Print Page - Alignment/Dogma conflicts

Title: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 02:06:04 am

[SIZE=16]

[SIZE=13]Tana na na! yet another question bordering the lines of religious insanity, fanatical dogmas and silly alignments that only gods can provide! Brought to you by yours truly. [/SIZE][SIZE=13]So, as you all might have noticed I'm asking lots of questions regarding faith, cleric and all that mumbo jumbo because it is a very confusing subject, and by very I mean very very.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]My question this time sprouts from defined alignment restrictions to what the moral code and religious law a dogma has... an example based on my own experience (which let to this question:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]During the "Elemental Mystery" quest my character was brought up with a situation that led me (Me being the player, not the character) to a dilemma which is the following; Imagine yourself an old person that nearly lost everything in his life... his only daughter nearly killed by a raging demon led him to saving her by the only way he knew - plantamancy! (I made that up..) using plants, herbs and other various stuff he was able to save her from dying, effectively transforming her body into half plant.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]Now comes the problem... I am chaotic good, as such I should let it go as he only wants to keep what little he had thus sparing him deep sorrow... but my dogma states " Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption of the natural form and shapes of being is an affront against the sanctity and purity of life" [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]So I act according to that, but his stubbornness and refusal to accept a grimmer faith WOULD (it did not, not yet at least) lead me to having to end her excitants myself, possibly - "Violence is the last option; use it only on those who defy these teachings"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]Now comes the dilemma I experience (as a player trying to play his alignment and follow his dogma) - What would I do? End them myself? Try to reason with him until he got fed up with it? Clearly he has a reason, he's trying to avoid sorrow and I'd assume watching your daughter die involves a lot of it. If I do choose one way or another I'm still condemning him to sadness - which is evil, very evil.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]Another example in this field of dogma-alignment conflict is with Rofireinites... You have a good person that upholds the law. Said person encounters a thief who just stole a loaf of bread from a bakery nearby and confronts him only to discover said person stole to feed his starving family - what is he to do?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]The trickiness is on the personal level here as what others have to say about how you deal with things has little relevance beyond IC relations between said characters, but on the personal level of things people take into consideration things like evil/good alignment shifts and other various roleplay factors... Which is confusing and eventually leads to fall from grace and other religious affairs. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=13]So... any thoughts? [/SIZE]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on April 20, 2007, 02:48:15 am

Per your examples, in the hopes that I can explain through them...

Daughter's gravely ill; father's a nature-magicer, and wants to turn her into a half-plant to keep her around. An Aeridinite comes across this.

Aeridin is Neutral Good. This means that his clerics can be LG, NG, CG, or TN.

Lawful Good - Probably would try to keep the father from making the change, but would PROBABLY not kill the girl after the change. While it is a perversion of life to keep her alive through (mostly) unnatural means, it would cause much greater harm to her and to her family to let her die - with the main emphasis on the former.

Chaotic Good - Would probably allow the change without argument, and perhaps even support it. While she would be changed, she would still be alive, and her father would be happy... It's not like he's making her into a zombie or anything. ;)

Neutral Good - Would probably allow the change, and probably wouldn't argue very much about it, though it would definitely be a case of the good of her living outweighing the bad of her becoming less "pure."

True Neutral - Honestly, I think this one could go any way, but would be more likely to prevent the change than, say, Neutral Good. Less emphasis being placed on preventing harm to the father, y'know?

EDIT: Okay, so the change has taken place. I don't think that anything other than a truly zealous paladin of Aeridin would kill the girl if she'd already been changed. Even then, I don't think Aeridin would be too happy with the paladin.

Now... Onto the next.

A thief steals bread to feed his family. A Roffie comes along and catches him at it. This gets a little easier to explain.

Nearly all Rofireinites would (well, should, as I understand the dogma) turn the thief in for proper punishment. For LG and LN, it's because The System Is All. For NG, it's more that if the system isn't fair to everyone, it fails, and it's not a Good system.

However. The more Good (i.e. compassionate) characters would almost assuredly try for a lighter punishment for the thief, and some would go so far as to support his family while he was in prison, and even if he wasn't.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Acacea on April 20, 2007, 02:52:12 am

The person stealing the bread is still a thief, and still broke the law. There are MANY interpretations of alignment available, but when making a divine character there are usually some that are more appropriate to others. All his motivation means is that the thief is Chaotic Good or something - but as an upholder of the law, Chaos is exactly what a "Good Lawful" Rofireinite is opposing, right?

