women than men initially, and men began fighting over them... Any man that touched a woman who didn't want it was tossed out an airlock. Resulted in a rather well adjusted society, actually. :goodjob:

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 03:43 PM

One thing to keep in mind.... If the hypothetical society values life (Good, Neutral to a lesser extent), while you'd be free to kill your neighbor, others would hunt you down for doing so.

Don't forget Evil. All that is required is valuing your own life and enlightened self interest. There is a reason murder is universally a crime, and it's not that people are basically good.

If lynch mobs are legal, and you can be killed for any crime, you aren't going to commit many crimes.

In "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" a man is lynched for cutting in line... If you can be lynched for any crime,you may try to commit fewer crimes, but there will be so many more to commit that you are going to commit many more crimes.

That's the basic premise of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress... Lunar penal colony that developed along those lines. FAR fewer women than men initially, and men began fighting over them... Any man that touched a woman who didn't want it was tossed out an airlock. Resulted in a rather well adjusted society, actually. :goodjob:

Good thing they didn't want to share...

Gothic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_%28video_game%29) went the other way.

Cyrusfan

Dec 16, 2009, 03:50 PM

Interesting responses. But I think you're (both) assuming that the general population in this hypothetical society is reasonably equal in capacity and willingness to form mobs and mete out justice. If the general population is unwilling to defend itself (is weak) and unwilling to allow any authorities to protect them (is chaotic), but unimpeded to kill over the slightest thing ('free'), I can't imagine the result would be better than that same society with some authority holding back those who would take advantage of the freedom to kill for selfish motives.

odalrick has basically acknowledged that point-in order for people to be generally free, someone has to be an adult and say 'no' to those who would insist that their 'freedom' be recognized despit interfering with that of others. Which to me sounds like it requires some order involved.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 03:57 PM

Don't forget Evil. All that is required is valuing your own life and enlightened self interest. There is a reason murder is universally a crime, and it's not that people are basically good.

This is true, but my view of Evil is that unless you killed multiple people you'd only have family members and close friends after you, not the populace at large.

In "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" a man is lynched for cutting in line... If you can be lynched for any crime,you may try to commit fewer crimes, but there will be so many more to commit that you are going to commit many more crimes.

And that is an example of anarchy done wrong. Another example is in Larry Niven's universe; In his stories, Organ transplants become virtually 100% successful due to advancing science. Lives can be expanded to 2 or 3 hundred years... The only limiter is the organ material itself. One nation votes to harvest organs from those on Death Row... Spreads like wildfire. Naturally, people everywhere begin voting the death penalty for more and more crimes, knowing that their OWN lives could depend on it. Results in a society where jaywalking is a capital crime.

Good thing they didn't want to share...

Actually, they did. Most common forms of marriage are groups or lines... In the first, typically one woman and multiple husbands, sometimes another wife. In the second, an ongoing marriage, continuously welcoming in new husbands and wives while burying the old.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 04:02 PM

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 04:13 PM

If the general population is unwilling to defend itself (is weak) and unwilling to allow any authorities to protect them (is chaotic),

If you are unwilling to defend yourself, your unwillingness to submit to authority is immaterial.

A Chaotic society is by definition made up of people willing to defend themselves against authority.

odalrick has basically acknowledged that point-in order for people to be generally free, someone has to be an adult and say 'no' to those who would insist that their 'freedom' be recognized despit interfering with that of others. Which to me sounds like it requires some order involved.

The difference between a Chaotic Good society and a Lawful Good society is who is saying 'no'. In Lawful societies its authority, in Chaotic it's the one who's freedom your curtailing.

This is true, but my view of Evil is that unless you killed multiple people you'd only have family members and close friends after you, not the populace at large.

Sounds like most of human history. Including today.

The only difference is a larger group of "friends". Most advances in "good" can be traced to larger group of "friends".

Wodan

Dec 16, 2009, 04:13 PM

Except you can be Chaotic Evil in RiFE without desiring the destruction of Creation.

(Also the mathematician in me rejects the idea that the axes are not independent. If they aren't, why have two? And if they're not orthogonal, why not make them?)
I agree with the above.

Depends on the society in question, doesn't it? A society that practices demon worship and child sacrifice is hardly good. And, depends on the tyrant in question. Tyrants are individuals and can be good or evil just like anybody.Freedom is desirable. A society where you are allowed to drink from red cups is better than a society where drinking from red cups is forbidden, provided nothing else is different.
That's imposing your own value judgment upon the notion of "good".

To somebody who values order, perhaps is unassertive, and wants structure in their life, freedom could be perceived as anathema. As something that empowers other people to intrude upon their comfort and safety.

Again, I think this is mixing up good/evil with order/chaos. If we confuse "good" with "order" then yes, the axes get mixed up. But they are two entirely different things.

I didn't say Order can't be evil, or even Evil.
You're correct. You just implied it when you said you'd rather live in a LE society than an Order one.

The reason I took the implication is because, in many respects, Order could be equated with the Lawful axis. Yes, one is a religion, and sure, it's possible to be high on the Lawful axis without belonging to the Order religion. However, what would be the difference? Given that a LE society would probably be a *subset* of the Order religion. However, it would retain all of the strictures that belong to Order. In additon, it would prohibit Good, and purely be Evil. It would seem to me that most humans on Earth, if transposed to Erebus, would prefer to live in a good society. From the many things you've said about freedom et al you put a high value on freedom (= chaos by my definition), yet you say you prefer LE over Order (which to me includes LG/LN/LE all together).

In fact, I said the opposite: 'Strangely, "Evil Order" is an oxymoron, "evil Order" is a tautology.'
It's an oxymoron or a tautology, which? Because I don't think it can be both at once. Unless by the difference in capitalization you intend to mean "Evil" as the axis while "evil" is the arbitrary, subjective notion.

Anyway this is pretty esoteric and probably has nothing to do with the discussion.

odalrick

Dec 16, 2009, 04:47 PM

That's imposing your own value judgment upon the notion of "good".
...
Again, I think this is mixing up good/evil with order/chaos. If we confuse "good" with "order" then yes, the axes get mixed up. But they are two entirely different things.

Yes.

I realized that when I think freedom, I think of an axis that is slightly slanted compared to Order/Chaos.

You're correct. You just implied it when you said you'd rather live in a LE society than an Order one.

The reason I took the implication is because, in many respects, Order could be equated with the Lawful axis. Yes, one is a religion, and sure, it's possible to be high on the Lawful axis without belonging to the Order religion. However, what would be the difference? Given that a LE society would probably be a *subset* of the Order religion. However, it would retain all of the strictures that belong to Order. In additon, it would prohibit Good, and purely be Evil. It would seem to me that most humans on Earth, if transposed to Erebus, would prefer to live in a good society. From the many things you've said about freedom et al you put a high value on freedom (= chaos by my definition), yet you say you prefer LE over Order (which to me includes LG/LN/LE all together).

Lawful Evil isn't a subset of Order. Witness the White Hand.

And there's a reason I mentioned degree. Lawful Good Order, must have some of Order worst precepts negated, ditto for Lawful Neutral. Only Lawful Evil is compatible with everything Order stands for, and even then Order may have to clean up it's act a bit.

The thing is, orthodox Order rejects moral judgements.

They sentenced Lita the Witch to death, not because she was a witch, or she did something naughty or even because she associated with demons. They did it because it was convenient.

Unyielding Order reduces humans to the level of cogs in a machine. Ants in an anthill have a better life.

The lore for Unquestioning Obedience (a cut technology) is probably the most horrific thing I've ever read. Just the name fills me with dread.

It's an oxymoron or a tautology, which? Because I don't think it can be both at once. Unless by the difference in capitalization you intend to mean "Evil" as the axis while "evil" is the arbitrary, subjective notion.

Yes, "Evil" is the term of art from FFH, "evil" is the subjective notion.

Cyrusfan

Dec 16, 2009, 05:02 PM

Yes, ideally your hypothetical society would consist of people who are capable of acting like adults, standing up for themselves, regardless of the magnitude of effort that requires. I think we were better off settling differences through duels (or getting a clue that maybe a particular issue wasn't worth it) than we are with consequence free lawsuits left and right. My question, which was originally about odalrick's comment about rather being in a CE than LE society, was what if you're not surrounded by folks as willing to stand up for themselves as you? Because even if you have the means and mentality too look after your own corner of reality, those who would relieve you of your property and such are likely to grow accustomed to dealing with all those other people who choose to be walked on because it's easier. I'm saying in that specific (though frequently occurring) case, some authority is necessary to tamp down on the predation and *may* be preferable even if it engages in some of its own.

Obviously, all things being equal, I'd prefer to be in a society I considered good where that authority was therefore optional (and decreasing as the need for it waned).

TC01

Dec 16, 2009, 05:04 PM

Lawful Evil isn't a subset of Order. Witness the White Hand.

And there's a reason I mentioned degree. Lawful Good Order, must have some of Order worst precepts negated, ditto for Lawful Neutral. Only Lawful Evil is compatible with everything Order stands for, and even then Order may have to clean up it's act a bit.

The thing is, orthodox Order rejects moral judgements.

They sentenced Lita the Witch to death, not because she was a witch, or she did something naughty or even because she associated with demons. They did it because it was convenient.

Unyielding Order reduces humans to the level of cogs in a machine. Ants in an anthill have a better life.

The lore for Unquestioning Obedience (a cut technology) is probably the most horrific thing I've ever read. Just the name fills me with dread.

What was the pedia text for Unquestioning Obedience that you speak of?

And the Order sentenced Lita the Witch to death because she was guilty of not worshipping Junil and performing rituals that the Order considered evil, and the Order uses punishments like that. What do you mean, they sentenced her to death because it was convenient?

I guess I see the Order more like the way KillerClowns sees it:

While I'm resurrecting the Saga of Samuel, I also spent a good part of the day working on earning my title of "Junil's PR Department." I suspect I'll get eaten by other loremasters for my eccentric tolerance of the Order, but I'll risk it.

The Order From Street Level
Ozziel, Wandering Scholar

Of all the religions of Erebus, none is as misunderstood as the Order. Unfortunately, the ones most likely to misunderstand it are its followers, whose less than pleasant reputations are occasionally well-deserved. It is hardly a religion of peace and love, but that isn't to say it is one of war either. It is fundamentally concerned with justice. As one follower of Junil confessed (after having been introduced to Sunshine [1]), “nice ain't good, good ain't nice. We're nasty. Merciless. Pitiless. Maybe even brutal. But if we don't like you, it'll be with a good reason. Maybe you won't think it's a good reason, but that don't matter. But we ain't no hypocrites, and we ain't got no crooked kings, 'cause we ain't no hypocrites.” I could get no further from this gentleman when he proceeded to pass out on the floor, however.

“Good isn't nice” is actually an excellent summary of the Order philosophy. While low-ranking Order priests have been known to do incredibly idiotic things in the name of Junil [2], acts that can be directly attribute to Junil, or those who can hear him, tend to invariably be justified, occasionally in an absurd way. One story, which my research has found to be more than anecdotal, tells of a Prior visiting the Balseraph empire in an attempt to negotiate with Perpentach. During the conversation, he casually, and without explanation or comment, stabbed and killed one of Perpentach's advisors when he passed near. Perpentach found the non-sequitur murder from an otherwise dull ambassador absolutely hilarious, and let him continue as though nothing had happened. Later, a broken summoning circle was found in the advisor's room; he'd attempted to summon a demon of Mammon, and been possessed by it instead. The possession had been perfect, fooling even Perpentach. The Prior never did explain how he had been so confident in his actions, or that Perpentach would laugh it off.

The Order's focus on the greater good of all Erebus has some unfortunate side effects. They place the greater good as more valuable than individuals, and are quite unbending in their decisions. The most rational decision is sometimes not the most moral one. For example, let us take the Werewolf Problem [3]. Whereas most on Erebus either struggle with it or occasionally try to get more information or find a third way, the Order's dedicated followers invariably answer the question with the result that saves five in both, whether it it means directly or indirectly causing the death of one. They are rational, logical, and in their most devoted form, somewhat alien to most people of Erebus. They hand out judgments dispassionately. Nepotism and cronyism are rare [4], and their laws are absolute and apply to all, from peasantry to kings.

It is that last part, the equality and absoluteness of law, that makes the Order surprisingly popular with the oppressed. In nations where the leadership does not follow the Code, the Order is magnificently adaptable to a religion of revolution and social change. This may seem utterly absurd for a theology of law, but the laws of the Order are applied universally, and in many oppressed states, the leaders are guilty of breaking these laws. The laws of mortal men are considered, at best, subservient to the laws of Junil, and moot if the ones making the laws are themselves criminals in the eyes of Junil. The Order demands service, first and foremost, to Junil, and this service often means toppling leaders who do not obey... whether from within or without.

Another oddity is that the Order's sentences are often far lighter than those under many more vicious regimes. Compared to those influenced by the Empyrean, the Runes of Kilmorph, or the Fellowship, most penalties are harsh, but not completely unreasonable. A thief in Order lands will be spending a very long time in prison indeed, twice what the Empyrean would give him at minimum, but compared to the fate he would suffer for stealing from nobles of the Calabim (obviously), the Svartalfar, my fellow Balseraphs, or even some Hippus tribes is far, far worse. Likewise, from whom he stole is less relevant; indeed, to some in the Order, stealing food from the poor is seen as a greater crime than taking gold from the rich.

One thing that should be said, however, is that the Order does not forgive liars, oath-breakers, and those who use unholy powers easily, if at all. No use of dark magic, even if it's for the greater good, is considered tolerable, due to its tendency to corrupt those who use it. This belief is not entirely unfounded, unfortunately, although the speed and ruthlessness with which the Order persecutes even suspected users of unholy magics can be quite startling. Meanwhile, criminals who lie to a Confessor will often find the sentence for doing so worse than that for the actual crime. If the lie is under oath, it will sometimes be treated as oath-breaking and punished by death. This incredible hatred of liars horrifies those who do not follow Junil. Casual lies, when officials aren't involved, are technically legal, but considered to be a grave insult. I made the mistake once of complimenting a particularly horrific-looking woman, the captain of some Bannor regiment on her “beauty,” figuring she'd appreciate the nicety. I barely talked her into sparing me, and instead received a lecture on the origin of each and every one of her terrifying scars, earned fighting the Infernal, Sheaim, and Orcish empires. Luckily, a few were legitimately excellent stories, and I even borrowed one to explain my newly broken leg in a tavern later that day.

This is not to say that Junil's believers agree universally. The religion has fewer theological gray areas to spark discussion, and occasionally conflict, than Erebus' other religions. But it is not without. The definition of redemption, and what may be done to earn it, is a point of fierce contention. The Bannor prefer redemption through death for those who have committed crimes especially offensive to Bannor or Order sensibilities, firm in the belief the redeemed will spend eternity in Junil's vault [5] if they are truly repentant. The Kurioates seem to feel that several years in a dungeon is sufficient for most crimes, although they tend to not to look kindly upon especially heinous crimes or repeat offenders.

At this point, I'd like to mention the infamous inquisitions. An Order confessor assured me that they were merely routine investigations, and that only those guilty of worshiping outright malevolent deities needed to be worried. He was a terrible liar, and seemed as terrified of the inquisition as anyone else. Problematically, he also insisted he abstained from alcohol. But for reasons far different than you might expect, I found myself in the trust of the madame of a local brothel, who was more than happy to set the record straight.

“Inquisitors? (What followed next was a long string of impressive curses.) Alright, you want to hear a story to back all that up? Well, there was this Temple of Kilmorph. Fine place. Nobody there who'd ever done anyone any harm. Boring, traditionalist, not exactly what I like in a customer, but fine, decent working folk. No bad blood. Then comes this fire-and-brimstone preacher, screaming that he was here to root out the cult of Mammon. At first the followers of Kilmorph were cheered by this; they really don't like Mammon. Turns out he meant them. Oh, and Tali help any poor fool who tried to defend them; Junil's loyal followers found themselves taken away along with them. Even a few confessors tried standing up to this psychopath. Merciful Sirona, but I don't know where they went or what happened to them. When they came back about a month later... they weren't right in the head. They lived their lives, but... they weren't really alive, y'know? The temple was demolished without comment.” She also mentioned the name of the man who was responsible, Aldrin Gray although I could, of course, do nothing legally. I was after all, only a visitor. However, I have reason to suspect that Confessor Gray may not be remaining in his post much longer; the laws of the Order apply equally to him as much as anyone else, and I recently heard rumor of him blaspheming in a temple.

I am not about to convert to the order, or even recommend it to anybody who values hedonism, pleasure, and general fun as much as I do. Its priests range from agreeable, practical individuals who believe law exists to protect the weak from the cruel, to raving lunatics intent upon turning the world into a machine. But the Order has ways of eliminating the latter, for which I am truly thankful. All considered, as a general rule, I have found the followers of the Order, with rare exception, to be genuinely good people. But remember: good is not nice.

