Agreed - for one, evil usually takes great joy in corrupting people to its cause. If you're a weak-willed paladin you can bet there are demons and devils and other villains lining up to take advantage of that.
Fun fact: evil Clerics in 2e AD&D could turn Paladins with their Turn Undead ability, albeit at a heavy penalty.
Sure, LG doesn't have to be connected to government, but an individual who believes that their church can do more good than they can due to size and structure wouldn't be much different from one who believes that the government should play a role.
This is just simply not true. I know many who see a difference between something that is voluntary and something that is forced, and both can be considered Lawful Good yet be quite different.. Its another issue on the difference between subjective vs objective morality.
to say otherwise is to say that every LG Paladin is akin to every LG Monk
Agreed - for one, evil usually takes great joy in corrupting people to its cause. If you're a weak-willed paladin you can bet there are demons and devils and other villains lining up to take advantage of that.
Fun fact: evil Clerics in 2e AD&D could turn Paladins with their Turn Undead ability, albeit at a heavy penalty.
It would be interesting if your Lawful Good Cleric/Paladin could turn Dorn with their Turn Undead.
It would also be interesting if the spell "Protection from Evil" did not work on evil characters.
Sure, LG doesn't have to be connected to government, but an individual who believes that their church can do more good than they can due to size and structure wouldn't be much different from one who believes that the government should play a role.
This is just simply not true. I know many who see a difference between something that is voluntary and something that is forced, and both can be considered Lawful Good yet be quite different.. Its another issue on the difference between subjective vs objective morality.
to say otherwise is to say that every LG Paladin is akin to every LG Monk
Huh? I think you took what I said and made it into something else. The alignment of "Lawful" has to do with the opinion that a set of rules, laws, or moral codes are preferable. Lawful good believes that those rules, laws, or moral codes provide the best groundwork for people to help each other or for society to be uplifted.
The idea of laws being "forced" upon you really doesn't tie in to the lawful alignment at all - you can disagree with certain laws that go against what you believe, you can choose not to obey laws you disagree with, but you still ultimately believe that laws are the best way for society to be structured (albeit different laws), or you are no longer "lawful".
Someone who was lawful good and living in a society where the government matched their outlook would not feel they were being "forced" to obey the law - they would obey the law because it made sense to them.
On the flipside of your argument, there are many people who are raised into a religion who feel stifled and oppressed and ultimately rebel against the religion's moral codes. Some religions are incredibly strict and those who disagree are shunned or punished by the other members. In some cases, there may be no alternative unless you have the financial or physical wherewithal to fend for yourself. You could easily say these people are "forced" to participate in that religion's philosophy (especially children).
Sure, LG doesn't have to be connected to government, but an individual who believes that their church can do more good than they can due to size and structure wouldn't be much different from one who believes that the government should play a role.
This is just simply not true. I know many who see a difference between something that is voluntary and something that is forced, and both can be considered Lawful Good yet be quite different.. Its another issue on the difference between subjective vs objective morality.
to say otherwise is to say that every LG Paladin is akin to every LG Monk
Huh? I think you took what I said and made it into something else. The alignment of "Lawful" has to do with the opinion that a set of rules, laws, or moral codes are preferable. Lawful good believes that those rules, laws, or moral codes provide the best groundwork for people to help each other or for society to be uplifted.
The idea of laws being "forced" upon you really doesn't tie in to the lawful alignment at all - you can disagree with certain laws that go against what you believe, you can choose not to obey laws you disagree with, but you still ultimately believe that laws are the best way for society to be structured (albeit different laws), or you are no longer "lawful".
Someone who was lawful good and living in a society where the government matched their outlook would not feel they were being "forced" to obey the law - they would obey the law because it made sense to them.
On the flipside of your argument, there are many people who are raised into a religion who feel stifled and oppressed and ultimately rebel against the religion's moral codes. Some religions are incredibly strict and those who disagree are shunned or punished by the other members. In some cases, there may be no alternative unless you have the financial or physical wherewithal to fend for yourself. You could easily say these people are "forced" to participate in that religion's philosophy (especially children).
1. Difference is between how you may "feel" regarding this law or that and being willing to force others to play along, which many people I would consider Lawful Good aren't willing to do 2. I agree with your point about religion, but fail to see its relevance.