Think about it. Do you need to let him go without punishment to help his family? Why? What is really the punishment for the first-offense of stealing a loaf of bread, particularly when you get it back, in anywhere but Prantz? A warning? Community service? A "next time you'll lose your hand, buddy" ? A good character could aid his family as they are clearly in need, in that you are helping him, but he broke the law and he needs to understand how to work within the law for good, because succumbing to chaos allows darker things to do the same. As well, the baker needs to feed HIS family, and in these times can you imagine how hard it was to get the bread to be sold in the first place?

If the punishment does not fit the crime, then it seems the law needs to be adjusted to better serve its purpose, but that has nothing to do with the motivation of a criminal. You must make an effort to see that the law preserves justice and protects the common people instead of harming them - not help them break the law. IF you are good. If you are evil well, they deserve what they get, the filthy criminals. Right? (As a note to Stephen's post, there are no NG clerics of Rofirein, unless he just means followers in general - but for non-cleric followers things aren't quite so hard.)

I don't think it's possible to say, "I am chaotic good and thus I should..." nor "I am Lawful Good and thus I should..." There are just too many different interpretations. My CG Lucindite is used to and cool with a large number of things that a CG Aeridinite would be furious about - which version do you think would be appropriate if a CG Lucindite cleric is made? What about Aeridin?

Aeridinites are among the best healers of the world; instead of trying to make him lose his daughter, perhaps she could be given to the care of some of His best healers to try and undo what has been done and still save her life? Or something similar. Or take them to healers of Prunilla, also brilliant healers and beyond skilled with plants, and wouldn't try to smite her when she walked in the door. It's possible that between the two something could be done.

Aeridinites would likely break their backs trying to save her, and would grieve with the old man, surely, but what if he then tried to raise her as undead? And she was a good undead, didn't eat brains or anything and she was so happy to have a chance to see the world again even in this form, for a little while, and it kept the father from going mad?

This is also a horrible thing in Aeridin's dogma, and one of the more clear-cut ones - but is it any different? It's a hard call, but rather than saying "gah see I just came across this incident that doesn't make sense between alignment and dogma" think, few clerics in Layo actually ever have trials of faith. They have divine abilities that are rarely tested other than in combat, never stood against the tide of grief and other options that may be taken. It is indeed a question of faith, so you can't really ask us what he would do... we should ask you instead. Can he find a compromise of good and dogma? And since his dogma is supposed to be good in the first place, perhaps the compromise he seeks IS the dogma.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 03:01:07 am

Lots of good points given there Acacea but things that come into mind are also cleric level and power - I doubt a level 9 cleric has the ability to reverse such magic... and what if by reversing it he'd kill her? etc etc.
I was going straight by the code here though - the option of reversing the state did not occur to me at the moment (But I doubt it could be accomplished)

Regardless, that was on example of many - and especially because theres no every day divine trial to characters people can bend rules and do stuff like that without fear of losing their powers - it should be there, that's why questions like this rise. It's like a dogma template applied to your alignment, no?

Quote

Chaotic Good - Would probably allow the change without argument, and perhaps even support it. While she would be changed, she would still be alive, and her father would be happy... It's not like he's making her into a zombie or anything

See that would be going againts the dogma to it's fullest, which is something im trying to avoid otherwise it would be easier.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on April 20, 2007, 03:07:30 am

Going against the dogma? Sorry, but I must not be reading the same dogma at all. *Scratches his head.*

Last I heard, Aeridin was one of the kinder, more compassionate gods, who hated Deaders because they screwed with the Cycle. A girl who's -still alive (didn't die)-, but just has some plant bits? That's not great, but it's not that bad. It would be a minor crisis to figure out for Ceviren, but then, he would just try healing her anyhow, as Acacea mentioned. (Ceviren, by the way, is Neutral Good, rather than Chaotic.)

A Chaotic Good cleric is more likely to follow whatever they think the deity would favor, rather than any set of specific strictures. Basically, instead of having their own moral compass, they have a deity's.

