Evil/Lawful Rofireinite vs Good/Lawful Rofireinite

[Gulnyr]

I apologize if I made you uncomfortable.  

I guess "given a chance" makes sense, but if a LE character is being suppressed by his environment and code to the point where he's indistinguishable from a LN character, is he really LE?  That sounds really fishy.  TN usually indicates someone, like most commoners, who may have opinions about things but lacks the conviction to do anything about it most of the time.  If a character is labeled Evil but lacks the conviction to take those steps and be Evil, isn't he just Neutral?

How Evil can anyone who follows the code of Rofirein really be, anyway?  "Aid others whenever and wherever possible as long as it is in accordance with the law and does not make way for acts of evil."  They've been ordered by their god to help others, as long as it's legal and doesn't... permit evil *shrug*.   "The common people are the strongest force in bringing order and prosperity to all. We must protect them."  Prosperity for all is right there in the commands, too - you protect the people and help support order so that everyone can prosper.  That's law and order for the people's sake.  That doesn't sound anything like keeping people in line so that order is maintained; it's not law and order for the sake of law and order.  There's no aura of oppression in it.  There's no keeping order at all costs, even if it means oppressing the populous.  "Dedicate your life to justice."  That's pretty strong - dedicate your life.  It's not, "Think about justice once a month."  It's really, really, really hard to be Evil and be just, because Evil is about killing people and being selfish and all that.  Well, all the killing is right out with Rofirein; you can't just go around murdering people.  This can't be anything like baby-eating Evil.  They aren't even allowed to immediately kill people they know are guilty.  And how selfish can they be with justice in the way?  They can't lie about who gets the credit; that's unjust.  They can't sabotage someone else to gain a promotion; that's unjust.  They've dedicated their lives to justice, so how can they go around being unjust, especially intentionally? So what's left? Just wishing death on criminals? Not making a very big offering? Pff.  

And that's just the regular stuff.  Once you get into the Knight of the Wyrm oath, it's leaning heavily into Good territory.

[Dezza]

I have to admire your passion on the topic Gulnyr even if I can't agree with some of your viewpoints.

A few more cents worth since I think its needed here. Especially since I was the one who probably had the most imput into the write-up for the Rofireinite Faith.

1/ Originally the write-up was for a LN -LG God, so you are correct that there is a slight bias towards this side of the faith structure.

2/ When it was decided that LE could also be an alignment that could fit into this Faith then things got a bit messy but it was not enough to constitute an entirely new write-up. With a few minor adjustments it could be squeezed into the mix. It was never assumed that it would be a very 'big' part within the faith just that it was possible. A lot of this angst in this thread assumes that 50% or more of Rofireinites are LE which is entirely ludicrous. At best perhaps a max of 10% might be in that range within the Faith and they would be under pressure to change their views I'd imagine over time too.

3/ The Ultimate goal of Rofireinites is to see that proportional Justice is applied, where the punishment meets the crime. And wow, doesnt that open a whole can of worms. The views of a LE judge vs a LN or LG judge will differ greatly in the application of this core role of the Faith.

4/ You are all assuming Rofirenites never get frustrated, never make the wrong decision, never act out of despair etc. They cant be perfect all the time unless they are a paladin of course, and even then we have precedents of them falling from grace too.

5/ A LE Rofireinite should have days when they question and ask just what they think they can accomplish, how can they see their mission carried out amongst others who dont see their point of view. This should be the norm for that max 10% of the faith. They are probably the ones who prefer to hunt down those engaging in chaos or chaotic acts because at least then they know where they stand and can deal with them as required without mess or fuss.



Finally;

The idea that the world should move on without us from a GM perspective is absolutely frustrating. In instances where we have done this in the past we have copped an absolute hammering by players saying its not fair, they didnt get any input, they didnt get a chance to act. Now you are saying why isnt it happening? I prefer not to be called stupid no matter what we do. *throws hands into the air* You can't have your apple and eat it too sometimes. You have to accept and work with what you've got and I feel like a broken record on that point.


Also for the Rofireninte church in Vehl to initiate an overturn of the government in Fort Vehl based on the fact that unless this happens the status quo will remain unaltered then that, I am afraid, is in the realm of players hands and will take a long and involved process.

