The World of Avlis

I've been making my CG Ranger bicker a bit with the LG followers of Gorethar on certain points of what constitutes law and order in Mikona, Elysia, elsewhere.

No, I don't want a definite "thou shalt not do this or that" kind of a list.

Just a little insight into the mindset of what the god of Battle and Lawful Good thinks about law enforcement in Avlis would be good.

I've read over the Good Alignments thread and searched the World Information forum for clues and haven't found enough to satisfy my curiosity.

No rush on this, I know everyone is busy.

thanks,
Di

Edited: Ok, I've read this before on the Avlis website but here it is again:

"LG: Gorethar The creator of the dwarves stresses virtue through hard work. Evil must be contained or destroyed at all costs. The world is meant to be orderly and productive."

What does "at all costs" mean? Killing, obviously, the Battle God surely loves doing that. At what point does LG "cross the line."?

Followers of Gorethar understand about "collateral damage". They will be very leary about hurting innocents to "destroy evil at all costs". However, if there is any way to knock off an evil entitiy without hurting anyone not involved, they will usually take the opportunity. This is a general statement. They will obviously do what their intelligence and wisdom scores dictate in a situation as well.

They believe that it's possible to have a society where everyone follows the rules and everyone is happy, but remember, they also understand the "spirit" of the law. If a law is obviously going to hurt an innocent by carrying it out, they will make an exception. However, if you are not innocent and you broke the law, you deserve punishment accordingly. They are not as rigid as a LN society, but they can still be rigid in certain cases.

Gorethar's followers are about benefitting everyone through careful and meaningful execution of the laws. They are also about going after people who flout them.

Thanks for taking the time

Thanks Orleron, your post clarifies some thoughts I had about paladin-hood in general.

Lately, I have been thinking up small scenarios one could employ in a gaming world. Things designed for 1-4 characters, that took less than 1 hour. What I am really trying to develop are player run scenarios, but I keep finding ones like this one, and having to discard them because they require explicit DM intervention. (for every five I throw out, though ... I get to keep one)

One of them involved the chasing of a thief through the city, and his eventual capture just outside city gates....only when the thief was caught there would be a twist on the problem. (not telling in case it ever gets to happen). In other words a scenario designed to set up a conflict between the Good, and the Lawful aspects of a paladin. But the scenario only really works if a fairly harsh law is known to be in place for stealing.

I call it the Javert scenario, after the inflexible police character in Les Miserables. You know you are addicted to avlis, when you create stories in the world even when you are not playing.

You know when I talk to people about playing a paladin, there is one question I always ask them...

"What would your character do if you captured (or confronted) Robin Hood?"

There is no right answer, but it tells you where to place the law in your characters worldview.

Spell Singer wrote:You know when I talk to people about playing a paladin, there is one question I always ask them...

"What would your character do if you captured (or confronted) Robin Hood?"

There is no right answer, but it tells you where to place the law in your characters worldview.

believe it or not, i like playing paladin's too. But i like dwarven f/c's better. They're more flexible.

But anyway, my take on that question is send the bastard to jail. Stealing is a crime and i don't give a rat's arse what he was using the money for.

ok, i think Kharak's world views are starting to affect me in RL now...


oh yeah, and about the stop evil at all costs. that doesn't mean casting firestorm in the city gate inn to stop one thief...

You'd have to catch him first. And let's not forget about his Merry Men.

Or, perhaps Merry...Gnomes!

Argh!

I've always felt there are serveral types of paladins out there.

Or perhaps more to the point, many paladins with different opinions on how to do things.

For example, one paladin may feel the best way to fight evil, is to fight against it's effects. So this paladin spends most of his time fighting hunger, or social injustice. He strives to fix bad laws, and inact good ones. This type of paladin is not going to focus much on fighting evil head on, but rather focus on undoing what evil has done.

On the other hand is the holy crusader, who feels the best way to fight evil, is by striking it dead before it has a chance to harm anyone. A PC in one of the PnP campaigns I'm playing is this type, he lives to smite evil. If he's chasing a villian, and see's someone starving on the side of the road, he'll let them lay to get the villian. Sure that person may die before he gets back. But more are sure to die if the villian gets away.

The same goes for laws, some paladins are going to be more sticky about the law then others. But all of them respect the law, and won't willingly break a law, even an unjust one. They'll work hard to change it, and may work around it, but won't directly break it. Doing that is the sign of a CG or NG person.

IMO I've always felt one of the deviding lines between LG/NG/CG is to what degree "The ends justifiy the means" they follow. LG don't follow it at all, CG live by it.