Acacea's right about NG Roffies. They wouldn't be clerics, as Roffie is LN. My mistake.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: magnusarin on April 20, 2007, 03:12:21 am

I agree wholeheartedly with the LG/thief dilemma and have little more to add. The LG character would still arrest him and he could help the guy find work after his sentence, recommend his family to the church as in need of aid. There's alot he can do.

As to a chaotic good character in the other circumstance, the biggest things about chaotic good characters is freedom. In the PnP books it talks about them being the biggest opponents of slave rings and the like. I think you could take the stance that the old man turning his daughter into half plant is trapping her in a way. She's not being allowed to pass on as she should (whether the old man acknowledges it or not). Granted, it depends in large part to what the girl herself wants, but I think it could be seen as trapping her soul in an unnatural body. I have a CG Ranger/rogue and this would be his take on it. Granted, he's mostly from the ranger mindset and see's it also as a perversion of nature so to him it's an affront on both counts. Granted, this is just one way of looking at a CG character's mindset on this situation. There are HUNDREDS of way to enterpret the alignment based on what's important to the character.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Acacea on April 20, 2007, 03:13:41 am

Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption of the natural form and shapes of being is an affront against the sanctity and purity of life.

And yes Witch, but I didn't say "try to heal her yourself," as that's understandably beyond the abilities of a single cleric, even a decently leveled one, probably. There are many temples though, and those of greater abilities could maybe manage. Perhaps the father could accompany such an attempt. Or they could be brought to him, so that he need not fear she will be simply kidnapped and then killed. Without knowing the difficulty level in what he did, I can think of one NPC who would likely be able to accomplish such a thing, others are likely a tossup...

Some more foaming at the mouth faithful may try it - as CG you may even be sneaking about your temple feeling around for those who are a) able to aid in such a venture and b) are compassionate enough to avoid taking the quick route, without giving true purpose until you are sure she will be safe or something. Isn't that a bit chaotic, knowing you may go against the will of the temple? But if you succeed in both saving her life and cleansing the plantamancy, do you not pretty much rule in Aeridin's eyes? ;)

edit - the first sentence was not a response to the above post but rather commenting on the key part of Witch's dilemma in dogma, or rather any Aeridinite cleric's dilemma in dogma. ;)

Another edit - See, a lot of different CG interpretations here... mine would say "oh plantamancy, right on! *high five*" as long as PlantGirl was content with her lot in life :P

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Weeblie on April 20, 2007, 03:15:55 am

The difference between a cleric/paladin of a faith and any other follower is huger than most people believe. The second might or might not follow the dogma very strictly while the first -will- put the dogma before everything else.

The dogma comes first, middle and last for a cleric/paladin. It goes before their own personal beliefs, or rather, it -is- their belief. That's at least the theory behind those two classes, although, it is not unheard of people straying away from the dogma and sometimes, either willingly or not, leave the said deity.

It's not the dogma that has to shape around the alignment, but rather the alignment that has to adapt to the dogma!

Edit: Hehe... and, yes... A CG character might... wriggle around first and try to find some un-orthodox way to fix the situation, if there is any. But the dogma is still something he would keep in his mind all the time even if he might crash with what the church would normally do to handle it. :p

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 03:16:57 am

New dogma (the one at North Point):

Preserve and protect life, the gift to exist is not one to be taken lightly and thus one must live an exemplary life, devoted to benevolence and care. tend to those who ail. offer your gift of healing to make their stay in the mortal realm a wholesome experince, yet once death has taken its toll, respect the passing and enjoy the found memories of their life. Do not dwell or mourn those who past for too long, death is sadness, but without understanding sorrow, one can not understand happiness.

Promote health and the well being of the body and mind before everything else. Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption to the natural form and shapes of being, is an affront againts the sanctity and purity of life and should be confronted with at first, with gentle lessons and benevolent teaching, and if such ways do not work, with a stern and firm stance instead. Violence is the las option; use it only on those who defy thiese teachings.

undeath is the most blatant aberattion to the sanctity and purity of life. put them to rest by any means necessary so that their souls may reach their homes. use the gift of the caring light to bring brightness to the darkest of places, never succumb to its temptation for they only bring a taint on the spirit.

Edit:

Quote from: Weeblie

The difference between a cleric/paladin of a faith and any other follower is huger than most people believe. The second might or might not follow the dogma very strictly while the first -will- put the dogma before everything else.

