Evil/Lawful Rofireinite vs Good/Lawful Rofireinite

[davidhoff]

By Filatus:

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?

It's fine for a Rofireinite Prosecutor to try to make his case and go for the harshest crime/punishment he see's fit, but if he is relying on untruths or false evidence he is not being lawful and just, he is not acting in accordance with Rofireinite beliefs and he is now outside of the church.  There may be some Rofireite Prosecutors/Judges that "go for the jugular" or are deemed "harsh", but that alone does not make them evil nor does it make them something less than lawful, as long as they stay within the confines of the Divine Law.

[willhoff]

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.

When you (mechanically) put a deity in a characters deity field it means they adamantly follow and adhere to the tenants and faiths of that deity.  Even more so with a cleric or paladin.

Taken from Lore:  Lawful/Evil Character traits:

Lies and cheats those not worthy of his respect.
May or may not kill an unarmed foe.
Never kill an innocent but will harm, harass or kidnap.
Has no time for the law.
May take dirty money.

Taken from Lore...Rofirein tenants/Aspects:

paragon of virtue and honor.
Dedicate your life to justice, honor, and the pursuit of law and order.
Hold the law above all else at any cost
Without the order of law, chaos would reign and the world would descend into dark times
Extend honor to all--even your foes.
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

If you have the attributes of an evil character listed above it is impossible for you to have Rofirein in your deity field which means fully embracing and following Rofireins tenants listed above and having that god in your heart and soul.

An evil character could have a blank deity field and claim he/she's a rofirein which I think would be fine.

[davidhoff]

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).

The potential L/E Rofirein may pick and choose when they decide to display their "evil" side and may choose to do it behind the scenes.  But guess who is watching always?  Rofirein and LORE.  If your character is evil, then at some point they must act evil and Rofirein and LORE will see.  There is no way one can be evil: lie, steal, cheat, murder, harass, kidnap, act selfishly, take dirty money, etc. and still comply with the doctrines of Rofirein: Virtue, Honor, Divine Law (good/lawful law), does not make way for acts of evil, etc.

When looking to see if a L/E Rofie could exist, the point of view is not from the perspective of the potential character (subjective), rather the point of view is from a reasonable observer with all the facts (objective).  Objectively a L/E Rofie really doesn't seem to be logically possible because the Objective observer would see the evilness of the character and his evil acts and see its contrast with the tenets of the Rofirein faith.

[Dremora]

Yes when something goes in your diety field it means you follow the diety's ideology which as you'll realize still requires the mind of the character to be on the same page as the diety, clerics and paladins are likely to be so. However, lying is not against the law, stealing is, murder is only murder within set parameters, the law is about actions of a person not their conduct such as callousness or bloodthirst and such things can be displayed when facing off against evil-doers without breaking any laws and giving their diety a reason to sever any divine powers granted(but its still evil).

Honour varies in many forms as does virtue and you can argue that some things are not dishonourable. Just like Toranites arent expected to keep their oaths if those oaths lead to loss of innocent life, nothing about rofireinie honour and virtue is set in stone some evil things can still be honourable, just look at the samurai.

Again your sticking to the alignment bullet points like they are law and if that is the case then yes, LE rofireinites will be extremely restrained in what they can do. However, since they are not requirements that must be filled as written, then you can play a Rofirenite evilly, a good person who obeys the law and acts with a sense of fairness, but they aren't afraid of getting their hands dirty to see justice done. Justice isn't always good, its a sense of getting what you deserve. An evil toranite would be harder to get than an evil Rofirenite; there are LORE events where Toran observed the evils of his followers but didnt sever all their powers instantly just because they arent as perfect as him and wanted to give them time to mend their ways; in the same manner Rofirene may not sever all powers from a cleric if he comes off as ruthless and callous but still upholds the Divine Law which is his primary duty and its in the broader service of the Greater Good of all.

An example earlier that a bribed rofie might take the the gold, still arrest the person and then donate that gold to the Temple or to further whatever ploys he has to root out unlawful or evil-doers. So he took dirty oney, but put it to a good cause, he lied to the man who broke the law but in doing so delivered justice. Do you see Rofirein taking away all his powers for that, I dont especially when other gods have been known not to step in until their followers truly lose their way?
There are no laws against killing those that attack you, as shown in the scenarios I gave (which noone has said would not work and given reasons), there is no law against lying except if you are being asked to give testimony in court, there is no law against harrassing criminals if you are police in those times however physical harrassment may've been. There is no law against a Rofireinite who quite happily would prefer seeing evil people dying on the spot for resisting rather than going out of his way to capture them and present them for trial. Those are evil actions in service of good without breaking the law or violating some senses of honour and virtue (of which there are several).

