Evil/Lawful Rofireinite vs Good/Lawful Rofireinite

[Gulnyr]

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)?

It's in the new post there, quotes and links.

And this makes things so much more interesting, don't you think?

No, actually, I don't.  If we were discussing Mist or Katia or any non-Lawful god, it would definitely be nice.  Even for Grannoch or Vorax it could be interesting.  But for THE god of law and order, not so much.  It was bad enough before.  Openly admitting anything goes makes it so much worse.

Think about playing a monstrous character.  There's a challenge in it (or should be, anyway) because of the drawbacks and the limitations, right?  That's also one of the interesting things about playing a Lawful character.  Neutral is easy; just do whatever.  Chaotic isn't much harder than Neutral; just add rebellious tendencies.  But Lawful comes with regulation, and then to put the Rofireinite church on it makes it even more strict.  Well, it should in my opinion.  When one of the qualities Rofirein is said to govern is guidance, you'd expect maybe his church would at least have a label that said "This Way Up," y'know?  Not, "Hey, whatever until someone says something, dude."  And it seems that there would be something very unifying to explain why the church hadn't fractured into multiple sects - entirely separate churches - who all believed they had the right rules and the right way, each with its own Golden Voice.  

But here you are telling me the whole thing should be considered more open, more splintered, more wild, and that maybe the day of a hundred Rofireinite faiths is approaching.  Some of us want the order and the structure and the regulation.  It's a sad day.

[miltonyorkcastle]

Some of us want the order and the structure and the regulation.

In order for this regulation to exist in such a way as to promote unity in the church:
- The common law must be written down (devised and posted).
- A code for how the Rofireinite church interacts with locals laws must also be written down (devised, posted).

Until such a time, we are left with varied interpretation of the dogma (chaos). In the real world, those societies that adhere most strictly to a set of unchanging laws often do splinter into sects based on interpretation (I.E. the various Muslim sects and Christian denominations). Most modern societies instead function with a set of laws that are assumed to be changeable and expandable. Thankfully, with the direct intervention (giving or taking of powers) of the gods in the fantasy setting, one can know which interpretation is correct and which isn't.

Also, @davidhoff: The Ten Commandments are generally considered 'good' laws. 'Evil' people promote them all the time. What will make a difference in this regard are the laws having to do with the enforcement of the law, and if such laws of enforcement are included in the common law and divine law. Laws pertaining to fair trials would fit into the category of enforcement laws.

[Dremora]

Note I am not taking a side here or there anymore, I've said my piece on where I stand and am out of the argument, but giving a suggestion on how to call it quits.

I personally think this argument will never actually come to a good ending (no pun intended ), because both sides (including me) have contrasting ideas in our heads about what is evil/good and whether law and order, and rofirien, lean into one more so than the other. Both can't leave this satisfied so:

Perhaps it would just be simpler to clear up a few points without argument. As in the GMs or Ed just give a straight yes/no answer. Preferably after they agree cause all this cross-qouting and "he said/she said" is doing nothing for any side except confusing people.

Was the Divine Law established to promote Good OR Order as priority (if this question is valid)? They aren't the same IMO and in several fantasy settings law and order has been made evil. Shivering Isles, Warhammer etc etc.

IF its Order, that must mean the good aligned dieties were agreeing on a general policing system that was equally fair, but with all the clashing aspects, I doubt they could've settled on any structed law system that was always orientated towards the good outcome rather than the just (especially on any system resembling law systems from real life), orderly outcome. If this is so, then maybe Rofirien dogma needs a looking at on LORE and some corrections to what sort of RP it implies is expected of characters from that faith. A greater emphasis on the Church being about Law and Order, and put the good/evil aside so both groups can operate in the church. This can even lead to some sub-plots of the infighting between the two groups. Whatever, it may just settle this down and maybe Gulnyr you'd open up to the idea abit more; afterall if you feel so strongly about it, Commander Jennara can get involved in it and it won't be a free-for-all because they must stay true to lawful. You will have to give up the "if you follow the law or are killing bad its all good action" argument though guys , thats what I meant by we disagree on what is good and what isnt.