1 – One of the many fine alcohols produced by the Jubilee Mage's Guild. The exact production method is secret, but it likely concerns sun mana. As well as the usual effects of drunkenness, the drinker, unless incredibly strong-willed, becomes brutally and unflinchingly honest... well, more than is usual for the drunk. Foreigners usually avoid it; basic human instinct advices against drinking anything that glows. I find the glow can be minimized by offering it in well-lit places, and serving it in properly tinted glass, and I always carry some for interview purposes. I recommend Spring Sky; it's expensive even by the considerable standards of Sunshine, and considered a sissy drink by most, but its pleasant flavor and low alcohol content makes people underestimate it, and it lessens the effects of drunkenness that might interfere with the victim's drinker's newfound honesty.
2 – For an extreme case, see “The Compact Shattered,” specifically the chapter regarding theories about the birth of Mardero. Ten of the twelve involve the Order, ranging from the most likely theory concerning a botched attempt to destroy an unholy tome, to a patently absurd peasant's tale regarding a woman being thrown off a cliff. Thankfully, most instances of Order incompetence are similar to that found in the autobiography of Goodreau, regarding the death of his daughter; they manage to avoid doing any more damage, at least...
3 – The Werewolf Problem is an philosophical quandary. It consists of two questions. The first: A werewolf attacks a palace. Five men rush through the portcullis but a sixth lags behind. If you close the portcullis you save the five, but the slow man will be killed. If you do nothing the werewolf will ignore the slow man and kill the five in the yard. What do you do? The second: A werewolf attacks a palace. Five men are being chased by the werewolf but do not have time to reach the portcullis and the safety of the inner yard, they will be killed unless something is done. You realize that if you were to push a man from the palace walls into the werewolf's path it would distract the beast and give the five time to escape though it would mean the death of the single man. What do you do?
4 – This may have to do with the punishments involved; the crime for nepotism and/or cronyism (seen as one in the same) can be quite harsh. If the individual was genuinely competent and did no harm, but was not the best candidate, they generally only suffer a minor demotion to a position where they have no power to repeat the mistake. However, if the choice was genuinely harmful, punishments can range from irreversible and awe-inspiring demotions (such as the nobleman who, despite being a member of a centuries old noble family, found himself cleaning sewers after choosing his lecherous drunkard brother to head the City Guard) of all involved, to outright execution if the crony in question is a foreign spy or follower of a religion such as the Ashen Veil or Overlords and the promoter should have reasonably suspected as much. The Order's definition of “reasonable suspicion,” however, can be a bit unforgiving; failure to show up at the temples of Junil, or at least the Fellowship, Empyrean or Runes (who hold enough influence to force the Order to tolerate them), tends to cause unfriendly knockings.
5 – Details of which are sketchy. It's generally agreed, outside of the Ashen Veil, to be preferable to Hell. How much so is a point of debate. The general consensus among laypeople of no religious conviction is that boredom, a probable part of Junil's vault, is preferable to eternal agony.[In footnote two, I'm not saying Mardero's 'pedia entry is incorrect. I'm not that crazy. But this is written from an in-world perspective, and without omniscience, it wouldn't exactly look like a credible theory. “So, you're saying that the Ashen Veil's greatest champion, the demon Mardero, is the child of some random woman who a pontif ordered thrown off a cliff and whose body was never found? And it isn't possible one of the many, many creatures of the sea simply ate it? And why this woman, of all the woman those Order imbeciles have executed? For Tali's sake, she wasn't even an Ashen Veil priestess; you said it yourself, she was a pagan!”]Aldrin Gray stood at the top of the temple, looking upon his city. The governor thought he ruled it, but it was his. The slaves of Mammon, who had claimed themselves servants of Kilmorph had been taken away and... re-educated. They would be no further trouble. If any heresy ever showed itself in his city, it would be crushed. Even his fellow confessors knew not to trifle with him. The city feared him, as well it should.

“Someone here to see you, Gray.” said another Confessor. Nobody ever called Gray by his first name, if they expected to live. “A scholar, doing some sort of research about the Order.” Another heretic, doubtless full of... questions. Gray opened the door, and looked down upon a chubby, middle-aged fellow of Balseraph dress. A Balseraph, in his city? It was all he could do to not call for the dog's execution. “Name's Ozziel, scholar of theology. I'm here writing an article correcting the various misconceptions people have about the Order.” Gray decided to see what his game was. Know thy enemy. He put on a false smile and invited him cordially in.

“Care for a drink?” he asked, offering a some sort of Balseraph liquor. If Gray didn't know any better, he would have sworn it glowed. “No,” Aldrin said. “I don't drink.” “Funny,” Ozziel muttered. “That's what they all said.” “No true follower of Junil should ever allow alcohol to cloud their mind. Not that your kind would understand.” “What,” Ozziel demanded. “Got a thing against scholars?” That hadn't been quite what Gray meant, and he was sure Ozziel knew it, but upon reflection, a Balseraph and a scholar were about the same. Fitting that one should be both.

As a confessor entered the temple and went to pray silently, Ozziel said, “I have heard it is traditional that a Bannor offer a guest an oath of hospitality. Is this true?” Strange little man. But he was, unfortunately, correct. Gray decided he might as well; he could deal with the idiot later, outside the temple. “I apologize, I nearly forgot. I swear that so long as you are under my roof and do not betray my trust, no harm shall come to you by my hand.” A nicety, although one he was now bound to obey. Ozziel responded traditionally. “So long as I am beneath your roof, I shall not betray your trust.”

A pause. Then, Ozziel said “Inquisitions.” “What of them?” Gray asked. “Everything.” responded the scholar. Gray sighed, regretting his oath. “We had to deal with a cult of Mammon... surely you know of that?” Every damned Balseraph followed Mammon in some way. But Ozziel shrugged. “I have no fondness for Mammon's followers. Between Oghma and Tali, I'm pretty much covered.” “What do you make of Junil?” asked Gray, looking for an excuse to re-educate the dog. Ozziel merely shrugged again. “I have no qualms with him, and he works to prevent the destruction of this world, something I am quite fond of. In fact, he's not that bad. He tolerates the little imperfections all of his followers have, so long as they are willing to confess them, and fight to rid themselves of them. For instance, I like sex, alcohol, various other substances, and art relating to at least two of the previous, preferably including the sex. I don't get enough of that for my liking. And yourself?” Gray blazed with anger. “I have no sins! I am...”

The silently praying confessor had slipped behind Gray without him noticing. “Perfect?” Gray laughed. “By Junil's glory, I have cleansed myself of all dark taints! I...” it was about then he realized what he had done. “Correct me if I'm wrong,” Ozziel said. “Isn't claiming perfection a heresy? After all, I'm pretty sure only Junil is perfect.” The confessor behind Gray nodded. “Why, yes, it is! And blaspheming in a temple of Junil. In full view of several confessors.” It was then Gray noticed the other confessors who had been quietly busying themselves. “Would you say Gray just committed blasphemy?” “Yes.” “Definitely!” “Well, I think that's enough. We'll have to arrange a trial. I just hope the people of the city can't think of any other crimes you committed while we have you locked up and awaiting that trial. That would be terrible.”

“Well, I'm terribly sorry,” Ozziel said. “I have to leave now, but it was a pleasure talking. But first, I believe I owe a friend something I promised him.” Ozziel went up to one of the confessors, and politely handed him the strange, glowing bottle. “I think I've explained it well enough,” he said, and then left.

Summary: the Order itself is good, but followers of it (such as the guy in the second story) might be like what you describe. And yeah, it's more about "greater good" and "justice" than about "morality"... which is why it would probably fit more in the Lawful axis than the Good axis.

Valkrionn

Dec 16, 2009, 05:17 PM

TC01, that's basically the way I see Lawful Neutral Order.

odalrick

Dec 17, 2009, 02:13 AM

What was the pedia text for Unquestioning Obedience that you speak of?

By questioning the command of your superiors, you effectively question their judgement, and thereby challenge their position. Have you never stopped to consider that if these people are in command, then they must be the best for the job, or they would never have managed to rise to such a position? Do you presume to be smarter, or more worthy? Now, I won't even begin to speak of the folly it would be to question divine commands.--Jasper Rendrahl, Captain of the South Gate, Precept of Order.

Actually it was more tame than I remember. May be thinking of another blurb. Still horrible though.

And the Order sentenced Lita the Witch to death because she was guilty of not worshipping Junil and performing rituals that the Order considered evil, and the Order uses punishments like that. What do you mean, they sentenced her to death because it was convenient?

"The adjudicator was Goroff Grist and he had served in this role for nearly 30 years. He wasn't concerned with Lita's pagan ritual but he was very concerned with the effect she had on the city. "

It was easier to execute her than it was to do the right thing and calm down the lynch mob.

I guess I see the Order more like the way KillerClowns sees it:

But if we don't like you, it'll be with a good reason. Maybe you won't think it's a good reason, but that don't matter.
Yeah. Because evil people never think they are right.

“Good isn't nice” is actually an excellent summary of the Order philosophy.
Actually, good is nice. I know they will be Lawful in RiFE, but thinking that good isn't nice means that they have an inherent leaning toward evil.

One story, which my research has found to be more than anecdotal, tells of a Prior visiting the Balseraph empire in an attempt to negotiate with Perpentach. During the conversation, he casually, and without explanation or comment, stabbed and killed one of Perpentach's advisors when he passed near. Perpentach found the non-sequitur murder from an otherwise dull ambassador absolutely hilarious, and let him continue as though nothing had happened. Later, a broken summoning circle was found in the advisor's room; he'd attempted to summon a demon of Mammon, and been possessed by it instead. The possession had been perfect, fooling even Perpentach. The Prior never did explain how he had been so confident in his actions, or that Perpentach would laugh it off.
Or, you know, Perpentarch knew about the demon and possessed the ambassabor to kill him because he thought it would be funny.

Even if it was Junil, committing murder without a shred of evidence and getting away with it? Not Good. Evil? Yes.

"I backed over some kids with my car the other day. Luckily they 'turned out' to be drug dealers."

They place the greater good as more valuable than individuals, and are quite unbending in their decisions.

This is one of my main problems. Society is not worth more than the sum of the people in it.

It is that last part, the equality and absoluteness of law, that makes the Order surprisingly popular with the oppressed. In nations where the leadership does not follow the Code, the Order is magnificently adaptable to a religion of revolution and social change. This may seem utterly absurd for a theology of law, but the laws of the Order are applied universally, and in many oppressed states, the leaders are guilty of breaking these laws.

This is what is known as an advertisement, which is a kind of lie. They say this to poor people who should know better, but don't since Order frowns on education. They believe it and feel better about themselves. In the meantime, the leaders can enjoy an ordered society as they sacrifice the third maiden for the day.

One thing that should be said, however, is that the Order does not forgive liars, oath-breakers, and those who use unholy powers easily, if at all. No use of dark magic, even if it's for the greater good, is considered tolerable, due to its tendency to corrupt those who use it.

Irrational hatred for other cultures. A standard tool in the oppressors kit since the dawn of life. And a fine tool it is, it hardly ever leads to innocent people being killed. They are always guilty of being slightly different.

And war veterans butchering travelling scholars because they were given a compliment, that's just awesome. Serves them right for tying to learn stuff.

The Bannor prefer redemption through death for those who have committed crimes especially offensive to Bannor or Order sensibilities, firm in the belief the redeemed will spend eternity in Junil's vault [5] if they are truly repentant.

Kill em' all, and let god sort them out!

Better childcare though drowning! If you kill them before they have a chance to commit sins, they will end up in heaven. So will you, because you are such a good parent.

An Order confessor assured me that they were merely routine investigations, and that only those guilty of worshiping outright malevolent deities needed to be worried. He was a terrible liar, and seemed as terrified of the inquisition as anyone else.

So either you tell the truth about the inquisition, and presumably get killed for that. Or you lie, and get killed for lying.

Even a few confessors tried standing up to this psychopath.
Apparently there are good people in the Order hierarchy, but because of the inherent flaws of Order, they are powerless to do good.

Its priests range from agreeable, practical individuals who believe law exists to protect the weak from the cruel, to raving lunatics intent upon turning the world into a machine. But the Order has ways of eliminating the latter, for which I am truly thankful.

It also has an abundance of ways to eliminate the former, which this story clearly shows.

And what is the way to eliminate the raving psychopaths?

Have a visiting pagan trick the psychopath into breaking a trivial rule and watch as mob rule tears him to pieces.

Council of Esus is far more amenable to Good. If someone is being bad, you assassinate him. Same amount of evidence needed, less paperwork and you don't have to wait for some outsider to make the first move.

---
Was that story supposed to make Order look better or were you just posting another story that shows how horrible they really are?

Summary: the Order itself is good, but followers of it (such as the guy in the second story) might be like what you describe. And yeah, it's more about "greater good" and "justice" than about "morality"... which is why it would probably fit more in the Lawful axis than the Good axis.

Summary:
Order is predisposed to letting injustice fester. Good people must hide their actions or be killed for minor details; or not be good. Any hope of reform must come from the outside.

They have no self correction; They literally cannot see any difference between Lawful Evil and Lawful Good.

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 02:35 AM

This is one of my main problems. Society is not worth more than the sum of the people in it.
This is again applying your own personal values and belief to a definition of what is "good".

We also have to realize this is a fantasy realm. Elves, orcs, and even different races of humans can have an philosophical "bent" that would not be practicable in real life.

Was that story supposed to make Order look better or were you just posting another story that shows how horrible they really are?
Honestly, it seems to me you're picking apart all this with your own personal views. I happen to agree with a lot of what you're saying, but just because you or I think personal freedom makes a better society does not mean "better" = "good" and that "good" = "Good" (the alignment).

Summary:
Order is predisposed to letting injustice fester. Good people must hide their actions or be killed for minor details; or not be good. Any hope of reform must come from the outside.

They have no self correction; They literally cannot see any difference between Lawful Evil and Lawful Good.
The way I see it is that a lawful society would have laws, and if you break them then that is where your viewpoint applies. But where the good/evil distinction comes in is in the thousand and one areas of life not covered by the laws. In a society where everybody is LG we will see people running a soup kitchen for the poor and indigent. In a LE society we will not.

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 02:54 AM

Lawful Evil isn't a subset of Order. Witness the White Hand.
Yes, I realize that, but I was talking hypothetically in the sense of Order being the concept of the Law axis. Was a poor line of reasoning.

And there's a reason I mentioned degree. Lawful Good Order, must have some of Order worst precepts negated, ditto for Lawful Neutral.
Why "must" it? This sounds like just because someone is Good that they will shy away from doing something that we (on Earth) might consider evil. But even here on Earth we have the death penalty (legalized murder by the State) and torture of terrorists when they are captured.

Good people either rationalize it (saying it is necessary to do these things to protect society) or else view it as "Us versus Them" (which in the case of orcs, demons, etc is quite easy to do).

But to the Law axis, it's moot. Something is either illegal or it isn't.

The distinction of LG vs LE does two things:
1) Determines what laws the society passes
2) Determines what the people in the society do in situations where the laws do not cover

Only Lawful Evil is compatible with everything Order stands for, and even then Order may have to clean up it's act a bit.
See above.

Just because Order is capable of doing evil things if laws require this does not mean that Order does not permit (1) and (2). I imagine that this is something that could vary from game to game. In some games Order could have a lot of strict and evil laws. In some it wouldn't.

In fact, isn't it possible that the Order society has laws that require Good acts rather than Evil ones (as you portray)? If so, wouldn't Lawful Good be compatible with everything the Order stands for in that game, and even then Order may have to clean its act up a bit.

(sorry for throwing that back... just trying to make a point)

odalrick

Dec 17, 2009, 04:01 AM

This is again applying your own personal values and belief to a definition of what is "good".

Well, whose personal beliefs should I apply? I don't know anyone else's beliefs well enough to apply them.

We also have to realize this is a fantasy realm. Elves, orcs, and even different races of humans can have an philosophical "bent" that would not be practicable in real life.

Such as?

Some "morality" is universal among sophonts because things like "F=m*a" is universal. (Also, I tend to use "human" as a synonym for "sophont".)

Honestly, it seems to me you're picking apart all this with your own personal views. I happen to agree with a lot of what you're saying, but just because you or I think personal freedom makes a better society does not mean "better" = "good" and that "good" = "Good" (the alignment).

FFH has Good being a label for Angel-God worshiping people and Evil for Demon-God worshiping people.

RiFE is moving away from that, and going towards a Good=good kind of thing. So yes, I am comparing them to good, because that is what RiFE is trying to do.

Also, the question I was answering was why I think Order is worse than Evil. Obviously that involves my personal views.

The way I see it is that a lawful society would have laws, and if you break them then that is where your viewpoint applies.

I don't understand this.

Are you talking about "your" as in my viewpoint? I didn't say much about breaking laws, did I?

Or is it "your" as in "random person who happens to live there"? If so, Order doesn't care about their viewpoint; they broke the law, they must be punished to the exact extent of the Law.

But where the good/evil distinction comes in is in the thousand and one areas of life not covered by the laws. In a society where everybody is LG we will see people running a soup kitchen for the poor and indigent. In a LE society we will not.

And areas not covered by law have nothing to do with Order. Orthodox Order controls everything, all things that are not forbidden are mandatory.

Lawful Good must abandon some of the precepts of Orthodox Order, or it can't be Good.

Why "must" it? This sounds like just because someone is Good that they will shy away from doing something that we (on Earth) might consider evil.

