Alignment/Dogma conflicts

[Witch Hunter]

Aeridin is a good god with an evil dogma, I tell 'ya.

[EdTheKet]

Indeed, good take by Ed there.

That's what I'm here for

[Skywatcher]

So if the leader of the church of Aeridin is Rhizome who is a druid I believe and changes shape, how does that fit?  It seems that Aeridin dogma is very extreme and depending on how it's interpreted it can be contrary to itself.   Is this a recent shift or has it always been this way?

[Dorganath]

Rhizome is not the leader of the Aeridinite church.

Even so, a druid would not be held to the same standard as a cleric or paladin.

The shift regarding changes from the natural form are recent.

[Tanman]

Rhizome may not be the leader in the church, but he is the Hierophant. Are you suggesting that for him he is able to shapeshift because he is not the same as a cleric? Is that the same for Aeridinites that are other classes? And how does it affect other classes view? Would that be  more relaxed than a cleric of Aeridin?

Rhizome is not the leader of the Aeridinite church.

Even so, a druid would not be held to the same standard as a cleric or paladin.

The shift regarding changes from the natural form are recent.

[Praylor Falcus]

Hey , Just ask the "GOD", If he doesn't answer. You must be doing right.
 
  Seriously i have had this dilima myself with the iil-concived and poor thought out "Dogmas" of the these so called religions, But then i remember it's a game and as they are just someones thoughts on a perticular concept.
 To try to follow them to the letter is not only foolish, but in direct oppisition to the spirit of the server. If you are to truly RP you must be like the leaves on a tree, no two exactly alike. Unless we are but mere cookiecutter virsions of the same mindless, koolaid drinking robots.
    Revel in your questioning of a mortals view of your "GOD", till he speaks directly to you , you have no way of knowing if it was a raving lunatic that wrote your dogma or as in the case of Toran, a being so weak and so of intrest to Toran that Torans enemies rose him from death , without so much as a clearing of the throat from Toran. Yet we are bound by this weak beings words, which when studied make as much sense as handing a monkey the detonator to an atomic bomb.

[Acacea]

Uh yeah except obviously the god isn't going to answer, heh. The DMs aren't going to babysit every cleric who decides the dogma is a load of crock and prances around without it. That's what the submission process is for.

Tanman, Rhizome has really nothing to do with the Aeridinite church, and while I can't speak for him at all, I kind of doubt the character would have be labelled an Aeridinite period if these changes had been in place when he was created, as I suspect he was going for the elemental part - like most Aeridinite druids.

You can't really say "yes, it's relaxed for non-clerics,"  because frankly, who cares about non-clerics? That is to say, someone who calls themselves an Aeridinite would try to uphold these things, but they have no divine abilities to worry about. A polymorphing astral locks picking necromancer could say he worships Aeridin but despite the amusement factor it's still relatively minor compared to if a cleric were doing such a thing - say, following Praylor's example and saying "no one is answer, must be doing something right!"

So for the cleric, you need to make sure that dogma is relatively adhered to, or else they have powers that likely should not be granted. For a cross-dogma fighter, well they're just heretics that aren't granted any divine abilities in the first place. So I don't know if I would say "Aeridin is totally more relaxed with non-clerics," just non-clerics/paladins require less overhead OOC, because they don't have anything gained from following dogma.

[Skywatcher]

Ok, I guess I was misinformed.  A cleric of Aeridin told me Rhizome was the head Aeridinite.  

This shift in Aeridin is pretty big then I guess.  I had always thought of Aeridinites as the greatest healers of the land as a general description but now their dogma prevents them from being party healers since the party is killing and depending on how extreme your interpretation of the great cycle and unnatural preservation of life you could conceive of an Aeridinite that was not interested in healing at all.  And this stance on form could lead to a zealot out to destroy everything that didn't fit a certain patern or perfection of form.  Are half breeds unnatural?  Is a wooden leg unnatural?   Is a deformed child unnatural?  There were some of the Nazis that thought they were doing a good thing by cleansing the world of the imperfect and seeking the perfect race.  Things that make you go Hmm....  

There are some very interesting ethical dilemnas ahead for the church of Aeridin I think..

Where is that handbook?  I hope there haven't been such changes to Toran's views on things.

[Dorganath]

Rhizome may not be the leader in the church, but he is the Hierophant. Are you suggesting that for him he is able to shapeshift because he is not the same as a cleric? Is that the same for Aeridinites that are other classes? And how does it affect other classes view? Would that be  more relaxed than a cleric of Aeridin?

The Heirophant is a druidic title, not one that has anything to do with Aeridin.

I cannot speak as to why Rhizome the player chose Aeridin for Rhizome the character, so speculating further without his input is really quite meaningless.

What I was saying though is that as a druid (most other classes) he is not held to the same standard as a cleric or paladin, who are specifically representatives of their deities.  They are there to spread the word of that deity, to attempt to live their lives in the pursuit of the purposes of a given deity's dogma. That is their calling.