And the writeup for the Citadel of Rofirein acting on behalf of Rael is correct. It has evolved into this because of the Rofireinites agreement to recognise Rael as the official ruler of Rael. They still answer very strongly to the Cathedral in Westergate though and must be careful about maintaining the equilibrium with what Rael wants to happen in his realm but since the atacks on Rael, Prantz and his participation in the Hilm-Kuhl and Sederra conflict this is working very well at present.

[Gulnyr]

What is the difference between a evil/lawful Rofi and a good/lawful Rofi?

Both Lawful Good and Lawful Evil Rofireinites believe in upholding the law, supporting order, protecting the people, seeking justice and being just, and being honest and honorable.  The difference is that Lawful Good Rofireinites fit into that pretty well, while Lawful Evil Rofireinites have to be shoehorned, rules-lawyered, and have a blind eye turned to fit at all.  Also, the concept of Lawful Evil Rofireinites causes forum arguments... because they don't really make sense.

There may be some other minor differences.

Excuse me for not answering plainly sooner.

[Dremora]

A Lawful Evil cleric of Rofirenite would be harder to justify than a Rofirenite follower keep in mind as the cleric would be more rigidly bound to a diety that isnt defined as 'evil'.

That said, consider that the lawful evil is colder and more callous towards people he deems as evil and chaotic whereas a lawful neutral may be more even-handed and a good guy may show mercy or leniance in some form upon those he deems capable of redeeming themselves.

One may be an Inquisitor as easily as another one may be a paragon.

An inquisitor of Rofirenite may spend much less time with the arguably less serious crimes and deal purely in matters such as purgers evil-doers such as pryotechonites or corathites and dodge the "lesser" crimes as much as he can, leaving the work tohis brethern. IN dealing with these people he may find himself slipping further from the path of shall we say righteousness purely based on the fact his work is so bloody and dark, it can't help but stain his souls (to be dramatic) or affect his personality and mannerisms.

Example. Evil Cult of Corath, brainwashed members amongst the cultists to serve for some nefarious plan as cannon fodder, whatever.

A good Rofirenite would dispense justice on those captured in the aftermath and take keep in mind their accountability for their actions; but take it upon himself during battle to see those who are technically innocent as spared so they can be judged and redeemed, even if it puts his brothers' and sisters' lives at risk.
An evil rofirenite would treat those afterwards, PERHAPS, in the exact same way; yet be alot less concerned about the possibility that cult members are enchanted/brain-washed/whatever, slaughtering them like any other chaotic evil nutjub that attacks, simply because its not worth the risk (in his mind) to the good guy's lives to POSSIBLY spare some unfortunates. Maybe a few are saved, but the success of the mission and efficient dispensing of justice came before amassing 'innocents' to be saved.

One is a more heroic figure and one is a more ruthless figure, yet both might hold the same ideals in their mind and follow the same creed. Execution of their duties may come yield diffferent results however, based on their different styles.

Thus you have two lawful followers of the Gold, but one is a harder, colder figure than the other. As mentioned before, even clerics can have bad days or not be paragons of their diety, they are priests, not paladins, and can slowly lose their way or be faulted (they are mortal), but keep their diety's patronage so long as the changes aren't too big or too different from the dogma.
So im afraid I can't agree with the statement that LE rofirenites don't make sense. It's simply a case of the player having not yet found a way for it to make sense.

[Gulnyr]

What does the Lawful Neutral Rofireinite do?

[Dezza]

A quick example.

eg: Crime gang operating over time in a district in Fort vehl, finally enough witnesses agree to speak out against the ringleaders who are rounded up for trial and prosecution. Various charges are laid. Witnesses back out due to intimidation.


LG Rofireinite -- Promises protection, offers relocation to witnesses, does all within their power to still see the accused prosecuted and sent to prison. If they still cannot get witnesses, might delay the case until further evidence can be brought to light. Continue investigations until all avenues are exhausted. May have to release the accused but will never rest until they have solid evidence. May follow, observe even confront the accused if they believe they are criminals who prey on the common man or who create chaos or crime and corruption. Will not intentionally cause or seek to create an incident but if it happens and the accused draw arms against them they will act accordingly.

If case is made and accused charged and sentenced will abide by the Judge's ruling or appeal as necessary based on circumstances.