Not doing Evil is half the definition of a Good person. The axes can conflict with each other. If you are given the order to torture someone, you can follow that order and be Lawful Evil, or refuse and be Chaotic Good. (Once in a while there may be a third option.)

Order "morality" says: "Torture them."

Incidentally, if the order is: "Feed that Orphan." You can follow the order and be Lawful, or disobey and be Chaotic.

But even here on Earth we have the death penalty (legalized murder by the State) and torture of terrorists when they are captured.

Death penalty isn't legalized murder.

And I'm not claiming that torture of terrorists is Good.

Good people either rationalize it (saying it is necessary to do these things to protect society) or else view it as "Us versus Them" (which in the case of orcs, demons, etc is quite easy to do).

No, Good people don't.
But to the Law axis, it's moot. Something is either illegal or it isn't.

And it isn't moot to the Law axis. Good people don't accept Evil things, yet the Law is that they do, thus Good people undermine a Lawful society.

In fact, isn't it possible that the Order society has laws that require Good acts rather than Evil ones (as you portray)? If so, wouldn't Lawful Good be compatible with everything the Order stands for in that game, and even then Order may have to clean its act up a bit.

No it is not possible for a law to require Good acts.

Just like being the most Evil you can be requires breaking laws.

(sorry for throwing that back... just trying to make a point)

Should probably have changed the "clean up" to "dirty down" then.

It is that last part, the equality and absoluteness of law, that makes the Order surprisingly popular with the oppressed. In nations where the leadership does not follow the Code, the Order is magnificently adaptable to a religion of revolution and social change. This may seem utterly absurd for a theology of law, but the laws of the Order are applied universally, and in many oppressed states, the leaders are guilty of breaking these laws.
This is what is known as an advertisement, which is a kind of lie. They say this to poor people who should know better, but don't since Order frowns on education. They believe it and feel better about themselves. In the meantime, the leaders can enjoy an ordered society as they sacrifice the third maiden for the day.

There is even a counter example to "laws apply to everyone" in the story. Apparently, Junil doesn't have to worry about things like evidence, murder, trials and jurisdiction.

Opera

Dec 17, 2009, 05:16 AM

Council of Esus is far more amenable to Good. If someone is being bad, you assassinate him. Same amount of evidence needed, less paperwork and you don't have to wait for some outsider to make the first move.The Council of Esus wouldn't care about you; if you're an obstacle, you'd be evicted in one way or another. The issue with Order is that you believe it is necessarily flawed. People believing in the Order are, well, believing in it and in its good intents. It might fail or it might not.

Basium's intents are good, his means are ruthless and uncaring. Sounds like Chaotic Good to me.

Why are you :):):):):)ing about such an old issue as Good/Evil in FFH? You could just view that as a gameplay feature (which it is) and not annoy with petty arguments on whether it is true or not. Order must be good, if only because 1) it has always been since FFH, 2) it counterbalances the evil AV.

As a note: no, freedom isn't the best thing, especially in a world with dangerous magic and demons...

Sephi

Dec 17, 2009, 06:02 AM

Lawful Neutral is called the "Judge" or "Disciplined" alignment. A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, a disciplined monk.
[/LIST]

I think lawful fits Basium best, maybe lawful evil if he behaves like a tyrann. To me he is pretty much the opposite of chaotic good :lol:

Opera

Dec 17, 2009, 07:09 AM

Now that I read again the description of Chaotic Good, he doesn't seem to fit him anymore :p

Lone Wolf

Dec 17, 2009, 08:01 AM

Basium's intents are good, his means are ruthless and uncaring. Sounds like Chaotic Good to me.

That depends on how much of a "the end justifies the means" you are willing to tolerate. Basium is very big on all that "Evil for The Greater Good" stuff. The Order is a near second. I don't think that the Order is evil, but I think of the Order hierarchy as a bunch of arrogant self-righteous [censored]s who are very prone to slipping into evil unless the Order undergoes some serious reform.

Amusingly enough, the major leader who represents the Bannor on Erebus, Capria, is quite decent. But she's very much distinct from Order hierarchy.

Sabathiel himself seems much more decent then his boss, too.

I'd like to add a Bannor leader that represents the evil of the Order hierarchy. I plan on making his AI an extremely intolerant backstabbing fanatic with a strong penchant on razing cities. Any good suggestions?

If you are given the order to torture someone, you can follow that order and be Lawful Evil, or refuse and be Chaotic Good. (Once in a while there may be a third option.)

Now we also need a debate on Lawful and Chaotic. What if you refuse to obey an Order Prior and torture/murder someone because you are loyally following the laws of some other religion/nation that state that torture/murder (at least, under circumstances under which the Prior orders you to do it) is evil?

Apparently, there also exists a grey area on whether strictly following your own personal code is Lawful or Chaotic.

Valkrionn

Dec 17, 2009, 10:28 AM

I think lawful fits Basium best, maybe lawful evil if he behaves like a tyrann. To me he is pretty much the opposite of chaotic good :lol:

I think he's fairly Chaotic. The description of Chaotic Good doesn't quite match, but that's because Good doesn't mean the same thing.

I'll never be able to see Basium as Lawful; If you are willing to break the highest law that applies to you, in order to continue your personal vendettas, you are not Lawful. I could see him as Chaotic, rather than Chaotic Good, but chose to keep him Good in the end.

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 11:58 AM

Well, whose personal beliefs should I apply? I don't know anyone else's beliefs well enough to apply them.
Nobody's. Understand the concept without having the hubris to define the concept as You. ;)

We also have to realize this is a fantasy realm. Elves, orcs, and even different races of humans can have an philosophical "bent" that would not be practicable in real life.Such as?
People in real life are a mixed bag. A society could be said to have an "alignment" in real life but the people in that society are going to be of all kinds. In fantasy, people are commonly portrayed as mostly homogenous. Exceptions are just that: exceptions. Orcs are evil. Elves are chaotic. That kind of thing. Drizzt Do'Urden is an exception.

You don't walk into an orc city and see a complete mix of orcs of all alignments. They are going to be predominantly a single alignment.

Some "morality" is universal among sophonts because things like "F=m*a" is universal. (Also, I tend to use "human" as a synonym for "sophont".)
I suppose I agree with that. What's it got to do?

Honestly, it seems to me you're picking apart all this with your own personal views. I happen to agree with a lot of what you're saying, but just because you or I think personal freedom makes a better society does not mean "better" = "good" and that "good" = "Good" (the alignment).FFH has Good being a label for Angel-God worshiping people and Evil for Demon-God worshiping people.
Okay, so what's that got to do with law/chaos? You keep trying to equate chaos or personal freedom with "Good". If Good is defined with god-worshipping then that would include both strictured (law) and personal-freedom (chaos) societies.

RiFE is moving away from that, and going towards a Good=good kind of thing. So yes, I am comparing them to good, because that is what RiFE is trying to do.
I don't think RifE is doing that but Valk can speak for himself. :) But even if it was, defining your own values (which include personal freedom) as "Good" doesn't work. Wouldn't it be better to figure out where on the two axis system you would fall be better? Personally I would call the values you talk about Chaotic Good but that's just me.

Also, the question I was answering was why I think Order is worse than Evil. Obviously that involves my personal views.
The way I see it is that a lawful society would have laws, and if you break them then that is where your viewpoint applies.
I don't understand this.
You stated your personal views include "personal freedom." If a society had laws against spelunking, then a "personal freedom" viewpoint would have a valid objection. If a society had no such laws, then a "personal freedom" viewpoint would have no objection.

And areas not covered by law have nothing to do with Order. Orthodox Order controls everything, all things that are not forbidden are mandatory.
Where is this mandated?

Lawful Good must abandon some of the precepts of Orthodox Order, or it can't be Good.
What are some examples of those precepts which must be abandoned?

Not doing Evil is half the definition of a Good person. The axes can conflict with each other. If you are given the order to torture someone, you can follow that order and be Lawful Evil, or refuse and be Chaotic Good. (Once in a while there may be a third option.)
That's a good point. But I wouldn't call it a conflict. *All* actions have both a law/chaos and a good/evil definition. That's the definition of a x/y coordinate system. Any given point must fall somewhere upon the x/y axes.

Incidentally, if the order is: "Feed that Orphan." You can follow the order and be Lawful, or disobey and be Chaotic.
You mean, follow it and be Lawful Good, or disobey and be Chaotic Evil. ;)

Death penalty isn't legalized murder.
How so?

And I'm not claiming that torture of terrorists is Good.

No, Good people don't.
You're saying Jack Bauer is evil? Say it isn't so! :eek:

And it isn't moot to the Law axis. Good people don't accept Evil things, yet the Law is that they do, thus Good people undermine a Lawful society.
Unless the law doesn't mandate evil things. A LG society would not do such.

No it is not possible for a law to require Good acts.

Just like being the most Evil you can be requires breaking laws.
Again, this confuses Law/Chaos and Good/Evil.

Lone Wolf

Dec 17, 2009, 12:11 PM

What are some examples of those precepts which must be abandoned?

Intolerance, for one thing. And obedience to authority being elevated as the highest moral virtue. Less of "For the Greater Good" stuff and less draconian punishments for trivial misdeeds would be great, too.

WarKirby

Dec 17, 2009, 12:41 PM

RE: Basium

He doesn't just run around doing what he wants to do. He does what needs to be done. If somebody doesn't stand against hyborem, creation is destroyed. He feels a duty to see to this, and is singleminded in the pursuit of that goal. Being willing to break laws doesn't necessarily make you chaotic. He has his own strongly established and well defined moral compass. Demons = evil. He follows it religiously. Basium doesn't just go around doing what he wants. He thinks "If I don't, who will?". He sees the very real need to protect the world from hordes of slavering demons, and in that I see him as lawful. Duty and protectionism are lawful traits.

Killing innocents for the greater good is, I would say, a matter which doesn't concern law/chaos at all. And is purely about a good/evil balance. In this regard it depends exactly how great a good is being pursued, how much evil is done to get there, and how much remorse he feels about doing so. But definitely don't make it too hard for him to become neutral.

Regarding all the alignments that are out of sync with their civ:
I feel the general point of a BA system is to allow you to reach your own alignment. Having a range of leaders with varied starting alignments significantly devalues that, as you don't have to do anything to work towards your chosen alignment if you can just choose someone who has that.

I'm also quite fond of clear, broad strokes for player clarity. Like "Dwarves are lawful". "Pirates are Chaotic", "Elohim are Good" "Vampires are Evil" etc. It helps you to know who you're dealing with. I'm a fan of roleplay in that sense.

I can see the draw of wanting to have variety in there, but that's one good reason to have so many different civs. Each civ offers it's own unique perspective on things. But having the leaders varying so much within a civ is rather confusing, especially as they tend to overlap with many other leaders due to the innate limitations of how many possible combinations there are.

Also bear in mind that we've never actually had proper roleplay games, because the AI has never really been smart enough to behave in character. Odd as it may sound, I strive towards known fantasy archetypes because I want a Different experience. Remember that the somewhat more rigidly set perspectives and playstyles of each race are a major draw of FFH, compared to the blank-slate leaders of BTS who lack almost any uniqueness.

Personally, I'd pick one element of alignment that personifies a civ (chaotic for Lanun, Evil for Sheiam, etc). And make all leaders of that civ share that alignment on that scale, but be free on the other scale. So all lanun leaders would be chaotic, but there's still room for chaotic good, neutral, and evil leaders.

I'd make them all Lawful.

They're mercenaries, they need to follow their agreements.

I don't think so. Their lore seems to suggest that they happily prey on anyone who's weak and a ripe target, and that can include potential employers. Why would you work for someone, raiding someone else, to be paid a salary, when you could raid both of them and make a massive profit. Working for someone serves as a nice way to see how much they have that you can steal.

Also bear in mind that as mercenaries, they have no loyalty. And if whoever you send them after makes them a better offer, they'd most likely happily turncoat and slaughter you.

This is a medieval era world without mass media, and where they can happily slaughter witnesses and critics, so they probably don't have much to fear in terms of reputation being ruined.

Regarding the beating of robbers case in the UK. I would call that a chaotic neutral act

Chaotic because there is already a legal system, and mere humans are not above it. If they had captured one of the robbers, they could have turned them in rather than taking matters into their own hands.

Neutral because one of them ended up dead as a result. It's fairly clear to anyone sane that murder is a more severe crime than robbery, and one that can't be undone. It was however provoked, and not intentional. At least we assume so. They probably didn't mean to kill the robber so I wouldn't callit an evil act, but they lost enough control of their anger to accidentally do so, so I wouldn't call it good. More to the point, since the danger had already passed and they were gone, seeking to continue the situation in a violent manner is definitely not the right thing to do. It was an act of vengeance, not defense.

Lone Wolf

Dec 17, 2009, 12:47 PM

Also bear in mind that we've never actually had proper roleplay games, because the AI has never really been smart enough to behave in character.

Well, I did have some after changing some XML.

Valkrionn

Dec 17, 2009, 01:22 PM

RE: Basium

He doesn't just run around doing what he wants to do. He does what needs to be done. If somebody doesn't stand against hyborem, creation is destroyed. He feels a duty to see to this, and is singleminded in the pursuit of that goal. Being willing to break laws doesn't necessarily make you chaotic. He has his own strongly established and well defined moral compass. Demons = evil. He follows it religiously. Basium doesn't just go around doing what he wants. He thinks "If I don't, who will?". He sees the very real need to protect the world from hordes of slavering demons, and in that I see him as lawful. Duty and protectionism are lawful traits.

Killing innocents for the greater good is, I would say, a matter which doesn't concern law/chaos at all. And is purely about a good/evil balance. In this regard it depends exactly how great a good is being pursued, how much evil is done to get there, and how much remorse he feels about doing so. But definitely don't make it too hard for him to become neutral.

I view him as chaotic. He kills Demons because that is GOOD, not LAWFUL. The fact that he pursues demons has absolutely NOTHING to do with his law/chaos alignment, that is Good/Evil in FfH. His METHODS have everything to do with it, as does the fact that he broke every law in front of him in order to continue fighting. He broke the Compact; He ignored the command of his superior; He CONTINUES to defy his superior, as he literally smuggles souls out of Arawn's vault to continue fighting; He cares nothing about his Duty, and only desires to kill Demons. If he cared AT ALL about Duty, he would not have disobeyed Arawn, and now would be serving Sucellus.

As for making it easy for him to become Neutral... That I agree with. I've also gone ahead and added an effect promo that swaps the Angel racial for the Fallen Angel if the Mercurians are evil.

Regarding all the alignments that are out of sync with their civ:
I feel the general point of a BA system is to allow you to reach your own alignment. Having a range of leaders with varied starting alignments significantly devalues that, as you don't have to do anything to work towards your chosen alignment if you can just choose someone who has that.

I'm also quite fond of clear, broad strokes for player clarity. Like "Dwarves are lawful". "Pirates are Chaotic", "Elohim are Good" "Vampires are Evil" etc. It helps you to know who you're dealing with. I'm a fan of roleplay in that sense.

I can see the draw of wanting to have variety in there, but that's one good reason to have so many different civs. Each civ offers it's own unique perspective on things. But having the leaders varying so much within a civ is rather confusing, especially as they tend to overlap with many other leaders due to the innate limitations of how many possible combinations there are.

Also bear in mind that we've never actually had proper roleplay games, because the AI has never really been smart enough to behave in character. Odd as it may sound, I strive towards known fantasy archetypes because I want a Different experience. Remember that the somewhat more rigidly set perspectives and playstyles of each race are a major draw of FFH, compared to the blank-slate leaders of BTS who lack almost any uniqueness.

Personally, I'd pick one element of alignment that personifies a civ (chaotic for Lanun, Evil for Sheiam, etc). And make all leaders of that civ share that alignment on that scale, but be free on the other scale. So all lanun leaders would be chaotic, but there's still room for chaotic good, neutral, and evil leaders.

I sort of did that, actually. I just considered it in a coordinate plane, rather than saying "This civ is THIS alignment". Like Clan... Chaotic Evil. So we have one Chaotic, one Evil, one Chaotic Evil. Most Lanun are either Chaotic or close to Chaotic.

Cyrusfan

Dec 17, 2009, 01:58 PM

I sort of did that, actually. I just considered it in a coordinate plane, rather than saying "This civ is THIS alignment". Like Clan... Chaotic Evil. So we have one Chaotic, one Evil, one Chaotic Evil. Most Lanun are either Chaotic or close to Chaotic.

Do you happen to have a diagram of this? That might give folks a better feel of what we're discussing than a list of numbers.

I'm not asking you to make one if you don't have it, just if you already had like a push pin map or something.

Valkrionn

Dec 17, 2009, 02:05 PM

Do you happen to have a diagram of this? That might give folks a better feel of what we're discussing than a list of numbers.

I'm not asking you to make one if you don't have it, just if you already had like a push pin map or something.

No I don't, just something in my head; Which is why it's not always consistent. I may go ahead and make one up, after the patch is released... Could use it to change alignments if people complain about them. ;)

odalrick

Dec 17, 2009, 02:25 PM

Basium's intents are good, his means are ruthless and uncaring. Sounds like Chaotic Good to me.