In my original post that you quoted, I said that lawful good religious is similar to lawful good legal in that both believe in a set of rules or code as the best way to help others. you said that the difference is that one is voluntary and one is not. I argue that not everyone participating in a religion feels that they have a choice.
I feel like I am talking about lawful good and you are talking about lawful in general. The essence of lawful good must be to help others and benefit society, or it's more lawful and less good. Lawful good would be more likely to break laws that do harm, or even violate their own code if someone's life was at stake. Pure lawful with no leanings of any kind would say that the law is paramount.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
I'm not entirely sure you can categorise religions in general based on alignment. Pretty much all of them have, at some stage, enforced membership through implicit or explicit forms of violence. I think what Time4Tiddy is talking about are more the subtle threats of ostracisation, which means that any attempt to leave becomes if not impossible (for financial reasons) at least disadvantageous to many raised within it. There are many closed religious communities this would apply to, all of which have other manifestations that are quite different. That said, these communities are ones where following the laws of the community are considered beneficial to all concerned, and thus might count as Lawful Good anyway just on principle, even if to external observers they might seem Lawful Neutral or even Lawful Evil.
I think one of the problems with the alignment system for the Lawful-Chaotic axis is that because the laws of the land can vary so much from place to place, a strict adherence to social or governmental law according to place can become morally inconsistent in terms of the character's values. If the law of the land dictates human sacrifice to an evil god, or a slave trade, or torture of anyone whosoever at the whim of an evil official, etc., it doesn't make sense to uphold those laws if a character is morally committed to being Good. The definitions of Chaotic Good and Lawful Neutral seem to better match either the person who is good at heart but isn't bound behaviorally by social law (CG), or a rugged individualist who follows their own internally defined set of values and code of behavior (LN). So those are often preferred by players who don't want to feel like they are slavishly obedient to social law, whatever the law might be.
Therefore, the way I play LG is as one who has highly developed morals and values that are Good and consistently (unswervingly) follows them. When the law of the land is fundamentally prosocial, the character strongly believes in the need for law and order. But when values behind laws are morally corrupt, the character finds them abhorrent. Because half of the equation for LG is Good--and the lawful piece has to be consistent with definitions of Good.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
I think what Time4Tiddy is talking about are more the subtle threats of ostracisation, which means that any attempt to leave becomes if not impossible (for financial reasons) at least disadvantageous to many raised within it.
Yet this is not because of the tenets of most religions, but because of the community that shares a religion. This is not like the Law, which is by definition always backed by the threat of violence.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
I think what Time4Tiddy is talking about are more the subtle threats of ostracisation, which means that any attempt to leave becomes if not impossible (for financial reasons) at least disadvantageous to many raised within it.
Yet this is not because of the tenets of most religions, but because of the community that shares a religion. This is not like the Law, which is by definition always backed by the threat of violence.
I'm not entirely sure that you can draw such a clear distinction between the tenets of a religion and the tenets as practiced (which is essentially what such communities are: communities oriented around interpretations of the tenets). It isn't like really religion exists outside of its practice.
Well, it exists in the texts and tenets that it is based on. There is so much disagreement within the sects of religion to think that there is a difference between religious tenet and practice, though not being particularly religious myself, I don't know to what extent. I know my girlfriend is very devout yet she often disagrees with other Catholics.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
I'm not buying this one. "From a certain perspective" (don't flame me for this but...) Christianity is at least in part followed for fear of being sent to eternal damnation. This is analogous to a threat of violence as in "Don't do bad stuff or you will burn and suffer eternal torment, yada, yada, yada." Even something like Mormonism has a threat of excommunication should you act outside of the guidelines of the society and belief systems. One person's silence is another person's abuse/violence. Just because it doesn't involve physical contact, doesn't make it any less hurtful or painful.
Not to mention the fact that any legal system is inherent in it's 'Threat of violence' should you violate it's tenants. that doesn't make it 'In and of itself' evil or not good. merely that guidelines need to be set, and often times consequences for breaking those guidelines need also to be established.