"paragon of virtue and honor.
Dedicate your life to justice, honor, and the pursuit of law and order.
Hold the law above all else at any cost
Without the order of law, chaos would reign and the world would descend into dark times
Extend honor to all--even your foes.
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"

These may be the tenants but nowhere is there a requirement to be strictly good n their dealings of law and order. Law and order is not good by default, it is what it is. Rofireine may decree it to be used for good intents, it doesnt make law and order good and if faced with a situation in which law and order must be upheld and some evil done to do so, some clerics will gladly do so because they are more ruthless. Yes it says as long as its in "accordance with the law and does not make way for evil"
What its saying is that the actions of a cleric should not pave the way for more evil deeds, it does NOT say that evil cannot be purged 'evilly' like in the scenario's I displayed. What it says is their actions must not breed corruption, encourage murder or basically bring evil unto the people they are trying to protect nothing says they cannot lie, kill, manipulate or do evil things so long as they arent strictly against the law and especially if they have good intentions at heart (which a diety will see as well).

Hold the law above anything else at all costs, this proves that law can come at the expense of good if it must, thus law is not good, its simply being used for good intents. So you CAN have evil rofies. Treating foes with honour is also subjective to the type of honour implied, does it mean fight fair, or does it mean simply give them a chance to repent and ask to face trial Its not specifically stated what is meant, but since this isnt Toran and a cause for ORDER not pure GOOD, it is NOT the same thing as the bright shiny knight on the white horse who is incorruptible from fairy tales.

[davidhoff]

I see your points and I understand you're trying to find a way to squeeze L/E into also being a Rofireinite.  To be honest, I think if you really tried you probably could attempt to make these same arguments for saying we should have L/E Toranities or L/G Pyrtechons.  You're looking at it from a micro point of view (at a specific character level), where I'm looking at it from a macro point of view (seeing if the tenets and dogma's jive).

If you're really playing your "evil" properly then, from a marco point of view, evil does not jive with Rofireine and stirct adherence to "Divine Law" (good law).  

"You are a paragon of virtue and honor" and do not make way for acts of evil.

 If you are evil, then at some point YOU will make acts of evil.  Making acts of evil is in direct contradiction to Rofireinite dogma/tenets and I can see no way to reconcile this.

Your example of the L/E Rofireinite who takes a bribe and donates the money.  If he takes a bribe he is no longer lawful...he just broke the law...so that guy is out.  He is taking dirty money (evil act), so he is now in direct contradiction to Rofirein's code ("do not make way for acts of evil")...so that won't work.  

Harassing criminals

is not an evil act...its more of a good act.  

Prefering to see evil people die

, is not an evil ACT, it is a thought/mindset and one I don't see as necesarrily being evil.

If you're saying my L/E Rofie is evil and has an evil mind, but doesn't overtly ACT in an evil way...well then he's not really evil.  Evil characters, if properly played, must and will perform acts of evil and at that point (from a marcro point of view) they don't jive with Rofireinite tenets and Divine Law.

[Gulnyr]

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.

This is the best example I've ever seen, in this thread or elsewhere.  Still, I'm not sure I'm following.  Are you saying that one character made all these decisions?  If you are, then that is exactly demonstrating my point. (And if you aren't, I am really lost.)

It has been confirmed for the Good-Evil axis that you can't be Good by doing Evil.  The ends do not justify the means.  If you use Evil means to achieve a Good end, you have still done Evil.  It's the manner you behave that matters, not your end goal.

That must also be true for the Law-Chaos axis.  If you do Chaotic things for a Lawful purpose, you're Chaotic.  You cannot uphold the law by breaking it, as Jennara has often said.  You cannot be just by being unjust.  You aren't following the rules if you break the rules.  And the Rofireinites are really big on rules and order and the system.

If one character takes it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner, he is no longer following the rules.  He is outside the system.  He may get away with it once or twice, but as the church finds him to be prone to bouts of chaotic behavior, they will trust him less and less.  He will be unlikely to be promoted.  He will be more likely to be demoted.  If he follows the order and system laid out - which is extremely important for a Rofireinite - then he can't act on his Evil very much.  Someone not acting on his opinions and beliefs is just like a Neutral character - he feels it, but he lacks the action to make it matter.

Do you see what I mean?  A Rofireinite is somewhat analogous to a police officer in the real world, who can't just shoot every criminal but must stay within the rules of the system.  The system and the rules are a big part of what it means to be Rofireinite.  If you aren't following the system, why are you playing a Rofireinite?  The rules are part of the challenge; don't ignore them.