Sound like Chaotic Evil to me. I don't care what his intentions are, only actions define morality.

Which is why I think he undergoes a continuity reboot.

Why are you :):):):):)ing about such an old issue as Good/Evil in FFH? You could just view that as a gameplay feature (which it is) and not annoy with petty arguments on whether it is true or not. Order must be good, if only because 1) it has always been since FFH, 2) it counterbalances the evil AV.

Because RiFE is changing it. For instance, Order isn't Good any more.

People in real life are a mixed bag. A society could be said to have an "alignment" in real life but the people in that society are going to be of all kinds. In fantasy, people are commonly portrayed as mostly homogenous. Exceptions are just that: exceptions. Orcs are evil. Elves are chaotic. That kind of thing. Drizzt Do'Urden is an exception.

You don't walk into an orc city and see a complete mix of orcs of all alignments. They are going to be predominantly a single alignment.

Drizzt is hardly exceptional in any moral capacity. He's the basic self-righteous git who manages to scape by as Good by virtue of not killing carelessly.

Elves tend to be traditionalist, except where they are chaotic.

Undead tend to be extremely Lawful, except the ones who are lecherous pirate captains.

From books I can think of two "races" that are significantly more homogeneous than I'd expect from real humans. Tolkien's orcs and Pratchett's golems.

But even if all elves are born exactly at 200/-450, I don't see how that would change anything.

You stated your personal views include "personal freedom." If a society had laws against spelunking, then a "personal freedom" viewpoint would have a valid objection. If a society had no such laws, then a "personal freedom" viewpoint would have no objection.

I still don't have a clue what you're talking about. Is it important?

What are some examples of those precepts which must be abandoned?

Anything. Good cannot exist without personal choice, Order wants to remove all choice.

That's a good point. But I wouldn't call it a conflict. *All* actions have both a law/chaos and a good/evil definition. That's the definition of a x/y coordinate system. Any given point must fall somewhere upon the x/y axes.

You mean, follow it and be Lawful Good, or disobey and be Chaotic Evil. ;)

No, only Lawful or Chaotic.

Good requires choice. Evil doesn't. That's the conflict I meant.

A law cannot compel Good actions. Although if the law is easy to circumvent, following it anyway could be Good.

You're saying Jack Bauer is evil? Say it isn't so! :eek:

I can't say I ever saw him torture people. The closest was threatening not to kill someone.

Unless the law doesn't mandate evil things. A LG society would not do such.

Doesn't really matter. Sure, a Lawful society without Evil laws wouldn't have any problem at that time, but the willingness of Good people to disobey is a threat to order.

If there is a maximum Good you can be, and ditto for Lawful, then you the most Lawful Good you can be is less Good than maximum Good, and less Lawful than maximum Lawful.

Killing innocents for the greater good is, I would say, a matter which doesn't concern law/chaos at all. And is purely about a good/evil balance.

What about the inevitable societal unrest caused by knowing that you can be killed at any time for no reason?

Isn't the security that comes from knowing you are safe as long as you follow all laws very much a Lawful issue?

<snipped some excellent ideas that I have nothing to add to>

I don't think so. Their lore seems to suggest that they happily prey on anyone who's weak and a ripe target, and that can include potential employers. Why would you work for someone, raiding someone else, to be paid a salary, when you could raid both of them and make a massive profit. Working for someone serves as a nice way to see how much they have that you can steal.

Also bear in mind that as mercenaries, they have no loyalty. And if whoever you send them after makes them a better offer, they'd most likely happily turncoat and slaughter you.

Hippus are supposed to be the best mercenaries in the world, highly sought after; not the common riff-raff you find at the docks.

If they routinely betray their employers, they will get a bad reputation and work will dry up.

That doesn't mean they wont take advantage of a contract expiring in the middle of a battle.

This is a medieval era world without mass media, and where they can happily slaughter witnesses and critics, so they probably don't have much to fear in terms of reputation being ruined.

Any ruler that is so incompetent that they don't find out about armies being slaughtered wholesale won't survive long enough to boil an egg.

Cyrusfan

Dec 17, 2009, 02:30 PM

You've never seen Jack Bauer torture anyone? Um...

Edit: His brother two seasons ago and the off-again husband of his girlfriend (the daughter of the Defense Secretary) the season before that, for example.

TC01

Dec 17, 2009, 04:14 PM

Valkrionn

Dec 17, 2009, 04:39 PM

I don't really feel like doing any more arguing (I didn't really do any in the beginning, though), so I'll just provide some history. Here are previous topics from the lore forum where arguments over alignment (or even just discussions about it) like this have happened. Most are old.

Bannor Before the Fall (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=279016)- not so much alignment, but more about Bannor society
Who is the most evil? Most good? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=270588)
Which FFH Leader would run the Least/Most Pleasant Empire to live in? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=261056)
Which God Would You Follow? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=268765)
Good-Evil (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=332593)

That last link you posted has another post by you in which you posted a quote from Kael... I think it's about perfect.

I dont buy into the distinction of good/evil as simply wanting to bring or prevent armageddon. Good is defined by putting the needs of the many above the needs of a few. Evil is putting the needs of the few above the needs of the many.

But many people dont see Basium in the same way I do and view him through modern morality (our current culture being extremly anti-fanatism), or in the scope his questionable means. The fact that he will destroy a city of goodly people to achieve his goals. To them that defines him as evil.

I see Basium and being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. It is this sacrifice that makes him good. In a world where demons opely thrive maybe fanatism is the most reasonable response. And maybe the "tolerant" that impede Basiums goals are just as dangerous as the demons themselves.

We can argue the appropriatness of Basium's action. But in my mind he is fanatically good, fighting an impossible war to save creation.

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 05:48 PM

Intolerance, for one thing.
But an Order which is LG would not be imperialistic. That is, it would not enforce its ideals upon other societies. People who agree with the LG-Order would be welcomed. Others should STFU and GTFO, but otherwise would not be persecuted because they would have voluntarily removed themselves from the society. In fact, the highest punishment in the LG-Order would probably be Exile.

Compare/Contrast to L.E. Modesitt "Recluce" series.

And obedience to authority being elevated as the highest moral virtue. Less of "For the Greater Good" stuff and less draconian punishments for trivial misdeeds would be great, too.
But the LG-Order would not mandate such, even an Orthodox-LG-Order.

See... I think the concept of "Order" which, in FFH embodies the complete axis including LG, LN, and LE, is now outmoded in RifE.

When you have the concept of two axes, it is incumbent for a religion to have a specific instance. (Think OOP.) It must have an implementation in the specific game which is LG, LN, or LE.

Swinkscalibur

Dec 17, 2009, 05:58 PM

I haven't the heart to carefully read this intense discussion in its entirety, but I just thought I toss out there that I will be quite satisfied to play the upcoming release regardless of what Valk decides to do about some of the disputed alignment philosophies. Personally I never saw the depth in this issue that some of you obviously have. Good/Evil - Lawful/Chaotic, I'm more excited by the diversity the new system has and its potential, than I am concerned about the specific choices made for specific leaders.

I suppose it helps that I completely agree with all of Valk's choices (which is probably why I love RifE so much).

Here's to the next release whenever it gets here.

Valkrionn

Dec 17, 2009, 06:01 PM

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 06:07 PM

Sound like Chaotic Evil to me. I don't care what his intentions are, only actions define morality.
Actions are subject to interpretation. An action which has an immediate evil effect may in fact have a long-term lasting good result. (And vice versa.)

This the conundrum which has plagued good peoples whether in fact or fiction. Good peoples are bothered because they have to make such compromises.

Because RiFE is changing it. For instance, Order isn't Good any more.
So says the guy who insists Order is evil. :lol:

Drizzt is hardly exceptional in any moral capacity. He's the basic self-righteous git who manages to scape by as Good by virtue of not killing carelessly.
The point is he's not chaotic evil whereas his entire race *IS*.

I still don't have a clue what you're talking about. Is it important?
Yes.

Anything. Good cannot exist without personal choice, Order wants to remove all choice.
Based upon that definition, Lawful Good does not exist. I guess we're done here.

Seriously, a *society* can do good. Don't you agree? Can't a *society* choose to do good? Isn't that choice just as valid as a "personal" choice?

I can't say I ever saw him torture people. The closest was threatening not to kill someone.
Somebody needs to queue up a Netflix marathon next time he gets the flu. :D

Unless the law doesn't mandate evil things. A LG society would not do such.Doesn't really matter. Sure, a Lawful society without Evil laws wouldn't have any problem at that time, but the willingness of Good people to disobey is a threat to order.
If the LG society does not mandate evil things, then the Good people would not NEED any willingness to disobey. Therefore, there is no threat to the LG-Order.

Killing innocents for the greater good is, I would say, a matter which doesn't concern law/chaos at all. And is purely about a good/evil balance.What about the inevitable societal unrest caused by knowing that you can be killed at any time for no reason?

Isn't the security that comes from knowing you are safe as long as you follow all laws very much a Lawful issue?
Seems to me the question that needs to be asked is whether killng innocents is against the law in this example. If it is, then this isn't a question of good/evil in the first place, but law/chaos. If it is not against the law, then presumably there would be no societal unrest as a result.

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 06:09 PM

Hehe, glad SOMEONE agrees. :lol:

Patch is coming soon, whenever either ModDB approves it or it finishes uploading to WePlayCiv or FileFront (3 hours or so). :p

Why in the world do you think we're debating? :lol: We're bored waiting for the patch! :D

xartah

Dec 17, 2009, 06:12 PM

I see Basium as being extremely lawful myself, seeing the alignment of a person being something that comes from within. He is unwilling to stop doing what he believes to be right even when others tell him to stop and he knows he will be punished for it.

If the ethical axis is based on following rules set by others then he is obviously chaotic but that interpretation has certain problems such as an absolute tyrant not having any ethical alignment since he doesn't have to follow any rules set by others (not that ethicality from with is flawless).

The problem with laws is that they cannot force someone to be good, they can only stop people from being evil. Laws that try to enforce good actually remove the moral part of the action since it is no longer a personal choice to do good but rather doing something in order to avoid a punishment. Lord Blackthorn's virtues from Ultima V are a good example of what the Order can easily turn into.

Wodan

Dec 17, 2009, 06:12 PM

That last link you posted has another post by you in which you posted a quote from Kael... I think it's about perfect.

Honestly, based upon the example Kael postulates, Basium is simply applying a bigger context.

If good is defined by putting the needs of the many above the needs of a few, and Basium is willing to destroy an entire city of goodly people...

A short sighted view would point at this and say it's evil. A bigger view would say Basium is worried about all of creation.

Anyway all that answers is good/evil. We've been wondering if he's lawful/neutral/chaotic. Nobody has wanted to make him Chaotic Neutral or something, have they?

Valkrionn

Dec 17, 2009, 06:31 PM

Honestly, based upon the example Kael postulates, Basium is simply applying a bigger context.

If good is defined by putting the needs of the many above the needs of a few, and Basium is willing to destroy an entire city of goodly people...

A short sighted view would point at this and say it's evil. A bigger view would say Basium is worried about all of creation.

Anyway all that answers is good/evil. We've been wondering if he's lawful/neutral/chaotic. Nobody has wanted to make him Chaotic Neutral or something, have they?

Actually, there are two debates about Basium in this thread: Good or Evil, and Lawful or Chaotic. Odalrick has said that Basium is Evil, as have a few others... I said that in my opinion, he just has a wider viewpoint. As in Kael's quote. ;)

The Lawful/Chaotic aspect has had more attention, though. Xartah brings up a good point, actually... Does the alignment come from the leader's own personality (Do they stick to their views? Easily swayed?) or does it come from how the leader responds to outside rules?

Personally, I've tried to stick to the second, as in this case it's more than just the leader: It's the sum of all people in their empire, as well. Going with the first, though, I can actually see Basium as Lawful... He stuck to his own beliefs in the face of everything else. I think that question is actually what most of the discussion on Lawful/Chaotic boils down to.

Jheral

Dec 18, 2009, 04:57 AM

Actually, there are two debates about Basium in this thread: Good or Evil, and Lawful or Chaotic. Odalrick has said that Basium is Evil, as have a few others... I said that in my opinion, he just has a wider viewpoint. As in Kael's quote. ;)

I would still say that alignment has more to do with means than ends, though.

Still, morality is always in the eyes of the beholder; I don't think we could ever reach a point where everyone could agree on whether he is good or evil. Better, perhaps, to drop that discussion.

The Lawful/Chaotic aspect has had more attention, though. Xartah brings up a good point, actually... Does the alignment come from the leader's own personality (Do they stick to their views? Easily swayed?) or does it come from how the leader responds to outside rules?

Personally, I've tried to stick to the second, as in this case it's more than just the leader: It's the sum of all people in their empire, as well. Going with the first, though, I can actually see Basium as Lawful... He stuck to his own beliefs in the face of everything else. I think that question is actually what most of the discussion on Lawful/Chaotic boils down to.

I would think that alignment would be based on personality (since you can still be Lawful (at least with the definition I've seen of it - consitency, inflexibility and a strong sense of ethics) without following laws and rules), and his conviction to his cause (among other things) makes me think that Lawful would fit better than Chaotic.

Opera

Dec 18, 2009, 05:08 AM

@odalrick: I believe intents matter as much (if not more) than actions.

Anyway, I'm all with Valkrionn here, especially since Kael's quote.

odalrick

Dec 18, 2009, 08:32 AM

And obedience to authority being elevated as the highest moral virtue. Less of "For the Greater Good" stuff and less draconian punishments for trivial misdeeds would be great, too.
But the LG-Order would not mandate such, even an Orthodox-LG-Order.

Exactly, Lawful Good Order would not mandate such. It is one of that precepts that were abandoned in the move from Orthodox to Lawful Good.

And Orthodox Order is Lawful. Orthodox-LG-Order sound as ridiculous as Chaotic-Lawful-Good-Evil-Empyrrean.

Actions are subject to interpretation. An action which has an immediate evil effect may in fact have a long-term lasting good result. (And vice versa.)

This the conundrum which has plagued good peoples whether in fact or fiction. Good peoples are bothered because they have to make such compromises.

But any effect of the action is part of the action, regardless of mow much time passes before the effect becomes obvious.

Intentions are the internal motivations of the agent. They are irrelevant to the morality of the action, at least if it is good. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (I'm unsure about how I feel about evil intentions realized through good actions.)

The point is he's not chaotic evil whereas his entire race *IS*.

Except for those who aren't. His uncle for instance. One of his sisters was undecided for a while, I think, then Drizzt left, she had to deal with the fallout and turned to religion.

Mostly, as far as I could tell, people in Menzoberranzan were neutral with an Evil culture. Saying they are all Chaotic Evil is like saying all MacDonald's employees are Evil.

Based upon that definition, Lawful Good does not exist. I guess we're done here.

Lawful Good societies can exist. It just can't be as Good as a Good Society can be, nor as Lawful as a Lawful society can. Basic economics; any effort spent being Good is effort not spent being Lawful.

Seriously, a *society* can do good. Don't you agree? Can't a *society* choose to do good? Isn't that choice just as valid as a "personal" choice?

Sure they can. I've ever claimed all societies are fully Lawful.

All choices are eligable for Good or Evil; passing a Good law is Good, mindlessly following a Good law is only Lawful.

If the LG society does not mandate evil things, then the Good people would not NEED any willingness to disobey. Therefore, there is no threat to the LG-Order.

You don't have to be a saint to be Good.

But someone who is prepared to accept Evil (even though they are lucky enough not to have to) is less Good than someone who isn't.

Seems to me the question that needs to be asked is whether killng innocents is against the law in this example. If it is, then this isn't a question of good/evil in the first place, but law/chaos. If it is not against the law, then presumably there would be no societal unrest as a result.

Wouldn't killing innocents automatically be against the law? Otherwise what are they innocent of?

Maybe you're thinking more along the lines of killing outsiders, regardless of whether they are innocent or not. That, I agree, is outside the scope of the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

If the ethical axis is based on following rules set by others then he is obviously chaotic but that interpretation has certain problems such as an absolute tyrant not having any ethical alignment since he doesn't have to follow any rules set by others (not that ethicality from with is flawless).

I'd say it also shows in what people think about people following rules. The tyrant is probably going to have some pretty strong opinions about that.

@odalrick: I believe intents matter as much (if not more) than actions.

The problem with that is that then serial killers and psychopaths become Good, provided they truly believe that they are helping.

I could easily see a Shearim leader distraught about the state of the world and coming to the conclusion that ending it all is the only way to stop the suffering. Chaotic Good?

In fact, isn't that roughly the opinion of one of the Evil gods? Creation is flawed, let's take a mulligan.

Wodan

Dec 18, 2009, 12:52 PM

And Orthodox Order is Lawful. Orthodox-LG-Order sound as ridiculous as Chaotic-Lawful-Good-Evil-Empyrrean.
A comeback of "that's ridiculous" only works if you say why it's ridiculous.
(and throwing in a bonus strawman doesn't help any)

But any effect of the action is part of the action, regardless of mow much time passes before the effect becomes obvious.