But most of all, any argument that puts forth "Laws" and "Lawful" in the same argument (other than to say that one doesn't mean the other) is inherently not understanding. A lawfully aligned person may completely ignore, violate or openly oppose laws of the land and still remain lawfully aligned. It's a red herring to take the word Law out of Lawful and think they are related.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
But most of all, any argument that puts forth "Laws" and "Lawful" in the same argument (other than to say that one doesn't mean the other) is inherently not understanding. A lawfully aligned person may completely ignore, violate or openly oppose laws of the land and still remain lawfully aligned. It's a red herring to take the word Law out of Lawful and think they are related.
This is actually what I was trying to argue initially but I think it got lost in translation.
but any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence would not be good in any shape or form. i am saying that a lot of people who belive in moral absolutes could lawful good and not fall into the categories you described, particularly in regards to religion and government.
I'm not buying this one. "From a certain perspective" (don't flame me for this but...) Christianity is at least in part followed for fear of being sent to eternal damnation. This is analogous to a threat of violence as in "Don't do bad stuff or you will burn and suffer eternal torment, yada, yada, yada."
In my opinion, this is simply not true for those who don't believe. If you don't believe in Christianity, then sorry, any threats of "eternal damnation" fall on completely deaf ears. Thus it is far from the equivalent of physical force. To say that someone fears an imaginary threat from an imaginary force that they don't believe in is just silly.
However, there is a huge difference for someone who is raised in a religious household/community/environment, where threat of excommunication is existent and the belief of eternal consequences is ingrained through years of teaching/fear. This is not the equivalent of physical aggression, but is still not entirely "good" according to many philosophies.
@booinyoureyes - on the contrary. Your statement was "any religion that enforces membership through the threat of violence". this is entirely analogous to "Believe in God or go to Hell". Just because the recipient doesn't believe in Hell, doesn't make it any less a threat of 'Violence'. I've listened to far too many Jehovah's witnesses pitches, familial pleas and church sermons to think otherwise.
And I have faced people IRL who, when presented with my own personal religious views and finding them different or at odds with theirs, they have treated me differently thereafter. I don't really see a difference. Ever had someone say "i'll pray for your soul anyway."?
In any system, there are consequences for failing to follow or fail to lock step with the system; from a Lawful perspective, even more so. Having this occur does not 'In and of itself' make that system 'not good'.
You are taking religion as a set of values rather than a belief system. Many people who are "believers" take the texts at face value, that certain acts cause someone to go to hell. The treat this as a fact, not as a threat to make certain everyone is a followers. From this view it is not an "or else", it is a simple fact. As an atheist I don't personally believe that (and I suspect you might not either) but there is a difference between a threat and a belief. It may serve to scare people into believing (and from many perspectives that would seem to be the intention of the creators of these texts) but it is not the same as a threat.
Also, you are conflating your personal experiences with individual practitioners with the tenets of a certain religion as a whole, which are two quite different things.
My point is that saying 'Believe in Bob or go to the shopping mall of doom' is implied that the speaker intends that a failure to follow their instructions will result in negative consequences. You and I may not believe in Bob or in any consequences that may or may not happen through lack of belief, but it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the speaker is 'believe or suffer the consequences'.
But largely I think we are niggling over minutia. Religion is a funny thing. The Ancient Greeks and Romans absolutely believed out of fear. You worshiped the gods for fear that they would take their displeasure out on you if you didn't.
There is a quote from John Carpenter's Classic 'Prince of Darkness' that goes something like "We were sales men. We sold our product. Reward ourselves and punish our enemies. So we can live without truth."
I don't think it's meant to be a threat. They genuinely believe that there will be consequences for your actions and it's out of concern for you that they think you should change your ways. It's akin to me suggesting that you should stop smoking because it will give you lung cancer - I'm not threatening you with lung cancer, I just think that smoking will cause it.
My point is that saying 'Believe in Bob or go to the shopping mall of doom' is implied that the speaker intends that a failure to follow their instructions will result in negative consequences. You and I may not believe in Bob or in any consequences that may or may not happen through lack of belief, but it doesn't change the fact that the intent of the speaker is 'believe or suffer the consequences'.