It also ends the argument flat out. Rofiren church is neutral as a whole but has good and bad souls upholding law and order for peaceful society, morality does not enter into judgement for judgement must be neutral and unbiased (as much as possible atleast).

If its to promote only good law, then the church may as well join Toran (who will happily uphold law but not at the expense of mercy, compassion and 'right') as a sub-sect of sheriffs (doubt it'll happen). But it also means that the LE will be a small minority and difficult to play because then Rofirien may not forgive too many evil actions from the same follower before a cleric or paladin gets in trouble (cutting out evil submissions unless they intend on shifting alignment to LN or LG later). This also ends the argument (and ruins several character concepts that exist already and are being played; requiring them to alignment shift or delete). Not to mention there's no point having two dieties if they are that similar.

Or we can just ponder for a moment if whether this is worth the argument, since the primary solution thats been presented for 'Against-LE Rofires' party is that they are LN with evil mood swings or LNs that are always doing good cause its against obviously evil people and the law is always good no matter what. The LE Rofie concept must currently be working, presumably, without any actual spanners flying in the works, so we could just let it be and maybe in the future disallow LE for rofirein subs (up to the team). I dont know, I personally don't care, but what I do care about is that this is capable of ruining character concepts that are already in play, and ultimately, all we'll achieve is half an annoyed bunch and half a satisfied bunch.

What do you all think, will clarity on Rofirien/what he stands for, and the Divine Law (like davidoff suggested), settle it?

Edit: if only I'd pressed Send Reply before Milty, this might not look like it was just ghosting his last post; sorry!

[davidhoff]

Yes, I think we're going to need clarification on whether Divine law is a "good" based law that is desinged to further a good society as you say:

What do you all think, will clarity on Rofirien/what he stands for, and the Divine Law (like davidoff suggested), settle it?

I think your following proposition is intersting...:

If its to promote only good law, then the church may as well join Toran (who will happily uphold law but not at the expense of mercy, compassion and 'right') as a sub-sect of sheriffs (doubt it'll happen).

Because of this section of the Congregation of the Principium:

That Charter would also serve to create a new court

[davidhoff]

Forums would not let me edit my last post for some reason...but here is the continuation of my last post

Edit: I guess I had to clean it..here goes again.

Because of this section of the Congregation of the Principium:

That Charter would also serve to create a new court--the Divine Court. This court would be overseen by the Rofireinties and the Toranites and would be responsible for the maintenance and the refinement and carrying out of the laws and punishments across the empire (and effectively the world) for the next thousand years.

[Filatus]

Disclaimer: This is my personal interpretation.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the Divine Law was put in place to prevent the chaotic influence of Pyrtechon and its goal to see the world go up in flames. It was not intended to lead to enlightenment per se, but thwart the danger of chaos.

A key difference between Toranites and Rofirinites is that Toranites are tasked with placing themselves directly in front of the innocent so to speak. Individually, they are expected to put themselves in service of the innocent.

For a Rofirinite, I imagine the Divine Law is the prime defense against chaos. It is a little less focused on the individual, because justice after all is blind. They are there first of all, to see that the Divine Law is put in effect to prevent society from falling into chaos. Hence, I guess why the deal with Sulterio was made. The situation, though hardly doing them any favors, is still better than the alternative.

In the old situation, when Rofi was still LG, they were basically trying to be both. Toranites as we know them and Rofirinites as they are now. There's a big difference in that Toranites are sworn to protect the innocent first, while Rofirinites have to prioritize the Divine Law, because of the greater threat of chaos to the whole of society.

[Acacea]

I solemnly swear that I will never comment on this subject again if it will make milty stop talking and making Rofireinites worse than they were, already. Haha. Sorry, dude. That was terrible. What? I take it all back. I don't even care if we have Rofireinites labeled LE when they are mostly LN, as long as they are Rofireinite. I just think they're mislabeled, which when you get right down to it is a pretty small difference. I don't disagree with Dremora's examples, nor davidhoff's observations that even those examples need not be evil - just that if they are evil, they're pretty specific.