Intentions are the internal motivations of the agent. They are irrelevant to the morality of the action, at least if it is good. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (I'm unsure about how I feel about evil intentions realized through good actions.)
Are you honestly arguing that unforseen ramifications define someone as evil? Nonsense. At worst, it's a simple failure to anticipate. At best, it's simply lack of omniscience.

I'm with Opera... intentions are a big part of any good/evil definition. Not that they are the only part, but they definitely need a big consideration.

Mostly, as far as I could tell, people in Menzoberranzan were neutral with an Evil culture. Saying they are all Chaotic Evil is like saying all MacDonald's employees are Evil.
Okay then, Neutral Evil... whatever. You prove my point by saying they are all the same alignment.

(Again, nice bonus strawman.)

Lawful Good societies can exist. It just can't be as Good as a Good Society can be, nor as Lawful as a Lawful society can. Basic economics; any effort spent being Good is effort not spent being Lawful.
That presumes more effort makes you more lawful or more good. Some things just are. Someone who does just one good action and zero evil actions is 100% good; someone who does 100 good actions and zero evil actions is also 100% good. This is degree of exhibitionism, not probity.

All choices are eligable for Good or Evil; passing a Good law is Good, mindlessly following a Good law is only Lawful.
Untrue. Absence of a negative is itself a proof. Consider a neutral or evil person who does not disobey that good law. Such a person is both confirmed in law and disproved in their neutral or evil predisposition; in fact by not disobeying they become more good.

someone who is prepared to accept Evil (even though they are lucky enough not to have to) is less Good than someone who isn't.
What does that have to do with a LG society not having laws which encourage or accept evil, and LG people having to choose between disobeying such laws (because they don't exist) or allowing the evil?

Responding to your comment, though: depends on what you mean by "accept evil". If you mean each and every good person must be a crusader and go out into the world to eliminate evil, I don't agree. If you mean a baker shouldn't accept evil in his shop, I suppose I do.

Wouldn't killing innocents automatically be against the law? Otherwise what are they innocent of?
Why would a lawful society, especially one that is isolationist, necessarily care of a bunch of orcs got killed, despite that they didn't do anything wrong? The orcs aren't a member of the society, they were just wandering through. Innocence is a matter of opinion, and outsiders have no protection under the law.

Maybe you're thinking more along the lines of killing outsiders, regardless of whether they are innocent or not. That, I agree, is outside the scope of the Lawful/Chaotic axis.
Yes.

The problem with that is that then serial killers and psychopaths become Good, provided they truly believe that they are helping.
No, because each person doesn't define what "good" is. I know you've said you believe that (and used as justification why you can insist your definiton of good is the right one), but that's not how it works.

odalrick

Dec 18, 2009, 02:16 PM

A comeback of "that's ridiculous" only works if you say why it's ridiculous.
(and throwing in a bonus strawman doesn't help any)

I told you why it is ridiculous. Orthodox Order is Lawful. Not Lawful Good. The "strawman" you mention had four incompatible alignments, not just two; otherwise it was identical.

It's possible that I've misunderstood Order and that they really preach civil disobedience in just causes, but I've never seen anything to suggest that they do. Everything I've seen suggest that the only thing they value is Unquestioning Obedience.

Are you honestly arguing that unforseen ramifications define someone as evil? Nonsense. At worst, it's a simple failure to anticipate. At best, it's simply lack of omniscience.

No, I'm arguing that foreseeable consequences make someone Good or Evil. You don't get a free pass just because it is far in the future.

To calculate the Good/Evil value of an action, add up the total of all consequences, weighted by how foreseeable is is.

Note "foreseeable" not "foreseen". You can't defend against being Evil by not thinking about what you do. I believe much evil is done due to failure to calculate value. (This is a personal belief, not something I suggest has anything to do with the game.)

Okay then, Neutral Evil... whatever. You prove my point by saying they are all the same alignment.

No, Neutral/Neutral with a veneer of Evil culture. Most people are Neutral, modified by the prevalent culture.

Nothing would have been different if they had been Humans instead of Drow.

Bannor are mostly Neutral with a Lawful Good culture. Svartalfar are mostly Neutral with a Chaotic Evil culture.

I like to think that Shearim are mostly Neutral, decent people; but the leaders are especially Evil.

The mostly Neutral part is supported by the ease with which cities are assimilated. You need a trait for them to retain any trace of the previous culture.

That presumes more effort makes you more lawful or more good. Some things just are. Someone who does just one good action and zero evil actions is 100% good; someone who does 100 good actions and zero evil actions is also 100% good. This is degree of exhibitionism, not probity.

I disagree.

Adam:
Leads a completely uninteresting life. Does absolutely no Evil; and absolutely no Good, except one day he donated a farthing to a starving widow.

Bertrand:
Spends all his free time helping people. When he isn't free, he either works to raise money to help people or he sleeps dreaming about new ways to help people. Except once, when he stole a ribbon from the local lord, to give to his kid. The theft was never discovered.

Are you seriously saying Adam is more Good than Bertrand?

Being Good takes effort, being Lawful takes effort, so does Chaotic and Evil.

Even if I agreed with you, the probability of the a situation where you have to chose between either a Lawful action or a Good never arising is next to zero. Failure to chose a Lawful action makes you less than max Lawful.

Untrue. Absence of a negative is itself a proof. Consider a neutral or evil person who does not disobey that good law. Such a person is both confirmed in law and disproved in their neutral or evil predisposition; in fact by not disobeying they become more good.

No, such a person is only confirmed as Lawful, or possibly to lazy to avoid a trivial matter.

Although, if the law is easy to avoid, they may make the choice to follow it anyway, which is Good.

What does that have to do with a LG society not having laws which encourage or accept evil, and LG people having to choose between disobeying such laws (because they don't exist) or allowing the evil?

It really only comes into effect at the extremes. Someone who is only slightly Good and slightly Lawful doesn't have to resist all Evil. Likewise, a society that is only slightly Lawful will have enough freedom to tolerate Good people.

Responding to your comment, though: depends on what you mean by "accept evil". If you mean each and every good person must be a crusader and go out into the world to eliminate evil, I don't agree. If you mean a baker shouldn't accept evil in his shop, I suppose I do.

Yes, in order to be maximum Good, you have to go out into the world and seek out Evil and resist it wherever it may be. Most people are content with being less Good than that, like a baker who doesn't beat his employees, but is quite content to let Shearim enslave the Elohim on the other side of the continent.

Why would a lawful society, especially one that is isolationist, necessarily care of a bunch of orcs got killed, despite that they didn't do anything wrong? The orcs aren't a member of the society, they were just wandering through. Innocence is a matter of opinion, and outsiders have no protection under the law.

If they're not members of the society, they're not innocent.

No, because each person doesn't define what "good" is. I know you've said you believe that (and used as justification why you can insist your definiton of good is the right one), but that's not how it works.

I don't insist that my interpretation of Good is correct. In fact, my understanding of Good has been refined in this discussion. It's just that, at any time, my personal definition of Good is the best representation available to me. After all, if I had a better representation I'd use that as my personal definition.

In FFH and RiFE, Good is something objective, and in RiFE it is supposed to have something to do with the normal word "good". This is very different from my understanding of FFH-Good where, for instance, Order is Good.

TC01

Dec 18, 2009, 02:55 PM

I like to think that Shearim are mostly Neutral, decent people; but the leaders are especially Evil.

I just thought I'd point out that you're wrong about the Sheaim. They are mainly evil:

I have half a story written about a decent man living in the Sheaim capital. He is in charge of some old, horrid women that clean an inn. The things he finds in the inn rooms from time to time are disgusting. He describes it as: "Many travelers passed through Galveholm and took the opportunity to partake in the worst sorts of depravity."

I think thats pretty typical of the Sheaim. It has all of the normal aspects of medievil/fantasy society, but is incredibly depraved and corrupt. The man continues to muse about what happens in the Inn rooms (and Sheaim society as a whole) by saying: "The Sheaim believed in the sanctity of personal expression, though it applied more to the visiting Emrys than the diseased whore he hired for the evening."

I dont think the common man thinks or cares much about the apoclypse. They are much more concerned about things that directly impact their lives. I made the man in the story a good man just to highlight the corruption around him. Even his wife berates him for not spreading rumors that the inn manager has been indiscrete about his guests so that he can take over the managers job.

Depravity is seen as freedom inside the society and immorality as tolerance. The difference between the Sheaim and the Calabim is that in the Sheaim society the low class really does have a chance to rise up. Each man is viewed on his own merits, but in order to rise in the society he has to be willing to sacrifice any part of morality or virtue that he may have. This is what draws a lot of people from other cultures to the Sheaim, but usually only the most corrupt candidates.

(source: Sheaim Society (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=295975))

Wodan

Dec 18, 2009, 02:57 PM

I told you why it is ridiculous. Orthodox Order is Lawful. Not Lawful Good.
Order is not a society, it's a religion. Order is lawful, but the society has a more specific alignment. In our hypotheticals, we have been using a Lawful Good society which is running the Order religion, which may be Orthodox.

The "strawman" you mention had four incompatible alignments, not just two; otherwise it was identical.
Not at all. Chaos and Law are antipodes on a single axis. Order and Good are apples and oranges. Even if we say the Order religion requires you to be Lawful, they still aren't antipodes... they are on two different axes.

It's possible that I've misunderstood Order and that they really preach civil disobedience in just causes, but I've never seen anything to suggest that they do. Everything I've seen suggest that the only thing they value is Unquestioning Obedience.
Why would you have to disobey or obey if there is no relevant law on a given action?

No, I'm arguing that foreseeable consequences make someone Good or Evil. You don't get a free pass just because it is far in the future.
You said "before the effect becomes obvious". The corollary is that the effect was non-obvious and as a result probably even totally unforseen.

I'll grant that if a good person knowingly does something that 1000 years down the line will cause babies to be slaughtered, then that's an evil act. The key word there is "knowingly".

To calculate the Good/Evil value of an action, add up the total of all consequences, weighted by how foreseeable is is.
Sure, ok.

Note "foreseeable" not "foreseen". You can't defend against being Evil by not thinking about what you do. I believe much evil is done due to failure to calculate value. (This is a personal belief, not something I suggest has anything to do with the game.)
But that's an argument for the stupid being held just as accountable as the intelligent. Shouldn't smart people be held to a higher standard? And, how can we expect dumb people to calculate years ahead, when they can't even plan out tomorrow's menu?

No, Neutral/Neutral with a veneer of Evil culture. Most people are Neutral, modified by the prevalent culture.

Nothing would have been different if they had been Humans instead of Drow.

Bannor are mostly Neutral with a Lawful Good culture. Svartalfar are mostly Neutral with a Chaotic Evil culture.

I like to think that Shearim are mostly Neutral, decent people; but the leaders are especially Evil.

The mostly Neutral part is supported by the ease with which cities are assimilated. You need a trait for them to retain any trace of the previous culture.
That's hardly any fun at all. Humans are the same as orcs? Bannor the same as Svaltafar? Mostly neutral with just a veneer of culture?

In real life, I agree. In Fantasy, I don't. Mostly because in real life we don't haveother races. Most Fantasy (particularly D&D, which FFH is modeled after Kael's campaign) presents humans as the "central" neutral race, able to go in the direction of any alignment's bent. While specific demihuman races are more polar. But even with human societies the culture is very strong and hardly ever presented as a veneer.

I disagree.

Adam:
Leads a completely uninteresting life. Does absolutely no Evil; and absolutely no Good, except one day he donated a farthing to a starving widow.

Bertrand:
Spends all his free time helping people. When he isn't free, he either works to raise money to help people or he sleeps dreaming about new ways to help people. Except once, when he stole a ribbon from the local lord, to give to his kid. The theft was never discovered.

Are you seriously saying Adam is more Good than Bertrand?
No. I said they were equally as good.

Even if I agreed with you, the probability of the a situation where you have to chose between either a Lawful action or a Good never arising is next to zero.
Not if the people writing the Laws are all Bertrands.

No, such a person is only confirmed as Lawful, or possibly to lazy to avoid a trivial matter.
So, two people are good. By doing an evil act, because a law required it, person A is equally as good as person B who did not do that act?

It really only comes into effect at the extremes. Someone who is only slightly Good and slightly Lawful doesn't have to resist all Evil. Likewise, a society that is only slightly Lawful will have enough freedom to tolerate Good people.
Our concepts are so far apart that this does not even compute to my thinking. It is entirely possible to have a completely LG society. Law can be evil but can exist and thrive without being evil.

If they're not members of the society, they're not innocent.
Not even babies?

Gotta run.

odalrick

Dec 18, 2009, 04:45 PM

Order is not a society, it's a religion. Order is lawful, but the society has a more specific alignment. In our hypotheticals, we have been using a Lawful Good society which is running the Order religion, which may be Orthodox.

No a Lawful Good society will not be running Orthodox Order. Orthodox Order is fully Lawful Neutral. Any practice of Order in a Good society of any kind, must be less than fully Lawful Neutral and thus not orthodox.

Not at all. Chaos and Law are antipodes on a single axis. Order and Good are apples and oranges. Even if we say the Order religion requires you to be Lawful, they still aren't antipodes... they are on two different axes.

(1+0i) is not equal to (1+i). In the same way it is impossible to be both Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral at the same time. Just as impossible as it is to be Lawful and Chaotic at the same time, for the same reason.

Could it be that you haven't understood that when I write "Lawful", I mean "Lawful Neutral", not "Lawful of any variety"?

Why would you have to disobey or obey if there is no relevant law on a given action?

Orthodox Order has laws for everything.

You said "before the effect becomes obvious". The corollary is that the effect was non-obvious and as a result probably even totally unforseen.

Obvious means it is impossible not to notice it. Non-obvious doesn't mean completely hidden, just that you may have to open your eyes to see it.

I'll grant that if a good person knowingly does something that 1000 years down the line will cause babies to be slaughtered, then that's an evil act. The key word there is "knowingly".

A button is connected to a random number generator. A dial can be set that determines what the maximum number that can be generated is with no maximum, minimum is 0. If you press the button and the number generated is 0, an axe falls and kills a baby.

What number would you have to set the dial to in order for it not to be an Evil act to press the button?

Just trying to figure out exactly what you mean by "knowingly".

For extra credit, if the number isn't 0, you are killed; you are forced to press the button. What number is a morally neutral then?

My answers:
No number is big enough
0

But that's an argument for the stupid being held just as accountable as the intelligent. Shouldn't smart people be held to a higher standard? And, how can we expect dumb people to calculate years ahead, when they can't even plan out tomorrow's menu?

Yes, stupid people are just as accountable as smart ones. So are insane ones. Remember, in FFH and derivatives, Good is an objective thing; but I think it applies in real life too.

That means that dumb people will not be as extremely Good as smart people. They also lack the intelligence for real Evil.

Luckily, the most foreseeable things will probably dominate the morality-value, so more obscure outcomes can probably be ignored.

That's hardly any fun at all. Humans are the same as orcs? Bannor the same as Svaltafar? Mostly neutral with just a veneer of culture?

I on the other hand, wouldn't find it as fun if the fantasy worlds were completely lacking any resemblance to real life.

In real life, I agree. In Fantasy, I don't. Mostly because in real life we don't haveother races. Most Fantasy (particularly D&D, which FFH is modeled after Kael's campaign) presents humans as the "central" neutral race, able to go in the direction of any alignment's bent. While specific demihuman races are more polar. But even with human societies the culture is very strong and hardly ever presented as a veneer.

You've never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/) or the Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)? Or Grigori Rasputin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin) and Ron Hubbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)?

Sure, we like to think that we are smart, free, brave people, with a strong culture as you say. We are not, everything we believe in can be changed at the drop of a hat. There are exceptions, for instance techniques that can be used to retain truth or brief. Previous exposure to similar situations help.

No. I said they were equally as good.

But Bertrand had committed Evil! His ratio of Good to Evil was lower.

Not if the people writing the Laws are all Bertrands.

Not even then. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

So, two people are good. By doing an evil act, because a law required it, person A is equally as good as person B who did not do that act?

No. Good actions can be negated if you follow a law, Evil actions can't.

Our concepts are so far apart that this does not even compute to my thinking. It is entirely possible to have a completely LG society. Law can be evil but can exist and thrive without being evil.

It seems that you don't believe that being Good requires spending resources.

I do. Often, the resources can be spent on both being Good and Lawful, but not always. If nothing else because you can do more Good by being Chaotic. Thus a fully Good person will always be more Good than a Lawful Good person. (Given that they both had the same amount of resources.)

Not even babies?

Babies are usually members of the society if their parents are. The same rule applies to them: innocent, guilty or outsiders.

Wodan

Dec 19, 2009, 06:02 AM

No a Lawful Good society will not be running Orthodox Order. Orthodox Order is fully Lawful Neutral. Any practice of Order in a Good society of any kind, must be less than fully Lawful Neutral and thus not orthodox.
Why?

(1+0i) is not equal to (1+i). In the same way it is impossible to be both Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral at the same time. Just as impossible as it is to be Lawful and Chaotic at the same time, for the same reason.
Why?

Could it be that you haven't understood that when I write "Lawful", I mean "Lawful Neutral", not "Lawful of any variety"?
Yes, I did not understand that. Just as I wouldn't understand if you said you like ice cream, but anytime you said "ice cream" you meant "chocolate ice cream". ;)

Orthodox Order has laws for everything.
"Everything" is infinite and thus impossible. In addition, they clearly would not have laws which require and impose Chaos, therefore "everything" is clearly a false statement, so you are incorrect.