[Dremora]

Modern day mindsets will not exist in a medieval fantasy setting, as several have pointed out on several topics. If a high ranking rofirenite (its why I just labelled him as an inquisitor due to a lack of LORE knowledge). If he directs an operation of considerable size, he HAS the power to make calls such as that when confronting an evil, resisting cult of psychos; he cant radio in for the decision of the local high priest on how to resolve the situation, he works with his pre-set orders and the rest is in his hands, along with the lives of his men. Noone, considering the rofirenite mindset would rebuke the Inquisitor for doing his duty and keeping his men safe while upholding the law at the expense of mad cult members lives who refused surrender to begin with. The public will not accuse him of police brutality or suspend him for killing a suspect, its just not like that. Granted he may get in trouble for the summary executions in the field but that is just an optional thing that MIGHT happen. Im just trying to show you the differences and how they can be displayed, even if an LE rofirenite would not be an OBVIOUS or main villian. And what you've said is my point. A character may be aligned to a diety and try to do their work but how they do it can be good or evil and thats their alignment; obviously a NE or CE character cant be a rofie priest. But I still think an LE can operate in that Church to a degree without being removed from his position, obviously he cant be the big bad guy you see in films but he can still be the character most dont like for his methods (or maybe they do depending on the crowd), even if he's on the good-team strictly speaking.

I still feel as if rather than directly addressing the actions performed as out of line and something that wouldnt happen, you are picking at small details when ive already stated the nitty gritty points (that I said MIGHT happen) are not what im sharp on, I still think the overall example works however. If you cannot say truthfully that an LE rofirenite would not act similar or like that and that Rofirene and the character-in-question's superiors would instantly arrest or excommunicate him for his actions and give the reason why.. I have to still believe my example is valid, fullest respect to your argument ofcourse, im not just refusing to be 'wrong' I just dont see how I am yet.

We can argue on the right/wrong of whether taking bribe money is ACCEPTING a bribe or if it is confiscating it from a criminal, having him locked up and then putting the confiscated coin to good use, it depends on opinion. Yes it -may- break a tenet but many are bound to never stick perfectly to codes and tenets and some may be bent likely without a character being instantly kicked out of their faction find me a character who has obeyed all the rules all the time perfectly. Also taking it does not pave the way for any further evil, the criminal is arrested, end of. If a rofirenite funded a criminal organization to rise up and force the hand of a bigger group to deal with them, and later close a trap on both groups to catch them all, he has captured his objectives but paved the way for more evil during the setting up of his psuedo-mobbsters. Its not the same if you ask me.
Hassling criminals is not always a good act it depends on how you view it, how much and what sort of harrassment exists and if its applied only to people they know 100% are criminals, what if they are wrong and have the wrong guy?

Referring to the mindset over alignment point; if a cleric for example is bloodthirsty and gives orders to slay evil-doers (or those he percieves to be and has any excuse to give a lawful order of that kind) because of religeous zeal rather than take equally reasonable and less-bloody or harsh road, arent they evil? Sure they are slaying bad guys, they are in line with the law, and keeping good people safe but the way they go about it and their inclinations to give such harsh orders when there are those who dont deserve it amongst the enemy ranks, it is evil. I dont think you can justify a ruthless general (another example to illustrate the point of actions being good/evil/lawful/chaotic) butchering a tribe of orcs down to the last female and child as a good act even if he was given a lawful order from his superiors. Lets say the tribe was responsible for razing villages, taking slaves etc and unless crippled or eradicated, they will murder many more. Wholesale slaughter protects good people, fulfills the orders by duty. But you could argue killing every male member of the tribe and capturing and relocating the remaining females and children would achieve the same thing. It is a more good-aligned act but regardless of the path, I think the general wont be punished for it.

Oh and just because people are evil, doesnt necessarily mean killing them with glee is a good act. That comes down to personal opinion and regardless of my opinions on it, I think enjoying slaughtering evil people will always be a somewhat evil act simply because you as the character like what you are doing and are not doing it out of selfless duty.

[Gulnyr]

My concern is not really about what can be imagined for some imaginary figure.  I'm not thinking about it for mental exercise.  As with Alatriel's example, any DM can decide that a high-ranking Rofireinite is this way or that.  But there are no PCs in that position.  The closest is Jennara, and she's not Evil, nor does she have the authority to declare guilt or order executions, except maybe in Echo in extreme conditions, and that would be because of Trelanian law, not Rofireinite rules.  If she did do anything like that, she would be held accountable for ignoring the system and not following the rules.  And it would be bad.  I still disagree that one man making those choices is within the bounds of the order and system of the Rofireinite faith.

My concern is for actual players with actual characters and the value of the church and its structure and rules.  A low-ranking character, like any that is submitted and played, cannot make these decisions except on the smallest scales, and if 'branded' as a liability and opposed to order, he won't advance and may even get into serious trouble if it happens often.  How Evil can that character really be if he only thinks Evil and doesn't do Evil so that he actually gets anywhere?  That's just LN with some particular Evil tendencies, which isn't abnormal.  That's really a question of how alignment is viewed, I guess, and there's never going to be agreement.