LE Rofireinite -- May write the reports based on his interpretation of events painting the criminals in a very bad light, might simply ignore certain information that might create an inconsistency that the opposition might use to get the accused off the hook. Might suggest strongly/intimidate the witnesses to let them know they are better to side with him rather than the criminals because they are better off being protected by the law than thugs. Thugs will get what they have coming to them. May push for maximum sentencing regardless of circumstances. This is the crime this is the punishment. If case falls through due to some inadequacy will possibly harass, cajole or confront accused deliberately instigating a reaction upon which they can react accordingly.

If case is made and accused charged and sentenced will push for maximum sentencing or appeal as necessary based on  circumstances. May visit the accused in prison to gloat/revel/enjoy the results of their labour. Has less interest in rehabilitation. May believe in the death penalty for any criminal found guilty.

[Gulnyr]

Where is the honor and justice in lying?  What makes the thug in gold better than the thug in black from the commoner's perspective?  Aren't the thugs in black more powerful than the thugs in gold in Vehl, anyway?

[willhoff]

might simply ignore certain information that might create an inconsistency that the opposition might use to get the accused off the hook.

Does not compute with being

a paragon of virtue and honor. Dedicate your life to justice, honor, and the pursuit of law and order.

[Alatriel]

Another example of what a LE Rofireinite may do:

He has managed to get to a position of judge in a place that has him presiding as the main judge for the region, so all cases come through him.  In the course of a week he has the following criminals come through and these are the punishments given:

Case #1- murder:  Penalty- death
Case #2- assault:  Penalty- death
Case #3- mugged someone in the street and stole all of their belongings:  Penalty- death
Case #4- a man beat his wife because he caught her cheating.  Penalty- Husband got a day in the stocks, wife was put to death for adultery.
Case #5-  Teenager stole food because she was hungry:  Penalty- cut off hand
Case #6- Vigilante who was working in the streets, killing thugs was caught and brought to trial:  Penalty- 20 gp fine.

Was any law broken?  No.  Was it all within the confines of the laws in that area?  Yes.  Was it evil?  Yes.  Why?  Because the harsh punishments were reserved for those who had broken the law in self-serving ways, but those who were punishing others for transgressions received lighter sentencing.

It's a way of moving within the system to mete out punishment in a way that fits what the character wants- which is control.  A LE Rofireinite would realize that the general population, if left to their own devices would likely end up like Fort Vehl, a sea of corruption and chaos.  Therefore it is necessary to control as many of them as possible with a firm and rigid hand.  But sometimes others are needed to help preserve order, so those punishing those who are acting against the law would receive lighter sentences that are in accordance with the law so that they can continue to "help" while the LE Rofireinite does not have to get his hands dirty.  They are acting to protect the population by harshly cutting out those who would work against order.

[Filatus]

Where is the honor and justice in lying?  What makes the thug in gold better than the thug in black from the commoner's perspective?  Aren't the thugs in black more powerful than the thugs in gold in Vehl, anyway?

What's lying? There's more than just the two extremes you use (the truth and untruth).  Going with the context you yourself use, would a paragon of virtue and honor use evidence he's not 100% sure about? Would he use it, and let the court decide whether it is admissable or not? If the court would admit it, and the doubt would still be lingering, would it still have been a good act? There's no yes or no, black or white in this.

In the other thread you just posted "A little help please", you complain yourself about their being no middleground. But at the same time you ask in this thread to define a lawful neutral Rofi in a few words and paint a black and white scenario to make your case.

If you look at the world we ourselves live in, you'll find that notions of virtue, honor and order are not neatly defined concepts. They're actually very ill defined concepts that are often something you aspire to be, rather than simply are. You'll find honor has a completely different meaning if you ask a Voraxite, and then a Rofirinite. So too, do these shades of grey exist within the Rofirinite faith. because in the end, they are only words.

Trust me, I have the same pains with the concept of chaos. The best my character can do is work out what it means for him based on his abbyssmal wisdom and strive to not fail miserably.

I suppose for a lawful faith, there's much more transparancy in this, but I doubt it's anywhere close to being capable of correctly predict every single action in life, like you seem close to be expecting.