I maintain that an Orthodox-LG-Order would not have laws which require or impose Evil.

I on the other hand, wouldn't find it as fun if the fantasy worlds were completely lacking any resemblance to real life.
Differences do not equate to "completely lacking any resemblance". Otherwise, we should argue for the removal of magic, the removal of nonhumans, and the addition of modern technology.

You've never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/) or the Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)? Or Grigori Rasputin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin) and Ron Hubbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)?

Sure, we like to think that we are smart, free, brave people, with a strong culture as you say. We are not, everything we believe in can be changed at the drop of a hat. There are exceptions, for instance techniques that can be used to retain truth or brief. Previous exposure to similar situations help.
You just demonstrated and argued for my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I said?

But Bertrand had committed Evil! His ratio of Good to Evil was lower.
He did? I missed that. If Bertrand committed an evil act, then yes he is more evil (less good) than someone who commits many fewer good acts and no evil acts.

Not even then. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far.
Then you can't imagine a LG society. (To your credit, you did say that [paraphrasing] to you, all societies are neutral with a veneer of another alignment. Personally, I don't view it that way, at all. To me, a LG society is composed of predominantly LG people.)

No. Good actions can be negated if you follow a law, Evil actions can't.
That makes no sense.

Babies are usually members of the society if their parents are. The same rule applies to them: innocent, guilty or outsiders.
You sidestepped the issue. You said no outsiders are innocent. Therefore, it is OK for Good people to kill babies of other societies. To me, this is an evil act.

It seems that you don't believe that being Good requires spending resources.
Correct. I believe that deeds demonstrate a morality, but are not required to have a morality.

I do. Often, the resources can be spent on both being Good and Lawful, but not always. If nothing else because you can do more Good by being Chaotic. Thus a fully Good person will always be more Good than a Lawful Good person. (Given that they both had the same amount of resources.)
Interesting concepts. But I don't understand how you can do more Good by being Chaotic Neutral.

(You *do* mean "Chaotic Neutral" every time you say "Chaotic", right?) ;)

Imuratep

Dec 19, 2009, 07:17 AM

I consider this discussion very interesting as it centers on two very important questions: Should we apply medieval moral standards (which empathizes the RPG-factor of FFH) or modern moral standards (which empathizes personal identification with the alignment categories) on FFH? What is better: Chaotic Good or Lawful Good?
I think that chaotic good meaning more good than lawful good is not true in most circumstances. It is true if the chaotic good person has the oversight about the consequences of his deeds for the whole society, not just for a small part of it. But to have this overview a single person or a group of benevolents has to make big, long reflections about the current structure of the society they want to change or it will hurt innocents by helping innocents. A liberator of the surpressed peasants has to show them perspectives for their life without the surpression. Laws on the other hand are designed to ensure an acceptable life for all members of the society taking account of a maximum number of factors. Since a very long decade people have thought about a just society they don't have to be designed new by every single person and thus avoid overlooking small but important details that are essential to avoid suffering. Chaotic good aligned movements tend to condemn the whole goverment they are fighting and thus forget the actual sense of the laws the "suppressors" made.
An example: Serfdom. Along present day's moral standards it is pure suppression. But during the medieval ages it was absolutely necessary. Without it thousands of peasants would have starved as they didn't have the money to buy their own lands. Nobility on the other hand did need the high taxes as otherwise their country would have been overrun by the other countries. A group that ends this suppression would have needed the capacities to give the peasants an adequate substitution for their current life and the capacities to defend their country from the other countries.
That this has been unsuccessful can be seen by the example of movements as great as the French revolution (a classical example of a chaotic good movement). It did lack both the projection to know what to do after ending royalism (as it was a spontaneous movement reacting on short term problems) and the capacities to build something new as it was isolated in Europe. That's why it necessarily had to cause great misery like Robespierre's reign of terror (and many liberal contemporaries did actually disapprove of the revolution as they thought that a such great change had to be prepared much better). Without a dictator like Napoleon (that most certainly has no good alignment) France would have collapsed soon and the other royalist countries would have feasted on the cadaver of France to destroy the seed of all liberal thought.
That's why I think neither lawful good nor chaotic good is the best alignment, but neutral good or a collaboration between lawful good and chaotic good (like Sabathiel working on the laws and Ethne pointing on the grievance that is still existing).

odalrick

Dec 19, 2009, 07:37 AM

Why?

Why?

Now you're just saying why for no reason. If 1 = 2 then you are a small hamlet outside outside of Liverpool.

A world where logic doesn't work is utterly incomprehensible.

I maintain that an Orthodox-LG-Order would not have laws which require or impose Evil.

And I maintain that Lawful Good Order is not orthodox, because Order is fully Lawful and thus have no resources to spare on being Good. (*)

Differences do not equate to "completely lacking any resemblance". Otherwise, we should argue for the removal of magic, the removal of nonhumans, and the addition of modern technology.

True, but some differences are more jarring than others. For me, having everyone be cardboard cut-outs of a single morality would be very jarring.

You just demonstrated and argued for my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I said?

Culture and morality can be swapped neigh instantly. What I got from your statements was that is was hard.

He did? I missed that. If Bertrand committed an evil act, then yes he is more evil (less good) than someone who commits many fewer good acts and no evil acts.

Stole a ribbon... was meant to be a tiny Evil act. Substitute "stepped on a spider" or whatever you think is a minor Evil act.

Then you can't imagine a LG society. (To your credit, you did say that [paraphrasing] to you, all societies are neutral with a veneer of another alignment. Personally, I don't view it that way, at all. To me, a LG society is composed of predominantly LG people.)

But if their culture and morality can be changed as easily as the Stanford experiment showed, are they really Lawful Good?

I suppose they could be if alignment is free.(*)

That makes no sense.

Good is not just Evil in reverse. If you kill a man, you can't make up for it by having a kid. Yet: "kill a man" = -1 life; "have a kid" = +1 life .

You sidestepped the issue. You said no outsiders are innocent. Therefore, it is OK for Good people to kill babies of other societies. To me, this is an evil act.

No, I said it's okay for Lawful people to kill them. Good people try not to kill anyone; innocent, guilty or outsider.

Correct. I believe that deeds demonstrate a morality, but are not required to have a morality.

* This must be the heart of our disagreement.

Interesting concepts. But I don't understand how you can do more Good by being Chaotic Neutral.

By not doing something Lawful Evil. Even if no laws are Lawful Evil, it's not that hard to imagine a Chaotic Good act.

Opera

Dec 19, 2009, 07:51 AM

Substitute "stepped on a spider" or whatever you think is a minor Evil act.Wut, killing spider is working for the Ultimate Goodly Good :p

Deon

Dec 19, 2009, 10:04 AM

Spiders are good! They catch and kill mosquitos and flies!

Wodan

Dec 19, 2009, 10:28 AM

Now you're just saying why for no reason.
You're tossing out platitudes as if they were truisms.

Instead of saying "why", if you prefer I can say "citation needed" or "you need to demonstrate why that statement is true".

A world where logic doesn't work is utterly incomprehensible.
I totally agree! We should use logic to try to get to the bottom of our debate.

And I maintain that Lawful Good Order is not orthodox, because Order is fully Lawful and thus have no resources to spare on being Good. (*)
Given your assumptions, I can grant that would be true (if your assumptions are valid; perhaps we should examine both your and my assumptions instead of debating the conclusions based upon them).

Though... wouldn't the same be true of evil? Orthodox Order is fully lawful and thus would have no resources to spare on being Evil? I believe you previously said that Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral. Right?

True, but some differences are more jarring than others. For me, having everyone be cardboard cut-outs of a single morality would be very jarring.
CIV doesn't examine people in an individual level. It's on a society (a civ) level. Since the makeup of individuals is not part of the game, there's no way you could be "jarred".

Culture and morality can be swapped neigh instantly. What I got from your statements was that is was hard.
You mean "nigh"?

I can see how from your viewpoint, where "culture" and "morality" are a superficial veneer which defines one society from another but people are a huge morass of neutrality that otherwise are identical, this would be true. However, to me, culture is based upon everything that has gone before and a society has an inertia and a belief structure that forms its morality that is distinct and different from other societies.

The United States can't simply conquer Iraq, impose democratic rule, and wholah! instant U.S. Junior. It doesn't work that way. The arabic people are very different and have very different beliefs and culture than people in the U.S. I don't think anybody thought it would be that easy. (The reason the U.S. even tried is to make a *start* of it... by starting Iraq down the path, it would begin to sway the culture and, with peace, would eventually change their society. But it would take hundreds of years, if not longer.)

Stole a ribbon... was meant to be a tiny Evil act. Substitute "stepped on a spider" or whatever you think is a minor Evil act.
I don't think stepping on a spider is always evil.

That aside. He's still less good than someone who has never committed a minor Evil act. He intentionally stole a ribbon, capriciously, and without paying for it. Surely he had the copper pence to pay for it, yet chose to stole.

I'm not saying he's all of a sudden totally evil. Just that he's moved himself down the good Axis a bit.

But if their culture and morality can be changed as easily as the Stanford experiment showed, are they really Lawful Good?
Yes. Current alignment does not measure capacity for fidelity. It measures actuality.

I suppose they could be if alignment is free.(*)
Even if it is not free, if they have not yet done anything, in heart or deed, then their alignment is unchanged.

Good is not just Evil in reverse. If you kill a man, you can't make up for it by having a kid.
What? Yet you say Bertram is more good than Chad, because Bertram has this accumulated wealth of good deeds, which make up for stealing a ribbon.

I think I see what you are saying. "Good actions can be negated; evil actions can't." I disagree, though. If Bertram steals a ribbon, has a crisis of conscience, and gives it back; heck, goes out and buys 10 of them and gives them all to the person, then he has made "whole" the person who suffered from the theft.

Likewise, someone who's evil, and steals, then decides to give it back, does not gain the affirmation of "evilness" from the theft.

It brings up an interesting point, though. If someone, anyone, lives in a society whose alignment does not match their individual alignment, then eventually a conflict will arise. The individual will have to make a choice to break either the convention of the society OR his own convictions. If the latter, then his alignment will move to match that of the society (which matches my assertion: that societies have a firm and distinct alignment).

If the former, then this will cause conflict. e.g., the individual breaks a law, or enforces a law upon others where the society doesn't have one, or does good deeds where the society encourages evil ones, or evil where the society encourages good ones. The resulting conflict could take the form of the police coming after the guy, a lynch mob, a personal fistfight, or simply a vengeful neighbor.

No, I said it's okay for Lawful people to kill them. Good people try not to kill anyone; innocent, guilty or outsider.
It's not ok for Lawful Neutral people to kill them, as that is an evil act. Its only OK for lawful evil people to kill them.

* This must be the heart of our disagreement.
One of them, I agree.

By not doing something Lawful Evil. Even if no laws are Lawful Evil, it's not that hard to imagine a Chaotic Good act.
What's imaging a CG act have to do with it?

I think you're trying to say that you don't have to spend as much resources being chaotic as you do being lawful. Therefore, you can spend more of your limited resources being good if you're chaotic. Thus, a CG person has the capacity to be more good than a LG person. (right?)

Grey Fox

Dec 19, 2009, 10:31 AM

I consider this discussion very interesting as it centers on two very important questions: Should we apply medieval moral standards (which empathizes the RPG-factor of FFH) or modern moral standards (which empathizes personal identification with the alignment categories) on FFH?

What is better: Chaotic Good or Lawful Good?

I think that chaotic good meaning more good than lawful good is not true in most circumstances. It is true if the chaotic good person has the oversight about the consequences of his deeds for the whole society, not just for a small part of it. But to have this overview a single person or a group of benevolents has to make big, long reflections about the current structure of the society they want to change or it will hurt innocents by helping innocents. A liberator of the surpressed peasants has to show them perspectives for their life without the surpression.

Laws on the other hand are designed to ensure an acceptable life for all members of the society taking account of a maximum number of factors. Since a very long decade people have thought about a just society they don't have to be designed new by every single person and thus avoid overlooking small but important details that are essential to avoid suffering.

Chaotic good aligned movements tend to condemn the whole goverment they are fighting and thus forget the actual sense of the laws the "suppressors" made.

An example: Serfdom. Along present day's moral standards it is pure suppression. But during the medieval ages it was absolutely necessary. Without it thousands of peasants would have starved as they didn't have the money to buy their own lands. Nobility on the other hand did need the high taxes as otherwise their country would have been overrun by the other countries. A group that ends this suppression would have needed the capacities to give the peasants an adequate substitution for their current life and the capacities to defend their country from the other countries.

That this has been unsuccessful can be seen by the example of movements as great as the French revolution (a classical example of a chaotic good movement). It did lack both the projection to know what to do after ending royalism (as it was a spontaneous movement reacting on short term problems) and the capacities to build something new as it was isolated in Europe.

That's why it necessarily had to cause great misery like Robespierre's reign of terror (and many liberal contemporaries did actually disapprove of the revolution as they thought that a such great change had to be prepared much better).

Without a dictator like Napoleon (that most certainly has no good alignment) France would have collapsed soon and the other royalist countries would have feasted on the cadaver of France to destroy the seed of all liberal thought.

That's why I think neither lawful good nor chaotic good is the best alignment, but neutral good or a collaboration between lawful good and chaotic good (like Sabathiel working on the laws and Ethne pointing on the grievance that is still existing).

I paragraphed your post a bit for easier reading, since it was worth the read, and figured more would read it this way. No offense ;)

Wodan

Dec 19, 2009, 10:37 AM

I paragraphed your post a bit for easier reading, since it was worth the read, and figured more would read it this way. No offense ;)

I had the same trouble. A lot of good thoughts there regardless.

Lone Wolf

Dec 19, 2009, 10:40 AM

Spiders are good! They catch and kill mosquitos and flies!

We need to start a petition to change these Archos guys to Good, then!

Opera

Dec 19, 2009, 11:14 AM

Nah, spiders are evil incarnate :p

Wodan

Dec 19, 2009, 11:37 AM

Spiders are good! They catch and kill mosquitos and flies!

We need to start a petition to change these Archos guys to Good, then!
Nah, spiders are evil incarnate :p
Spiders kill innocent bugs and mosquitos, true, but the hapless insects are not in the spider society, so it doesn't count. Thus, the spiders are in fact Good. Lawful Good, actually, since the spider society does indeed have Laws which govern the killing of bugs.

Deon

Dec 19, 2009, 11:50 AM

Oh, we need to recruit some to hunt the bugs of RiFE 1.20 then!

And yeah, Spiders are not evil, they just have a differnet logic, and also they hunt species which are very different to them, like humans hunt animals.
Thus they may be considered evil from the HUMAN point of view, but in any case they're not chaotic. Spider power government structure should be law-abiding and strict, thus lawful.

Opera

Dec 19, 2009, 12:18 PM

Evil, that's all I have to say :p

odalrick

Dec 19, 2009, 06:55 PM

You're tossing out platitudes as if they were truisms.

Instead of saying "why", if you prefer I can say "citation needed" or "you need to demonstrate why that statement is true".

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You can't be both Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good at the same time, because those are two different alignments. It's like trying to explain why "up" isn't "left".

Though... wouldn't the same be true of evil? Orthodox Order is fully lawful and thus would have no resources to spare on being Evil? I believe you previously said that Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral. Right?

Yes. I never meant that they can only be Lawful Evil, just that I personally dislike any Order society more than I do other Any Evil societies. They're "evil" not "Evil".

I think I see what you are saying. "Good actions can be negated; evil actions can't." I disagree, though. If Bertram steals a ribbon, has a crisis of conscience, and gives it back; heck, goes out and buys 10 of them and gives them all to the person, then he has made "whole" the person who suffered from the theft.

Likewise, someone who's evil, and steals, then decides to give it back, does not gain the affirmation of "evilness" from the theft.

You can make up for Evil acts, just not by "doing them in reverse". It's not enough to just give back the ribbon. If you kill someone, it's not enough to resurrect them; and especially not having a kid. It's strange since they are each others opposites, taking a life and giving a life.

Ditto for Good actions. Saving someone's life at great risk is Good, refraining from saving him isn't Evil.

Of course one could argue that my examples aren't the opposite action, they just look like they are.

What's imaging a CG act have to do with it?

I think you're trying to say that you don't have to spend as much resources being chaotic as you do being lawful. Therefore, you can spend more of your limited resources being good if you're chaotic. Thus, a CG person has the capacity to be more good than a LG person. (right?)

No, you have to spend resources to maintain any alignment. If you don't, you'll move towards Neutral/Neutral by the law of averages. But if you don't bother about your position on the Chaotic/Lawful axis, you will have more resources available for being Good/Evil.

If you are Lawful Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Chaotic Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available.

The assumption is that opportunities for alignment change is random. Living in Lawful Good society will skew the distribution towards Lawful Good by filtering out some not-Lawful Good opportunities.

Wodan

Dec 20, 2009, 07:40 AM

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You can't be both Lawful Neutral and Lawful Good at the same time, because those are two different alignments. It's like trying to explain why "up" isn't "left".
Yeah, it's because I think it they will choose which of the non-specific axis they are in each game while you think Orthodox people are required to be neutral on the non-specific axis.