The dogma comes first, middle and last for a cleric/paladin. It goes before their own personal beliefs, or rather, it -is- their belief. That's at least the theory behind those two classes, although, it is not unheard of people straying away from the dogma and sometimes, either willingly or not, leave the said deity.

It's not the dogma that has to shape around the alignment, but rather the alignment that has to adapt to the dogma!

Exactly what I thought, but now the question remains... could this lead to alignment change in general if the actions the dogma suggest are harsh?

Quote

Some more foaming at the mouth faithful may try it - as CG you may even be sneaking about your temple feeling around for those who are a) able to aid in such a venture and b) are compassionate enough to avoid taking the quick route, without giving true purpose until you are sure she will be safe or something. Isn't that a bit chaotic, knowing you may go against the will of the temple? But if you succeed in both saving her life and cleansing the plantamancy, do you not pretty much rule in Aeridin's eyes

Excellent idea there, noted and will hopefully be used in the future :D

Quote

Another edit - See, a lot of different CG interpretations here... mine would say "oh plantamancy, right on! *high five*" as long as PlantGirl was content with her lot in life :P

One of the thing that ticked my character off was that she didn't even know she's a tomato, I did ask the guy to tell her and see what her reaction would be but there was no comment as the group moved on to different things, still planning to bring it up next session though.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: gilshem ironstone on April 20, 2007, 03:23:01 am

Quote from: Witch Hunter

If I do choose one way or another I'm still condemning him to sadness - which is evil, very evil.[/LEFT]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I think you should divorce yourself from this idea as well. I think most priest's with a compassionate, spiritual heart, would not view sadness as evil, but more an experience to be learned from and inevitably overcome. Not a desired emotion, but also not frowned upon.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 03:25:52 am

Oh not at all.. I follow the "death is sadness, but without understanding sorrow one can not understand happiness" thingy, but on a player level I could sense something wrong with doing that, I wouldn't want it done to me as a person for example.

Not to mention it would make half the group angry :D

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: LynnJuniper on April 20, 2007, 08:45:13 am

That's another issue that comes into play.

1) Being the Dogma
2) Being the Alignment
3) Being the Fun factor and not infringing on the fun of the other members of the group and them understanding what it is your doing that may be seen as a 'waste of time' or even start some animosity that may not be needed.

All three of these things have to balance sadly though I have little answers. I like Acacea's suggestion of perhaps bringing the girl in question (in this example) to the Aeridinite healers. I speak from personal experience in saying that they're good ones. No, an Aeridinite would not allow for any unnatural extension (We could get into the whole shape shifting/transmutation thing here but please...lets not) but he would do all in his power (or in the power of those connected to him) to better the situation for all people involved. Especially one of a Good alignment. I don't mean to give you the answers for a GM quest, but there is at least one spell/ritual that may make a difference that I learned about through a GM quest of my own. The Trick is to
A) Put some effort/off quest time into thinking about it
B) Follow your Alignment AND Dogma to the best of your ability , in the clerics case, with dogma preceding alignment (You have a bit of wiggle room with the Chaotic though)
and
C) Make sure everyone's having fun :)

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Dorganath on April 20, 2007, 09:34:03 am

"Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption of the natural form and shapes of being is an affront against the sanctity and purity of life."

Alignment aside, this is the key phrase here in this question for an Aeridinite...especially a cleric.

I don't think it's all that difficult of a thing, really. If I had an Aeridinite cleric, this one sentence would seem to say that Aeridin would rather the girl died than be some freakish, impure, cross-genus hybrid. Taking Chaotic Good into the mix, I would attempt every other available option that did not violate Aeridin's dogma, but would absolutely not sanction or aid in such a transformation. I might even go so far as to say my character would have to be physically restrained if he was present for the process.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: jan on April 20, 2007, 10:46:11 am

Totally agree with Dorg here.
Even-though we all find it very important that we all have , no one can expect that you play your character wrong to keep the peace in the party.

Its one off those things that you will run into now and then and probably one off the things that makes other characters look completely different at your character.

Clerics/paladins have intertwined their lives with their gods more then any other and will stay true to their faith if others falter.

That doesn't mean they wont try to find other ways around a thing like this , but i do think that if there is no other way , they will eventually follow their faith no matter what others in the party will think off them afterwards.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: lonnarin on April 20, 2007, 12:59:04 pm

I'd just let her die of the disease... *then* resurrect her. heheh.