[davidhoff]

By Alatriel:

He has managed to get to a position of judge in a place that has him presiding as the main judge for the region, so all cases come through him. In the course of a week he has the following criminals come through and these are the punishments given:

Case #1- murder: Penalty- death
Case #2- assault: Penalty- death
Case #3- mugged someone in the street and stole all of their belongings: Penalty- death
Case #4- a man beat his wife because he caught her cheating. Penalty- Husband got a day in the stocks, wife was put to death for adultery.
Case #5- Teenager stole food because she was hungry: Penalty- cut off hand
Case #6- Vigilante who was working in the streets, killing thugs was caught and brought to trial: Penalty- 20 gp fine.

Was any law broken? No

Most likely laws were broken.  The law of Rofireine require not only laws to be just but also their punishments.  If a LE Rofie judge is handing down sentences that are not in line with what the LG/LN judges do or the church norm, he would be sanctioned and probably lose his bench.  A LE Roife judge does not have cart blanche on his sentencing...their are guidelines.  If Rofirein law is anything like the "Law of Layonara" then the punishment for mugging is not death but

several years of imprisonment

A LE Rofie judge is still beholden to "Divine Law" which is a just and good law and that applies to punishment as much as it does what constitutes a crime.

Vigilante who was working in the streets, killing thugs was caught and brought to trial: Penalty- 20 gp fine.

 Based on the Laws of Layonara the punishment for murder is death not 20 true.

[Acacea]

but I doubt it's anywhere close to being capable of correctly predict every single action in life, like you seem close to be expecting.

To me, it's not about anyone expecting any actions set out and predicted. No one wants a handbook of exactly what their character is expected to do. "What does the LN character do?" was not asked to get a writeup, but for comparison to the examples of a LE... and to illustrate that LE Rofireinite behavior often falls into the harsh side of LN - not "evil" enough for evil. Personally, all of the specific arguments about what evil might be able to get away with only say to me, "This is a gray interpretation of LN, because LN is not black and white, and sometimes justice is harsh."

There are only 9 alignments, and an enormous array of concepts that fall within them, as you say. I agree. That's actually why I dislike the notion of LE Rofireinites - I feel like it must be so specific, so restrained, that it is no longer a viable alignment choice. It almost has to be laid out well in advance in order to not drift away from law or be too weak for evil, or at any point let emotion get in the way of justice. "If you need to have a complete written set of instructions of how you might be able to pull something off, it is no longer a good option for open creation."

Additionally, I don't think making arguments based on writeups and expectations and observing where they do and do not make sense or contradict should be lumped together as speaking out of passion, which to me implies irrationality. Sometimes things make sense, sometimes they don't. Trying desperately to shove them in because an old rule from a different game says they should be allowed is not more reasonable than attempting to point out things that may need to be corrected. For a long time Rofirein did not allow LE priests (as several here remember, I know), and it was opened up just as adding a couple extra letters on a page; it has been awkward ever since. It just hasn't really gotten any better.

[Dremora]

At Gulnyr's request:

Good: Typical call for surrender followed by assault. Inquisitor goes out of his way, and orders others, to incapacitate as many cultists as possible unless there is absolutely no alternative than to kill (at the increased risk of the Rofies and guards), all must be given fair trial and studied in order to dispense fair justice and just sentancing to all, allowing for variation depending on who were made to do evil deed and who chose to. Law and good conscience satisfied, the rofies bled to save others before themselves and dispensed justice but kept in mind the circumstances of individuals who may've had no choice.

Neutral: Orders the typical approach, demand surrender from cultists but men will slay attackers rather than try taking prisoners until its safer to do so or they outnumber them and can more easily capture prisoners (usually once the numbers thin, morale breaks and the leaders are dead/subdued).
Justice is then dealt according to the letter of the law and the rofie inquisitor does not go out of his way to seperate the unfortunate brain-washed people from the truly evil ones. Sentanced by their actions, not their souls or shown pity and benevolence. Law is law and it is satisfied with no tendancy to either good nor bad.