[lonnarin]

For those fans of Sons of Anarchy out there, let me submit the new District Attorney Lincoln Potter as an example of LE done right.  He came into the series during the fourth season and is trying to take down the cartel who the motorcycle gang is working for.  Recently they got one man inside the club, "Juice" to work as one of their informants, using blackmail to that end.  It turns out that Juice's being half-black would not sit well the the mostly racist members of the motorcycle gang that he's in, and he urges Sheriff Roosevelt to hold that over his head in order to gain intel.  Sending Juice into the clubhouse to procure a sample of drugs for them to test in the lab, they thrust this guy directly into the heart of the lion for their ends.  Roosevelt has twangs of guilt for this and asks DA Lincoln "what happens if they find him out, They'll kill him!" to Which Lincoln responds "that's the point!".  He's trying to sew dissension and mistrust within the Motorcycle gang to shake them up.  Then when Juice arrives with the sample, they bust him immediately for possession of narcotics, to dig in deeper and make him even more a thrall/informant.  Now they didn't lie to get him there, they didn't break any laws, they operate for the law, and they see these lesser criminals as reasonable sacrifices to get at the larger target, the coke supplying cartel members. They're not planting evidence, fudging reports or telling lies to the club.  They are however using available evidence to make them pawns of the law enforcement and sacrificing criminals to the devices of other criminal conspirators who would kill them if found out.

I think when one is planting evidence, falsifying reports, skirting around due process or implicating innocents for crimes they did not commit, that sinks into unlawful territory of NE.  Using a position of legal authority to commit crimes is not lawful.  Using real evidence and facts however to coerce and exploit people into dangerous positions of questionable morality is.  So somebody like Lex Luthor, despite giving the outward appearance of law as a businessman or even when he became the president of the United States does not qualify for LE.  That ship sailed due to his criminal acts while in power.  Despite being in positions of authority and having a top notch legal team that finds him innocent again and again, he is still committing crimes constantly.  But perhaps a Prince John of Robin Hood fame who takes power through his right to lineage while his brother is away, raises taxes, chops the hands off of children for stealing bread and uses the military to seek out and destroy rebels and thieves would qualify.  He is the legitimate authority and the one who sets the laws so that he may profit from them.  He is not breaking laws of any sort, even if the laws he pushes are inhumane and cruel.

This is just as how not all good cops are lawful.  Take any police film star from the 80s who use their badges to shootemup like its the wild west, and who beat criminals in custody in order to gain information. Unless there are acceptable laws on the books for the extraction of information via torture, these are not lawful acts.  If however, the law of the lands do permit dungeons with torture devices (like many lands in layo) they would be.  It's all about Due Process.  If the laws as they are written permit such actions to be performed and the authority of that law lies within the hands of those who commit morally reprehensible acts, then as evil as those acts may be, they are deemed lawful.

I can also think of some church examples of a Lawful Evil character.  If one uses his position to extract indulgences from the people, raises tithes to ridiculous amounts and declares political enemies as heretics for minor offenses, it would be considered Lawful Evil.  If the money gained through donations goes towards gold plating the inside of the church and building statues of themselves instead of feeding the hungry or using that money to help other churches nearby, it could be LE.  I use the following litmus test in such matters.

Good to evil Axis:
Does this benefit others or myself first and foremost?
Are my actions kind or cruel?
Do I  make them perform restitution or merely punish?
Do my actions positively or negatively affect those around me?
Am I greedy or generous?

and on the Lawful/Chaotic Axis:
Do I obey the laws as they are written, or do I act against them?
Do I find real evidence, or do I Lie?
Do I follow due process, or go outside the law when nobody is looking?
When I perform acts in the name of the law, do I have legitimate authority granted to me by the established rulers of the region, or do I do as I please, using said authority and my badge as a thinly veiled excuse to get away with it?
Am I just in my dealings, or do I break any crimes on the books, using my authority as a shield to do so?


Crooked cops are not lawful evil because the law is not crooked.  Any time when the law becomes malleable serving some but not others, then the law is considered broken.  Using authority to turn a blind eye to the crimes of some but not others is not lawful.  Corruption is neither good nor evil, but the extent to which the law is no longer adhered to.

Of course one must also take into consideration that the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis is a collection of actions taking place over a long period of time, and that no one single action may undo that, unless it is a snapping point of supreme malice or retribution.  This is a changing point in which the revelation is made to the character on the path he will follow from there on after.  (CDQ!)  When Darth Vader sacrifices himself to save Luke from the Emperor, he redeems himself, sure.  But If he stopped to pet a puppy and then marched right past thereafter to blow up Alderan, would we all be saying he was a good man?