I do disagree that "I am the Law" is ever something acceptable for a Rofireinite of any rank, but especially low-middling ranked ones. It's been said before that no single person is supposed to have all the power, and in order for Rofireinites to be able to enforce order and make harsh judgments, they have to police and judge themselves, as well.

Remember - blank your deity field and I will take anything in anyone's name of any alignment.

Several of the examples here, like Dremora's, may seem like they're stretching some to fit, but are given with consideration to the faith and in a general understanding of it. Some seem to have a pretty gross interpretation of what it means to be Rofirienite, though, so bring on your evil-lite Dremora style if it moderates the rest!

"miltonyorkcastle - the unifier!" The debate police will be praising your name for many threads to come, man.

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."

(Ps for Filatus: It wasn't that Rofirein was LG - he was LN but allowed LG, TN, and LN priests - no LE. It was just that the one alignment was excluded. This was just erased and put back in on paper as an oops, so all the explanations afterward are just cover. An understanding "yeah I know, that was weird, but it's too late and too much bother to fix it now" is actually better than all the awkward attempts to make it right and make it sound like something was considered and thought about when it wasn't.)

[davidhoff]

@Milt...regarding the 10 Commandments.  Yes its a good law.  Evil people will always find a way to manipulate the law and rationalized their actions to say they are within the law and still be evil.  This is because they "think" in their own minds that what they are doing is honorable, virtuous, just and proper.  But we know better, because we see things objectively and can call it for what it really is.

Let's take the Fifth Commandment - Honor Thy Mother and Father.  Let's say the evil neighbor see's Joe curse at his Father.  He grabs his hedge trimmer and comes over and cuts Joe's legs off and spits on Joe's body.  Evil neighbor see's this as lawful because Joe just broke the law and needed punishment.  He see's this as furthering society because Joe will maybe show some respect in the future to his Dad and the world will be a better place.

Problem is we know he's not acted lawfully.  He's committed another crime to rectify the first, he's not shown any due process, and the punishment does not fit the crime.  In summary, when you have a good law and a L/E person trying to enforce it in a lawful/evil way, they will either (a) not act lawfully (ie, cutting legs off is committing another crime, no due process, punishment doesnt fit crime) or (b) if they do act lawfully (ie, instead of cutting legs off, Joe gets sprayed with a water hose or gets publicly reprimanded) then their actions probably are not going to fall in the categor of "evil".

[Alatriel]

Alright, I'm going to put a mod hat on here.  

The topic is getting quite heated, and I'm going to ask that everyone please step back for a period of 24 hours and take a few deep breaths.  There are a lot of good points on both sides of this debate, but I know that tensions and emotions run high on this sort of topic, and while it is healthy to get these things out, it is not something we want to see get out of hand.  Please remember that personal attacks are not acceptable, and while you may disagree, and that's fine, disagreements should be aimed at the topic, not other people.

Take the next day or so to think it over, and then after a period of settling, if you still want to get back into it, please make sure that the comments are constructive and not disrespectful to each other.

*stows the mod hat*

[Acacea]

I would ask that milty be allowed to use his own mod hat, as he is in a better position to judge my intent in being amused, and I had already sent him a PM saying as much. If he wants it withdrawn, I will withdraw it - but your response made it far more serious than it needed to be. Either way - out for good.

[Dezza]

But for THE god of law and order, not so much.  It was bad enough before.  Openly admitting anything goes makes it so much worse.  

No matter what anyone says you are not going to be happy. I suggest if it offends you as much as it seems to do then sit down and write it up how you want it to be and submit it for discussion. But if you think thats too hard, spare a thought for those of us who tried to do that and maybe you'll begin to see just what a difficult task it is. Consider many prior forums posts here and maybe, just maybe you'll start to see it from another point of view.