Evil: Orders the siege of the cultist hideout after calling for surrender, once its obviously not responded to, he blanket-labels all cultists as resisting arrest, worshippers of evil gods and assaulting officers and gives a kill-on-sight order. His men are likely better trained and equipped and will cut down all in their path unless they drop weapons, fall to their knees and beg for their lives.
Those might be spared (meaning minimal risk to the guards and rofies. Any prisoners taken from the wounded or surrounded will all be given the maximum sentance that the law allows (likely death), nevermind who had a choice or who didnt; they are all evil and must be purged for the safety of good, decent folk.
It may even be that the Inquistor takes no prisoners and plays judge/jury/executioner, deeming them too dangerous and insane to transport for trial and may value the lives of the 'good guys' over the enemy, even if its within their duties to risk themselves to capture people alive; thus summary field executions for everyone in the evil cult, captive or rebel, brain-washed or faithful.
Law is satisfied, evil is done, but honour and virtue may still be displayed if prisoners are taken but later executed after trial, as unarmed men werent killed and they WERE given a chance to surrender before the attack. Note honour and virtue aren't -always- the same as goodness.

Those are scenarios for three alignments and there are others way to conclude them based on the character you created and how their mind works. But it goes to show, three sides to men and women who may believe in the same thing and all be in service of 'good' from a Rofirenite perspective most like. But some may be willing to protect that at any cost, and some may think that no good comes from cruelty and 'evil'. All three serve the Law and seek to protect decent people however, how they go about this noble cause is what is reflected in their decisions which are influenced by the alignment you selected for them, after factoring in whether the dogma allows for such actions and how much of a renegade your character is (if at all).

[Filatus]

To me, it's not about anyone expecting any actions set out and predicted. No one wants a handbook of exactly what their character is expected to do. "What does the LN character do?" was not asked to get a writeup, but for comparison to the examples of a LE... and to illustrate that LE Rofireinite behavior often falls into the harsh side of LN - not "evil" enough for evil. Personally, all of the specific arguments about what evil might be able to get away with only say to me, "This is a gray interpretation of LN, because LN is not black and white, and sometimes justice is harsh."

There are only 9 alignments, and an enormous array of concepts that fall within them, as you say. I agree. That's actually why I dislike the notion of LE Rofireinites - I feel like it must be so specific, so restrained, that it is no longer a viable alignment choice. It almost has to be laid out well in advance in order to not drift away from law or be too weak for evil, or at any point let emotion get in the way of justice. "If you need to have a complete written set of instructions of how you might be able to pull something off, it is no longer a good option for open creation."

Additionally, I don't think making arguments based on writeups and expectations and observing where they do and do not make sense or contradict should be lumped together as speaking out of passion, which to me implies irrationality. Sometimes things make sense, sometimes they don't. Trying desperately to shove them in because an old rule from a different game says they should be allowed is not more reasonable than attempting to point out things that may need to be corrected. For a long time Rofirein did not allow LE priests (as several here remember, I know), and it was opened up just as adding a couple extra letters on a page; it has been awkward ever since. It just hasn't really gotten any better.

So really, the question is, can an evil character who worships Rofirein and through him the Divine Law, still be evil? I agree with you that we're getting into the problem of the D&D alignment system, because it is based on actions and not the nature of an individual. On Layonara, it oftentimes seems you can't be evil if your PC is unwilling to commit heinous crimes.

I don't buy that though, there should be room for a "restrained evil". The kind of evil that makes a very conscious choice on embracing society's standards. Stargazer has been playing one I believe, so maybe it's a good idea to ask for his two cents on this, as soon as he gets his PC in working order that is.

[davidhoff]

By Filatus:

What's lying?

It is this:

might simply ignore certain information that might create an inconsistency that the opposition might use to get the accused off the hook.

All exculpatory (favorable against the accused) evidence must be disclosed and if you don't then its unethical, unjust and untruthful and against Divine Law.  To not tell a truth is the same thing as telling an untruth.

Going with the context you yourself use, would a paragon of virtue and honor use evidence he's not 100% sure about? Would he use it, and let the court decide whether it is admissable or not? If the court would admit it, and the doubt would still be lingering, would it still have been a good act? There's no yes or no, black or white in this.

You are never 100% sure about anything, but you need to have a good faith basis for presenting any arguments.  If you know evidence you subit to a court was planted on the defendant...that's not good faith.  If you know an admission you got from a defendant was coerced out of duress...that's not good faith.  If you make an argument to the court knowing the defense can not rebut because you failed to give them exculpatory evidence..that's not good faith.