Vanor wrote: IMO I've always felt one of the deviding lines between LG/NG/CG is to what degree "The ends justifiy the means" they follow. LG don't follow it at all, CG live by it.

Funny I always thought of this as a LE or CE type of thing...


-Alex

Alexandru Stanicu wrote: Funny I always thought of this as a LE or CE type of thing...


-Alex

"ends justifies the means" just means whether you'll do whatever you have to do to accomplish your goals, or if you'll stick by the rules, no matter what they are, to accomplish your goals.

the only difference between LG/CG and LE/CE is what those goals are.

I'll be joining Alex's camp here. Being willing to do *whatever* it takes to reach a goal encompasses all sorts of atrocities no good character would commit, regardless of whether she is chaotic or lawful.

Hmm.. I think that any CG who followed a strict code of "the end justifies the means" might soon be CE. Chaotics follow their feelings (aka "subjective ethics"), IMO, rather than the letter of the law ("normative ethics"). If they're good feelings, then CG happens. If they're evil feelings, then CE happens. *shrug* I'm still reading.. (just ordered 8 or so 3rd ed books from Amazon.com via the Avlis link.) So perhaps I'm off on this.

I have to side with Vanor on this debate. CG is end justifys means. Evil characters are not concerned with justifying anything. Justification is a 'good' concept.

So if in the end, a CG character would be saving many people, then slaughtering one is 'justified'. If stealing from wealthy merchants will feed the starving peasants, then that stealing is a means, that is justified by the end of feeding the peasants.

Ermm.. well I disagree somewhat that the word "justification" is a "good" concept. The dictionary sez "the act of being justified, or the condition of being justified." "Justify" means "to demonstrate to be just, right, or valid." The word "just" means "honorable and fair in one's dealings or actions," among other things. Chaotics aren't always honorable, nor are they always fair.

CE sez "well I killed all the silly peasants so they'd quit givin' money to the evil baron's tax collectors."

CE feels "justified" in the fact that his/her evil feelings are valid, right, and just. The means - murder. The end - the evil baron makes no money from taxes this week.

CG sez "well I ambushed the evil baron's tax collectors and gave the money back to the peasants."

CG feels "justified" in the fact that the evil baron won't collect his taxes this week. The means - theft. The end - the evil baron makes no money from taxes this week.

Feel free to tell me I'm off base here.

Oh yeah.. I'm bored at work too as if ya couldn't tell.

Diamond wrote:Ermm.. well I disagree somewhat that the word "justification" is a "good" concept. The dictionary sez "the act of being justified, or the condition of being justified." "Justify" means "to demonstrate to be just, right, or valid." The word "just" means "honorable and fair in one's dealings or actions," among other things. Chaotics aren't always honorable, nor are they always fair.

CE sez "well I killed all the silly peasants so they'd quit givin' money to the evil baron's tax collectors."

CE feels "justified" in the fact that his/her evil feelings are valid, right, and just. The means - murder. The end - the evil baron makes no money from taxes this week.

CG sez "well I ambushed the evil baron's tax collectors and gave the money back to the peasants."

CG feels "justified" in the fact that the evil baron won't collect his taxes this week. The means - theft. The end - the evil baron makes no money from taxes this week.

Feel free to tell me I'm off base here.

Oh yeah.. I'm bored at work too as if ya couldn't tell.

this is what i meant in my previous posting.

Another example using LE and CE.

A CE person will just kill the ruling monarch and assume control of the kingdom and kills anyone else who disagrees.

A LE person will use the existing laws to gain control of the kingdom. eg force a marriage between himself and the princess to ensure that he is next in line to become king. It might take longer to gain control than the CE character's method, but in the end, he'll be the ruling monarch of the kingdom

"Justify" means "to demonstrate to be just, right, or valid." The word "just" means "honorable and fair in one's dealings or actions,"

Exactly. As I said, to justify is a good idea. It is being fair and honorable as you state.

And for the example there... Killing the innocent peasent, or killing the innocent tax collector just trying to do his job both are the same thing. Killing innocents to stop the evil baron. Even if you meant that the folks would somehow get the taxes back without killing anyone, then theft as you mention. Still in both cases, murder or theft are crimes to accomplish a noble goul and thus both CG acts.

CE would be assasinating the baron so YOU could be the one takeing the peasent's money. CE would be robbing the tax collectors because they are rich and that gold should be yours.