[Gulnyr]

Don't snap at me for not being a yes-man.  Help me.  [post=470141]Look[/post] how much like me you were.  Tell me what changed your mind from being so opposed.  Do you really believe that it makes sense now, even though nothing has changed about the write-up?  I would never think less of anyone for simply admitting LE had been tacked on without any significant work or changes done to make it work from the ground up.  Just say so.  "We know it's a horrible, forced thing, but that's what we've got until we switch over to mantras.  We're not going to fix it.  Sorry."  But to cram and force and twist and insist and pretend like it used to say something different - no, I'm not going to let you debase yourself or insult my intelligence.  Don't tell me who I am or what makes me happy.

[ShiffDrgnhrt]

I thought we had been asked to step away from this for a day? =\

[Acacea]

Yeah. Let me help you out with that.

POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS

...But since I'm already in trouble, I will just tromp on back into the thread hold to explain publicly, as I have been told I was out of line, but the hold and my response to it were made publicly anyway, and also my inbox is full and I can't take anymore PMs today...! Plus, why not sow a little more chaos in the thread about Order? *rubs hands*

My response to Alatriel's moderation was not intended to imply she was a) unfit to moderate b) a sucky DM c) an idiot d) a martian or e) whatever else was read into my post except what I meant, which was:

I have been arguing one thing or another here for over 6 years. As far as I am concerned, milty is just some dweeb posing as a real person at some parts of his day when he is not indulging some nerdy hobbies. I have no issues whatsoever saying to him, "Dude, I think you're whack," and being amused about it, because he's a good sport and for the most part pretty laid back. I like laid back people. They don't get all freaked out when someone just doesn't agree with a viewpoint. Talk about the topic, you know? Not what you feel someone feels about a problem. Were I angry, I certainly would never be calling someone out in the manner I joked with milty.

In the same way, I found Dremora quite reasonable - if anything I agreed, and as I said my issue was more one of labeling than anything else in his or her examples. Filatus, who cares about that guy's feelings. Davidhoff, also quite reasonable regardless of which viewpoint he takes, and with Gulnyr and these people I have no trouble holding a pretty civil conversation with diverse opinions. I am sorry if praising any of these people's civility and ability to reason associates them with me in a negative way... ha.

What has actually disturbed me most in this thread are the assumptions of emotion - when I see, "You assume that..." or "you assume this" or "you won't be happy unless" or "you can't make up your mind" or "because players haven't done x," I find that more unsettling than anyone's reasonable discussion, because it feels heated and more personal. Was it a player? Heh. No.

So when I am laughing and telling milty, dude - gah - and all I see on the page are Davidhoff and Dremora, also pretty chilled out people as far as I can tell - and the thread is suddenly moderated for everyone to take a chill pill, I can't help but think someone assumed again someone's personal feelings. In this case, since I could not fathom it being because of the other dudes, as they were pretty cool about it, I assumed the "personal attacks" were in reference to my direct comments about milty. I mean, what else?

That kind of irked me, and I wished that next time someone ask about intent instead of assuming, or just let the person "attacked" handle it themselves.  (!) That is what I meant by allowing milty to use his own mod hat - not that he is a better DM or moderator or whatever - just that if he was the target, he's got the same capabilities. I was told it wasn't specifically about that, even if it was included, but that's even weirder to me, in the sort of, "What? Are you talking about Dremora, then? What did he do? Davidhoff? That guy didn't do anything, either." kind of way.

Alatriel was acting under instruction, however, so it was someone else I should have been saying, "What the heck just happened?" to. I was pretty taken aback, though, because while I will happily share the blame for the likely locking of this thread in my responses to moderation, I didn't understand the reason for it starting. If anyone appeared to be freaking out, it wasn't any of the players I saw, and I was pretty sure milty would have taken my playful jabs at him in stride.

You can moderate whomever you like, of course. I was told I hurt all kinds of feelings with my reply, though. Sorry. From where I was sitting, there was a mostly civil discussion except for the occasional interjections of "you assume" "you assume" "you won't be happy" "you're just" etc - that frankly I would prefer just to ignore, they're so meaningless and rude - and I took a friendly shot at someone I've known for a long time that I knew would be taken without offense, and then someone hit a panic button. I felt that it made my very much not a personal attack post into a personal attack by publicly moderating without allowing explanation or reaction - like if milty had just responded, "ha! I'll add that to my list of titles" would it have appeared to be boiling over in rage?