There really is no room for evil when it comes to "Divine Law"...they are in opposites.

[Dremora]

I agree with Filatus, alignment of a character should be based on that character, not just their actions, who knows the motivations behind such an action, or they're motivations for restraint or how they view things against how the world views them. Just because you see someone do something good doesnt mean they're good, and vice versa. Else alignment changes would be pretty  frequent or characters would be very poor imitations of real minds in real bodies, which is kinda the point of roleplay in my opinion and why people dont always hug NWN's mechanics in a RP situation.

Naturally if your playing a type of evil, expect to see that kind of evil reflected in situations where a character would display such, whether its safe or not to do so depends doesnt it? Just dont expect that to be on display 24/7. That doesnt happen except to the most extreme ends of a spectrum, something that doesnt exist when you are following a diety of Law. Law is neither inheritantly good nor bad, only the intentions behind a law's creation exist (the Divine's Law's intent is good) but how the law is enforced etc varies. Thus law can be obeyed and evil can still be done in the course of seeing it through, or good can be delivered instead.

Also a point on the Divine Law, lets remember it was set by gods, gods whom are representations and embodiments of a single aspect or several closely-related ones. They are not like people.
A person, short of being a Champion, isn't an embodiment of their god, or a rather a perfect one.
They are unlikely to always do exactly what their diety would do in the same situation which is now expecting perfect people, which dont exist.
To say you can't get a follower of Rofirenite who is evil is silly.
They arent all paladins (not even clerics are paladins), they arent all perfect, they arent all kind or mostly indifferent to good and evil, some are malicious, some are secretly bloodthirsty, some may be ruthless in achieving the desires of their church and god.. and some may be on the verge of getting a divine kick up the backside out of their faith for being corrupt.

Is it not possible for an assassin to strive for the greater good and murder, kill, abduct, sabotage for good causes (all evil actions). A means to an end? Don't think that something similar canot happen to cleric Rofirine somewhere down the line in their life or right from the start for whatever personal reasons of philisophical outlooks they have. A cleric is NOT their diety and not directly controlled by them. They never will be, they can only serve them and uphold their beliefs to the best of their abilities and do with the world what their god wishes.

[Filatus]

By Filatus:


It is this:



All exculpatory (favorable against the accused) evidence must be disclosed and if you don't then its unethical, unjust and untruthful and against Divine Law.  To not tell a truth is the same thing as telling an untruth.



You are never 100% sure about anything, but you need to have a good faith basis for presenting any arguments.  If you know evidence you subit to a court was planted on the defendant...that's not good faith.  If you know an admission you got from a defendant was coerced out of duress...that's not good faith.  If you make an argument to the court knowing the defense can not rebut because you failed to give them exculpatory evidence..that's not good faith.

There really is no room for evil when it comes to "Divine Law"...they are in opposites.

And to give weight to your case, you give me two lobsided examples. My whole point is that we shouldn't be looking at the extremes in this. Doesn't a prosecutor need to establish a motive in front of the court? If a prosecutor ends up with say two possible motives for a crime, and they both seem equally plausible, is it against Rofiriein's dogma, to choose the one that probably carries a harsher penalty?

Would a Rofirinite make his case based on the motive that carries a less harsh penalty with it, because its preferable over risking an unjust penalty? Or would he go for the other motive, thinking it a greater crime if the punishment was less than what would be just in Rofirein's eyes?

[Gulnyr]

Going with the context you yourself use, would a paragon of virtue and honor use evidence he's not 100% sure about? Would he use it, and let the court decide whether it is admissable or not? If the court would admit it, and the doubt would still be lingering, would it still have been a good act? There's no yes or no, black or white in this.

There is in this case, actually.  Whether or not to withhold evidence is not a Good-Evil question but a Law-Chaos question: "Do you or do you not believe in the system of the courts, and in the order and duties of each member of the faith?  Is it not the duty and position of the judges to determine the admissibility of evidence in a trial?"  Whether or not the character likes the possible outcome is immaterial.  Will he follow the rules, or will he turn against the rules when it suits him, thus proving himself bound for Neutral rather than firmly within Lawful?

But at the same time you ask in this thread to define a lawful neutral Rofi in a few words

Acacea covered it.  That was a question about Dremora's scenario.