Not all things are Black and White!  There is good in evil people and evil in good people, just as there are degrees to which a lawbringer may disobey or a madman may obey the laws.  This is why we have an entire axis of varying degrees available to us and not a simple yes-no, one-zero, true-false system of 4 options.  This is why Neutral characters exist.  Even the gods themselves may vary in their actions depending upon their moods or the situations that they face, so why should followers be any different?  Is Azatta still an assassin of the deep?  Is Grand still a neutral Dorandite making axes?  Character development takes ALL THINGS into account, even the shades of grey and the small failings and triumphs of all things.  Han Solo shot Greedo first and dealt drugs for Jabba the Hutt, it does not mean he is any less a hero!

[davidhoff]

I respect all the arguments made thus far, and this may be beating a dead horse.  We may agree to disagree, but we're having too much fun to stop now, right?     I'm not saying you can't have zealous, harsh, tough, mean and tenacious Rofireinites.  Not all Rofies are goody-two-shoes and saints.

I just can't see "evil" as a Rofireinite.  Ask yourself this question:  Why can't there be Evil Toranites?  Seriously, ask yourself this.

I honestly haven't researched this fully, but I'm guessing the reason you can't have evil toranites is because being evil and acting evil is in contrast to the tenets of the Toranite Faith.  The exact same argument can be made about Evil Rofireinites.  Worshiping Rofirein and being a devout follower is about a life "for" Rofirein and upholding His "Divine Law", which is a good law.  Rofireinites can not do things that lead to acts of evil.  Rofireinites are paragons of virtue (from "The Free Dictionary")

a. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness

 How can you be and act evil and still be in line with this?  These same argument hold true if you want an Evil Toranite.

If a character has evil in his heart and commits evil acts "in the name of Rofirein" is he trully a Rofireinite?  Or is this person an imposter, mascarading as a Rofireinite to further his evil-selfish plan (a crime punishable by death)?  Is there room in ones heart for both evil and a devout worshop of a virtuous and good god?

I don't mean to nit-pick some of these examples; I think talking about this in a "big-picture" framework is more affective.  But the examples are out there and must be addressed.

If a Rofie takes a bribe from a criminal, but then turns that money over to the Temple, well then that's not an evil act by the Rofie, its a good act and its legal.  He is acting in his official capacity to uncover a criminal act (attempted bribe by the criminal) and he does the legal and official thing which is to turn it over to the authorities.

If a rofirenite funded a criminal organization to rise up

This is unlawful and probably led to evil acts committed on innocent civilians.

Hassling criminals is not always a good act

If a Rofie is acting within the law by following, investigating or questioning a criminal then its a lawful and possibly a good act.  If the Rofie is unlawfully beating up, coercing, or destroying/invading the criminal's property these are unlawful acts.  It depends on the specific circumstances to determine a person was treated lawfully or not.

if a cleric for example is bloodthirsty and gives orders to slay evil-doers (or those he percieves to be and has any excuse to give a lawful order of that kind) because of religeous zeal rather than take equally reasonable and less-bloody or harsh road, arent they evil?

If a cleric slays evil-doers, then this may be a lawful or unlawful act depending.  It is lawful, and probably a good act, if the evil-doers acts are proven, their crimes are evident and the evil doers are resisting and will not come in peacefully and law/safety dictates there is no other way to bring them to justice.  It is unlawful if this cleric does not give them due process or time to surrender and just goes in for the kill without giving them a chance for trial or process.

Edit: Another thought.  What I'm seeing logistically speaking, is that if a L/E Rofie tries to "act" in a evil way, usually he runs afoul of not being lawful.  If the L/E Rofie tries to act evil and his acts comport with the law, then he's really not being/acting evil because that same act would usually have been done as well by a L/G or L/N Rofie.

[Dezza]

While I feel that the conversation has been spiraling in circles for some time I want to say I see this as a perfectly acceptable explanation for a LE Rofireinite. And yes I think if its a PC who has gone through the CDQ process and has a rank in the faith that enambles them to make such decisions 'in the field' then good on them. well...evil on them as the case may be.  

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.

[Dremora]

Okay fair enough to Gulnyr's point that being a low-order PC and doing evil acts is probably quite challenging and then it really does come down to how visible do you expect their alignment to be in their actions, how creative is the player and whether they have situations avaiulable to them where they can commit evil lawfully. I'll admit the higher the rank, the more power you have (in ANYTHING), the easier it probably is; that said keep in mind rofireinite adventuring PCs make the life/death call on many things in their grinds for xp or on bashing quests when others defer to their judgement or they are alone in their faith groups. Hell maybe they arent giving orders but advise the party leader to make hard-line and arguably evil decisions, thats still evil through influence.