But largely I think we are niggling over minutia. Religion is a funny thing. The Ancient Greeks and Romans absolutely believed out of fear. You worshiped the gods for fear that they would take their displeasure out on you if you didn't.
There is a quote from John Carpenter's Classic 'Prince of Darkness' that goes something like "We were sales men. We sold our product. Reward ourselves and punish our enemies. So we can live without truth."
I don't think this is an argument over minutia at all, but pretty important to this case.
Where is the speaker making a threat? He believes this to be the case (that certain actions are linked to certain outcomes regarding an afterlife) and he is not at *all* personally linked to the consequences he believes in. He is not the one who will "send you to hell". There is no warning that he will carry through on the threat. If you don't believe it there is no reason to be afraid.
That's like If I said "if you drive into a tornado you will die", I would NOT saying that "if you don't believe that driving into a tornado is bad I will kill you".
Also I really don't like assuming a bunch of ulterior motives for theoretical people (like in that Prince of Darkness quote). Ignoring the fact that fictional dialogue doesn't mean *anything* outside of its own context, you can't just say "oh look, because one person said this or that therefore everyone who shares some belief/practice/set of values with him believes/behaves in the exact same manner". (especially characters who are... well... not real)
@booinyoureyes - LOL. I wasn't putting the Prince of Darkness quote up as anything other than a fun comment on the topic. Yep, it's fiction. And no, I don't believe in the conspiracy theory behind it all. but I do enjoy the movie and the sentiment.
The sentiment is what I was referring too. Clearly I don't think you you were taking it at face value
I think people often let their cynicism regarding religion cloud their judgement. I know a lot of "angry internet atheists" who seem to think everyone who believes in a religion (or particularly teaches a religion) is some kind of charlatan, and quote some silly George Carlin joke as proof. (he is quite funny though) I'm not saying you fall into this category, but people seem to draw a lot of their attitudes from fiction/entertainment.
The point is you are taking the "theoretical religious person" in this discussion and filling him with some ulterior motives (ie the threat of punishment in the afterlife is a threat intended to force people into seeing things my way)
I hadn't checked into this thread for a while, but loving the conversation about real world religion. If you've read any of my previous posts you have seen that I always try to use real world examples to define fantasy gaming alignments - it always seems to get a bit sideways.
I would just interject re: real world religion that, in my mind, the argument you are having is exactly what differentiates LG from NG or CG. Just as deities in FR could have adherents across several alignments, so too could Christianity. Someone who was LG would be more likely to believe this idea of "threat of violence" - I will pray for you because I am afraid your soul will burn in hell, it's motivated by concern for your well being and therefore good, but it's defined by the letter of the "law" - punishment for sin.
That aside, there could be many Christians who are other alignments - NG being more of the "love thy neighbor" type and CG in my mind going more along with the current Pope - atheists and gays who do good works are just as deserving as devouts. I won't even get into the Christians who are LE and use their religion to create fear and gain power.
Comments
* Not actually spit
Edit: ninja'd!
to say otherwise is to say that every LG Paladin is akin to every LG Monk
It would also be interesting if the spell "Protection from Evil" did not work on evil characters.
The idea of laws being "forced" upon you really doesn't tie in to the lawful alignment at all - you can disagree with certain laws that go against what you believe, you can choose not to obey laws you disagree with, but you still ultimately believe that laws are the best way for society to be structured (albeit different laws), or you are no longer "lawful".
Someone who was lawful good and living in a society where the government matched their outlook would not feel they were being "forced" to obey the law - they would obey the law because it made sense to them.
On the flipside of your argument, there are many people who are raised into a religion who feel stifled and oppressed and ultimately rebel against the religion's moral codes. Some religions are incredibly strict and those who disagree are shunned or punished by the other members. In some cases, there may be no alternative unless you have the financial or physical wherewithal to fend for yourself. You could easily say these people are "forced" to participate in that religion's philosophy (especially children).
2. I agree with your point about religion, but fail to see its relevance.
I feel like I am talking about lawful good and you are talking about lawful in general. The essence of lawful good must be to help others and benefit society, or it's more lawful and less good. Lawful good would be more likely to break laws that do harm, or even violate their own code if someone's life was at stake. Pure lawful with no leanings of any kind would say that the law is paramount.