"Any extension, transformation, alteration and corruption of the natural form and shapes of being is an affront against the sanctity and purity of life."

Uh oh... does this mean Aeridenites can't cast Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace and Bear's Endurance? Alteration spells and all... giving Peewee Herman muscles isn't exactly natural. What about polymorph and druids/shifters? Whenever Skabot turns himself into a troll, should Aeridenites come to smite him? When read literally, this line seems to me that ALL transmutation spells are inherently banned from Aeriden's repetoire.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 01:05:46 pm

*druid shapeshifts*
"BLASPHEMY!! *hammer of the gods*"

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: ycleption on April 20, 2007, 01:09:13 pm

I think other people have analyzed the specific example sufficiently, but I think in general, the dogma comes first, but is viewed through the filter of your alignment. You follow your dogma, but how you apply it may be more a function of alignment.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Weeblie on April 20, 2007, 01:10:58 pm

That particular concern was also brought up (by myself actually ;) ) in the writer forum. And here's the answer:

Quote from: EdTheKet

Using the level 2 spells like Bull's Strength is okay, it's temporary, not a big change, and not harrmful and more or less within the range of the astral locks. But there will always be purists within the church who think even that is too much. That the body should never be enhanced. (Some nice contention within the faith, hehe).
Barkskin/stonekin isn't really messing with the astral locks, it's adding a temporary protective layer, so that should be fine, but again, some will probably disagree.
Item wise, if it's buffs like the level 2 spells, the same argument applies. Some would say they are just temporary and not damaging others would say it goes against the base of the faith.
Polymorphing or shapshifting or whatever is of course off limits for all as then you'll really be a different creature.

So, no... your character would not be smited for using most of the spells in the school of Transmutation.

BUT... Polymorphing, the ones that really changes your appearance to some other creature's, is strictly prohibited and a cleric/paladin of Aeridin would frown upon any use of those abilities/spells and is obviously not open for different intereptions.

Edit: Curious of what the Astral Locks are? Heh... Wait for the next handbook... I surely will not tell, at least... :p

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 01:26:47 pm

Quote

Curious of what the Astral Locks are? Heh... Wait for the next handbook... I surely will not tell, at least... :p

.... gg

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: lonnarin on April 20, 2007, 02:59:45 pm

Indeed, good take by Ed there. Just try to find a religion that agrees 100% of the time on everything... can't be done. There's no such thing as a "Christian" anymore, but Catholics, Protestants, Amish, Unitarians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc... and even though they worship the same deity, even they come to bloody war with eachother over the manner in which he is to be worshipped!

Still though, funny. Aeridenites look down on shapeshifting and have very strong ties to Katia, a following of mostly druids... and the alliance is mutual. I could just imagine the High Priest of Aeriden telling Plenarious the Birdlord... "I'm sorry, I really am. Our faiths of nature are nearly as one on the battlefield and we both despise the undead like no other... but the wings, man... the WINGS! It's... it's, just... Sacrilige! Can't you wear a cape or cut them off or something?"

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 03:25:36 pm

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

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: EdTheKet on April 20, 2007, 05:46:47 pm

Quote

Indeed, good take by Ed there.

That's what I'm here for :)

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Skywatcher on April 20, 2007, 07:18:58 pm

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?

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Dorganath on April 20, 2007, 08:09:37 pm

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Tanman on April 20, 2007, 08:15:10 pm

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?

Quote from: 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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Praylor Falcus on April 20, 2007, 08:39:35 pm

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Acacea on April 20, 2007, 09:26:07 pm

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? :P 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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Skywatcher on April 20, 2007, 09:52:40 pm

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Dorganath on April 20, 2007, 10:00:05 pm

Quote from: 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?

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Dorganath on April 20, 2007, 10:01:13 pm

Quote from: 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.

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Dorganath on April 20, 2007, 10:04:55 pm

Quote from: 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.

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Acacea on April 20, 2007, 10:10:15 pm

Quote from: Skywatcher

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. ;)

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Gulnyr on April 20, 2007, 11:18:09 pm

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.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Tanman on April 20, 2007, 11:27:30 pm

@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?

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Stephen_Zuckerman on April 20, 2007, 11:32:40 pm

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?