Okay I'll ask myself, found an answer in two seconds: An evil toranite is not possible (or I cant think up a decent arguement for one except the character THINKS hes a Toranite) simply because they are a cause that will further 'Good' BEFORE anything else and are not accepting that the 'Law' IS 'Good' all the time like a Rofireinite would, the Divine Law does not account for every individual detail in a case to dispense perfect justice and fairness to all while upholding Good; its not possible for written instructions on how to punish and what to punish (evil can occur in its enforcement im sure) for to uphold goodness on individual basis all the time, maybe if Rofie came down from heaven and took each case in its personal context and balanced lawful and good equaly everytime, did it all himself, it'd happen but since its left to mortals who nodoubt will find points where tenets clash, its not gunna be perfect is it? I still see evil as a possibility for clerics in a LN faith. I don't see it possible in an LG faith, not for those who rely on their diety for divine spells etc (clerics, Champions etc).

Besides, this argument is about LE allowed for an LN diety. Not LE being allowed for Pyrotechon (CE) or Toran (LG) which are paradoxical; a lawful agent of chaos and destruction? Come on guys. You'll notice the alignment seperation remarkably more distinct so bringing those in isn't really a fair example. Maybe Rofirein has some dogma that makes him come off as LG (maybe its propaganda ), maybe that should be re-written, maybe rofirein should change to LG, but since his alignment and that of the faith is currently LN, and from a lore perspective he is about Law and Order. Both good and evil should be capable of operating in that system being only one alignment step away.

Anyway its a small enough difference and yet both teams can be considered the good guys, but I think the views of the Rofirenites in this case make them more susceptible and tolerant of evil-doers in their ranks, even if they dont consider them to be and for all intents and purposes evil agents may be quite the minority.
And yes I know Toran is LG mechanically (least I hope he is <.<) but I bet you that if you ask Toranite players, they would say that the good alignment part for their faith comes BEFORE the lawful part in ~priority~ (important!). Many Rofirenites may not feel the same way and believe that "upholding the law comes before all" (as pointed out, its from the diety page), and that may include the view of some that committing one evil act to ensure a greater good is done by not paving the way for further evil acts or plots, is worth it and still within the mandate they are given (though LE characters would repeat this decision trend unlike an LN and thus make many evil acts for double or triple the good benefits; all technically lawful acts ofcourse).
Yes, okay, fine, its not something Rofirein would give them the Victoria Cross for but a lawful based diety may not cut his powers off from an LE cleric if he fights for good, his actions bring more good than evil and he always acts lawfully (but is evil by account of his consistent methodology). This would imply the character is legal and makes sense in his present setting, even if he dances on a knife's edge from being booted up the butt.
But yeah we may have to agree to disagree on the majority of the argument davidoff hehe.

[davidhoff]

*puts the broken record back on*

Originally Posted by Dremora

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.

Going into a hostile environment against evil-cultitsts after a surrender is refused and killing some and taking some prisoners is L/E?  Sounds more L/G to me (go getem Jennara!).

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.

If playing judge/jury/exectuioner is considered lawful (I doubt it)..well then maybe this is L/E.  But also, if the Rofie is ordered to take the evil-cultest hideout and he see's no other way to ensure the safety of his men, and surrender has been refused, I think this is acceptable, but it would be more L/G or L/N...not L/E.

[Dremora]

Well obviously he sees another way to do it, thats how the other two examples performed, he chose from personal preference to kill everyone as it was safer for his own and he took a pleasure in slaughtering his enemies.
But anyway, we've both made our points so till withdraw from this now as well

[Dezza]

Your missing the point...its what they are trained to do, this is their place to be, their thing....

*puts the broken record back on*



Going into a hostile environment against evil-cultitsts after a surrender is refused and killing some and taking some prisoners is L/E?  Sounds more L/G to me (go getem Jennara!).



If playing judge/jury/exectuioner is considered lawful (I doubt it)..well then maybe this is L/E.  But also, if the Rofie is ordered to take the evil-cultest hideout and he see's no other way to ensure the safety of his men, and surrender has been refused, I think this is acceptable, but it would be more L/G or L/N...not L/E.

[miltonyorkcastle]

"You are a paragon of virtue and honor. Dedicate your life to justice, honor, and the pursuit of law and order. Hold the law above all else at any cost, even if this means bringing loved ones or friends to justice. Without the order of law, chaos would reign and the world would descend into dark times where Pyrtechon would thrive. Extend honor to all--even your foes. 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. The common people are the strongest force in bringing order and prosperity to all. We must protect them.