Therefore, the way I play LG is as one who has highly developed morals and values that are Good and consistently (unswervingly) follows them. When the law of the land is fundamentally prosocial, the character strongly believes in the need for law and order. But when values behind laws are morally corrupt, the character finds them abhorrent. Because half of the equation for LG is Good--and the lawful piece has to be consistent with definitions of Good.
Not to mention the fact that any legal system is inherent in it's 'Threat of violence' should you violate it's tenants. that doesn't make it 'In and of itself' evil or not good. merely that guidelines need to be set, and often times consequences for breaking those guidelines need also to be established.
But most of all, any argument that puts forth "Laws" and "Lawful" in the same argument (other than to say that one doesn't mean the other) is inherently not understanding. A lawfully aligned person may completely ignore, violate or openly oppose laws of the land and still remain lawfully aligned. It's a red herring to take the word Law out of Lawful and think they are related.
However, there is a huge difference for someone who is raised in a religious household/community/environment, where threat of excommunication is existent and the belief of eternal consequences is ingrained through years of teaching/fear. This is not the equivalent of physical aggression, but is still not entirely "good" according to many philosophies.
And I have faced people IRL who, when presented with my own personal religious views and finding them different or at odds with theirs, they have treated me differently thereafter. I don't really see a difference. Ever had someone say "i'll pray for your soul anyway."?
In any system, there are consequences for failing to follow or fail to lock step with the system; from a Lawful perspective, even more so. Having this occur does not 'In and of itself' make that system 'not good'.
As an atheist I don't personally believe that (and I suspect you might not either) but there is a difference between a threat and a belief. It may serve to scare people into believing (and from many perspectives that would seem to be the intention of the creators of these texts) but it is not the same as a threat.
Also, you are conflating your personal experiences with individual practitioners with the tenets of a certain religion as a whole, which are two quite different things.
But largely I think we are niggling over minutia. Religion is a funny thing. The Ancient Greeks and Romans absolutely believed out of fear. You worshiped the gods for fear that they would take their displeasure out on you if you didn't.
There is a quote from John Carpenter's Classic 'Prince of Darkness' that goes something like "We were sales men. We sold our product. Reward ourselves and punish our enemies. So we can live without truth."
Where is the speaker making a threat? He believes this to be the case (that certain actions are linked to certain outcomes regarding an afterlife) and he is not at *all* personally linked to the consequences he believes in. He is not the one who will "send you to hell". There is no warning that he will carry through on the threat. If you don't believe it there is no reason to be afraid.
That's like If I said "if you drive into a tornado you will die", I would NOT saying that "if you don't believe that driving into a tornado is bad I will kill you".
Also I really don't like assuming a bunch of ulterior motives for theoretical people (like in that Prince of Darkness quote). Ignoring the fact that fictional dialogue doesn't mean *anything* outside of its own context, you can't just say "oh look, because one person said this or that therefore everyone who shares some belief/practice/set of values with him believes/behaves in the exact same manner". (especially characters who are... well... not real)
I think people often let their cynicism regarding religion cloud their judgement. I know a lot of "angry internet atheists" who seem to think everyone who believes in a religion (or particularly teaches a religion) is some kind of charlatan, and quote some silly George Carlin joke as proof. (he is quite funny though) I'm not saying you fall into this category, but people seem to draw a lot of their attitudes from fiction/entertainment.
The point is you are taking the "theoretical religious person" in this discussion and filling him with some ulterior motives (ie the threat of punishment in the afterlife is a threat intended to force people into seeing things my way)
I would just interject re: real world religion that, in my mind, the argument you are having is exactly what differentiates LG from NG or CG. Just as deities in FR could have adherents across several alignments, so too could Christianity. Someone who was LG would be more likely to believe this idea of "threat of violence" - I will pray for you because I am afraid your soul will burn in hell, it's motivated by concern for your well being and therefore good, but it's defined by the letter of the "law" - punishment for sin.
That aside, there could be many Christians who are other alignments - NG being more of the "love thy neighbor" type and CG in my mind going more along with the current Pope - atheists and gays who do good works are just as deserving as devouts. I won't even get into the Christians who are LE and use their religion to create fear and gain power.