And so, by that definition, I understand (but don't agree with though I'm starting to have doubts) the requirement that orthodox order is lawful neutral. By extrapolation, orthodox RoK must be neutral good, orthodox empyrean must be neutral good also, orthodox fellowship must be chaotic neutral, orthodox OO must be chaotic neutral, and orthodox AV must be neutral evil.

Curious... do you agree with all those requirements as well as the one for Orthodox Order?

Yes. I never meant that they can only be Lawful Evil, just that I personally dislike any Order society more than I do other Any Evil societies. They're "evil" not "Evil".
I'd suggest not to use a game term in some other definition of the English language... just causes confusion during discussions. :) (I can be bad on this too but it's something I've noticed before so I try to avoid it.)

You can make up for Evil acts, just not by "doing them in reverse". It's not enough to just give back the ribbon. If you kill someone, it's not enough to resurrect them; and especially not having a kid. It's strange since they are each others opposites, taking a life and giving a life.
Why isn't it enough? (We need an answer to that question to determine what would be enough.)

Ditto for Good actions. Saving someone's life at great risk is Good, refraining from saving him isn't Evil.
That's not comparable. Doing/not doing are not opposites in the same way as taking/giving back.

Need an answer to the first and a better example to the second before I can really respond to the concept (orther than what I previously said which is

Of course one could argue that my examples aren't the opposite action, they just look like they are.
See above.

To a great extent, the point of "opposite" is sophistry anyway. To me, the issue in question is making the situation whole. If you steal an item from somebody, to make them whole we need to not only restore the future availability of the item (in the same condition as it would have been) but we need to compensate for the lost availability of the item while it was gone.

If the item was returned before it was noticed to be missing, then that would be sufficient to restore the situation. If the person not only noticed it was missing, but needed it for something, that's when additional measures are necessary. Otherwise, there will be some degree of movement on the good/evil axis which remains.

Same is true for any other good/evil act than theft.

No, you have to spend resources to maintain any alignment. If you don't, you'll move towards Neutral/Neutral by the law of averages. But if you don't bother about your position on the Chaotic/Lawful axis, you will have more resources available for being Good/Evil.

If you are Lawful Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Chaotic Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available.
That confused me... I thought at question was your statement (paraphrased) that Chaotic can be more good than Lawful. So, shouldn't the above say "If you are Chaotic Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Lawful Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available."

If so, then the only way it would work is if the CG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a LG act (= an act which is required by the laws of the LG society). But the converse would also be true: A LG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a CG act (= an act which is required by the CG society). With the assumption that a LG society has more such laws than the CG society (though "laws" might be the wrong word because presumably a CG society has conventions or traditions or whatever that implement the CG nature of the society). Which I suppose might be the case.

odalrick

Dec 20, 2009, 08:48 AM

Yeah, it's because I think it they will choose which of the non-specific axis they are in each game while you think Orthodox people are required to be neutral on the non-specific axis.

And so, by that definition, I understand (but don't agree with though I'm starting to have doubts) the requirement that orthodox order is lawful neutral. By extrapolation, orthodox RoK must be neutral good, orthodox empyrean must be neutral good also, orthodox fellowship must be chaotic neutral, orthodox OO must be chaotic neutral, and orthodox AV must be neutral evil.

Curious... do you agree with all those requirements as well as the one for Orthodox Order?

Yes. By orthodox I meant the original, uncorrupted message from the god in question. I never even considered the possibility that that might change from game to game. And by that same logic Orthodox Any religion has a particular alignment that never changes, even in different games. (Only the more than godlike patch-magic can change that.)

edit:
Also only Ashen Veil and Order is have so extreme alignments that they cannot tolerate others.

To a great extent, the point of "opposite" is sophistry anyway. To me, the issue in question is making the situation whole. If you steal an item from somebody, to make them whole we need to not only restore the future availability of the item (in the same condition as it would have been) but we need to compensate for the lost availability of the item while it was gone.

If the item was returned before it was noticed to be missing, then that would be sufficient to restore the situation. If the person not only noticed it was missing, but needed it for something, that's when additional measures are necessary. Otherwise, there will be some degree of movement on the good/evil axis which remains.

Same is true for any other good/evil act than theft.

To a great extent, I agree with you. I don't think giving back a stolen ribbon is a Good act, more like making one less Evil. Also, I think you'd have to compensate for potential damage as well; damage that could have happened, but didn't.

That confused me... I thought at question was your statement (paraphrased) that Chaotic can be more good than Lawful. So, shouldn't the above say "If you are Chaotic Good then occasionally you will have opportunities to do Lawful Good acts, that move you further along the Good/Evil axis than any Lawful Good, or even Neutral Good action available."

That too. There are 2.25 million distinct alignments in the game, I didn't feel like doing all that typing.

If so, then the only way it would work is if the CG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a LG act (= an act which is required by the laws of the LG society). But the converse would also be true: A LG person does not get "Good credit" for doing a CG act (= an act which is required by the CG society). With the assumption that a LG society has more such laws than the CG society (though "laws" might be the wrong word because presumably a CG society has conventions or traditions or whatever that implement the CG nature of the society). Which I suppose might be the case.

Crudely put: Lawful works by saying "Either do what I say or I'll bash your teeth in.". So any action that you do only to keep your teeth is not-Good. You weren't altruistic, you just selfishly wanted to keep your teeth. However, if you did a better job than was strictly necessary to keep your teeth, got get a small Good-shift.

In the world according to Junil, no one even considers disobedience, so the bashing of teeth isn't necessary. Doing more than what was needed is also not following the laws. "I asked you to feed ten orphans, how dare you feed eleven!?! Off to the gallows with you!"

Chaotic says: "Do whatever you want.". That includes the freedom to starve when you cant find food, freeze when you cant find shelter and feed orphans because some asstard says he'll bash your teeth in if you don't.

I've realized I'm thinking more along the lines of four axes, Chaotic, Lawful, Good and Evil. Moving up on Lawful usually means going down on Chaotic, but not always. A single action could be both Evil and Good.

That's not the way the game works though, some some of my conclusions so far are wrong.

Wodan

Dec 20, 2009, 10:56 AM

Yes. By orthodox I meant the original, uncorrupted message from the god in question.
Gods, both in real life and in fantasy books, rpgs, etc. are notoriously poor communicators. The actual dogma is written down by the mortal priests. Particularly for orthodox, this is relevant.

To me, "orthodox" means particularly strident enforcers of the dogma (and willingness of the people to voluntarily follow it). Since the dogma are mortal interpretations of what the god is reputed to have said, often literal interpretations instead of figurative, it means orthodox probably really isn't how the god would do it if the god was down here and in charge on a daily basis.

To me, the "message" is a guideline and not an set of rules that cover every possible instance down to the last detail. The guidelines must be interpreted, yes. How strictly the interpretation is followed and/or enforced determines whether a religion is orthodox or not.

I never even considered the possibility that that might change from game to game.
Maybe we should talk about that then?

And by that same logic Orthodox Any religion has a particular alignment that never changes, even in different games. (Only the more than godlike patch-magic can change that.)
Depends on defintion of "Orthodox" (see above for my thoughts).

Also only Ashen Veil and Order is have so extreme alignments that they cannot tolerate others.
Conceptually, I might agree with that (for orthodox implementations of the religion). But note that the implementation in the game doesn't work that way.

Crudely put: Lawful works by saying "Either do what I say or I'll bash your teeth in.". So any action that you do only to keep your teeth is not-Good. You weren't altruistic, you just selfishly wanted to keep your teeth.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. That said, anytime someone does something good when they have multiple motives (besides altruism), it diminishes the "goodness" of the action.

So, doing somthing good, even when the police / society says you have to do it or suffer a penalty, is still a Good act. Not as Good as doing it of your own volition (if the law didn't exist).

In the world according to Junil, no one even considers disobedience, so the bashing of teeth isn't necessary. Doing more than what was needed is also not following the laws. "I asked you to feed ten orphans, how dare you feed eleven!?! Off to the gallows with you!"
We differ there. If there is no law regarding something, then the citizen has no guidance. So the citizen is free to do the thing, or to not do it, without ramification under the Law.

Chaotic says: "Do whatever you want."
Not quite there. Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want.

That includes the freedom to starve when you cant find food, freeze when you cant find shelter
That's where Good comes in. There's nothing prohibiting altruism, and in fact, in a CG society there would be quite a bit of it. (In a CE society, absolutely none at all.)

and feed orphans because some asstard says he'll bash your teeth in if you don't.
See 2 above.

I've realized I'm thinking more along the lines of four axes, Chaotic, Lawful, Good and Evil. Moving up on Lawful usually means going down on Chaotic, but not always. A single action could be both Evil and Good.

That's not the way the game works though, some some of my conclusions so far are wrong.
I've been arguing from the viewpoint of my understanding of the proposed / current implementation and the traditional D&D 2 axis sytem.

odalrick

Dec 20, 2009, 11:19 AM

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. That said, anytime someone does something good when they have multiple motives (besides altruism), it diminishes the "goodness" of the action.

So, doing somthing good, even when the police / society says you have to do it or suffer a penalty, is still a Good act. Not as Good as doing it of your own volition (if the law didn't exist).

Most of the time the Good you do from following the law is greater than what you would lose by not following it, usually because there is only a chance the law will be enforced. Then there is a Good "surplus".

But that's just nitpicking, as long as the value is lowered by non-Good motives, I agree in principle.

Not quite there. Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want.

No, that's less than fully Chaotic. Fully Chaotic is "do whatever you want".

I've been arguing from the viewpoint of my understanding of the proposed / current implementation and the traditional D&D 2 axis sytem.

So have I. I only just realized that four axes fit my model better, so obviously my model has been flawed.

Now that I've removed two axes from my model, I think we only differ in minor interpretations of the values. For instance exactly how Lawful/Chaotic Order is.

Valkrionn

Dec 20, 2009, 12:42 PM

To me, "orthodox" means particularly strident enforcers of the dogma (and willingness of the people to voluntarily follow it). Since the dogma are mortal interpretations of what the god is reputed to have said, often literal interpretations instead of figurative, it means orthodox probably really isn't how the god would do it if the god was down here and in charge on a daily basis.

Orthodox to me (at least in game) varies each game, based on who founds the religion. A Bannor Order is different from a Kuriotates Order.

For now there's really no ingame function there, but there will be something similar eventually when Thomas.Berubeg starts up on Religious Schisms again. ;)

No, that's less than fully Chaotic. Fully Chaotic is "do whatever you want".

Chaotic Good - "Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want."

Chaotic - "Do whatever you want"

Chaotic Evil - "Do whatever you want, despite how it may impact others"

Imuratep

Dec 20, 2009, 06:57 PM

I paragraphed your post a bit for easier reading, since it was worth the read, and figured more would read it this way. No offense ;)

No problem, I don't feel offended. I was typing it in the university library and I saw that my course was beginning soon. As it was on a public computer I couldn't save it to rework it later and I didn't want to write it again. Fortunately now that my own computer is repaired I will finally have internet for my own again.

thomas.berubeg

Dec 20, 2009, 09:07 PM

I'de just like to interject that spiders are clearly Evil: WAAAAAAY too many legs and eyes and things. clearly evil and spawn of hell.

Deon

Dec 21, 2009, 04:58 AM

You're xenophobic. You're evil :).

Gladi

Dec 25, 2009, 08:50 AM

Chaotic Good - "Do whatever you want up until the point where it infringes on the rights of others to do what they want."

Chaotic - "Do whatever you want"

Chaotic Evil - "Do whatever you want, despite how it may impact others"

So how are Chaotic and Chaotic evil different? If I want to adorn my house at Christmas with butchered carcasses of newborns, how is it more Chaotic Evil than Chaotic? And what will Chaotic Good person do to me? Can he infringe on my right do what I want (butchering newborns and hanging their carcasess on display) to do?

Personally I see Chaotic/Lawful as Personal versus Rational law.

In lawful state a killing will always be judged by the same laws. There will be a system, which says when it is crime, when there are mitigating circumstances and what the penalties are. In such a society a judge or civil official is not a person- he does not make personal decisions. With the crime it does not matter if you get judge A, B or C- their decisions will be same, because they are following the same LAW. Everyone is jedged the same, no people are favoured over other irrationally.

Chaotic society disdains schemas. Humans are not machines and not every piece of human fate can be fit into imperfectable system. A judge or civil official have to decide as human being. He has to take you as whole. When you are judged for crime, it all depends on which judge you get and how he feels, about you, about the crime, about the victim, about the circumstances. Judge A can congratulate you for service to society, judge B can say that there have been enoug mitigating circumstances to warrant only a lesser penalty and judge C may see you hanged.

Treason

Dec 26, 2009, 07:52 PM

Alright, my own take on these things.

Lawful Good: As a pure alignment, it's the "do-gooder" view point. It encompasses the "Righteous Crusader" and the average decent, law-abiding citizen. They have good intentions, compassion for others, and try to enact, enforce and follows laws that reflect this.

Lawful: The good of the individual is nothing compared to the Rule of Law and the many. Order is paramount in this person's view point. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. It's not malicious nor uncaring, it's just a total belief and willingness to obey the law, above themselves, above all else.

Lawful Evil: The sorts that follow this personal creed are those that believe in the frame work of law, so that it benefits them above all else. They like working within the rules, as it can give them a sense that they are now superior to anyone else who follows the same, and can exploit others' lawfulness for their personal gain. They work best with other Lawfully inclined individuals, as they can be trusted to follow the rules. They may not give a damn about them personally, but they at least share a commonality in that they all agree that rules, and following/upholding them, are important.

Neutral: Setting aside the idea of "balance," I view this as the epitome of "don't care," or "survival." Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, whatever, so long as I survive. That is all. Anything to survive. Hermits that wish to be left alone are "neutral" in my eye.

Chaotic: Someone who enshrines the ideals of "chaos" loves tearing down order, social norms and laws as they have some sort of personal need to "fight against the man" or whatever constraints are put on them. They're anarchic and believe in the supremacy of personal choice above everything. Often, this is their personal choice, only. To me, this has overtones of being the ultimate in "destructive selfishness." So long as they get and do what they want, that's all they care about. They jump about and follow whatever law or group happens to align with their particular want of the moment, only to abandon it or even tear it down, simply because they wish. Sociopaths (or your typical 16 year-old), to me, are "chaotic" incarnate.

Chaotic Good: Social norms and law are only of use when they fall in line with the individual's ideals of what is or is not "good." Laws are too entrapping for this individual. They might love and respect the laws of their lands/people/whatever, but finds that they just can't get the good that they know can be done, while working within the "strait and narrow." Vigilantes and such, those striking out against what they see as tyrannical laws, decent individuals who genuinely care and have compassion for others but can not stand following the rules of society; these are all chaotic good individuals.

Chaotic Evil: Selfishness, sadism, brutality, all these things are held by those who follow a personal code of "chaotic evil." They are in the "chaotic" inclined individual's selfishness, but it's marked by a callowness, and uncaring attitude for another's pain and suffering, or an active desire to inflict pain and suffering upon another. Psychopaths are a good example of "chaotic evil." They can have friends, they can love, but it's a twisted thing from what is considered the norm.

Viatos

Dec 27, 2009, 02:03 AM

Since it's a DnD alignment system (with the wrinkle of True Neutral and 'Neutral Neutral' being different, never heard of that before) I'd also like to contribute definitions. Defined by a wiser DM then I:

Guide to DnD Alignment
--------------------------------
Lawful - In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system...
Neutral - In a logical and balanced way...
Chaotic - By whatever means necessary...

Good - ...improve the situation of innocents and decent people.
Neutral - ...maintain balance and justice.
Evil - ...increase your own power and improve your situation.
--------------------------------

The Order is the extreme of Lawful Neutral, a fanatic religion commanded by an undeniably extant god. In many ways, ironically, the extremism of the higher power involved replicate the Chaotic Neutral alignment.

Perpentach is exactly what this system was designed to avoid, a man as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, known in the DnD lexicon as the phenomena of "Chaotic Stupid". However, Perpentach is also insane, and thus may be considered a Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil leader whose ideas of balance, justice, or improving his situation are so corrupted as to be unrecognizable to others.

Edit: I should also note that this is a guide for making characters in DnD, where the philosophy of apathy beyond personal survival is largely pointless (unlike a movie or a book, where such a character can be Deus Ex Machina'd through the plot as necessary without issue, a roleplaying environment often degrades from such heavy-handed storytelling) and the ability to pre-build characters as sadistic monsters is generally undesirable. Thus, a Chaotic Evil character may not fit an epic fantasy's definiton of EVIL - but since nothing stops someone adding traits like sadism, antipathy towards life, or a universal deathwish to such characters, it doesn't actually conflict it.