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: LynnJuniper on April 20, 2007, 11:36:09 pm

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?

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: LynnJuniper on April 20, 2007, 11:38:34 pm

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Skywatcher on April 20, 2007, 11:40:01 pm

Quote from: 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.

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. :)

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Rowana on April 20, 2007, 11:46:16 pm

@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

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: LynnJuniper on April 20, 2007, 11:50:19 pm

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. :)

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Dorganath on April 21, 2007, 12:39:10 am

OK everyone, we're straying into the off-topic zone a bit here. I'm going to make a statement, and then from that statement respond to a few of the posts/questions/comments since my last.

Of the various dogmas we have for our 28 deities, pretty much all of them are undergoing at least some clarification and in some cases some significant shifts. There are a few main reasons for this. One important, and rather discontinuous reason is to divorce ourselves from the IP, trademarks and copyrights of D&D/FR/WotC/NWN and whatever else and produce something that is uniquely Layonara. In other cases, there were dogmas which just didn't fit quite right, and still others are shifting as a direct result of in-game events.

In the latter case, there are things that happened that caused or precipitated these changes, but they are not necessarily common knowledge to the player base. I understand that this is confusing to some, and much will be clarified when EdTheKet and others can complete the Handbook, Pantheon book and so on.

A few of the deities and dogmas that shifted due to in-game events are Toran and Aeridin, to name two off the top of my head.

Now, getting onto my responses...

Quote from: 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?

Again, Rhizome is not a member of the Church of Aeridin. He holds no rank other than his druidic rank of the Heirophant. And yes, he cares for the Great Oak. Aeridin's dogmatic shift regarding the alteration of forms is a new development, due to in-game actions mentioned above.

How would the church would look upon Rhizome...well, they wouldn't tell him he can't profess a belief. Surely they would disapprove of his shapeshifting, but then he might view it as not really altering his form so much as expressing yet another natural variation of his form.

But how Rhizome would view this shift is really not my place to answer

Quote from: 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?

Don't take this the wrong way, but yes, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Aeridin's updated dogma is a direct result of things that happened in-game. I'm not going to go into those details, so please don't ask, but suffice it to say, in the light of those events, a de-emphasis on the Cycle and a greater emphasis on Life and it's purity is a very appropriate outcome. I'm not trying to be secretive, but as I said, it's not my place to give out these details. Furthermore, there's no reason why these events should be common knowledge, even among followers of Aeridin.

Quote from: 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 ;)

Well, there's a few things here....

If the dogma was changed due to IC and IG reasons, then characters need to roll with the changes. By that I don't mean just roll over and accept them as if nothing has happened...more like deciding ICly if they can still continue their belief in said deity or if the change is simply too great. I know at least one character who follows Aeridin, and a cleric at that, who is having a crisis of faith at the moment, though more because of the in-game actions that precipitated this change more than the change itself.

If the dogma change was not necessarily due to in-game actions but perhaps due to conflict in the heavens, this may seem like an OOC change, and perhaps to a degree it is, but it is still a shift that happens in game-time, and as such so too should the actions and attitudes of their followers. And if that strays too far away from what the character can stomach, then IC actions should change as a result.

A few changes will be rather OOC. These changes are being made simply because they have to be. We would have prefered to do everything in a way that makes IC sense with those in-game who know what went on, but time and resources makes that difficult to unlikely...even impossible. All I can say here is we're sorry it had to work out like this, but again...the changes had to occur. For those changes which are very OOC, there will be an OOC way for existing characters to adjust as a result. Don't ask me what that is. Just please everyone be patient.

And sure...no problem! You writers are doing a fantastic job. :)

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 21, 2007, 03:24:53 am

Alright! woah, that's some serious responds I got here! so now to address some and ask more questions and confuse the lot of us!

First, because he made me really mad! Praylor.
The dogmas are well written, they are guide-lines and basiclly provide you a background on what the faith is about which is all I need in order to craft my characters roleplay regarding that - if you don't like them then stop playing a bloody paladin! no offense. A+ for the writers and the dev team in general.