A druid's calling is different, and while he may worship Aeridin as the Lifegiver (a reasonable position for a druid), he doesn't necessarily have to subscribe to every last word therein. Nor would a fighter (though a fighter who worships Aeridin seems a little odd), or a wizard or rogue or whatever.

[Dorganath]

Hey , Just ask the "GOD", If he doesn't answer. You must be doing right.
 
  Seriously i have had this dilima myself with the iil-concived and poor thought out "Dogmas" of the these so called religions, But then i remember it's a game and as they are just someones thoughts on a perticular concept.
 To try to follow them to the letter is not only foolish, but in direct oppisition to the spirit of the server. If you are to truly RP you must be like the leaves on a tree, no two exactly alike. Unless we are but mere cookiecutter virsions of the same mindless, koolaid drinking robots.
    Revel in your questioning of a mortals view of your "GOD", till he speaks directly to you , you have no way of knowing if it was a raving lunatic that wrote your dogma or as in the case of Toran, a being so weak and so of intrest to Toran that Torans enemies rose him from death , without so much as a clearing of the throat from Toran. Yet we are bound by this weak beings words, which when studied make as much sense as handing a monkey the detonator to an atomic bomb.

I debated with myself as to whether or not to respond to Praylor's comment.  

I'm sure EdTheKet and Leanthar...and several other people who put many hours into writing and recently re-writing all the dogmas for 28 deities would simply adore the feedback you have given.  To know that all their hard work can be boiled down to "ill-conceived" and "poorly thought-out" will surely brighten their days.

I really won't go on here, because I don't think it's worth discussing in any great detail. It would take too long and be endlessly frustrating, I fear.

However, I will say though that most people recognize the difference between following a dogma to the letter (a very extremist view, but still a valid course of RP) and a sensible interpretation of the dogmas given.  As has been said many times before, a degree of common sense goes a long way.

When people choose deities for their characters, especially those who play clerics, paladins and champions, they should be prepared to tailor their RP to be in line with the dogma.  No one has ever said that one must play in lock-step with every written word, with every dot of punctuation and do so in a mindless way.  It is certaintly not against the spirit of this server to subscribe to the dogma of a deity.  

What is against the spirit of the server, however, is to choose one's deity based on the benefits it can give your character, and then ignore everything the deity stands for....and no...shouting "IN 'S NAME!!!!" as one charges into battle doesn't count. If one cannot adhere appropriately to the dogma of a given deity, one should not pretend to follow said deity.

Last two things:
1) With very, very, very rare exceptions, deities will never speak directly to a character.  Sorry, this just doesn't happen.  The only times I know that it has happened has been on an ECDQ/WLDQ, and even then, it's rare as rare can be.  This is a really shoddy OOC justification for not following a dogma IC.  If one wants to say that IC, then fine...but that character should not be a cleric, paladin or champion, and if it is, then it probably won't be for long if we see it.

2) What is given as dogma for the various deities is but a fraction of the whole.  It is the summary, giving the important points of the faith.  It gives the players a framework within which to RP their characters and leaves much open to interpretation, though the key things of importance are there and those should be kept foremost in the minds of the faithful, especially clerics, paladins and champions.

[Dorganath]

Ok, I guess I was misinformed.  A cleric of Aeridin told me Rhizome was the head Aeridinite.  

This shift in Aeridin is pretty big then I guess.  I had always thought of Aeridinites as the greatest healers of the land as a general description but now their dogma prevents them from being party healers since the party is killing and depending on how extreme your interpretation of the great cycle and unnatural preservation of life you could conceive of an Aeridinite that was not interested in healing at all.  And this stance on form could lead to a zealot out to destroy everything that didn't fit a certain patern or perfection of form.  Are half breeds unnatural?  Is a wooden leg unnatural?   Is a deformed child unnatural?  There were some of the Nazis that thought they were doing a good thing by cleansing the world of the imperfect and seeking the perfect race.  Things that make you go Hmm....  

There are some very interesting ethical dilemnas ahead for the church of Aeridin I think..

Where is that handbook?  I hope there haven't been such changes to Toran's views on things.

Ahhhh...now that is a very good observation, and I could see an extremist/zealot taking some of these very positions.  It all has to do with emphasis and execution.

This is a good example of how the dogma is in fact flexible, but only within a given framework.

[Acacea]

I had always thought of Aeridinites as the greatest healers of the land as a general description but now their dogma prevents them from being party healers since the party is killing and depending on how extreme your interpretation of the great cycle and unnatural preservation of life you could conceive of an Aeridinite that was not interested in healing at all.

First, Aeridin has always been non-violent. I don't think any changes made to Aeridin really touch at all on how they shouldn't be in a party because killing is done etc - maybe that part is actually easier, since we have the "use only on those who defy these teachings" clause, which allows you a ton of wiggle room to keep your friends alive while they're being killed by vicious ruffians with no respect for life.