As soon as you make the end result 'good' that makes the action CG. The difference between CG, CN, CE are what the ends are. How they get to the ends is their own bussiness... Quoted from the CG description here, you may want to read that...

"Chaotic Good characters are almost always strong minded and each tends to possess a UNIQUE moral compass about what exactly is right and what is wrong. These characters have a tendency to pass moral judgments based on THEIR beliefs, and to hell with what anyone else thinks."

Thus ANY act a CG character does to acomplish a 'good' end, that YOU call 'evil' puts you in the "... to hell with what anyone else thinks." category for that character. Be it killing, stealing, summoning balors to defend Mikona, etc etc etc. For them, it was the right thing to do, because it was justified.

*sigh* Relax, alright? I have read the description you quoted, Wrath. I commented on "the end justifies the means" description of CG that was proposed in the thread I started about the concepts of Goretharian law.

My CG character's "strong moral compass" doesn't include doing Everything to accomplish a goal. She doesn't Kill the tax collectors.. she just whacks them upside the head till they flee in mortal terror for their lives.

Can we get this thread back on topic and leave the CG/CE/LE/LG etc. crap out of it?

"Justifiable Homicide" is still homicide. Evil, bad, WRONG. That's the last thing I have to say about the CG discussion. If you want to continue, just carry on wit yer bad self. Make a different thread for it though.

I just want to know when the Robin Hood of Avlis is going to gather that band of merry...Gnomes together to right some wrongs!

On this whole "The ends justify the means" question.

1. this statement is not something a "good" character buys into. Regardless of lawful, neutral or chaotic bent they are all first good.

2. A good character would agree that doing something not-evil but not-good would be acceptable if the result was good. A neutral action that yields a good benifit down the line is acceptable, evil acts that produce some benifit are not.

The argument that the "ends justifies the means" is something used only by evil (mainly the lawful evil types) and those of a neutral bent.

Also it should never be forgotten that "good" is an extreme. Most people are neutral not either good or evil. When you are one of the white hats you are as extreme in your own way as if you are a vile evil scum.

Also consider that in Torment it took me nearly the entire game to arrive at an alignment of LG while another person was chaotic evil inside of the first 5 min outside the starting building. Being evil is easy, just think only on what benifits you and do it. Being Good is very hard. That should give everyone their first clue to this whole question, as "The ends justifies the means" is an easy way out and see the above statements and it is clear where this agrument lies.

Sifu B wrote:I just want to know when the Robin Hood of Avlis is going to gather that band of merry...Gnomes together to right some wrongs!

First we gotta find a Robin Hood of Avlis Sifu

Spell Singer wrote:You know when I talk to people about playing a paladin, there is one question I always ask them...

"What would your character do if you captured (or confronted) Robin Hood?"

There is no right answer, but it tells you where to place the law in your characters worldview.

Was reading through and thought of this

http://www.3rdedition.org/bigstick/inde ... StickID=21

paladins and robin hood

*chuckles* too funny Duren

See, spell singer, I completely disagree. Now maybe I just missread something about alignments and avlis, but my interpretation of the material is that the Law vs Chaos is just as important as the Good vs Evil part. Law and chaos seem to cause a lot more problems IC then good vs evil in my experience too. Seems most of the conflict is between law breakers and the Law (chaos and law).

Folks keep bringing up killing as some ultimate evil. Well, I am sure most characters have kill someone in their existance. A bandit? A soilder from one of the two armys? An orge? Lizardmen? All of these are people too, maybe evil, maybe chaotic, maybe they attacked first. Any way you look at it, the 'good' character killed them. Which is not an evil thing nessasarily. Murder is usualy against the law, which makes it chaotic, but if a paladin kills a bandit to save the commoners that is a Lawful good thing to do. If a anti-paladin kills a bandit because, "That commoner was his! what was that bandit thinking trying to kill commoners on his terf", then that is evil, not so sure on the law vs chaos on that act myself.

I still stand by my view on justification being a good concept. Someone worried about the welfare of others enough to make sure that their actions are justified is not evil. Well, they are at least on the path to good, the long, trecherous, tight rope of morallity it is.

I think there are really two radically different approaches to a Paladin:

- a zealot, an embodiment of his gods ideals. This one knows exactly what is right and what is wrong. He will never hesitate to do what he knows is right. This is difficult to do, because one has to bear the conssquences.

- a philosophical one. This one ponders every decision, every move if it is in accordance to the greater goal. He is stricken between the goal he must reach, and the means he is allowed to use. Consequences aren't so much the issue here, but the harsh requirements to be met for each action.