As for waiting for your god to speak with you.. oh uh... I reckon every time you cast a divine spell your god is paying SOME attention to you (Not going over the line and saying he speaks with you because Dorg said that hardly ever happens) - but he acknowledges you are channeling his powers I bet... But just like you don't abuse NPC AI (You don't, right? ;) ) you shouldn't abuse the fact Aeridin cannot drain your powers if you say... cast slay living on an innocent child :) If I was Aeridin, regardless of how much I speak with you.. I'd smite 'yer butt all the way to Dregar.

Clarissa - You're right about the dogma being a bit "nazi" for the lack of better terms, it is! But that's where the fun roleplay comes from... You have a really extreme, a bit evil and overall crazy dogma stitched to someone whos meant to be a paragon of good will - it's crazy! crazy!!!

But these dilemmas make the best roleplay, especially for those that assume more than the characters form but also his mind - I can say that while having the tomato girl issue I was arguing with myself quite a bit in my characters name, and still am - It's bloody fun, and possible due to this forum.

As for the changes with the new dogma, I personally like them.
Sure theres a bit more to hate but theres also a bit more room to wiggle around with, not saying that one should *cough* But somewhere in our hearts we're all chaotic, to a degree... That is until said god smites us down!
As for a new question... I'm still wondering, can someone gain an alignment shift for following his dogma and doing something that MIGHT be considered evil?

Overall I enjoy playing my new character and his dogma, especially since I have tools like the roleplay forum to ask whatever question bothers me, keeps the dilemmas IC it does.
So... thanks to anyone who responded!

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Weeblie on April 21, 2007, 05:16:17 am

If the act is evil, why not?

The IC-perception of what's an act of evil or what's not an act of evil has nothing to do with alignment shifts. It's the OOC-perception, the reasoning behind the kill, the story behind why it was done, that matters for alignment shifts.

The alignments is -not- what other characters perceives you as.

It is what you -are-.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Witch Hunter on April 21, 2007, 06:14:44 am

Because Aeridin is a good god with a dogma that might support evil acts (Such as ending tomato girl).

My OOC perception of ending her (If.. didn't do it yet right?) Is evil, but it's supported by the dogma of a good god.

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Weeblie on April 21, 2007, 06:24:10 am

The alignment of the "act" itself ranges from evil to good. It's definitely not a clear cut case:

Good: Would you like to live such a life? As a weed? Without being able to think? Maybe the act of slowly let her life pass is just an act of mercy instead? To let her soul free at last?
Neutral: Maybe this is something that has to be done? Neither evil nor good. It just has to be done. For the strive of balance... or whatever!
Evil: Well... yeah... what gives you the right to take the life of another's? It -is- killing after all and harming an "innocent" is never a good thing.

Heh, I would leave the decision of whether this act is a one of evil, good or neither, up to the DM handling the event.

Only one way to find these sort of things out: Do it and see!

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: Tanman on April 21, 2007, 06:41:46 am

Getting back to the actual topic. . . I would have to agree with Weeblie. This is a 'game', it doesn't hurt to try anything with your character that you think is logical and appropriate. Character relationships with your Aeridinite cleric and with the church may change....but hey...this is a game.

So do what you think your character would do, and enjoy the outcome whatever it maybe.

Quote from: Weeblie

Heh, I would leave the decision of whether this act is a one of evil, good or neither, up to the DM handling the event.

Only one way to find these sort of things out: Do it and see!

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: LynnJuniper on April 21, 2007, 08:45:08 am

I just wanted to thank Dorg for answering my questions (And Tanman's Cause It was making me curious for a while after reading the Aeridin stuff (No I won't tell what's in there ;) ). I know the team will provide help and an OOC way to change things if the changes seem to OOC for a character to cope with, and I know that things ideally would've been done IG in quests if there was time. :) So Yeah, just thanks for clearing that up.

*Realises the thanks button would've probably sufficed*

Title: Re: Alignment/Dogma conflicts
Post by: lonnarin on April 22, 2007, 10:25:53 am

Quote from: Praylor Falcus

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.

I remember the time I raised the issue with Sulterio being allied with Dorand, despite his creed of bitterness against the surface dwarves, and that deity relationship was knocked down to neutral. Ed and Leanthar are more than willing to debate and even make changes to their pantheon and source material when one makes their point constructively. Ad-hoc calling their entire efforts thus far ill-concieved and poorly thought out is probably not the best path to that end.

The World of Layonara

The Layonara Community => Roleplaying => Topic started by: Witch Hunter on April 20, 2007, 02:06:04 am