Second, I did make an amused comparison privately to the whole "PURIFY HUMANITY!" line myself, but it's important to remember that unlike in real life, we actually know the god's alignment - filter his dogma through "good" and you can see there are a lot of angles to this that the church can take. Extremists may very well end up as the example given - but consider that if they ever strayed far enough that they became evil, they would be stripped of their powers. Aeridin is a healer, and so another track, one very much more in line with a 'good' being is extending one's healing abilities to undo such transformations, heal aberrations and so forth.

Heh, silver weapon enhancements should now just be called "Aeridin smites" or something, as he adds shapeshifters to his ban list.

[Gulnyr]

I think this might be a good time to point out that there is a difference between the alignment 'Good' and the everyday-usage 'good.'

The alignments are pretty clear and generally objective about what sorts of actions and motivations are considered Good.  The everyday sort of 'doing good' is entirely subjective.

So, to use Skywatcher's example, a character could believe he is doing good by killing off deformed babies and peg-legged sailors and such, but there is no way that is going to mesh with a Good alignment.

[Tanman]

@Dorganath: How would the Aeridinite Church view the Hierophant and Druids  power in shapeshifting in general... keeping in mind that the Hierophant is the keeper of the Great Oak which keeps Layonara alive?

At certain times  he  has shapeshifted into a tree...

Rhizome is an Aeridinite. So how would they look upon him because of his ability to shapeshift?

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

You know... I understand all the work that's gone into the new dogma, but I'm really just not feeling this new spin on Aeridin. I had always seen him as Aid Above All, who hated Necromancy because it damaged the rightful Cycle of Life. A shapeshifter, while changing their form, is not damaging the Cycle, as they're still living, and will still die and return to the earth.

I guess I just don't agree with the shift from focusing on preserving the Cycle to preserving the "purity" of life.

Am I just looking at this the wrong way?

[LynnJuniper]

Dorg: When people choose deities for their characters, especially those who play clerics, paladins and champions, they should be prepared to tailor their RP to be in line with the dogma. No one has ever said that one must play in lock-step with every written word, with every dot of punctuation and do so in a mindless way. It is certaintly not against the spirit of this server to subscribe to the dogma of a deity.

What you say there is fine. But what about when the Dogma is changed after the character is created and in many cases well established?

[LynnJuniper]

Dorg: When people choose deities for their characters, especially those who play clerics, paladins and champions, they should be prepared to tailor their RP to be in line with the dogma. No one has ever said that one must play in lock-step with every written word, with every dot of punctuation and do so in a mindless way. It is certaintly not against the spirit of this server to subscribe to the dogma of a deity.

What you say there is fine. But what about when the Dogma is changed after the character is created and in many cases well established?

EDIT: Thanks for standing up for us writers

[Skywatcher]

I think this might be a good time to point out that there is a difference between the alignment 'Good' and the everyday-usage 'good.'

The alignments are pretty clear and generally objective about what sorts of actions and motivations are considered Good.  The everyday sort of 'doing good' is entirely subjective.

So, to use Skywatcher's example, a character could believe he is doing good by killing off deformed babies and peg-legged sailors and such, but there is no way that is going to mesh with a Good alignment.

But you could have a true neutral cleric with an ends justify the means mentality who wouldn't necessarily wrestle with the good or evil of it.  He could balance the cost of the evil that had to be done with the good of purifying the world and furthering Aeridin's cause.  

Now whether Aeridin would see it this way is I guess where the quality control comes in.  If someone truly insisted on distorting the dogma in a way that the deity would never allow then it would be up to the team who understand the "real meaning" of the dogma to remove the powers of the individual or something like that.   So maybe Hitler might start out as a cleric of Aeridin but then L or Ed would smite him for it.

[Rowana]

@Zuckerman and Lynn- All the dogmas are getting a revamp. The Cycle of Life aspect isn't leaving Layonara. The War in the Heavens could be changing some of these things. In many RL religions of Polytheistic flavoring this happens from time to time. Truth is the religions of Layonara could go through another shift in another hundred years, or maybe not for a thousand, but it could happen.

@Tanman, It's possible that this will become a point and issue to face RP wise. Hard to say right now *winks*

 
Layonara is a living breathing world with a team putting in tons of effort round the clock. As in all living things, change and adaptation is necessary. With out, there is stagnation and other icky problems. As the players have moved the world the world needs to catch up!

~row

[LynnJuniper]

I know Row . It was more of a general widespread statement. Characters who wrote their relation to their god before the overhaul/revamp are , in some cases going to be confused so you can't just say  "People should write their submissions with a firm idea of how their deity relates to them" and then say "Well all of the dogmas are changing as the gods change" , and expect there not to be some initial confusion.

With that said, I do believe the team is ready and willing in all aspects to work these initial confusions out, and I've already seen lots of effort in some places go forth to doing so already.