KillerClowns

Jan 02, 2010, 11:36 PM

Sorry I'm late to the party; finally found my original Civ IV disc... anyways.
I don't buy Perpy as Chaotic Neutral, and am a bit iffy about Keelyn as Chaotic Evil.
Perpentach: The man's a psycho, through and through. He's insane, but he's a very nasty sort of insane. I'd say he's quite a bit more likely to torture you to death while giggling and sipping absinthe than to give you a pie and let you go home, and even if you do get the pie, you'll probably find out later it contains your children.
Keelyn is an interesting case; I'd say she better fits Chaotic Neutral, even though under AI control that will usually be a temporary case until she goes AV and gets a hearty shove towards Chaotic Evil. But she's sympathetic and malleable enough that, in different circumstances (especially if she's under somebody's direct control) she could end up an unstable but not actively cruel wildcard, or even a genuinely decent person.

Grey Fox

Jan 03, 2010, 01:38 AM

I think I agree with that assessment

KillerClowns

Jan 03, 2010, 04:57 PM

Regarding the Order mechanics and allowing Evil to stay Evil: I've got an idea from a modmod I was planning but eventually scrapped. Make special Order buildings that have two versions, an evil and a good version. For example, an Inquisitor's Office and a Philosopher's Conclave. The Inquisitor's Office would be focused on hunting down those who have unorthodox views of the Order's tenants, while the Philosopher's Conclave would be about studying and interpreting the tenants, which would necessarily result in unorthodox interpretations. Both would render you more lawful, though. You could not build both in the same city, or at the very least, doing so would open up an event that would force you to choose one or the other. The evil versions would focus on building units faster and decreasing maintenance, while good would make units built better and give happiness, health, and other city bonuses.
One last thing. While Junil might be an uptight fanatic, I can't imagine him believing "the ends justify the means," so Evil nations shouldn't be able to build true Order priests. I'd like a "pretender" line of priests for evil nations that are only ostensibly serving Junil, but actually gaining power from, say, Aeron, and Sphener should turn into a Fallen Angel under Evil command, if he's buildable at all to the dark side.

Valkrionn

Jan 03, 2010, 05:06 PM

MagisterCultuum

Jan 03, 2010, 10:28 PM

While I rather like the idea of mutually exclusive religion specific buildings emphasizing different aspects of a faith (iirc Kael had already begun adding such "Advanced Temples to the main mod back in version 0.15 or so but they unfortunately got cut around the time I discovered the game), connecting the Order with Philosophers makes no sense at all. A Philosophers Conclave clearly sounds like an Empyrean building.

I'm not sure I really see the need for seperate units for the evil, false priests. You could simply make the spells available to them depend on alignment.

I was planning a while back to give CoE access to False Priests of every religion. (I long suspected that the corrupted Order that took over the Bannor Empire and persecuted all true believers was actually led by members of the Council of Esus. The Bazaar of Mammon pedia entry may imply that it was actually the Stewards of Inequity instead, but those two groups are known to be closely allied so ti could be both.) They would look real, have the same name, and even have promotions that look just like the real ones, but would not have the same spells. Actually, I'm not sure if I really wanted them to have any spells, except of course having access to Inquisition, which would work a bit differently for them. They would be allowed to use the spell in lands having the state religion that they appear to follow, and would be especially effective in removing their apparent/the owner's state religion from a city. As I had also planned to allow disciples access to a "Evangelist" promotion that allows them to spread their religion to other already built units, these would of course be able to spread CoE to units too.

Of course, the inability to let CoE civ's appear as if they have a different State Religion and Alignment makes this deception less effective.

In some of my versions I remove the State Religion prereq for Priests, but add the prereq to their spells. (On the extremes the priests gain alignment restrictions though.) That makes the False Priests a bit better, but still not perfect.

KillerClowns

Jan 04, 2010, 06:49 PM

MagisterCultuum

Jan 04, 2010, 07:22 PM

When I searched for the old advanced temples, the first relevant thing I found was one of my old posts (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6766078&postcount=4), which contained a quote of Kael's original implementation (without a link to it) plus my ideas for advanced temples for the religions that had just recently been introduced.

As you can see there, Kael's advanced temples for The Order were the Inquisitional Hall and the Managerial Office.

KillerClowns

Jan 04, 2010, 08:34 PM

That works excellently.
On another note, I was thinking. If we adopt the Order as having a unique spell set for followers of significantly non-standard alignment, perhaps the same should apply to the Ashen Veil and the Empyrean. (Esus, the Octopus Overlords, Cernunnos, and Kilmorph strike me as more willing to tolerate significantly misaligned followers; Esus would find some different way to manipulate them, the Overlords just plain don't care, Cernunnos is somewhat amoral, and Kilmorph, though basically benevolent, is focused more on tradition than right and wrong.)
The Order could draw from Aeron (or another Evil God, but I like Aeron for the purpose) as previously suggested, getting perverted versions of their previous spells, which emphasizes a "send meat into the grinder" philosophy. Bless could become Dark Blessing, and grant several points of extra strength... but with a chance of killing the unit on the next turn. Unyielding Order could become Mind Control... same effects as Unyielding Order, but in addition a military production increase, at the cost of GP points/Science.
Good Ashen Veil followers could draw from inner strength to get powers that combine light and dark. Ring of Flames could become Psychic Blast; similar damage but of a different damage type... perhaps 10% holy, followed by 10% unholy, to represent the odd position between light and dark held by Good AV followers... if that's possible. Summon Balor could summon a new unit of a similar theme. Call it a Twilight Angel for now, though I don't like that name. Think a Fallen Angel with both Holy and Unholy damage to its name, about equal to, but significantly different from, a Balor.
I've got nothing for Empyrean followers right now.

MagisterCultuum

Jan 04, 2010, 10:18 PM

Aeron is the only evil god as hierarchical and strict as Junil, but from the lore (especially the Bazaar of Mammon pedia entry) I suspect that it was Mammon whom The Order's corrupt priests served. It seems just like Mammon to be running both sides of the war between the Bannor and the Overlords, having his servant Hastur lead the more clearly malevolent side destines for failure while he personally guides the supposed good-guys to victory. It reminds me of Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious having his apprentice Count Duku/Darth Tyrranus lead the rebellion against the Republic so that he could use the war as an excuse to make himself emperor.

Confessors were actually created specifically for the war against the Burnt Priest, as Diviners, Exorcists, and Blood-letters. It could be that this was after the high Priests were corrupt, and that their "exorcisms" actually consisted or having a higher ranking demon of Mammon order his subservients to make themselves scarce for a while. Real Divination is more associated with the Empyrean than the order, but Mammon was the original god of foresight so if his creations maintain a portion of his original nature they could be the best diviners in Erebus.

Kael said that the corrupt priests prayers were never answered so they did not really have divine magic. However, The Tale of Saverous shows one corrupt confessor as being able to force Saverous to testify against Valin against his will. She may have had a limited form of mind control thanks to Mammon or his demons. This Confessor, a woman named Maraphene, had a what appeared to be a feathered serpent (to Galenna, and angel of Junil who was watching over Valin; it was invisible to the mortals) but was presumably a demon coiled around her neck and whispering in her ear. I'm not sure what god that demon would serve; its appearance could imply it was originally made by Amathaon, but it clearly is not serving that gentle good god now. Most fallen angels join Agares, but it could have chosen a different god.

I would think that those few Good people who worship the King of Hope would try to preserve the original meaning if his sphere. Despite what Kael says, I prefer to think that the original form of the fallen spheres can still be accessed, just that it is extremely hard to do without becoming corrupted.

Good men raised to follow The Ashen Veil would probably be especially loved by Sirona, and could get their power from her instead of Agares even if they think their power does come from Agares. She was once very close to Agares, and still firmly believes that there is good in him and that he will eventually be redeemed.

Kael has stated that, while not nearly as common as good angels turning bad, evil demons sometimes turn good. They can work their way out of hell by demonstrating the virtues opposite of those which turn the souls of mortals into demons, and can end up becoming angels of other gods. I suspect Sirona accepts most of these former demons and Lugus the second most. Originally I thought that the Repentant Angel unit was suppose to represent former demons who are working to make up for past crimes, but Kael said that that was wrong and they are but angels forced to perform wicked deeds for a greater good. I still think I prefer my way though. If you want to go for that, Summoning a Repentant Angel might be good Good Profane spell.

I tend to think that the good and evil spells should not so closely mirror each other. I can't really picture offensive Good-AV spells. I'd consider moving the Spirit II Hope spell to that slot if something good to replace it could be found. I suppose you could have duplicate spells though if you cannot think of anything better.

The dark side of the Light sphere is that it is unrelentingly honest, which includes telling depressing truths to those already close to despair. It cannot lie, but it can omit things that would otherwise soften the blow or the truth and thus could distract people from what is really important. It is an extremely critical sphere that always says what no one wants to hear. This seems pretty close to how Agares operates, so he may very well be the power source of the Evil Empyrean. The Mirror of Heaven is often considered the holy equivalent of the Black Mirror which Agares used to create Hyborem. Both rely on introspection, but make one focus on different aspects on oneself. Wither (or at least Enervate, as I prefer to call it) could fit as an Evil Empyrean spell. Perhaps something that makes units rebel against their owners could work too.

Wodan

Jan 05, 2010, 11:58 AM

Aeron is the only evil god as hierarchical and strict as Junil
Wait right there a second.

Personally, I wouldn't say that the god determines the details of implementation of the religion. The mortal priests do that.

Use real life as an example, with the Christian god. We have catholicism and episcopalianism, which are pretty orthodox in a lot of ways, all the way to pentecostal / charismatic (the folks who believe in speaking in tongues and laying on of hands). There are mormons, quakers, baptists, etc.

So, does the implementation define the god? Or, can a single god have multiple implementations / instances (realizations)? Leaving aside that (in real life) that question verges on blasphemy... Using real life as an example, we have to say "definitely yes there are multiple religions/instances/realizations/sects for a single god".

KillerClowns

Jan 05, 2010, 12:42 PM

Wodan

Jan 05, 2010, 02:27 PM

There's an important distinction between real life and FfH, however. Even giving the Christian God the maximum benefit of the doubt, we can say He's been very subtle and non-interventionist for the past couple millennia. The FfH gods are active, and often ill-tempered, beings who will tolerate some differences between sects as necessary, inevitable, and possibly (in Lugus' case, I'm sure) good. But without the assistance of another god to keep Junil at bay, priests of the Order attempting to implement an actively and deeply evil version of the Order would be corrected (or exterminated) by angels of Junil for their trouble. EDIT: And even if sending angels to directly confront the wayward priests would be too loose of an interpretation of the Compact for Junil, he'd definitely and pointedly ignore their prayers; the corrupted priests would be unable to perform the basic magics needed for Order rituals, and have to either go through them with sleight of hand and mage-style spell casting (as priests under Xivan, one of RiFE's new leaders, do), or get another god (such as Aeron) to fill the void.

That's all nice, in a storybook sort of way.

But in a game, the player has control over his actions, and the actions of his Order priets. Not Junil. And, there is no retribution. In RifE, with variable alignment, two-axis (a la D&D) alignment, and alignment that changes throughout the game, the actuality does not match your storybook description.

Not only can my Order priest commit a direct act of evil, but my nation can actually change to evil with variable alignment. And my Order priest will merrily keep on using Order rituals without disruption from Junil.

KillerClowns

Jan 05, 2010, 03:43 PM

There seems to be a misunderstanding. You are correct that there presently isn't retribution for diving down an alignment not usually associated with the religion. I'm saying there should be, and the reasons I've given are why I believe there should be. For instance, at present, the Order's mechanics work for an evil player just fine, as you have pointed out. They can still bless their units for +1 holy. I'm suggesting they shouldn't be able to do so, and that the Order should work differently for an evil player. It doesn't right now, but that doesn't mean this isn't a possible mechanic; if it wasn't possible, I wouldn't be proposing it. You are correct that, at present, FfH gods don't take action, but via the implementation of events that would force you to either change your tune or face the consequences, that can be amended.
EDIT: Further, I'd even suggest that the corrupted versions of religions be superior to non-corrupted versions, at the expense of events in the form of, say, angels coming down from time to time, "true" followers causing schisms and riots, et cetera.

tl;dr: You're saying there are no mechanics for odd religion-alignment combos to reflect divine disagreement. This is correct. I'm suggesting some that could be implemented, even though I am fully aware there aren't any right now.

ANOTHER EDIT: Well, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself. I'm presently beating files into a modmod... or something resembling such at any rate.

MagisterCultuum

Jan 05, 2010, 06:49 PM

The Compact gives gods almost complete power over those that worship them but leave them with very little power to interfere with those who worship another. So long as the priests are loyal to Junil he can make his will quite clear to them. When they choose to serve another (like when his high priests abandoned, probably for Mammon), he is pretty much limited to acting through those mortals still loyal to him (like Valin). He could not send angels against evil order priests except in answer to direct prayers from his true believers.

Also, those without enough faith in him would not be able to serve as conduits for his power even he he wanted to answer their prayers and perform miracles through them.

I don't think Order rituals really need any magic. There is certainly a place in many rituals for diviners, but I don't think there is an easy way to distinguish between true divination and stuff the diviner just made up. Mammon's diviners are probably much better at their job than Junil's anyway, at least when you take into account all their self-fulfilling prophesies.

Randomness

Jan 05, 2010, 11:48 PM

I think that this should be good AV.
"The end is coming.

Demons once more walk the earth, hunted by angels with no interest in the stewardship of men. The gods have forsaken us, turning instead to petty squabbles over domain and precept - pettiness past the gates of Heaven! The children are born sickly, or not born at all. Savages descend upon all the civilized people, and some - some among us do not call this disaster. The cults of Armageddon have risen. The Long Night falls.

BUT PAST THIS NIGHT WILL BE DAWN!

Every man, woman, and child among us is mortal in body, yet immortal in spirit. Still there is that which threatens us - the domain of Death holds no sanctity against the machinations of demons, devils, even the devious among mortal men. Monsters walk that can feed on the life of a man and even beyond that consume his very soul. Fallen angels enslave the restless dead and conscript them into the armies of apocalypse and above all this...Armageddon. The End of all Ends, the yawning abyss beyond which no prophet may scry, the final oblivion that swells to consume us all forever.

YET WE ARE NOT HELPLESS AGAINST THESE TERRORS!

Even as a man may deny Death its due that upset balance is righted by another. Monsters and demons both may be slain, and if their souls are as difficult to kill as our own that is not to ascribe them any higher indestructibility! Even a god may be slain, and has been, if the world's need is great enough. AND EVEN ARMAGEDDON MAY BE TURNED IF OUR IMMORTAL SOULS SO WILL IT.

Agares - Destroyer! Enemy of Erebus! - yes, the God of Despair has fallen into darkness and seeks to drag all things with him. But he is only a god, not Armageddon itself! And I say this tug-of-war he seeks to play with Erebus is ONE WHICH WE CAN WIN! If a god can fall, a god can rise - rise to redemption, to a new Age of Triumph where we will walk unscathed from the shadows of this one into a new day, blinking as if newborn, and experience anew the warmth and beauty of a world bathed in light!

This is the dream that cannot be banished upon waking, the strength in our hearts that cannot fail even if their beating is ceased, the hope that cannot - cannot, if Agares himself were to stand before us and demand it - be swallowed up by despair. This is the Dawn Invictus, the light that will steal over us however many armies of damned demons stand in our way. The Long Night is falling, brothers and sisters! Let our fears and our weaknesses pass now into slumber, and let our valor stand the vigil through these darkest hours.

Every demon that lives was once angel or man, and will be made so again. Every terror that bares teeth against us will find the incandescent fury of the Dawn no easy meal to drag away to dark corners. And Agares, King of Hope, will remember himself before he brings Erebus to its end! Hear me, citizens of Erebus! A Long Night comes, but WE ARE THE DAWN INVICTUS! A darkness shall pass, and at its end will be a new day! Stand with me! Fight with me!

AND WITH ME, GREET THE DAWN!"

These are the last words of Marikinde, Guardian of the Dawn, shortly before her unfortunate end as the night's first merry feast for a band of laughing Revelers. It appears after inciting a crowd of Ashen Veil initiates she was selected by their savants as the first sacrifice to poison the earth beneath their unhallowed temple - copies of her speech have appeared here and there (it is troubling to me that I found Disciple Sheridan Malindrel hiding one of these in his quarters - I suspect one or two of their Messengers remains in the city and is targeting the Fellowship in their conversion efforts) but information regarding exactly what took place later that night is frustratingly anecdotal.

Reports indicate everything from the Temple of the Veil falling to pieces by itself as the raw influx of hope undid Agares' works in the area, to a Beast of Agares turning on the Profane in charge of defiling our city in preparation for the summoning of more of its kin before bringing the temple down on itself, to the prophet Marikinde returning as an angel, shattering the whole thing with a spoken command, and leading the Dawn's converts out of the city...

Although our priests called in a number of Life adepts to be sure, it would appear the area did not, in fact, require sanctification before the construction of a new Temple of Leaves was begun, and the blights in the nearby forests appear to be receding. The new disciples of this 'Dawn Invictus' seem to have moved on - Kazendel, the Autumn Razor, says he can feel the grip of Armageddon loosening from the land in the direction they were headed, yet the reports of dire omens and the appearance of demons has not faded from the area. We've sent Kazendel and two younger Satyrs to follow them - this merits further investigation.

-Almalyl Vintendia, reporting to Kithra Kyriel on the Liberation of <LJOSALFAR CITY>