Anyway, I understood moderating my mouth more than I do the other players here. I'm kind of over it, which is why I don't mind flailing around inside the caution tape. It's over anyway, right?

It was not my intent to wound anyone - that very lack of intent is what was shocking about the hold. Did it really seem like a lot of people were irritated and rude? I only saw one person being provocative, and it was by making assumptions of emotion and character - far more a "personal attack" than anything else I saw, and unfortunately I can see that it is hard to ignore that, even though one should - especially when it's someone speaking in the "We The Team" voice. "He started it" is never a good reason to explain responding to provocation, but still. A tiny bit saddening, like special case PvP rules. I don't know. Maybe all the dudes I thought were cool are actually frothing at the mouth at home. If so, please get your shots before PMing me. Oh wait, my inbox is full. *snaps fingers* Darn.

POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS

(Have a nice day!)

[/SIZE]

[davidhoff]

*steps around the police tape looking for blood-stained ground or fallen bodies as he slides by*

For the Record, I am ok with either interpretation of the Rofie faith (ie, its a "good" law, or the law is neutral and just about order).  My preference, if I had to choose, would be that it would be a "good" law and designed to further a good society.  I always root for the good guys; its kind of my nature.  I see Rofies as being the good guys that keep law and order, and look to see that order is ensured first, but if they see that there is corruption, back dealing, evilness or bad things going on, that they will try to rectify that.  It is called Divine Law, and to me that kinda speaks as a heavenly/good type Deity looking down at his followers.

I also think if Divine Law is a "good" law it allows for more order and stability.  Once you make it a "anything goes law as long as there is order", then you have greater division within the church (amongst the evil and good Rofies) and the law will be uneven throughout Layonara.  I think this causes chaos within the church, which doesn't make since because its a faith of Order.  The church should be unified in way of thinking and its enforcement.

I also think that based on the Lore I've read regarding Rofireine, that Divine Law appears to be a "good" law.  (see the links below on the Rofirein faith and the Congregation of the Prencipium).  It seems like the good faiths got together and hashed out the law and a divine court to enforce it.  I found two other links I'll post below:

In the Prantz History and Rumors section,  it says the following:

From Prantz, he hosted the Congregation of the Principium, which resulted in the formation of the Charter of Laws designed to give the common man a guide to follow for proper legal behavior. Raklin also helped form the Divine Court, overseen at that time by Rofireinties and Toranites, that would be responsible for the maintenance, refinement, and carrying out of laws and punishments across the empire (and effectively the world) for the next thousand years. This time of good emperors and good governance lasted for over 500 years.

 (my emphasis)

Also regarding Prantz, Rainstorff (Voraxian Champion and L/G) was one of the adventurers that put Ralkin in power so that Ralkin could call the good guys to work out the law.  (very interesting write-up and read by the way)

Also see the Paladin's Oath for Rofirein:

12.Thou art a Paladin of Rofirein, one of his beloved few. Remember this in all that thy do. As one of the few Paladins of the Holy Order of Rofirein, it is your task to root out evil, injustice and tyranny wherever thee may be.

(my emphasis)

So, it looks like the good guys got together and made good law to further a good society and to root out evil and prevent the furtherance of evil acts.

Now, I'm also ok with Divine Law being more neutral and just involving order.  As I said, I think that leads to division and chaos and lack of uniformity within the church, but maybe that's ok.  I also think it tends to make the Rofies more like "puppets" to a regime.  For example, as long as there is order in a territory and things are not in chaos, then they have to follow and enforce the law...not matter what the law says and not matter what their alignment.  All they do is keep the peace and order...and have to stomache any thing that does not sit right morally with them.  The way things are in Rael comes to mind...but this type of theory leads to situation much worse than is in Rael.