Eh, I think I quit reading somewhere on this third page, but let me just toss this out there:

You can be honorable and be evil. You can be just and be evil. You can pursue law and order and be evil. "What? Impossible. Or very hard, at least." I disagree. It's very easy. Here's how:

Let's look at 'honor', an attribute generally applied to 'good' people. But, in fact, an evil person can be extremely honorable. Because being 'honorable' requires something to honor. Since one cannot 'honor' everything, one must choose. If you 'honor' goodness, unselfishness, altruism, etc, then you will uphold that. If you 'honor' selfishness and the law (the law will get me what I want), than you will uphold that. Even when you are told to 'honor' your enemies, again, that is based on a perspective of what is honorable, and what isn't. "I honor you, my foe, lawbreaker, by slitting your throat, for it is honorable to die at the hands of justice and serve as an example to all that chaos will not be tolerated." Yes, I believe one can play an openly evil Rofereinite priest that is in fact supported by Roferein. You don't have to honor life to be honorable. Sure, lying isn't honorable (since that was brought up), but who said you have to lie to be evil?

Next, let's look at justice. "Eye for an eye" is just. Revenge is just. In fact, enforcement of law is sanctioned revenge. Someone abuses society, and society takes back what was lost through punishment of the crime. And justice, again, is determined by those who deal it. For some, one eye for one eye lost is just. For others, seven eyes for one eye is just (unprovoked, you took an eye from the guard captain, so now you and each of your family members must lose an eye in order for justice to be served).This is why you can't have evil Toranites, as Toran holds mercy and compassion with as high a regard as justice, if not higher. This is also why sometimes Rofireinites and Toranites clash.

I think you know where this is going, but we now have the pursuit of law and order to discuss. Not only can we enforce the law in some measurably 'evil' way, but we can in fact pursue the creation of 'evil' laws insofar as they support a peaceful and civil society, and they are equally enforced upon everyone. Let's go back to the 'seven eyes for one eye' scenario. I'd personally call that an evil law, but so long as the guard captain was beholden to the same law as the regular joe, then the law is equitable, civil, and promotes peace (through fear of punishment).

"But, none of those things are virtuous!" On the contrary, all of those things are virtuous! It simply depends upon the virtues about which you are speaking. And, of course, on what you believe are virtues. A 'virtue' does not have to be 'good.' But even so, if you are honorable and just, you could be considered virtuous. If you are a shining example of law defeating chaos, you could be considered virtuous, even if the means aren't pretty.

"Okay, okay," you say, "but how do you rectify that with the part of the dogma that says to aid others and not support evil.?" Easily. As a LE Rofireinite who believes in the virtues of justice and the law, I believe that I am aiding you, helping you, bettering you even, to cut off your hand for breaking the law, to slay you for causing strife in an otherwise peaceful society. Not only do I believe it, but it is true if, in fact, you see the error of your ways and repent, and even if you don't, I am still aiding others by ridding the world of an unrepentant, non-peaceful, uncivil person. Getting rid of an evil, even. If you are affording the society a greater peace (reduced violence) and civility, then you are not 'making way for evil.'  

Now you say, "but the divine law supports all good things! If you honor the divine law, that means you honor what is good." Incorrect. Let me repeat: Incorrect. The divine law supports a civil (ordered), peaceful (prosperous) society where the common man is treated equitably (protected). The belief is that a civil, peaceful society is, by default, 'good'. Or better than the alternative. A society, of course, can be civil and peaceful, yet not be considered 'good' in the sense that the society is not altruistic. Obey the law, you will have peace and civility. Disobey, and you will suffer horribly. As long as the rules are always enforced the same, it's even fair. Once you break the law, you forfeit your rights to peace and civility. Rael's methods come to mind, as does Acacea's recently mentioned concepts of fanatical beliefs/organizations. The potential suffering is so great that people don't even want to come close to breaking the law. As such, the society is very stable and very peaceful, if also stifled. It's predictable, and if you obey the rules, even if they are sometimes a bit unreasonable, you live in peace and know what you are going to get.

"But the means! The means are 'evil', so you've 'made way for evil.'" Rofirein's dogma never suggests that the means to reach this state must be 'good'; it only suggests that the means must be 'honorable, just, and law-abiding.' And we've already reviewed how you don't have to be good to be honorable, just, and law-abiding. According to Rofirein's dogma, if you are honorable, just, and law-abiding, then you will not make way for evil, but instead for a peaceful, civil, equitable society.

Also, nowhere in Rofirein's dogma does it suggest that one must be brought to court to receive justice, either. If you are a cleric of Rofirein (at protector level or higher), and you see someone break the divine law (cause civil strife, etc.), it is your duty to act upon society's behalf and dispense justice in accordance with the law. If you're in a city/province that requires the criminal be brought before local magistrates and juries to deliberate the man's case, then perhaps you submit to those laws as part of supporting and protecting an already peaceful, civil society. But if you are in the boondocks or a place where no such laws exist, then it is your job, as one who must protect and support the peace of society, to both judge (via a 'fair' trial) and punish the criminal yourself, and in doing so, teach the man that he must act in accordance with the divine laws that promote societal betterment.