If you look at the world we ourselves live in, you'll find that notions of virtue, honor and order are not neatly defined concepts. They're actually very ill defined concepts that are often something you aspire to be, rather than simply are. You'll find honor has a completely different meaning if you ask a Voraxite, and then a Rofirinite. So too, do these shades of grey exist within the Rofirinite faith. because in the end, they are only words.

True enough, but this is a fantasy world; we can define things.  Doesn't it seem like the church of order should be more orderly?  I know someone will take this to extremes, so I'll point out explicitly that I would never expect or ask that everything be laid out as completely as it would be in a real Rofireinite church.  Still, some structure, explanation, guidance, even restriction would not be a bad thing.  Define concepts.  Give meaning to the words.  Not insanely specific, but less whatever-you-can-justify-to-a-DM-or-CA.  It's really wild and random right now.  Chaotic.  That's the wrong thing to be.  And the poorly-fitting Evil makes it worse.

(Also, with respect and potential apologies to Lance, his character seems very "harsh end of LN with low Charisma" to me.  I admit to limited interaction, though.)

To Dremora, that's why very nearly every PC is actually True Neutral, no matter what the record says.  If a character is not behaving in a certain direction a majority of the time, they cannot really be said to be that alignment.  If you aren't Lawful a lot, you're really just Neutral.  If you aren't Chaotic a lot, you're really just Neutral.  If you aren't Good a lot, you're really just Neutral.  If you aren't Evil a lot, you're really just Neutral.  

I don't disagree with the motivation concept, but isn't that really table-top level stuff?  How can we expect all our characters' motivations to be monitored and tracked to show we're really being X and not Y, especially in the past however long of bare calendarness when it's just player-to-player?

(Also, don't worry, everyone.  I never win this argument about the Evil Rofies.  No one cares what I think.)

[Dremora]

IF no one cared what you think we'd not bother trying to discuss it with you, I certaintly would'nt waste time I would spend sleeping if I thought your opinion as something to brush off (but I will go to bed after I post this since I need to get up). In my case I just dont agree with your opinion and I also think that you cant monitor a characters motivations unless your the player; whats the point if everyone knew everything the other would do?
Thats why I have said your alignment should show, but you should not be expected to display its characteristics all the time and ignore the context of its display just so you are proving to people watching "hey look this character so obviously evil",. IF you designed a character to BE that way then good on you, if you want them to be subtle, well then do it that way. a character who enforces and obeys the law, but is malicious, cruel or whatever personally is not TN. That is set pattern which should show whenever the oppurtunity presents itself and its appropriate (if the player likes his character concept, it will probably). Just like a serial killer is liable only to display it when its safe to do so (not for the victim).

Read the examples I gave earlier of how each Inquisitor alignment would treat a violent situation, apply that pattern of character concept and personality to other situations where evil and good and lawful/chaotic nature can be displayed. Then explain to me how those characters (meaningful ones, not something simple like how you interact with a stranger) represent a True Neutral character with no leanings towards good/evil or lawful/chaotic.
The examples I gave were examples, since its not conveniant for me to tell you a lifestory about character A/B/C. But, I atleast, believe that they were infact LG/LN/LE and would expect those alignemnts to show in a characers life whenever it can and makes sense to.

[Dremora]

AS a final statement to clear-up misunderstandings: EVil has various forms, some subtle, some not. Same with good. Lawful and chaotic is usually alot easier to spot and diplay. But good and evil can only be shown by people when a situation arises that gives them oppurtunity to express it.
At this point one would expect a player to show their alignment if they feel its a good time for their character to do so. OR rather, they should just RP how they're character would and hopefully their concept coincides with most of the bullet point guidelines on alignment and faith dogma.

It wont always be perfect, the player makes mistakes, and sometimes they may have a character who would conceal they're nature in some instances, I think journal entries could be kept if they wished to reinforcetheir char's thoughts. Its why I originally kept a journal on Nym to show others that just cause they dont see it, doesnt mean he doesnt have quite a neutral outlook (or I try to RP that atleast) since his creation, albeit a harsh and alien one, being a monster from the Deep. If it changes, I may show it in a journal or in RP when I can cause I personally enjoy it.

Just consider everything ive said if your going to hear me out, not just some, now goodnight all