So, hopefully Ed can come in here and give us some guidance...otherwise we don't have defined terms and can't really make any headway discussing it.

[Dezza]

Don't snap at me for not being a yes-man.  Help me.  [post=470141]Look[/post] how much like me you were.  Tell me what changed your mind from being so opposed.  Do you really believe that it makes sense now, even though nothing has changed about the write-up?  I would never think less of anyone for simply admitting LE had been tacked on without any significant work or changes done to make it work from the ground up.  Just say so.  "We know it's a horrible, forced thing, but that's what we've got until we switch over to mantras.  We're not going to fix it.  Sorry."  But to cram and force and twist and insist and pretend like it used to say something different - no, I'm not going to let you debase yourself or insult my intelligence.  Don't tell me who I am or what makes me happy.

I got everything out of my system and took Harlas's advice in the thread, also if you read it carefully you will see that Leanthar was quite specific in what he wanted, I got the message.


What it comes down to is that it's what we have got to work with, it might have some flaws, but then is anything perfect? Can you get perfection in such a subjective topic? I don't think we can. I agreed to disagree and I worked with it and tried to be a positive influence moving forward.  There are times when its good to bring things up, discuss them, try to accommodate or change and move on. This is one of those times where we have to accept what we have at face value, work with it and try to enjoy the game that's been provided for us.

Even as I finish this post I regret trying to participate in this entire forum as I do not feel its met with any sort of positive outcome for anyone involved and that is unfortunate. I don't think I can add anything more of any value to this conversation so this will be my last post.

[Dremora]

I have a problem: Can't stay away from arguments if they look good.
Well I went to sleep and woke up so presumably its okay to post, I've waited a day. This will just direct to davidoff but refer to some others and the post is hardly inflammatory but feel free to delete it if I need to wait longer, I dont mind

Just as to what you've said about how the rest of us should judge the alignment based on what we see and from an OOC perspective and not what the character in question thinks. The Commandments come from a Rofie perspective, not hard fact, and if the Church is neutral overall, then a paladin cant be the NWN mechanic then (sure you can argue then it reinforces your point and maybe it does); its biased to being a paladin of order and law IMO (from Rofie's perspective), not a paladin by NWN mechanic. Ofcourse every diety thinks tey are in the right from whatever side they come from so its not surprising to see somin like that in the dogma.
Actually that title has had many different uses, and not all paladin examples in history were as goodly as they pretended or implied. Then again they didnt have a diety watching them, I suppose.

The Divine Law however might connote heaven/goodness to you but Divine, to me, simply refers to dieties. Not just the Holy but also the Unholy (though the majority of chaotic and evil were excluded in this case, I think, not all dieties partaking in its forging were strictly lawful, nor good). Divine is Divine. A Divine Law means its a law that cannot be questioned and whatever it says was written by the gods and thus irrefutable by mortals. It doesnt necessarily mean: Its purely based on Law and Good (or rather if they are in equal measure and what 'good' definition is being used; the mech one or a contextual one). Kinda tkaes us back to what david say about us not going to be to argue this properly without a write-up but oh well. As said in an earlier post about clashing aspects (refer below for the point), also since Law systems as we know it have unjustice occuring all the time and it cannot be avoided, sometimes even when those involved KNOW the victim doesnt deserve what he's getting but can't do much about it due to evidence or their foolish actions or whatever. That reinforces the: Law and Order BEFORE good. Which kinda, to me, means that evil-doers can fit in. Yes it's been said im stretching it abit to fit them in, but if it makes this apparent 'mistake' in labelling work more fluidly until it is changed or not; is that sucha bad thing? Though to be clear, I actually think it works but if the majority find its a stretch and my ideas of the alignments are kinda warped, then that could be true and im fine with accepting that.