I am waiting for the Rofireinite priest who pulls a Judge Dredd and says, "I am the law!"

But wait, what about the "Lawful Neutral having a bad day argument"? Nowhere in Rofirein's dogma does it say you can't torture or maim or take a child away from its mother all in the name of justice, honor, and the law. "I honor you, my young friend, by peeling the skin from your arm, for with this act, you will forever remember the pain you have caused this society by your actions, and it is honorable to suffer for mistakes made if you learn from them, just as it is honorable for one to teach such as yourself the importance of following the law."

So yes, while this is fantasy and as such we can define 'good' and 'evil', that doesn't mean that things like 'justice' or 'honor' are inherently good or evil.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

So Tyra can become a Rofie!  Sweet!

[Gulnyr]

Also, nowhere in Rofirein's dogma does it suggest that one must be brought to court to receive justice, either. If you are a cleric of Rofirein (at protector level or higher), and you see someone break the divine law (cause civil strife, etc.), it is your duty to act upon society's behalf and dispense justice in accordance with the law. If you're in a city/province that requires the criminal be brought before local magistrates and juries to deliberate the man's case, then perhaps you submit to those laws as part of supporting and protecting an already peaceful, civil society. But if you are in the boondocks or a place where no such laws exist, then it is your job, as one who must protect and support the peace of society, to both judge and punish the criminal yourself, and in doing so, teach the man that he must act in accordance with the divine laws that promote societal betterment.

I, and everyone else who read a particular thread in the Rofirein forum, have been specifically told that this is not the case.  It is expressly not permitted to go forth into the wilderness and dispense judgement and punishment as you see fit.  Whether through the government of the kingdom or the church structure, a Rofireinite must attempt to bring criminals to those legally sanctioned to judge and execute sentences.  Also, unless told otherwise, no PC Rofireinite is officially sanctioned by a government, which makes each of them below the rank of a town guard on the totem pole of authority.

Nowhere in Rofirein's dogma does it say you can't torture or maim or take a child away from its mother all in the name of justice, honor, and the law.

This is a low blow.  No one else's dogma says that, either.  We don't have access to the Divine Law because it doesn't actually exist.  If we can just assume it doesn't say we can't, then anything goes.

[miltonyorkcastle]

It is expressly not permitted to go forth into the wilderness and dispense judgement and punishment as you see fit.

Not every kingdom/country even has 'sanctioned judges'? And while you could drag a criminal across kingdoms to see a judge, the crime might not have relevance, not to mention Rofirein's light won't reach the new lands if you uphold the law somewhere else. Also, which thread (yes, I know some folks can't see the Rofir forums)?

This is a low blow. No one else's dogma says that, either. We don't have access to the Divine Law because it doesn't actually exist. If we can just assume it doesn't say we can't, then anything goes.

So true. And since the divine law and the common law isn't listed on LORE, then all you have to rely on is your characters interpretations' of the dogma and what a GM tells you. So yeah, pretty much anything goes until such a time as the common law and/or the divine law is posted (the latter I doubt will exist in printed form).

And this makes things so much more interesting, don't you think? Now you can have more distinct factions within the church, interpretations on how to go about upholding the law and bettering society. Now Jennara can work toward convincing others to follow her beliefs as the best way to uphold the law, just as some Lucindites have their own ideas about the best way to use the Al'noth, with both cases seeing their god grant power to followers of the faith who go about their worship in wildly different manners.

[davidhoff]

From Milt:

So yeah, pretty much anything goes until such a time as the common law and/or the divine law is posted

Agreed.  We can't have an educated discussion about this until we know whether Divine Law is "Good" based law as was suggested here:

From Dezza:

The charter of laws is based on the Divine Law.

The Charter of Laws was agreed to by decree by most of the good and nuetral faiths under the Diamonior rule in Dreger centuries ago, along with most of the nations (of the time) that supported 'lawful' and or 'good' organised society. Its a shame this information is not yet widely available as it would help to clarify a lot of things for people about this thread. But we do what we can with what we have.

and here:

From the Congregation of the Principium:

...scribes made copies of the laws and then sent them to every corner of the empire, to every good aligned faith who had participated...

Or, whether its not a good based law as was declared by you:

From Milt:

Now you say, "but the divine law supports all good things! If you honor the divine law, that means you honor what is good." Incorrect. Let me repeat: Incorrect.

It makes a huge difference on how Rofies would have to act in general and how well a L/E Rofie fits into the faith.  So, hopefully we'll at least get a specific answer on this basic question (ie, is Divine Law a Good law?) from the LORE gods.  The details of Divine Law are less important right now, but maybe they are something like the Law of Layonara.