Ultimately I find a lawful good idea kinda boring as Toranites come close to it already though they likely accept NG as good comes before law (which is pretty much what your kinda going for, with slight differences); I'd much prefer impartiality and broadness in the Rofies so they stand apart from that faith more and have some division in their methods (LN primarily, LG and LE as extremeists). It has a sense of irony and I know Gulnyr will probably not like that (dont take offence, im not judging you, im just predicting your reaction from what ive read in your argument) cause it contradicts 'Order' but at the same time, mortals are very unlikely to ALL agree on something and do it the exact same way because we are all individuals and by definition of life, it is formed from chaos as are its physical laws. If you use living creatures for Order, you will never attain perfection in it; never will be able to, flat out impossible. The Wolf tribe on Krashin tried it, they didnt do a great job and keep splitting up into different groups. Sheagorath and Jyggalag tried it.. the latter resorted to armies forged from resonance crystals, not living creatures of any kind. I dont even need to give you an example of our law systems and 'perfection'.
If Rofirein is going to be about Law and Order and good as the general intent (i support so long as you see the pripority in that), then some chaos must be permitted or all life must be extinguished or regulated strictly (doubt it). The former would allow for the two factions in the church to exist (one smaller than another granted, unlss you flat out scrap the good intent and leave it as Law), yes there's some 'chaos' you could argue but then again, they're both on the same side, they're both fighting for the Law and Order AND the 'greater good' ideal though how they achieve it is what they divide on, the majority of it sounds like it follows a more or less unified purpose (lets face it, rivalry is always fun even though you could argue if good is the intent, how can evil be permitted: read the 'greater good' part). So its mostly Ordered to a realistic point. Hell even the monastic orders in Layo divide themselves and fight, they can't achieve perfect Order and like-mindedness either.

Just what I have to say about those two points and a final paragraph to try and convert you XD I could'nt resist.

[blonde]

I don't want to add anything to the discussion, except to say that I am a big fan of opening Rofirein to the full good<->evil spectrum. It opens some very interesting avenues within that faith and for characters who follow Rofirein. So thumbs up from me on that account.

I know this thread has been frustrating for some, but personally I have learned a lot from reading it. Makes you think about some stuff and gives ideas. As long as it is kept in civilized tones (and it has mostly) this kind of discussion is a positive thing.
We can't have written rules on every little thing, and that fact opens up for some degree of individual interpretation, which again can lead to discussions. Sweet! At any point the GM team can make a ruling one way or the other which hopefully ends any further discussion on the subject.

*Drops two cents in the forum collection box*

[Dremora]

I also forsee the "ends justfying means" argument coming up again and before anyone says that they don't; remember thats strictly opinion and we don't know Rofie's opinion because his alignment and motivations have kinda been cast in doubt now after this. Although he is aligned to LN strictly speaking, not good/evil.

[Acacea]

I agree about "Divine" referring to deities rather than being "good," although I imagine when they laid it down that they felt it was good. Regardless, I've actually never seen Rofirein or his faith save the Knights as LG*. It was really just a matter of "you can do good freely if you want, which makes it easy to be LG, but there are so many laws proscribing the usual evil acts that this is much more difficult." I cannot speak for anyone else, but my issue has never been with expecting the faith to be of one mind - simply that there aren't any laws against giving food to the hungry or adopting orphans or showing mercy to the families of the accused, etc - it was only that it was hard to fit in there. It's not about members of the faith disagreeing with one another, but having an ordered system.

This is why I joked about taking your (Dremora's) version over milty's - I don't actually think there is anything wrong with the LE Rofireinites that I have seen, in concept, just felt like... hm, that there are "real" LE characters, and then LE Rofireinites, which are a specific "flavor" of the LN Rofireinite - generally no objections to concepts, but not able to push anything far enough to join the rest. Hopefully no players of LE Rofireinites have been offended, as I really just felt like they're mislabeled rather than inappropriate, in most cases. Does that make sense? "I don't feel like we are really saying anything very different about the deity for the most part, just the organization of letters."

*To edit for clarity, personally because of the larger figures in the faith's history and PCs and how I've run into some of his stuff on quests... and the way the laws were made, I have always seen Rofirein as being neutral for a good reason... or a good person in a neutral role, type thing. Benevolent, but committed to neutrality for the sake of order and impartiality. This is actually unrelated to to my argument, though.